30 Dec 2022 Jordan Kevin Pry · Prevention of Future Deaths report Surrey
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Failure to implement an informed and comprehensive plan for risk management at the location View source Persistent road-surface flat spot and associated aquaplaning hazard View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Jordan Kevin Pry · 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
Jordan Kevin Pry died after his car aquaplaned on surface water while travelling on the M25 on 2 April 2018, left the carriageway and collided with a tree. The principal concern was an ongoing risk of further deaths at the location, where aquaplaning incidents had continued and a flat spot remained while investigations and decisions about risk management were ongoing.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to implement an informed and comprehensive plan for risk management at the location
Wider context from the report “As stated in my Conclusion (above), Jordan Pry died on the M25 motorway at marker post B4348, when he drove his vehicle through an area of surface water and the car began to aquaplane and rotate, causing it to leave the carriageway and collide with a tree. There is a long and significant history of aquaplaning incidents at the location, including a previous similar fatality following which, in 2010, a Prevention of Future Deaths Report was issued by the then Senior Coroner for Surrey. That report drew attention to the presence of surface water from rain and the effects of a blocked drain, and the presence of a flat spot on the road. Subsequently, changes were made to the drainage system at the location, first in 2011 by means of a small scale improvement scheme and secondly, as part of works completed in 2015, by means of the introduction of a slot drain. However, the flat spot still remains and aquaplaning incidents have continued.
I was told in evidence that there are ongoing investigations concerning the risk arising at the location, that a decision as to whether or not the flat spot should be addressed is still to be taken , and that a comprehensive plan for the management of the risk at the location cannot be made until that decision is taken .
The concern arising, therefore, is that there is an ongoing risk of further death at this location pending the implementation of an informed and comprehensive plan for risk management .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Persistent road-surface flat spot and associated aquaplaning hazard
Wider context from the report “As stated in my Conclusion (above), Jordan Pry died on the M25 motorway at marker post B4348, when he drove his vehicle through an area of surface water and the car began to aquaplane and rotate, causing it to leave the carriageway and collide with a tree. There is a long and significant history of aquaplaning incidents at the location , including a previous similar fatality following which, in 2010, a Prevention of Future Deaths Report was issued by the then Senior Coroner for Surrey. That report drew attention to the presence of surface water from rain and the effects of a blocked drain, and the presence of a flat spot on the road. Subsequently, changes were made to the drainage system at the location, first in 2011 by means of a small scale improvement scheme and secondly, as part of works completed in 2015, by means of the introduction of a slot drain. However, the flat spot still remains and aquaplaning incidents have continued.
I was told in evidence that there are ongoing investigations concerning the risk arising at the location, that a decision as to whether or not the flat spot should be addressed is still to be taken, and that a comprehensive plan for the management of the risk at the location cannot be made until that decision is taken.
The concern arising, therefore, is that there is an ongoing risk of further death at this location pending the implementation of an informed and comprehensive plan for risk management.
” 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 Commission an independent review of the drainage system to identify improvements likely to reduce carriageway flooding.
Verbatim wording from the response “Improvement to the Drainage System” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Install temporary surface-water warning signs at Marker Posts 36/7 and 36/4.
Verbatim wording from the response “With CP, NH have commissioned CPS to review the effectiveness of the existing fixed warning sign to identify whether any measures are possible, within the legislative provisions that govern signage, to enhance the visibility of the sign.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Implement a wet-weather monitoring protocol and activate “Surface Water – Slow” variable-message signs when appropriate.
Verbatim wording from the response “NH has implemented a specific protocol to monitor the Clacket Lane area in times of wet weather and set warning messages of the form “Surface Water – Slow” on the variable message signs in the location when appropriate.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Commission an independent review of the existing fixed warning sign’s effectiveness and possible visibility improvements.
Verbatim wording from the response “Warning Messages for Drivers” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Commission investigations into carriageway reprofiling options, including outline designs and construction feasibility and cost.
Verbatim wording from the response “Profile of the Carriageway” Source location Response from National Highways
Open published response
7 Dec 2022 Josie Archer-Smith · Prevention of Future Deaths report Mid Kent and Medway
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Failure of road drainage to prevent water running across the carriageway View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Josie Archer-Smith · 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
Josie Archer-Smith died on 31 October 2020 from traumatic injuries sustained when the vehicle in which she was travelling as a front seat passenger lost control and collided with a stationary vehicle on the M20. The location had experienced previous collisions apparently associated with water or aquaplaning, and police identified concerns about water running across the carriageway and the need to investigate possible remedial works.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of road drainage to prevent water running across the carriageway
Wider context from the report “The M20, a dual lane motorway, at the location where the collision took place has had a number of collisions occur which appear to have been caused by water/aquaplaning .
Investigating police from the Serious Collisions Investigation unit commented that they are aware that this location is a problem in heavy weather and have attended collisions at this location in the past .
The crash location is at the bottom of an incline on the M20 motorway which normally would not cause an issue, however the road also has a camber which causes water to run across the carriageway rather than draining into either the central reservation of the drain on the hard shoulder .
The police officer believes that it is when this heavy water is running across the carriageway that there is an issue which does require further investigation as to any remedial works that can be completed to prevent any further fatal/serious injury collisions.
” 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 Replace the distributor road’s vehicle restraint system and drainage as part of the refurbishment scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “The M20 Medway and Allington Deck Refurbishment scheme is due to be delivered between June and July 2023 at an estimated cost of £3 million.” Source location Response from National Highways Limited
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 Jet and survey the London-bound drainage system to improve drainage efficiency and identify remedial requirements.
Verbatim wording from the response “In the days immediately following the collision, and then over a period of approximately 18 months (as road space booking allowed for the lane closures) National Highways staff and our contractors carried out the following actions:” Source location Response from National Highways Limited
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 drainage remedial works, including cleaning channels, drains, gullies and catchpits, repairing drainage pitches, installing a drainage pipe and adding an asphalt kerb.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Remedial works carried out following a full CCTV drainage survey:
◦ Traffic management put in place to carry out the works:” Source location Response from National Highways Limited
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 Deliver the M20 Medway and Allington Deck Refurbishment scheme, including carriageway refurbishment and higher-grip, faster-draining Hot Rolled Asphalt surfacing.
Verbatim wording from the response “The M20 Medway and Allington Deck Refurbishment scheme is due to be delivered between June and July 2023 at an estimated cost of £3 million.” Source location Response from National Highways Limited
Open published response
Concerns raised 7 Lack of monitored CCTV coverage of the bridge and approach area View source Insufficient physical safety measures at bridges associated with self-harm incidents View source Lack of signposting to mental health assistance and support View source Insufficient measures to prevent deaths from jumping from bridges View source Absence of means for people in crisis to summon help View source Lack of means for people experiencing mental health crisis to summon help at bridges View source Lack of physical measures preventing access over or around bridge railings and jumping to the carriageway View source See 4 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Seth Curtis Palminder · 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
Seth Curtis Palminder died instantly on 6 February 2022 after falling from a road bridge and being struck by southbound vehicles. The report states that he had recently been discharged from mental health care, had taken overdoses of prescribed medication, and impulsively jumped from the bridge intending to take his own life. Concerns included inadequate bridge safety measures, a lack of means to summon help or access mental health support, insufficient CCTV monitoring, and repeated previous crisis incidents and fatalities at the location.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of monitored CCTV coverage of the bridge and approach area
Wider context from the report “3. There are no known monitored CCTV cameras covering the bridge or approach area , rendering monitoring of a recognised danger spot actionless .
4. At the incident location, according to Hampshire Police Record Management Systems, there have been 12 crisis incidents in the last 5 years (of which the Police are aware) - including 7 self-harm (jumping) attempts, 2 successful jumps from which the individual has survived and 3 fatalities. There have been a further 89 known 'concern for safety' incidents at the location.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient physical safety measures at bridges associated with self-harm incidents
Wider context from the report “5. Wider reports of self-harm incidents and fatalities are well known from ████████ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ most of which do not have sufficient safety measures in place (as above) or means of summonsing help at a point of mental health crisis.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of signposting to mental health assistance and support
Wider context from the report “2. At the incident location there are no means of summonsing help or calling for help should a person be in crisis and require assistance. There are no signs or signposting for mental health assistance or support (such as Samaritans).
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient measures to prevent deaths from jumping from bridges
Wider context from the report “6. Deaths continue to occur as a result of individuals jumping from these bridges and insufficient measures have so far been taken to address and prevent their occurrence .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of means for people in crisis to summon help
Wider context from the report “2. At the incident location there are no means of summonsing help or calling for help should a person be in crisis and require assistance . There are no signs or signposting for mental health assistance or support (such as Samaritans).
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of means for people experiencing mental health crisis to summon help at bridges
Wider context from the report “5. Wider reports of self-harm incidents and fatalities are well known from ████████ ███████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████ most of which do not have sufficient safety measures in place (as above) or means of summonsing help at a point of mental health crisis .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of physical measures preventing access over or around bridge railings and jumping to the carriageway
Wider context from the report “1. At the incident location ████████ there is little if anything by way of safety measures that would prevent anyone from being able to climb over, around or on top of the side railings of the bridge or to prevent them from jumping from the bridge to the carriageway . There is for example no enclosure of the walkway to prevent this .
” 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 Add the location to the South East Network Needs list for future funding prioritisation.
Verbatim wording from the response “We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Install four Samaritans crisis signs on the bridge parapets.
Verbatim wording from the response “In September 2022, we installed four Samaritans “Crisis” signs on the inner faces of the parapets over both carriageways of the A3████████ road below. This features the short 6-digit number anyone in crisis can call from any phone 24 hours a day to reach a trained Samaritans volunteer.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Apply for future funding for a study into preventing future suicide events at the location.
Verbatim wording from the response “We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Further measures, including CCTV or physical barriers, depend on a funded study establishing their suitability and securing future funding.
Verbatim wording from the response “We will add this structure to our South East region “Network Needs” list of locations that are put forward to bid for future public funds. In this case, we will seek funding for a study into the prevention of future potential suicide events at this location. The proposed study would enable us to analyse the potential risks, the prioritisation of this structure against the structures across the South East region and the Strategic Road Network (“SRN”) to help us determine if there are appropriate mitigating measures that could be taken forward. Measures that may be considered as part of the study are physical barriers, CCTV monitoring, increased signage to organisations offering support and interventions such as immediate telephone access to mental health groups.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 The existing 1.65-metre parapet complies with current standards, and enclosing the walkway is not considered appropriate because enclosed spaces can increase antisocial behaviour.
