Recipient

Hatton Traffic Management Limited

First report 20 Feb 2025•Latest report 20 Feb 2025

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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

Reports: 1
Published responses: 100%
Concerns addressed: 1
Stated actions: 4

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

4stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Hatton Traffic Management Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

20 Feb2025
Essex
Concerns raised4
1. Inadequate Code of Practice guidance for calculating street works distances where standard reference points or markings are unavailable or variable
2. Difficulties in calculating distances for roadworks set up in darkness
3. Failure to place road works warning signs without obscuring visibility of joining traffic
1. Absence of a requirement to notify fatalities within roadworks on permit applications
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 4
1. Action
  Devise and roll out a toolbox talk addressing sight-line issues and the procedure changes across the business.
  Stated completed
2. Action
  Complete a full review of emergency works procedures.
  Stated completed
3. Action
  Roll out new detailed design layouts and sign-placement guidance for all traffic-light schemes and road speeds.
  Stated completed
1. Action
  Add a process-flow question requiring operatives to record whether signage sight lines have been checked and assessed as appropriate.
  Stated completed
AI-generated summary

Paul Stephen Collingridge · 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 Stephen Collingridge, aged 28, died on 6 December 2022 from multiple traumatic injuries after his motorcycle high-sided near overnight roadworks and he was struck by oncoming traffic. The report raised concerns about the setting out and measurement of roadworks in darkness and on curved roads, the placement of a warning sign that obscured visibility, and the absence of a requirement to report a fatality on a retrospective permit application.

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 Hatton Traffic Management Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Inadequate Code of Practice guidance for calculating street works distances where standard reference points or markings are unavailable or variable
Wider context from the report
“(2) The Safety of Street Works Code of Practice sets out how to take measurements to set out street works that include utilising street furniture that are at set distances and standard road markings that have standard lengths on carriageways with specific road speeds. a. Some carriageways do not have street furniture b. Some of the road markings on the carriage where the fatal collision did not comply to standard lengths and therefore the markings can have variations. c. The Code of Practice does not set out how to calculate the distance where there is road curvature where the road markings have differing lengths on opposing sides where the markings are delineated on bends in a carriageway. ”
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 Hatton Traffic Management Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Difficulties in calculating distances for roadworks set up in darkness
Wider context from the report
“(1) Where Road Works Permits are required by utility companies these are often urgent to carry out vital repairs. This can mean that roadworks are set up in hours of darkness and may cause difficulties calculating distances as set out in the Safety at Street Works Code of Practice. ”
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 Hatton Traffic Management Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to place road works warning signs without obscuring visibility of joining traffic
Wider context from the report
“(3) A road works warning sign was placed at the junction that joined the carriageway of a road that obscured visibility of traffic joining the main carriageway. Whilst this did not cause or contribute to this incident this was not in accordance with the Code of Practice. ”
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 Hatton Traffic Management Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Absence of a requirement to notify fatalities within roadworks on permit applications
Wider context from the report
“(4) The fatal incident that occurred on 6 December 2022 was not notified on the retrospective permit application for roadworks on the following day. There is no requirement for a fatality within roadworks be notified on application for an application for a permit . ”
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
Devise and roll out a toolbox talk addressing sight-line issues and the procedure changes across the business.

Verbatim wording from the response
“A specific toolbox talk addressing this issue and the above changes, was devised and rolled out across the business on 30th January 2025.”

Source location
Response from Hatton Traffic Management
Page 1 · response
Published 25 February 2025
Open published response
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
Complete a full review of emergency works procedures.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Insofar as recommendation 5 (3) is concerned, HTML can confirm that it undertook a full review of emergency works procedures which resulted in new design layouts for all traffic light schemes on all road speeds. These provide additional more detailed guidance and direction on the placement of signs and were rolled out across the business on 23rd January 2025.”

Source location
Response from Hatton Traffic Management
Page 1 · response
Published 25 February 2025
Open published response
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
Roll out new detailed design layouts and sign-placement guidance for all traffic-light schemes and road speeds.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Insofar as recommendation 5 (3) is concerned, HTML can confirm that it undertook a full review of emergency works procedures which resulted in new design layouts for all traffic light schemes on all road speeds. These provide additional more detailed guidance and direction on the placement of signs and were rolled out across the business on 23rd January 2025.”

Source location
Response from Hatton Traffic Management
Page 1 · response
Published 25 February 2025
Open published response
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
Add a process-flow question requiring operatives to record whether signage sight lines have been checked and assessed as appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response
“In addition, an additional question has been added to the installation process flow which requires the relevant operative to answer and record whether sight lines to signage have been checked and assessed as appropriate.”

Source location
Response from Hatton Traffic Management
Page 1 · response
Published 25 February 2025
Open published response

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

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Concerns raised4

Inadequate Code of Practice guidance for calculating street works distances where standard reference points or markings are unavailable or variable

Difficulties in calculating distances for roadworks set up in darkness

Failure to place road works warning signs without obscuring visibility of joining traffic

Absence of a requirement to notify fatalities within roadworks on permit applications

Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.4

Actions described in response 4