Recipient

Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport

First report 10 Jul 2025•Latest report 10 Jul 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Transport sector body. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
3

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
2stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

    AI-generated summary

    Paul David RANSOM · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Paul David Ransom died on 24 May 2023 after losing control of his motorcycle on the A272 and colliding with a lorry. The road had received a thin surface treatment less than six hours earlier, and the slippery surface caused or substantially contributed to the collision; concerns were raised about reduced and unpredictable friction during the treatment’s early life, particularly for motorcycles, without guidance requiring warning signage.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of guidance on signage following application of thin surface treatments

    Wider context from the report

    “The resurfacing that had been carried out was an asphalt preservation treatment known as a “thin surface treatment” wherein a bituminous solution is cold sprayed onto the surface, overlaid with a silicate grit. This is a commonly used method. I heard evidence that in the initial period after laying thin surface treatment has a particular property (“early life effects”) in dry conditions the level of friction available can be akin to that of a wet road. There is no guidance that signage be provided. There is also the potential for unpredictable vehicle behaviour, particularly at lower speeds or when road surface temperatures are high, by reason of a change in the level of friction available to a vehicle during a steering manoeuvre or braking. This may have a greater effect on motorcycles. The newly applied surface looks like an ordinary tarmac road albeit pristine. There has been research into accident rates following application of thin surface treatments. The research had the effect of allaying concerns but I was informed that the research may not have been able to look specifically at motorcycle accidents, and further informed that the issue of signage has been the subject of discussion in at least some highways authorities. Thin surface treatments are to be distinguished from surface dressing wherein aggregates are applied, following which loose chipping warning signs are usually erected and a reduced speed limit applied for the days following application. Following thin surface treatment the drivers of vehicles, including motorcycles are likely to assume that in dry conditions the road surface is going to have the same properties as any established dry asphalt road surface. I am concerned that where the road is, for example, downhill and/or twisting and/or with limited sight lines it may be a particular problem if speeds are not adapted for the early life properties of thin surface treatments: particularly in the case of motorcycles. I recommend review of actions to be taken for the safety of road users, particularly motorcycles, following application of thin surface treatments, during the early life phase following thin surface treatment. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to adapt vehicle speeds to the early-life properties of thin surface treatments

    Wider context from the report

    “The resurfacing that had been carried out was an asphalt preservation treatment known as a “thin surface treatment” wherein a bituminous solution is cold sprayed onto the surface, overlaid with a silicate grit. This is a commonly used method. I heard evidence that in the initial period after laying thin surface treatment has a particular property (“early life effects”) in dry conditions the level of friction available can be akin to that of a wet road. There is no guidance that signage be provided. There is also the potential for unpredictable vehicle behaviour, particularly at lower speeds or when road surface temperatures are high, by reason of a change in the level of friction available to a vehicle during a steering manoeuvre or braking. This may have a greater effect on motorcycles. The newly applied surface looks like an ordinary tarmac road albeit pristine. There has been research into accident rates following application of thin surface treatments. The research had the effect of allaying concerns but I was informed that the research may not have been able to look specifically at motorcycle accidents, and further informed that the issue of signage has been the subject of discussion in at least some highways authorities. Thin surface treatments are to be distinguished from surface dressing wherein aggregates are applied, following which loose chipping warning signs are usually erected and a reduced speed limit applied for the days following application. Following thin surface treatment the drivers of vehicles, including motorcycles are likely to assume that in dry conditions the road surface is going to have the same properties as any established dry asphalt road surface. I am concerned that where the road is, for example, downhill and/or twisting and/or with limited sight lines it may be a particular problem if speeds are not adapted for the early life properties of thin surface treatments: particularly in the case of motorcycles. I recommend review of actions to be taken for the safety of road users, particularly motorcycles, following application of thin surface treatments, during the early life phase following thin surface treatment. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unpredictable vehicle behaviour from reduced or changing friction during the early life of thin surface treatments

    Wider context from the report

    “The resurfacing that had been carried out was an asphalt preservation treatment known as a “thin surface treatment” wherein a bituminous solution is cold sprayed onto the surface, overlaid with a silicate grit. This is a commonly used method. I heard evidence that in the initial period after laying thin surface treatment has a particular property (“early life effects”) in dry conditions the level of friction available can be akin to that of a wet road. There is no guidance that signage be provided. There is also the potential for unpredictable vehicle behaviour, particularly at lower speeds or when road surface temperatures are high, by reason of a change in the level of friction available to a vehicle during a steering manoeuvre or braking. This may have a greater effect on motorcycles. The newly applied surface looks like an ordinary tarmac road albeit pristine. There has been research into accident rates following application of thin surface treatments. The research had the effect of allaying concerns but I was informed that the research may not have been able to look specifically at motorcycle accidents, and further informed that the issue of signage has been the subject of discussion in at least some highways authorities. Thin surface treatments are to be distinguished from surface dressing wherein aggregates are applied, following which loose chipping warning signs are usually erected and a reduced speed limit applied for the days following application. Following thin surface treatment the drivers of vehicles, including motorcycles are likely to assume that in dry conditions the road surface is going to have the same properties as any established dry asphalt road surface. I am concerned that where the road is, for example, downhill and/or twisting and/or with limited sight lines it may be a particular problem if speeds are not adapted for the early life properties of thin surface treatments: particularly in the case of motorcycles. I recommend review of actions to be taken for the safety of road users, particularly motorcycles, following application of thin surface treatments, during the early life phase following thin surface treatment. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Share relevant research, learning, best practice and technical guidance on thin surface treatments and road-user safety with members.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst we are not aware of the research you referenced in the report, as a member organisation we will commit to working with the Department for Transport and industry experts such as the RSTA. We will share with our members any relevant research, learning, best practice and technical guidance relating to the application of thin surface treatments and safety of road users. ADEPT is”

    Source location

    Response from Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 July 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Research and road-user safety issues concerning thin surface treatments should be addressed by the Department for Transport and the Road Surface Treatments Association.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We note that your report has also been addressed to ████████ Minister for the Future of Roads, Department for Transport (DfT) and The Road Surface Treatments Association (RSTA). It is appropriate that these organisations address the matters of concern, namely around the issues relating to any research and safety of road users, following application of thin surface treatments.”

    Source location

    Response from Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 July 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Individual councils’ highways maintenance contractual requirements and specifications, and enforcement activities, fall outside the association’s remit.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst the association does not have a direct role in the design, specification, safety testing or the execution of road surface treatments, we regularly collaborate with the RSTA and provide technical commentary on their work. We do not engage with or comment on individual councils’ highways maintenance contractual requirements / specifications nor do we act as an enforcement body in any way.”

    Source location

    Response from Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 July 2025

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Design, specification, safety testing and execution of road surface treatments fall outside the association’s direct role.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst the association does not have a direct role in the design, specification, safety testing or the execution of road surface treatments, we regularly collaborate with the RSTA and provide technical commentary on their work. We do not engage with or comment on individual councils’ highways maintenance contractual requirements / specifications nor do we act as an enforcement body in any way.”

    Source location

    Response from Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning & Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 17 July 2025

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026