Verbatim wording from the response “The location is fitted with a parapet that met the required standards set out in
The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) at the time of construction in
1971 and remains compliant with current standards (DMRB CD 377
Requirements for road restraint systems). This parapet measures 1.65m high,
providing a protective barrier. Although historically some structures have been
enclosed for a number of reasons, including for suicide prevention or to prevent
items being thrown onto the carriageway below, this is not something that
highway authorities do now as the enclosed space often sees a rise in antisocial
behaviour and criminal activity.” Source location Response from National Highways
Open published response
Concerns raised 1 Failure to effectively communicate to road users the need to alert authorities to problems on the motorway network View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Nargis Begum · 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
On 9 September 2018, Nargis Begum was fatally injured after a vehicle in which she was a passenger stopped in a live lane of the M1 motorway and was struck by another vehicle. The principal concerns were limited public understanding of the need to alert National Highways about stationary vehicles and insufficient emphasis and effectiveness of public information campaigns about this responsibility.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to effectively communicate to road users the need to alert authorities to problems on the motorway network
Wider context from the report “(1) The lack of public understanding regarding the need for them to call National Highways should they identify a problem on the motorway network such as a stationary vehicle.
(2) Despite television, radio and social media campaigns regarding SMART motorways, the lack of emphasis on the importance of road users responsibility to alert the authorities to any such problems.
(3) Despite public information referred to during the course of the evidence, the above message does not appear to have been a priority and does not appear to have effectively reached the public.
” 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 Maintain road-safety campaign guidance, including specific advice for motorway breakdowns.
Verbatim wording from the response “We have an ongoing programme of road safety campaign activity, intended to provide important guidance to drivers to make journeys safer, easier and more reliable. This ongoing campaign work includes a specific section on breakdown advice.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Conduct a cross-organisation study of further ways to increase public awareness of how to respond when someone is in difficulty on the roads.
Verbatim wording from the response “- Secondly, the letter also confirmed a commitment to conduct a study to explore additional actions that could be taken to further increase awareness among the public of what they can do if they spot someone in difficulty on any road. This study, on which work started in September 2022, will, amongst the other actions stated in this response, cover the three areas of concern raised by the Coroner.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Update eCall communications through a further campaign, the Driving for Better Business programme and staff communications.
Verbatim wording from the response “We will include an update on the eCall campaign and include that the function can be used to help both the driver of the vehicle which has that function, and to help others in difficulty. We will do this via a further campaign, ‘Driving for Better Business’ programme¹ and through our own staff.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Work with relevant authorities to update The Highway Code with eCall emergency-contact guidance.
Verbatim wording from the response “We worked with stakeholders to launch England’s first major campaign, in 2021, to raise awareness of the eCall or ‘SOS’ button function, which increasing numbers of newer cars come with and which can be used to call for help by the driver or someone else needing help, if a situation requires emergency services. This was on digital channels, including a dedicated campaign page on our external website. The Highway Code, which was updated in September 2021, also now advises the use of eCall to contact police and communicate a location directly to a 999 operator under The Highway Code current rules 277, 279 and 283.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 Deliver eCall awareness campaigns explaining how drivers and people assisting others can summon emergency help.
Verbatim wording from the response “We worked with stakeholders to launch England’s first major campaign, in 2021, to raise awareness of the eCall or ‘SOS’ button function, which increasing numbers of newer cars come with and which can be used to call for help by the driver or someone else needing help, if a situation requires emergency services. This was on digital channels, including a dedicated campaign page on our external website. The Highway Code, which was updated in September 2021, also now advises the use of eCall to contact police and communicate a location directly to a 999 operator under The Highway Code current rules 277, 279 and 283.” Source location Response from National Highways
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 The Department for Transport is responsible for deciding whether to update The Highway Code to improve public guidance on reporting motorway problems.
Verbatim wording from the response “- Firstly, as DfT has responsibility for The Highway Code, I shared the Coroner’s view that a further update to The Highway Code may be beneficial to help the public know what actions to take should they identify a problem when driving, such as a stationary vehicle. We understand DfT are currently giving this consideration.” Source location Response from National Highways
Open published response
21 Mar 2022 Zoltan TOROK · Prevention of Future Deaths report Berkshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Failure to maintain consistent motorway configurations View source Distraction to moving motorway traffic from stranded-vehicle occupants standing next to the running lane View source Lack of refuge or hard shoulder for stranded vehicles on smart motorways View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Zoltan TOROK · 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
Zoltan TOROK died from multiple injuries after riding his motorcycle into a stationary Land Rover on the M4 motorway on 7 May 2021. The report raises concerns about the absence of a hard shoulder or refuge on the motorway section under conversion to a smart motorway, the distraction caused by the stranded vehicle’s occupants, and risks arising from mixing smart motorways with traditional hard-shoulder motorways.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to maintain consistent motorway configurations
Wider context from the report “(1) On the date of the death the particular section of the M4 motorway was not completed as a smart motorway, but was substantially in course of conversion such that to all intents and purposes it had the intended characteristics of a smart motorway, specifically that there was no run-off lane or safety lane or hard shoulder, but all lanes were running lanes. The edge of the near side of the inner lane was a solid continuous concrete wall. The inquest heard evidence from the police collision investigator that the collision would not have occurred if the broken down Land Rover had been able to pull out of the running lane into a refuge or onto a traditional hard shoulder.
(2) The hazard created for moving traffic by the obstruction of the stranded vehicle was compounded by the unexpected proximity of the occupants from the stranded vehicle standing immediately next to the running lane, albeit on the safe side of the barrier, which is likely to have been distracting to drivers moving at a typical and lawful motorway speed, and on the evidence was a distraction to the deceased.
(3) In addition the court heard evidence from an experienced qualified mechanical engineer, fellow of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, with over 40 years of professional engagement in the motor industry, that the policy of mixing smart motorways with traditional hard shoulder motorways created a latent risk that road users will become accustomed to treating the left or inner lane of motorways as a live running lane even when it remains a conventional hard shoulder , thereby endangering road users who have to pull off the road onto the hard shoulder.
(4) The essential purpose of a motorway as a multi-lane high speed direct communication between locations likely to be long distances apart is both undermined, and has a tendency to potentiate risks to road users, if the running lanes are liable suddenly and unexpectedly to become blocked in a dynamic situation, with no refuge available to the stranded vehicle.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Distraction to moving motorway traffic from stranded-vehicle occupants standing next to the running lane
Wider context from the report “(1) On the date of the death the particular section of the M4 motorway was not completed as a smart motorway, but was substantially in course of conversion such that to all intents and purposes it had the intended characteristics of a smart motorway, specifically that there was no run-off lane or safety lane or hard shoulder, but all lanes were running lanes. The edge of the near side of the inner lane was a solid continuous concrete wall. The inquest heard evidence from the police collision investigator that the collision would not have occurred if the broken down Land Rover had been able to pull out of the running lane into a refuge or onto a traditional hard shoulder.
(2) The hazard created for moving traffic by the obstruction of the stranded vehicle was compounded by the unexpected proximity of the occupants from the stranded vehicle standing immediately next to the running lane , albeit on the safe side of the barrier, which is likely to have been distracting to drivers moving at a typical and lawful motorway speed , and on the evidence was a distraction to the deceased.
(3) In addition the court heard evidence from an experienced qualified mechanical engineer, fellow of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, with over 40 years of professional engagement in the motor industry, that the policy of mixing smart motorways with traditional hard shoulder motorways created a latent risk that road users will become accustomed to treating the left or inner lane of motorways as a live running lane even when it remains a conventional hard shoulder, thereby endangering road users who have to pull off the road onto the hard shoulder.
(4) The essential purpose of a motorway as a multi-lane high speed direct communication between locations likely to be long distances apart is both undermined, and has a tendency to potentiate risks to road users, if the running lanes are liable suddenly and unexpectedly to become blocked in a dynamic situation, with no refuge available to the stranded vehicle.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of refuge or hard shoulder for stranded vehicles on smart motorways
Wider context from the report “(1) On the date of the death the particular section of the M4 motorway was not completed as a smart motorway, but was substantially in course of conversion such that to all intents and purposes it had the intended characteristics of a smart motorway, specifically that there was no run-off lane or safety lane or hard shoulder, but all lanes were running lanes . The edge of the near side of the inner lane was a solid continuous concrete wall. The inquest heard evidence from the police collision investigator that the collision would not have occurred if the broken down Land Rover had been able to pull out of the running lane into a refuge or onto a traditional hard shoulder .
(2) The hazard created for moving traffic by the obstruction of the stranded vehicle was compounded by the unexpected proximity of the occupants from the stranded vehicle standing immediately next to the running lane, albeit on the safe side of the barrier, which is likely to have been distracting to drivers moving at a typical and lawful motorway speed, and on the evidence was a distraction to the deceased.
(3) In addition the court heard evidence from an experienced qualified mechanical engineer, fellow of the Institute of Mechanical Engineers, with over 40 years of professional engagement in the motor industry, that the policy of mixing smart motorways with traditional hard shoulder motorways created a latent risk that road users will become accustomed to treating the left or inner lane of motorways as a live running lane even when it remains a conventional hard shoulder, thereby endangering road users who have to pull off the road onto the hard shoulder.
(4) The essential purpose of a motorway as a multi-lane high speed direct communication between locations likely to be long distances apart is both undermined, and has a tendency to potentiate risks to road users, if the running lanes are liable suddenly and unexpectedly to become blocked in a dynamic situation, with no refuge available to the stranded vehicle .
” 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 Deliver a £390 million programme installing additional emergency areas across operational smart-motorway sections.
Verbatim wording from the response “In addition to all of the above, working with Government we have committed to make further changes to ALR smart motorways. This includes delivering a £390 million programme to install additional emergency areas across operational sections. Our smart motorways stocktake second year progress report details all the work we are doing to continue to make enhancements to our smart motorway network.” Source location Response from Smart Motorways
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 No additional actions are considered necessary in response to the concerns about hard-shoulder removal.
Verbatim wording from the response “As you recognise in your response, the section of the M4 within which Mr Torok met his tragic death was not at the time operating as a smart motorway and so did not have the features of a completed section of an ALR smart motorway, but instead had temporary traffic management arrangements in place, necessary for completing roadworks safely and consistent with those found in sections of roadworks across the whole of the Strategic Road Network in England. As you will appreciate, we were not involved in the inquest, but from what we know about the tragic incident, we do not believe we should have taken or need to take any additional actions in response and your understanding of National Highway’s position is correct.” Source location Response from Smart Motorways
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 The incident occurred under temporary roadworks traffic management, not on a completed all-lane-running smart motorway.
Verbatim wording from the response “As you recognise in your response, the section of the M4 within which Mr Torok met his tragic death was not at the time operating as a smart motorway and so did not have the features of a completed section of an ALR smart motorway, but instead had temporary traffic management arrangements in place, necessary for completing roadworks safely and consistent with those found in sections of roadworks across the whole of the Strategic Road Network in England. As you will appreciate, we were not involved in the inquest, but from what we know about the tragic incident, we do not believe we should have taken or need to take any additional actions in response and your understanding of National Highway’s position is correct.” Source location Response from Smart Motorways
Open published response
3 Feb 2022 Stephen Cloudsdale · Prevention of Future Deaths report Cumbria
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Speed of traffic on the A66 stretch View source Insufficient central-reservation width for large vehicles View source Lack of lighting at the A66 dual carriageway crossing point View source Lack of appropriately positioned warning signage for vehicles crossing from the café View source See 1 more concern
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Stephen Cloudsdale · 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
Stephen Cloudsdale died at the scene after his car collided with an LGV encroaching into the eastbound lane of the A66 in darkness and heavy rain. The concerns identified were the lack of lighting and warning signage, the speed of traffic, and whether the central reservation was wide enough to accommodate large vehicles safely.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Speed of traffic on the A66 stretch
Wider context from the report “1) The lack of lighting near to or at the point of the A66 dual carriageway where the collision occurred which renders the presence of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café difficult to see by approaching drivers during the hours of darkness and/or during adverse weather conditions.
2) The lack of appropriately positioned signage, warning approaching drivers of the possibility of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café.
3) The speed of traffic on this stretch of the A66 .
4) The sufficiency of the width of the central reservation to accommodate large vehicles fully without the danger of encroaching into either of the opposing carriageways.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient central-reservation width for large vehicles
Wider context from the report “1) The lack of lighting near to or at the point of the A66 dual carriageway where the collision occurred which renders the presence of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café difficult to see by approaching drivers during the hours of darkness and/or during adverse weather conditions.
2) The lack of appropriately positioned signage, warning approaching drivers of the possibility of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café.
3) The speed of traffic on this stretch of the A66.
4) The sufficiency of the width of the central reservation to accommodate large vehicles fully without the danger of encroaching into either of the opposing carriageways .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of lighting at the A66 dual carriageway crossing point
Wider context from the report “1) The lack of lighting near to or at the point of the A66 dual carriageway where the collision occurred which renders the presence of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café difficult to see by approaching drivers during the hours of darkness and/or during adverse weather conditions .
2) The lack of appropriately positioned signage, warning approaching drivers of the possibility of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café.
3) The speed of traffic on this stretch of the A66.
4) The sufficiency of the width of the central reservation to accommodate large vehicles fully without the danger of encroaching into either of the opposing carriageways.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of appropriately positioned warning signage for vehicles crossing from the café
Wider context from the report “1) The lack of lighting near to or at the point of the A66 dual carriageway where the collision occurred which renders the presence of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café difficult to see by approaching drivers during the hours of darkness and/or during adverse weather conditions.
2) The lack of appropriately positioned signage , warning approaching drivers of the possibility of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café .
3) The speed of traffic on this stretch of the A66.
4) The sufficiency of the width of the central reservation to accommodate large vehicles fully without the danger of encroaching into either of the opposing carriageways.
” 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 Implement upgraded junction, turning-vehicle and electronic warning signs, solar-powered road studs, and improved carriageway markings at Stainmore Café Services.
Verbatim wording from the response “National Highways is already in the process of promoting a focused improvement scheme in the immediate area of Stainmore Café Services which includes upgraded traffic signs and associated road markings. The scheme includes interactive electronic, vehicle activated signs that warn approaching drivers of both the junctions and vehicles turning. The scheme is on course to deliver the improvements by the end of October 2022.” Source location Response from National Highways Ltd
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 Road lighting cannot be justified on this A66 section because whole-life costs outweigh expected collision-reduction benefits.
Verbatim wording from the response “Having assessed the site, we have concluded that road lighting cannot be justified along this section of the A66 trunk road when applying the requirements of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges Road Lighting Appraisal guidance TA 501 (formerly TA 49/07). This is based upon the whole life costs of installation, maintenance and power over a 30-year period, offset against the potential benefits in terms of collision savings and therefore no action is proposed. It is also counterproductive to light short sections of an otherwise unlit carriageway as drivers eyesight reacts and adjusts to changes in lighting levels.” Source location Response from National Highways Ltd
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 The existing speed limits are considered appropriate for this type of road.
Verbatim wording from the response “c. Speed of the traffic” Source location Response from National Highways Ltd
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 General widening of the central reservation is not feasible because it would require extensive carriageway realignment and is complicated by adjacent land levels.
Verbatim wording from the response “General widening of the central reserve area is not feasible as it would require the realignment of a considerable length of the mainline carriageway, to both the east and west of the café site. This being further complicated by the varying vertical levels of the adjacent agricultural land to the south. We believe that the proposed electronic, interactive signing will increase driver awareness of the operation of the junction and the café exit and specifically the presence of turning vehicles crossing the central reserve.” Source location Response from National Highways Ltd
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 Enforcement of the A66 speed limit is a matter for the police.
Verbatim wording from the response “The proposed improvements in the immediate area of the café are expected to have a positive impact on general vehicle speeds along the approaches to the service area. It is for drivers to comply with the speed limit in place on the road and the enforcement of the speed limit is a matter for the police.” Source location Response from National Highways Ltd
Open published response
20 Aug 2021 Thomas Pickering · Prevention of Future Deaths report Suffolk
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Lack of signage warning of hidden dips at the site View source Lack of signage notifying road users of recent incidents at the area View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Thomas Pickering · 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
Thomas Pickering died at the scene of a road traffic collision on 26 August 2020 after his Kia collided with an oncoming Saab while overtaking a VW Golf. The report raises concern about whether additional signage or other preventative measures are needed at the site, described as a blind summit with a history of other collisions.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of signage warning of hidden dips at the site
Wider context from the report “I am concerned as to whether further preventative steps can be taken to mitigate the risk of future RTC’s at the site given the apparent lack of signage – eg hidden dips , or signage relating to notification of recent incidents at the area to increase awareness eg the number of fatalities/collisions.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of signage notifying road users of recent incidents at the area
Wider context from the report “I am concerned as to whether further preventative steps can be taken to mitigate the risk of future RTC’s at the site given the apparent lack of signage – eg hidden dips, or signage relating to notification of recent incidents at the area to increase awareness eg the number of fatalities/collisions .
” Open source report
×
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 Suffolk County Council is responsible for responding to the safety concerns.
Verbatim wording from the response “National Highways is responsible for the motorways and trunk roads in England and the A137 isn't a road we're responsible for so we can't comment on this matter. I see you sent this to Suffolk County Council as well so they'll have to respond to this.” Source location 2021-0289-Response-from-National-Highways_Published
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 The A137 is outside responsibility, so the safety concerns cannot be commented on.
Verbatim wording from the response “National Highways is responsible for the motorways and trunk roads in England and the A137 isn't a road we're responsible for so we can't comment on this matter. I see you sent this to Suffolk County Council as well so they'll have to respond to this.” Source location 2021-0289-Response-from-National-Highways_Published
Open published response
26 Mar 2021 Lee David Marsden · Prevention of Future Deaths report Manchester North
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Lack of internal review of fatal accident circumstances View source Delays in activating warning signals for motorway traffic speed reduction View source Failure of communication processes to ensure appreciation of the significance of prefix numbers View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Lee David Marsden · 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
Lee David Marsden was struck by a vehicle on the M66 motorway on 20 December 2019 after accessing the carriageway on foot, sustaining fatal injuries. Concerns included delays in activating a 30 mph warning, ineffective communication between Highways England and North West Motorway Police Group, and the absence of an internal review by Highways England.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of internal review of fatal accident circumstances
Wider context from the report “3. No internal review of the circumstances of this fatal accident has been undertaken by Highways England with the consequent loss of an opportunity for learning
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Delays in activating warning signals for motorway traffic speed reduction
Wider context from the report “1. There was a delay in activating the warning signals to reduce the speed of traffic travelling along the M66 motorway between junctions 2 and 3 to 30mph.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of communication processes to ensure appreciation of the significance of prefix numbers
Wider context from the report “2. The efficacy of communication between Highways England and North West Motorway Police Group in that there was a failure to appreciate the significance of the prefix numbers 06/8126
” 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 Brief regional operations staff and North West police operators on free-text incident-log entries and disseminate the briefing nationally as best practice.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England will brief the circumstances of this incident together with the outcome of our review to the North West Regional Operations Centre staff. The Police Operators within the NWMPG (Cheshire, Merseyside, Greater Manchester), as well as Lancashire Constabulary and Cumbria Constabulary will similarly be briefed. This joint approach will cover all the police forces operating within the North West geographic area of the Strategic Road Network.” Source location 2021-0084-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Implement clearer free-text source details in electronic incident-log transfers between Highways England and police organisations.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England and the NWMPG have agreed that going forward details relating to the source of information should be clearer and relayed between” Source location 2021-0084-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 an internal review of Regional Operations Centre handling of the December 2019 incident and identify learning from it.
Verbatim wording from the response “An internal review has been carried out into the Regional Operations Centre handling of the incident in December 2019, as requested by the Coroner. Our review concluded that on the information available to the Operations staff at the time, our staff complied with the company policy and work instructions in place, and the incident was managed appropriately. Highways England Regional Operations Centre staff were not aware that one of the entries on the log originated from a call from an off-duty police officer, or the significance and meaning of prefix numbers electronically transferred to the Highways England incident log from the NWMPG. The Coroner’s Officer brought this point to our attention shortly before the inquest. With that information, we have taken action as explained at paragraph b. above.” Source location 2021-0084-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Review the procedure for activating motorway variable signs and signals following reports of unconfirmed and confirmed pedestrians.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England has a national policy and a work instruction in relation to the activation of motorway variable signs and signals. The notification of ‘unconfirmed pedestrian’ on the carriageway initially results in the setting of signs and signals to indicate an advisory 60mph speed limit supported by ‘unconfirmed’ signing, where available. Once the presence of a pedestrian has been confirmed by an approved, trusted source such as a Highways England Traffic Officer or Highways Inspector, or the police, the advisory speed limit is lowered further and supported by ‘confirmed’ signing, where available. We have reviewed our procedure and consider it to be robust and appropriate so no action is proposed.” Source location 2021-0084-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Existing national policy and work instructions for activating motorway warning signs and signals are considered robust and appropriate, so no further action is proposed.
Verbatim wording from the response “a. Activating warning signals” Source location 2021-0084-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Open published response
3 Mar 2021 Zahid Ahmed · Prevention of Future Deaths report Bedfordshire and Luton
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Absence of a hard shoulder or other safe stopping place on the all-lanes-running motorway View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Zahid Ahmed · 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
Zahid Ahmed, aged 19, died after a heavy goods vehicle collided with the Kia in which he was a passenger after it stopped in a live lane of the M1 following a mechanical defect. The report raised concerns that the absence of a hard shoulder and the lack of a clear safe place to stop after leaving the Emergency Refuge Area could create a risk of future deaths.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of a hard shoulder or other safe stopping place on the all-lanes-running motorway
Wider context from the report “1) The stretch of the M1 motorway where this fatal collision occurred is part of the ‘Managed Motorway’, which runs from Junction 13 to Junction 10. It features variable speed limits and, in places, an ‘actively managed hard shoulder’, which is a hard shoulder that in certain circumstances may be driven on. Variable speed limit and ‘hard shoulder running’ information is conveyed to drivers via electronic matrix signals message boards, and verge signs positioned along the Managed Motorway. These signals are controlled by operators within the Highways Agency Eastern Regional Control Centre (ERCC). At around 400m south of the Toddington Services southbound entry, the hard shoulder commences and is managed for a distance of around 1.1 km, before the motorway becomes designated ‘All Lanes Running’ (ALR) again around 500m north of Junction 11a. Travelling south from Junction 12, however, the motorway is ALR, and there is no hard shoulder .
2) Detective Constable ████████, of the Bedfordshire Police Serious Collision Investigation Unit, gave evidence at Mr Ahmed’s inquest as follows: “The absence of a hard shoulder contributed to the collision. Had the [deceased’s] vehicle been able to stop in a location other than a live lane , the offending HGV would not have driven into the back of it”.
3) The vehicle in which the deceased was a passenger suffered a mechanical defect which caused it to lose power. It is not clear where the vehicle could have pulled to a halt in a safe place in these circumstances, given that there was no hard shoulder and all lanes were live. I consider that could create a risk of future deaths.
” 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 Complete safety risk assessments to guide possible widening of narrow emergency areas.
Verbatim wording from the response “• We have commissioned an independent review of the widths of operational emergency areas. This found that 13 were less than 4.4 metres wide, but that all 13 are wider than the 3.3 metre width of a hard shoulder. We are now working on completing safety risk assessments to help guide our next steps for widening any narrow emergency areas.” Source location 2021-0062-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Install additional emergency areas where needed on the existing smart-motorway network.
Verbatim wording from the response “| November 2021
Consider a national programme of retrofitting additional emergency areas on existing smart motorways where places to stop in an emergency are more than one mile apart | April 2022
Complete national rollout of SVD on existing ALR sections | September 2022
Install additional traffic signs giving the distance to the next place to stop in an emergency | September 2022
Complete the upgrade of HADECS3 cameras to enforce Red ‘X’ compliance | September 2022
Automate the display of ‘report of obstruction’ messages | March 2023
End the use of dynamic hard shoulders. | March 2025
Work with the DfT to review whether the emergency area data we made available to satnav providers is being shared with drivers | Ongoing” Source location 2021-0062-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 the programme to widen emergency areas narrower than the current standard.
Verbatim wording from the response “• We will complete our programme to widen emergency areas which are narrower than the current standard.” Source location 2021-0062-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Apply the new emergency stopping-place spacing standard to newly designed smart motorways.
Verbatim wording from the response “• We have published a new design standard for the provision of places to stop in an emergency. The new design standard (GD 301), which applies to all schemes entering the design stage, means that a place of relative safety will be spaced at ¾ miles apart, with a maximum of one mile where ¾ mile spacing is not feasible²” Source location 2021-0062-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Monitor the effect of additional M25 emergency areas on live-lane breakdowns.
Verbatim wording from the response “• We have installed 10 additional emergency areas on the M25 and we have begun a programme to monitor their impact on live lane breakdown rates to understand if they have reduced the level of live lane stops” Source location 2021-0062-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Develop safety-measure delivery programmes for the M6 Bromford viaduct and four M1 sections, including the incident location.
Verbatim wording from the response “• We are developing delivery programmes for additional safety measures for the M6 Bromford viaduct and four sections of the M1 (including the location of this incident). To inform this programme we commissioned independent reports and have undertaken feasibility studies of potential additional measures. The measure details are included in the “Details of further action proposed” section of this response” Source location 2021-0062-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Although absence of hard shoulders increases collision risk, all-lane-running motorways reduce overall risks and result in fewer deaths than conventional motorways.
Verbatim wording from the response “However, risk cannot be eliminated entirely from roads. Hard shoulders do not eliminate the risk of collision and, indeed, 8% (or 1 in 12) of all deaths on motorways are on hard shoulders. The specific risk posed by the absence of hard shoulders on all lane running smart motorways, and in particular the greater risk of collision between stationary and moving vehicles has been recognised throughout. But that specific increased risk is outweighed by the reduction in” Source location 2021-0062-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Open published response
Concerns raised 6 Motorist confusion caused by mixed smart and traditional motorways View source Lack of effective and consistent overview of smart motorways across England and Wales View source Lack of driver awareness of smart motorway use View source Risk posed by the absence of a hard shoulder on smart motorways View source Lack of driver awareness of the need to get over the crash barrier where possible View source Failure to identify stationary vehicles promptly View source See 3 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
JASON LEE MERCER and ALEXANDRU MURGEANU · 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
On 7 June 2019, Jason Lee Mercer and Alexandru Murgeanu were involved in a minor collision on the M1 Northbound and stopped in an active lane. About six minutes later, both were struck by a Mercedes goods vehicle and died at the scene. The report identifies concerns about the absence of a hard shoulder on smart motorways, driver awareness, detection of stationary vehicles, and the need for a wider review of smart motorways.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Motorist confusion caused by mixed smart and traditional motorways
Wider context from the report “• The confusion caused to motorists posed by a mixture of smart motorways and traditional motorways
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of effective and consistent overview of smart motorways across England and Wales
Wider context from the report “• The need for a wider review / inquiry into Smart Motorways for the following reasons:
○ Coroners only conduct inquests for deaths that occur in their coronial area ( unless there is a body transfer ) and given smart motorways exist across England and Wales, coroners do not and cannot have an effective and consistent overview of the whole of England and Wales
○ An inquest is confined to consider the facts insofar as they relate to the death(s) before him or her in order to answer the four statutory questions. It must not consider wider issues.
○ An inquest cannot say what government policy should be
○ A wider review would not be constrained by the above and could consider all issues relevant to its remit and has the opportunity thereby of saving lives.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of driver awareness of smart motorway use
Wider context from the report “• The need for better driver awareness on the use of smart motorways
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Risk posed by the absence of a hard shoulder on smart motorways
Wider context from the report “• The obvious and foreseeable risk posed by the absence of a hard shoulder on smart motorways ;
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of driver awareness of the need to get over the crash barrier where possible
Wider context from the report “• The need for better driver awareness of the need, where possible, to get over the crash barrier on all motorways, not just smart motorways
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to identify stationary vehicles promptly
Wider context from the report “• The need to for Highways England to be better able to identify stationary vehicles
” 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 Run public information campaigns to improve motorway breakdown and driver safety awareness.
Verbatim wording from the response “• More communication with drivers (committing an additional £5 million to national and targeted communication campaigns, including advice on what to do in case of a breakdown)” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Install additional signs showing distances to emergency stopping places.
Verbatim wording from the response “• More traffic signs giving the distance to the next place to stop in an emergency” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Widen emergency areas narrower than the current standard.
Verbatim wording from the response “• We will complete our programme to widen emergency areas which are narrower than the current standard.” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Apply the new emergency-area spacing design standard to newly designed smart motorways.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Committing to a new standard for spacing of places to stop in an emergency” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Make emergency-area location information available to satnav providers.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Places to stop in an emergency shown on your satnav” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Explore the feasibility of a national programme to retrofit additional emergency areas.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Considering a national programme to install more emergency areas on existing smart motorways” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 automated obstruction messages when stopped vehicle detection identifies a potential incident.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Displaying ‘report of obstruction’ messages” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Upgrade existing smart motorway emergency areas with bright orange surfacing and marked stopping areas.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Making emergency areas more visible” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Increase traffic officer presence and reduce attendance times on specified smart motorway sections.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Faster attendance by more Highways England traffic officer patrols” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Install and monitor ten additional emergency areas on the M25.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Delivering ten additional emergency areas on the M25” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Deliver a public information campaign about vehicle eCall and bCall functions.
Verbatim wording from the response “• We will continue to work with stakeholders to agree the key messages for a public information campaign focusing on the use of eCall (SOS) and bCall (breakdown assistance) buttons in vehicles which will run later in 2021.” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Publish the updated Highway Code with guidance for high-speed roads and smart motorways.
Verbatim wording from the response “• We have drafted new provisions for The Highway Code to provide more guidance for motorists driving on high-speed roads, including smart” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 safety risk assessments for narrow emergency areas to guide potential widening.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Reviewing existing emergency areas where width is less than the current standard” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Retrofit stopped vehicle detection across all existing all-lane-running smart motorways.
Verbatim wording from the response “A decision was subsequently taken to retrofit SVD to all existing all lane running smart motorways. This is an ambitious, highly engaged and complex programme, which the Government and Highways England have committed to completing by the end of 2022. Work on the M1 junctions 32-35a, where the incident occurred, has started and the technology should be operational by Summer 2021.” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 End use of dynamic hard shoulders by converting them to permanent traffic lanes.
Verbatim wording from the response “• Ending the use of dynamic hard shoulders by March 2025” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Responsibility for operating, maintaining and improving roads outside England rests with the relevant devolved administrations.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England is the Government-owned company charged with operating, maintaining and improving England's motorways and major A-roads. Responsibility for the road network in other parts of the UK rests with the devolved administrations. This response accordingly addresses the position in England.” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 All-lane-running smart motorways operate safely without stopped vehicle detection, although detection technology could make them safer still.
Verbatim wording from the response “All lane running schemes are designed to, and do, operate extremely safely without the need for stopped vehicle detection (SVD) technology. But SVD systems can make all lane running smart motorways safer still, by automatically detecting stopped vehicles on the carriageway and thereby enabling a more rapid response. In 2013 the Highways Agency identified an automated SVD system to further reduce the risks of vehicles stopped in live lanes, and this was trialled between 2014 and 2016. Following successful trials, in September 2016 it was decided that SVD would be included as standard in all new all lane running schemes entering the design stage. The standard requires a coverage of at least 95% of the carriageway, with a minimum detection accuracy of 80% and a maximum time to alert an operator of 30 seconds.” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Evidence indicates smart motorways improve overall safety, with reductions in other risks outweighing the increased risk associated with absent hard shoulders.
Verbatim wording from the response “However, risk cannot be eliminated entirely from roads. Hard shoulders do not eliminate the risk of collision and, indeed, 8% (or 1 in 12) of all deaths on motorways are on hard shoulders. The specific risk posed by the absence of hard shoulders on all lane running smart motorways, and in particular the greater risk of collision between stationary and moving vehicles has been recognised throughout. But that specific increased risk is outweighed by the reduction in other risks brought about by all lane running smart motorways. The evidence has demonstrated that all lane running smart motorways lead to fewer, not more, deaths.” Source location 2021-0013-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Open published response
Concerns raised 3 Lack of warning of the concealed driveway View source Potentially inappropriate speed limit at the bend View source Inadequate visibility for right turns from the driveway or failure to deter turning View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Daniel Mark HUGHES · 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
Daniel Mark HUGHES died at the scene after his motorcycle collided with a motorcar on the A483 at Sweeney near Oswestry on 4 June 2017. The report raised concerns about visibility from a driveway near a blind bend, the appropriateness of the speed limit, and whether a warning of the concealed driveway should be displayed.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of warning of the concealed driveway
Wider context from the report “The motorist concerned was turning right from the driveway of a property approximately 90 meters south of a blind bend. There was little or no margin of error in crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. There are specific areas of concern:
1) Whether and how visibility to the right may be improved or turning deterred.
2) Whether the speed limit at the bend is appropriate.
3) Whether a warning of a concealed driveway could be displayed.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Potentially inappropriate speed limit at the bend
Wider context from the report “The motorist concerned was turning right from the driveway of a property approximately 90 meters south of a blind bend. There was little or no margin of error in crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. There are specific areas of concern:
1) Whether and how visibility to the right may be improved or turning deterred.
2) Whether the speed limit at the bend is appropriate.
3) Whether a warning of a concealed driveway could be displayed.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Inadequate visibility for right turns from the driveway or failure to deter turning
Wider context from the report “The motorist concerned was turning right from the driveway of a property approximately 90 meters south of a blind bend. There was little or no margin of error in crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. There are specific areas of concern:
1) Whether and how visibility to the right may be improved or turning deterred.
2) Whether the speed limit at the bend is appropriate.
3) Whether a warning of a concealed driveway could be displayed.
” 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 Complete a speed-limit review using speed surveys and injury-collision records to assess whether the A483 location requires a speed-limit change.
Verbatim wording from the response “We completed a speed limit review for the A483 Trunk Road in 2016 when speed surveys took place both north and south of the incident site. The speed limit review showed that 85% of vehicle speeds recorded were found to be below the posted national speed limit of 60mph. When considering this speed survey result and the record of injury collisions on this section of the A483, this location was not identified as requiring consideration for a potential change in the speed limit.” Source location 2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Highways England cannot install a concealed entrance warning sign because it is not authorised under applicable traffic-sign regulations.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England has powers to place signs on the Strategic Road Network under Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, but signs placed on the Strategic Road Network must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 as directed by the Secretary of State for Transport.” Source location 2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Property owners, not Highways England, are responsible for improving visibility because the relevant walls, fences and hedgerows are privately owned.
Verbatim wording from the response “Responsibility for the visibility exiting a property entrance is that of the property owner and not Highways England. Any steps to improve the visibility would also require amendments to boundary walls, fences and hedgerows on land which is not owned by Highways England. Therefore, no action is proposed.” Source location 2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 The existing 60mph speed limit is considered appropriate because surveys found most drivers complied and injury collisions did not indicate change was needed.
Verbatim wording from the response “We completed a speed limit review for the A483 Trunk Road in 2016 when speed surveys took place both north and south of the incident site. The speed limit review showed that 85% of vehicle speeds recorded were found to be below the posted national speed limit of 60mph. When considering this speed survey result and the record of injury collisions on this section of the A483, this location was not identified as requiring consideration for a potential change in the speed limit.” Source location 2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Open published response
16 Nov 2020 Daniel Bancroft · Prevention of Future Deaths report Cumbria
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Failure to control traffic speed on the initial stretch of the A66 View source Lack of measures discouraging pedestrians from walking along the A66 View source Lack of lighting on the initial stretch of the A66 View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Daniel Bancroft · 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
Daniel Bancroft, an ex-serviceman and father of three, became extremely inebriated after a night out and was struck by a motor vehicle while walking along the A66 in the early hours. He died from the resultant injuries. The substantive concerns were the lack of pedestrian warning signage, the rapid acceleration and speed of traffic, and the lack of lighting on the initial stretch of the A66.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to control traffic speed on the initial stretch of the A66
Wider context from the report “1. There is nothing to discourage pedestrians from walking along the A66 eg signage
2. Cars are rapidly accelerating from the well-lit roundabout at Stainburn onto an unlit section of the A66 as the national speed limit sign is very close to the roundabout.
3. The speed of traffic on this initial stretch of the A66
4. The lack of lighting on this initial stretch of the A66
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of measures discouraging pedestrians from walking along the A66
Wider context from the report “1. There is nothing to discourage pedestrians from walking along the A66 eg signage
2. Cars are rapidly accelerating from the well-lit roundabout at Stainburn onto an unlit section of the A66 as the national speed limit sign is very close to the roundabout.
3. The speed of traffic on this initial stretch of the A66
4. The lack of lighting on this initial stretch of the A66
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of lighting on the initial stretch of the A66
Wider context from the report “1. There is nothing to discourage pedestrians from walking along the A66 eg signage
2. Cars are rapidly accelerating from the well-lit roundabout at Stainburn onto an unlit section of the A66 as the national speed limit sign is very close to the roundabout.
3. The speed of traffic on this initial stretch of the A66
4. The lack of lighting on this initial stretch of the A66
” 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 Assess the suitability of existing road lighting and speed-limit extents at the A66 Stairnburn Bypass in daylight and darkness.
Verbatim wording from the response “We have visited the site in both daylight and dark conditions to assess the suitability of the current road lighting provision and speed limit extents. The illuminated section at the end of the bypass ensures consistent and uniform lighting levels around the full footprint of the junction, and approaches, within the restricted 30mph speed limit. This is in line with the guidance and recommendations contained within BS EN 5489-1 ‘Design of Road Lighting’.” Source location 2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
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 Investigate options to reduce conflicts between pedestrians and vehicles along the A66 Stairnburn Bypass.
Verbatim wording from the response “We have investigated the options to reduce any potential conflict between motor vehicles and pedestrians along the A66 Stairnburn Bypass at this location. Whilst the bypass route was constructed as a rural All Purpose Trunk Road it was not intended to support pedestrian traffic and has a robust physical layout at the junction to direct pedestrians and vulnerable road users along the line of the original route (Stairnburn Road) and hence away from the bypass.” Source location 2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
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 Consult Cumbria Constabulary on a Traffic Regulation Order to restrict pedestrian use of the bypass.
Verbatim wording from the response “Whilst there is a clear and secure routing for pedestrians along Stairnburn Road there are no physical barriers or signing to indicate that pedestrians should not use the route of the bypass. This is a common layout in relation to rural routes where no footpath facilities are in place and does not generally cause any road safety concerns. However, there is now evidence to indicate that there are issues with the presence of pedestrians at this location, consequently Highways England are proposing to consult with Cumbria Constabulary with a view to making a legal order to prohibit pedestrians from using the bypass, with associated regulatory signing, together with pedestrian direction signs” Source location 2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
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 Install pedestrian-direction signs along existing footpaths at the roundabout and along Stairnburn Road.
Verbatim wording from the response “Whilst there is a clear and secure routing for pedestrians along Stairnburn Road there are no physical barriers or signing to indicate that pedestrians should not use the route of the bypass. This is a common layout in relation to rural routes where no footpath facilities are in place and does not generally cause any road safety concerns. However, there is now evidence to indicate that there are issues with the presence of pedestrians at this location, consequently Highways England are proposing to consult with Cumbria Constabulary with a view to making a legal order to prohibit pedestrians from using the bypass, with associated regulatory signing, together with pedestrian direction signs” Source location 2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
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 The existing road-lighting extent is appropriate and guidance-compliant, so no additional lighting is proposed; further lighting may encourage pedestrian use.
Verbatim wording from the response “The current road lighting provides the interface with the roundabout lighting, specifically on the westbound approach, and supports the lighting infrastructure along the adjacent road network. Having assessed the site, we have concluded that the current extent of the road lighting at this location is appropriate and in line with guidance outlined within BS EN 5489-1 and the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) Technology appraisal guidance TA 501(formerly TA 49/07) ‘Road Lighting Appraisal’, and therefore no action is proposed. Lighting additional lengths of the bypass may also further encourage pedestrian use.” Source location 2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
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 The existing highway layout and speed-limit extents are appropriate, so no further action is proposed to address traffic speed.
Verbatim wording from the response “The roundabout junction provides a physical speed reduction feature which serves to moderate speeds as drivers enter the bypass. In normal circumstances the national speed restriction (and signing) would be located at the interface with the roundabout. However, at this location, the 30mph speed restriction already extends a short distance along the bypass to coincide with the start / end of the road lighting. Having assessed the site, we have concluded the current highway layout and speed limit extents are appropriate at this location and consequently no action is proposed.” Source location 2020-0244-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted.pdf
Open published response
10 Jan 2020 Muhammed Wajid · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Yorkshire (West)
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Suicide hazard at Scammonden Bridge View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Muhammed Wajid · 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
Muhammed Wajid was removed from Scammonden Bridge by police on 12 September 2018 and admitted voluntarily to Lynfield Mount Hospital. The following morning, he was permitted unaccompanied leave, travelled by taxi to the bridge and jumped to his death; concerns included the bridge’s history of suicides and uncertainty about whether previously proposed preventive measures had been fully implemented.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Suicide hazard at Scammonden Bridge
Wider context from the report “(1) Scammonden Bridge is a locally notorious location for suicides.
(2) Reports to prevent future deaths have been made to Kirklees Council and Highways England under the above statutory provisions following deaths occurring in similar circumstances.
(3) Kirklees Council and Highways England have reported proposed steps to prevent future deaths to the coroner following a similar report. The coroner is not aware whether those steps have been fully actioned.
” 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 Install a permanent power supply for the bridge lighting, telephone and camera systems.
Verbatim wording from the response “5. A permanent power supply has been installed to provide electricity for the LED lighting, SOS telephone system and camera surveillance system” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 third-party checking of the detailed bridgeworks scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “The scheme has been designed in detail and agreed in principle with Kirklees Council as the Highway Authority for the B6114 Saddleworth Road. Due to the technical complexity of the scheme, the proposals are being checked by a third-” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 technical study identifying an alternative pedestrian barrier for Scammonden Bridge.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England has carried out a technical study to identify an alternative pedestrian barrier, previously referred to as a “suicide prevention parapet” (2.4m high), to be installed alongside a new vehicle safety barrier nearer to the edge of the B6114 local authority road owned by Kirklees Council that crosses the Rainbow Bridge.” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Maintain an operational alert and help telephone system at the southern end of the bridge.
Verbatim wording from the response “6. The alert / help telephone system at the southern end of the bridge has been constructed and is operational” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Install and operate the bridge camera surveillance system linked to an electronic cordon and police response.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. The installation of a camera surveillance system, in conjunction with West Yorkshire Police. Two fixed thermal cameras along with a dual thermal & colour CCTV camera with full pan / tilt / zoom capability will be installed to cover the footways on each side of the bridge. These will be linked to an electronic cordon which will alert the police control centre as soon as someone leans over the parapet. The combined system will enable the police to view each incident as it occurs to determine if an attempt at self-harm is taking place, thereby speeding up an emergency response (where necessary), working in conjunction with the remote “dial out” ability of the SOS points, as well as reducing false alerts. The electronic cordon has been designed to work with both the current and proposed parapets.” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Prepare a bid for internal delivery funding for the bridgeworks scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “2019/20 Detailed design of the proposals and bid for internal delivery funding for the bridgeworks scheme, and delivery of the alert / help telephone system” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Construct and make operational the remaining alert and help telephone system as part of the bridgeworks scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “3. The installation of an alert / help telephone system, in conjunction with West Yorkshire Police. The alert / help telephone will be linked to a module using a mobile phone SIM card and a send / receive unit which dials out to 999 or the Samaritans using pre-installed numbers based on the user’s choice by button press. Mobile phone coverage has been checked for the surrounding area and coverage is noted as being “good” for all networks. The system comprises a box similar to the highway emergency telephone unit with an additional loudspeaker and beacon above the box (“the SOS point”), enabling the police to “dial out” and speak to someone on the bridge. There will be one telephone unit at each end of the bridge;” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Install LED lighting along the bridge footway as part of the bridgeworks scheme.
Verbatim wording from the response “2. The upper rail of the new parapet has been designed to include LED lighting to illuminate the footway area between the parapet and the vehicle restraint system. This should make any person on the bridge more conspicuous to the road users on the B6114 local authority road that runs across the bridge and the M62 motorway below, providing an opportunity for road users to alert the emergency services;” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
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 Install the bridgeworks scheme, including the parapet, vehicle restraint system, physical layby closure and refreshed bridge markings.
Verbatim wording from the response “The current proposed works comprise a 2.4m high parapet with a large top tube and vertical infill rails. The parapet has a slight inwardly curve profile in elevation to discourage climbing. Chevaux-de-frises (a row of blunt spikes) will be attached at the ends of each parapet to prevent access to the bridge outside of the line of the new parapet. The double yellow lines on the B6114 across the bridge will be refreshed, and along with the inboard safety barrier this should discourage parking on the bridge.” Source location 2020-0007-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Open published response
5 Dec 2019 Darren WILSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report Lincolnshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Failure to provide an appropriate reduced speed limit at the hazardous location View source Failure to deploy double white lines at the hazardous location View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
AI-generated summary
Darren WILSON · 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
Darren WILSON died at the scene after his car collided with vehicles during an overtaking manoeuvre on 20 April 2019. The inquest heard concerns that the collision location was a known accident hotspot and lacked traffic-calming measures, including a reduced speed limit and double white lines to prevent overtaking.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide an appropriate reduced speed limit at the hazardous location
Wider context from the report “i. The Inquest heard from a Forensic Collision Investigator and a local resident who was also a former Highways Officer who both confirmed that the location of the collision was a notorious accident "hotspot", in that whilst there had been no previous fatalities, there had been innumerable "near misses" as well as non-fatal road traffic collisions;
ii. The inherent danger of the location arose because of a lack of traffic calming measures such as a reduction of the speed limit at this location as well as deployment of double white lines to inform drivers of the potential hazard and to prevent overtaking;
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to deploy double white lines at the hazardous location
Wider context from the report “i. The Inquest heard from a Forensic Collision Investigator and a local resident who was also a former Highways Officer who both confirmed that the location of the collision was a notorious accident "hotspot", in that whilst there had been no previous fatalities, there had been innumerable "near misses" as well as non-fatal road traffic collisions;
ii. The inherent danger of the location arose because of a lack of traffic calming measures such as a reduction of the speed limit at this location as well as deployment of double white lines to inform drivers of the potential hazard and to prevent overtaking ;
” Open source report
15 Nov 2019 Jamil Ahmed · Prevention of Future Deaths report Birmingham and Solihull
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Unsuitability of some motorway stretches for use as smart motorways View source Heightened collision hazard from stationary vehicles in motorway running lanes View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Jamil Ahmed · 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
On 18 August 2017, Jamil Ahmed’s lorry stopped on the hard shoulder of a smart motorway, and he was fatally injured when another lorry travelling at 55mph collided with it 135 seconds later. The report raised concerns about the use of the hard shoulder as a running lane, including high traffic speeds and volumes, limited escape options, and the suitability of this stretch of motorway given the significant drop beside the hard shoulder.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Unsuitability of some motorway stretches for use as smart motorways
Wider context from the report “Whilst any vehicle may break down on any road, in relation to motorways: (1) drivers do not expect to come across a stationary vehicle in a running lane, (2) the speed of traffic is high, (3) the volume of traffic is high increasing the number of people affected by a stationary vehicle, (4) the options for the occupants of a stationary vehicle to escape the road are more limited, and (5) not all stretches of motorway are necessarily appropriate for use as ‘smart’ motorways ; For example, the stretch of motorway in question was raised with a significant drop next to the hard shoulder, as opposed to a stretch of hard shoulder adjacent to a bank or field . All five matters mean it is less likely other drivers will be able to take evasive action when confronted with a stationary vehicle.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Heightened collision hazard from stationary vehicles in motorway running lanes
Wider context from the report “Whilst any vehicle may break down on any road, in relation to motorways: (1) drivers do not expect to come across a stationary vehicle in a running lane , (2) the speed of traffic is high , (3) the volume of traffic is high increasing the number of people affected by a stationary vehicle , (4) the options for the occupants of a stationary vehicle to escape the road are more limited , and (5) not all stretches of motorway are necessarily appropriate for use as ‘smart’ motorways ; For example, the stretch of motorway in question was raised with a significant drop next to the hard shoulder, as opposed to a stretch of hard shoulder adjacent to a bank or field. All five matters mean it is less likely other drivers will be able to take evasive action when confronted with a stationary vehicle .
” 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 Repeat motorway safety information campaigns in four waves covering breakdowns, Red X, keeping left and variable speed limits.
Verbatim wording from the response “We will be repeating our information campaigns on using motorways in four waves between early 2020 and March 2021. These will be focused on ‘what to do in a breakdown’, Red X, keeping left and variable speed limits. The date of the first phase of these campaigns has changed due to the ongoing evidence stocktake into smart motorways safety being carried out by the Department for Transport.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Enhance emergency refuge-area visibility using redesigned signs, more frequent approach signage and orange road surfacing on the M6 southbound.
Verbatim wording from the response “Smart motorways have regular refuge areas for drivers to use in the event of an emergency. In this case, the nearest emergency refuge area was 300 metres further forward. Over the last 18 months we have been rolling out enhancements to the emergency refuge areas across the smart motorway network to increase driver awareness of their location. This has included a brand-new design of sign, more frequent approach signage and an associated orange road surface. This work has recently been completed on the M6 southbound between Junctions 6 and 5.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Conduct comprehensive driver information campaigns on breakdowns, Red X, keeping left and variable speed limits.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England has undertaken comprehensive information campaigns highlighting how drivers must only stop on the carriageway in an emergency, and how drivers can reduce the likelihood of such an event occurring. In addition, comprehensive information campaigns have been undertaken, both before and after the date of this incident, highlighting to drivers what to do in the event of a breakdown on the motorway.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 stopped-vehicle detection capability to similar smart-motorway schemes, beginning with the M3 between Junctions 2 and 4a.
Verbatim wording from the response “Until trials were undertaken by Highways England, there has been no system to detect stopped lone vehicles in a live lane on any high-speed road therefore, as already highlighted, this risk is not confined to smart motorways. This risk is considerably higher when traffic volumes are lower, due to higher vehicle speeds. Also, the density of traffic at higher volumes means it is very difficult to detect stopped lone vehicles without an unmanageable amount of false alarms. Highways England recognised this risk and has undertaken successful trials of a radar detection system which detects stopped vehicles in low flow conditions. This is now operational on all of the smart motorway sections of the M25 without a hard shoulder.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Explore and evaluate CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowdsourced data to reduce risks to stopped vehicles in higher-flow conditions.
Verbatim wording from the response “We are exploring other technologies which could reduce the risk to stopped vehicles in higher flow conditions. These include CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowd sourced data. As these are innovative solutions, which require evaluation and testing, Highways England is unable at this time to set out a timetable if and when this technology will be rolled out on the motorway network. This is also subject to our Government funding settlement for the period 2020-2025 which is yet to be confirmed.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Further rollout of innovative stopped-vehicle technologies cannot yet be timetabled because evaluation, testing and Government funding remain unresolved.
Verbatim wording from the response “We are exploring other technologies which could reduce the risk to stopped vehicles in higher flow conditions. These include CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowd sourced data. As these are innovative solutions, which require evaluation and testing, Highways England is unable at this time to set out a timetable if and when this technology will be rolled out on the motorway network. This is also subject to our Government funding settlement for the period 2020-2025 which is yet to be confirmed.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Existing smart motorway technology and operational procedures are considered sufficient to mitigate risks from stopped vehicles, including lane closures, warnings and traffic officer assistance.
Verbatim wording from the response “If a driver does not stop in a place of relative safety (such as an emergency refuge area) smart motorways have far greater operational oversight and technology than other high-speed roads to reduce the risk to road users. Once our control centre is aware of the situation (which may be via the Police or roadside technology, such as CCTV), we can use the smart motorway” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Existing MIDAS, CCTV coverage and operational management are considered sufficient to mitigate stopped-vehicle risks during higher traffic flows.
Verbatim wording from the response “Our assessments have shown that the risk to drivers is reduced when using a dynamic hard shoulder running scheme compared to motorways not operating dynamic hard shoulder running schemes. This is largely due to the additional technology and enhanced operational management which is not present on conventional motorways. When flows are higher our Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling (MIDAS) system detects slow moving traffic, and warns drivers by setting appropriate message and speed limits without operator intervention. This is a proven safety system which, along with comprehensive CCTV coverage, helps to mitigate the risk to stopped vehicles when traffic flows are higher.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Stopped-vehicle detection on future smart motorway schemes is conditional on the availability of funding.
Verbatim wording from the response “We have begun to rollout stopped vehicle detection capability to similar schemes which will commence with the M3 between Junctions 2 and 4a to be completed by December 2020. Subject to funding, stopped vehicle detection capability will be included on all future smart motorway schemes beginning construction from March 2020.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Safety assessments indicate smart motorways are as safe as, or safer than, conventional motorways, and the stopped-vehicle risk is not confined to smart motorways.
Verbatim wording from the response “The introduction of smart motorways has been Government policy since 2008. The smart motorway package of measures is considered appropriate for Highways England’s network and gives flexibility to allow for increased demand from road users, whilst maintaining or improving the safety of our roads.” Source location Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Open published response
12 Nov 2019 Mr Costel Daniel Stancu · Prevention of Future Deaths report Cheshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Ongoing risk to life from lack of lighting on the motorway section at night View source Failure to re-assess the risk arising from lack of motorway lighting View source Increased risks to motorway users from the smart motorway layout View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Mr Costel Daniel Stancu · 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
Mr Costel Daniel Stancu died at Royal Stoke University Hospital on 3 April 2019, aged 37, after sustaining injuries in a series of road traffic collisions on the M6 on 29 March 2019. The concerns identified were that the lack of lighting on that section of motorway contributed to the collisions and created an ongoing risk to life, and that the associated risk had not been reassessed following the motorway’s conversion to a smart motorway or the incident.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Ongoing risk to life from lack of lighting on the motorway section at night
Wider context from the report “I determined that the lack of lighting on this section of the motorway was a contributory factor to the Second Series of Collisions; the evidence at inquest was that this section of the motorway remains unlit at night and I am concerned that this creates an ongoing risk to life .
Whilst I found that none of the collisions were caused by the conversion of this section of the motorway to a ‘smart motorway’ I am concerned that this change in layout may have increased the risks posed to users of the motorway including the risk arising from the lack of lighting.
The evidence that I heard during the inquest suggested that the risk arising from the lack of lighting had not been re-assessed either as part of the conversion to a ‘smart motorway’ or following the incident on 29ᵗʰ March 2019.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to re-assess the risk arising from lack of motorway lighting
Wider context from the report “I determined that the lack of lighting on this section of the motorway was a contributory factor to the Second Series of Collisions; the evidence at inquest was that this section of the motorway remains unlit at night and I am concerned that this creates an ongoing risk to life.
Whilst I found that none of the collisions were caused by the conversion of this section of the motorway to a ‘smart motorway’ I am concerned that this change in layout may have increased the risks posed to users of the motorway including the risk arising from the lack of lighting.
The evidence that I heard during the inquest suggested that the risk arising from the lack of lighting had not been re-assessed either as part of the conversion to a ‘smart motorway’ or following the incident on 29ᵗʰ March 2019 .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Increased risks to motorway users from the smart motorway layout
Wider context from the report “I determined that the lack of lighting on this section of the motorway was a contributory factor to the Second Series of Collisions; the evidence at inquest was that this section of the motorway remains unlit at night and I am concerned that this creates an ongoing risk to life.
Whilst I found that none of the collisions were caused by the conversion of this section of the motorway to a ‘smart motorway’ I am concerned that this change in layout may have increased the risks posed to users of the motorway including the risk arising from the lack of lighting.
The evidence that I heard during the inquest suggested that the risk arising from the lack of lighting had not been re-assessed either as part of the conversion to a ‘smart motorway’ or following the incident on 29ᵗʰ March 2019.
” 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 Carry out a lighting assessment for the M6 motorway between junctions 16 and 19 to determine whether lighting is required.
Verbatim wording from the response “Given the concerns expressed following this particular incident, we will carry out a lighting assessment to determine whether lighting would now be required on this section of motorway.” Source location 2019-0379-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Revise the smart motorways design standard to require review of night-time collisions and consideration of whether road lighting is justified.
Verbatim wording from the response “We revised our smart motorways design standard in 2015. The 2015 design standard has an updated lighting requirement instructing schemes to review the number of night-time personal injury collisions, and to determine whether there is any justification for introducing road lighting as part of the scheme. Subsequent changes to design standards are not applied retrospectively to operational schemes but would be considered as part of a corporate standard programme of investment for the renewal or improvement of the strategic road network at a future date.” Source location 2019-0379-Response-by-Highways-England
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 the final Stage 4 Road Safety Audit for the M6 motorway junctions 16 to 19 scheme after its 12-month operational period.
Verbatim wording from the response “Every scheme we install is required to undergo Road Safety Audits over time both before and after the installation of the scheme. The final Road Safety Audit (Stage 4) is conducted 12 months after the road is open to traffic. The audit focusses on collision monitoring where road traffic collisions (from STATS19 data) have been recorded in the vicinity of the highway scheme over the 12-month period after the scheme was operational. The audit for the M6 motorway junctions 16 to 19 scheme has not been completed to date because the scheme has not been open to traffic for 12 months. The final Road Safety Audit (Stage 4) is due to be carried out in the Summer of 2020.” Source location 2019-0379-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Existing smart motorway safety assessments, roadside technology and operational procedures are considered sufficient to maintain appropriate safety.
Verbatim wording from the response “(b) Introduction of smart motorways has been Government policy since 2008. The smart motorway package of measures is considered appropriate for Highways England’s network and gives flexibility to allow for increased demand from road users, whilst maintaining or improving the safety of our roads.” Source location 2019-0379-Response-by-Highways-England
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 The revised lighting standard is not applied retrospectively; lighting review for this operational scheme is deferred to future renewal or improvement investment.
Verbatim wording from the response “(c) The M6 motorway, junctions 16 to 19 ‘smart motorway’ scheme was designed to the smart motorway design standard in place at the time published in 2013. The 2013 design standard stated that, where the motorway is not currently lit, lighting shall not be considered. Therefore, the scheme did not undertake a lighting assessment because this section of the M6 motorway was not lit prior to the smart motorway scheme being designed.” Source location 2019-0379-Response-by-Highways-England
Open published response
24 Oct 2019 Catherine Gardiner and 2 others · Prevention of Future Deaths report Berkshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Lack of incentives or penalties governing the duration of hard shoulder closures View source Failure to provide fault codes when the DMF protection system leads to engine shutdown View source Lack of confirmed national oversight of the duration of temporary hard shoulder closures View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Catherine Gardiner and 2 others · 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
Catherine Gardiner, Jason Aleixo and Lorraine McLellan died after a minibus carrying staff and students from Prior's Court came to a sudden stop on the M4 and collided with another vehicle on 11 October 2018. The reason for the abrupt stop remained unclear, although the investigation considered a vehicle problem more likely than driver input. The principal concern was that the DMF protection system could shut down the engine without recording a fault code, together with the need for further forensic examination of the vehicle by Ford.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of incentives or penalties governing the duration of hard shoulder closures
Wider context from the report “(2) Is there any incentive to reduce hard shoulder closures or any penalty for prolonging these , beyond purely commercial implications ?
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide fault codes when the DMF protection system leads to engine shutdown
Wider context from the report “(1) In line with the view of Ford’s witness at the inquest, I believe that Ford should consider fault code provision when the DMF protection system leads to engine shutdown .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of confirmed national oversight of the duration of temporary hard shoulder closures
Wider context from the report “(1) Please confirm whether there is in fact any organisation which has oversight of the amount of time taken for temporary closure of hard shoulders nationally , given that the relevant Order allows for closure to continue “until completion of the works”, with no end date .
” Open source report
×
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 Oversight of Highways England is assigned to the Department for Transport, monitored through the Office of Rail and Road.
Verbatim wording from the response “1. The oversight role would sit with the Department for Transport (DfT) who use the Office of Road and Rail (ORR) to monitor Highways England.” Source location 2019-0350-Response-letter-from-Highways-England_Redacted
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 Temporary hard shoulder closures are managed regionally under traffic orders allowing up to 18 months and accommodating unforeseen changes.
Verbatim wording from the response “In Highways England, temporary closures of roads including hard shoulders are managed through the various work programmes at regional level. Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders made to restrict or prohibit traffic on our roads under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 can remain in force for up to 18 months from the date on which the Order comes into force. In line with the legislation, Highways England drafts Orders in an open-ended way to allow for unexpected or unplanned changes that may arise following the commencement of the works in a delivery programme e.g. inclement weather, sub-contractor issues, supply problems. The Order will state that the closure may continue “until completion of the works” although every effort is made to keep this to the shortest time possible.” Source location 2019-0350-Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Open published response
14 Oct 2019 Dev Dilesh Naran · Prevention of Future Deaths report Birmingham and Solihull
View report summary
Concerns raised 10 Lack of retreat space beside the elevated M6 View source Lack of automatic alerts for lone vehicles stopped in live lanes View source Failure to target stationary-vehicle detection research at dynamic hard shoulder schemes and the M6 View source Risk of driver confusion about the hard shoulder operating as a live lane View source Failure to treat the M6 junctions 5 and 6 risk as an acute problem requiring specific work View source Restricted ability for vehicles to pull fully out of the live lane View source Failure to review stopped-vehicle detection times View source Unavailability of lone-stationary-vehicle detection in higher-flow dynamic hard shoulder schemes View source Risk to life from vehicles stopping in live motorway lanes View source Gap in emergency refuge areas on the M6 near junctions 5 and 6 View source See 7 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Dev Dilesh Naran · 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
Dev Dilesh Naran, aged 8, sustained an unsurvivable head injury as a rear-seat passenger when the Toyota Yaris in which he was travelling stopped in a live motorway lane and was struck from behind by a large goods vehicle. Concerns included the risks posed by stopped vehicles in live lanes, the lack of automatic alerts for lone stationary vehicles, and specific safety risks associated with the dynamic hard shoulder on this section of the M6.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of retreat space beside the elevated M6
Wider context from the report “3. When compared to motorways not operating a Dynamic Hard Shoulder running scheme there is a greater risk that vehicles will stop on the hard shoulder/lane 1 of the M6 in the vicinity of junctions 6 and 5 when the hard shoulder is a live lane and that there will be a greater danger when doing so because:
a) there is a 2.5 mile gap in the emergency refuge areas at this point;
b) this section of the M6 is elevated and as such there is no land along the edge of the motorway to which occupants of vehicles forced to stop on the hard shoulder can retreat ;
c) the carriageway to the nearside of the hard shoulder/lane 1 is only 0.4m wide before there is a low raised kerb with a paved area of 1.4m wide bordered by a 0.7m tall retaining wall at the edge of the flyover over which vehicles are restricted in their ability to pull fully out of the live lane;
d) although the signage that the hard shoulder is in use as a live lane in this area accords with the Highway Code and the Managed Motorway Network Scheme there is a real risk that drivers seeing a hard shoulder bordered by solid white lines (and who may have used the road when the hard shoulder is not in use as a live lane) may become confused and forget/fail to register that the hard shoulder is operating as a live lane.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of automatic alerts for lone vehicles stopped in live lanes
Wider context from the report “2. Those managing the motorway network have no system of automatic alert to a stopped lone vehicle in a live lane and rely on the MIDAS system picking up slow moving traffic, 999 calls and calls from the general public. It is not know how frequently vehicles are stopping on the hard shoulder of the M6 because if there are no calls and no traffic build up the control centre may not become aware. Furthermore, when operators do become aware of a stationary vehicle, they do not routinely look back at how long the vehicle had been stationary before the control room was alerted therefore it is not known on average how long it takes the control room to become aware of a stopped vehicle.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to target stationary-vehicle detection research at dynamic hard shoulder schemes and the M6
Wider context from the report “5. Mr. Maxwell Brown, Head of Road Design, Safety, Engineering and Standards, at Highways England gave evidence that a colleague is undertaking research into technology that could be used to identify lone stationary vehicles in higher traffic flows. Mr. Brown did not know what technologies were being considered nor what the time scale for this project is. Mr. Brown’s evidence was that this is not being looked at with dynamic hard shoulder running schemes in mind nor for the M6 specifically as it is not regarded as an acute problem .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Risk of driver confusion about the hard shoulder operating as a live lane
Wider context from the report “3. When compared to motorways not operating a Dynamic Hard Shoulder running scheme there is a greater risk that vehicles will stop on the hard shoulder/lane 1 of the M6 in the vicinity of junctions 6 and 5 when the hard shoulder is a live lane and that there will be a greater danger when doing so because:
a) there is a 2.5 mile gap in the emergency refuge areas at this point;
b) this section of the M6 is elevated and as such there is no land along the edge of the motorway to which occupants of vehicles forced to stop on the hard shoulder can retreat;
c) the carriageway to the nearside of the hard shoulder/lane 1 is only 0.4m wide before there is a low raised kerb with a paved area of 1.4m wide bordered by a 0.7m tall retaining wall at the edge of the flyover over which vehicles are restricted in their ability to pull fully out of the live lane;
d) although the signage that the hard shoulder is in use as a live lane in this area accords with the Highway Code and the Managed Motorway Network Scheme there is a real risk that drivers seeing a hard shoulder bordered by solid white lines (and who may have used the road when the hard shoulder is not in use as a live lane) may become confused and forget/fail to register that the hard shoulder is operating as a live lane .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to treat the M6 junctions 5 and 6 risk as an acute problem requiring specific work
Wider context from the report “6. The effect of this evidence is to cause me concern that the particular nature of the risk on this section of the M6 arising from the matters set out at para 3 above is not regard as an acute problem by the Highways Agency when it should be and that I was not given evidence of specific work being undertaken to address this particular risk .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Restricted ability for vehicles to pull fully out of the live lane
Wider context from the report “3. When compared to motorways not operating a Dynamic Hard Shoulder running scheme there is a greater risk that vehicles will stop on the hard shoulder/lane 1 of the M6 in the vicinity of junctions 6 and 5 when the hard shoulder is a live lane and that there will be a greater danger when doing so because:
a) there is a 2.5 mile gap in the emergency refuge areas at this point;
b) this section of the M6 is elevated and as such there is no land along the edge of the motorway to which occupants of vehicles forced to stop on the hard shoulder can retreat;
c) the carriageway to the nearside of the hard shoulder/lane 1 is only 0.4m wide before there is a low raised kerb with a paved area of 1.4m wide bordered by a 0.7m tall retaining wall at the edge of the flyover over which vehicles are restricted in their ability to pull fully out of the live lane ;
d) although the signage that the hard shoulder is in use as a live lane in this area accords with the Highway Code and the Managed Motorway Network Scheme there is a real risk that drivers seeing a hard shoulder bordered by solid white lines (and who may have used the road when the hard shoulder is not in use as a live lane) may become confused and forget/fail to register that the hard shoulder is operating as a live lane.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to review stopped-vehicle detection times
Wider context from the report “2. Those managing the motorway network have no system of automatic alert to a stopped lone vehicle in a live lane and rely on the MIDAS system picking up slow moving traffic, 999 calls and calls from the general public. It is not know how frequently vehicles are stopping on the hard shoulder of the M6 because if there are no calls and no traffic build up the control centre may not become aware. Furthermore, when operators do become aware of a stationary vehicle, they do not routinely look back at how long the vehicle had been stationary before the control room was alerted therefore it is not known on average how long it takes the control room to become aware of a stopped vehicle .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Unavailability of lone-stationary-vehicle detection in higher-flow dynamic hard shoulder schemes
Wider context from the report “4. The Highways Agency is introducing a radar system to identify lone stationary vehicles on All Lane Running schemes which will operate in low flow. This technology does not operate in moderate to high flow density and is not intended for use on dynamic hard shoulder running schemes where the hard shoulder would not be in use in low flow traffic.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Risk to life from vehicles stopping in live motorway lanes
Wider context from the report “1. Vehicles stopping in live lanes of a motorway create a risk to life due to the speed of the traffic approaching, the difficulty approaching drivers will have in identifying that a vehicle in the lane ahead of them is stationary and the fact that the volume of traffic around any stopped vehicle can inhibit the ability of a driver to take evasive action without coming into contact with other road users.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Gap in emergency refuge areas on the M6 near junctions 5 and 6
Wider context from the report “3. When compared to motorways not operating a Dynamic Hard Shoulder running scheme there is a greater risk that vehicles will stop on the hard shoulder/lane 1 of the M6 in the vicinity of junctions 6 and 5 when the hard shoulder is a live lane and that there will be a greater danger when doing so because:
a) there is a 2.5 mile gap in the emergency refuge areas at this point ;
b) this section of the M6 is elevated and as such there is no land along the edge of the motorway to which occupants of vehicles forced to stop on the hard shoulder can retreat;
c) the carriageway to the nearside of the hard shoulder/lane 1 is only 0.4m wide before there is a low raised kerb with a paved area of 1.4m wide bordered by a 0.7m tall retaining wall at the edge of the flyover over which vehicles are restricted in their ability to pull fully out of the live lane;
d) although the signage that the hard shoulder is in use as a live lane in this area accords with the Highway Code and the Managed Motorway Network Scheme there is a real risk that drivers seeing a hard shoulder bordered by solid white lines (and who may have used the road when the hard shoulder is not in use as a live lane) may become confused and forget/fail to register that the hard shoulder is operating as a live lane.
” 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 Roll out stopped-vehicle detection capability to similar smart motorway schemes, starting with the M3 between Junctions 2 and 4a.
Verbatim wording from the response “3. We have begun to rollout stopped vehicle detection capability to similar schemes which will commence with the M3 between Junctions 2 and 4a to be completed by December 2020. Subject to funding, stopped vehicle detection capability will be included on all future smart motorway schemes beginning construction from March 2020.” Source location 2019-0341-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Maintain additional frequent signage identifying whether the hard shoulder is operating as a live lane.
Verbatim wording from the response “When the hard shoulder is operating as a live lane, there are frequent signs stating, “Use hard shoulder” providing additional confirmation to drivers that the hard shoulder is operating as a live running lane, as was the case on the M6 Junction 6 to 5 southbound on 31 May 2018. We previously recognised the risk of drivers using the hard shoulder when it is not operating as a live lane and in 2015 introduced additional frequent signage to highlight to drivers the status of the hard shoulder at any given time.” Source location 2019-0341-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Operate radar-based stopped-vehicle detection on smart motorway sections of the M25 without a hard shoulder.
Verbatim wording from the response “recognised this risk and has undertaken successful trials of a radar detection system which detects stopped vehicles in low flow conditions. This is now operational on all of the smart motorway sections of the M25 without a hard shoulder.” Source location 2019-0341-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Evaluate and test alternative technologies for detecting stopped vehicles in higher-flow conditions, including CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowdsourced data.
Verbatim wording from the response “We are exploring other technologies which could reduce the risk to stopped vehicles in higher flow conditions. These include CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowd sourced data. As these are innovative solutions, which require evaluation and testing, Highways England is unable at this time to set out a timetable if and when this technology will be rolled out on the motorway network. This is also subject to our Government funding settlement for the period 2020-2025 which is yet to be confirmed.” Source location 2019-0341-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Assessments show dynamic hard shoulder running reduces driver risk compared with motorways without dynamic hard shoulder running.
Verbatim wording from the response “4. Our assessments have shown that the risk to drivers is reduced when a dynamic hard shoulder running scheme compared to motorways not operating dynamic hard shoulder running schemes. This is largely due to the additional technology and enhanced operational management which is not present on conventional motorways. When flows are higher our Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling (MIDAS) system detects slow moving traffic, and warns drivers by setting appropriate messages and speed limits without operator intervention. This is a proven safety system which, along with comprehensive CCTV coverage, helps to mitigate the risk to stopped vehicles when traffic flows are higher.” Source location 2019-0341-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Frequent signage confirms when the hard shoulder operates as a live lane and mitigates driver confusion about its status.
Verbatim wording from the response “When the hard shoulder is operating as a live lane, there are frequent signs stating, “Use hard shoulder” providing additional confirmation to drivers that the hard shoulder is operating as a live running lane, as was the case on the M6 Junction 6 to 5 southbound on 31 May 2018. We previously recognised the risk of drivers using the hard shoulder when it is not operating as a live lane and in 2015 introduced additional frequent signage to highlight to drivers the status of the hard shoulder at any given time.” Source location 2019-0341-Response-by-Highways-England
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 MIDAS, comprehensive CCTV, operational oversight and warning systems mitigate risks to stopped vehicles during higher traffic flows.
Verbatim wording from the response “If a driver does not stop in a place of relative safety (such as an emergency refuge area) smart motorways have far greater operational oversight and technology than other high-speed roads to reduce the risk to road users. Once our control centre is aware of the situation (which may be via the Police or roadside technology such as CCTV), we can use the smart motorway technology to set lane closures and warning signals, as well as dispatching a Highways England Traffic Officer to assist.” Source location 2019-0341-Response-by-Highways-England
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 A timetable for higher-flow stopped-vehicle detection cannot be provided because technologies require evaluation and testing and funding is unconfirmed.
Verbatim wording from the response “We are exploring other technologies which could reduce the risk to stopped vehicles in higher flow conditions. These include CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowd sourced data. As these are innovative solutions, which require evaluation and testing, Highways England is unable at this time to set out a timetable if and when this technology will be rolled out on the motorway network. This is also subject to our Government funding settlement for the period 2020-2025 which is yet to be confirmed.” Source location 2019-0341-Response-by-Highways-England
Open published response
30 May 2019 Susan Barbara HENDERSON and Margaret Louise SHAW · Prevention of Future Deaths report Milton Keynes
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Failure of road inspections to identify drain problems View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Susan Barbara HENDERSON and Margaret Louise SHAW · 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
Susan Barbara Henderson and Margaret Louise Shaw died at the scene from injuries after one car aquaplaned across the A5, Milton Keynes, into the path of an oncoming vehicle. Evidence indicated that standing water had accumulated because blocked roadside gullies had not been identified during routine inspections, prompting concern that the inspection process should be reviewed.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of road inspections to identify drain problems
Wider context from the report “During the course of the evidence I heard how the roads are examined and monitored on a regular basis but that such inspections are conducted at speed and that the process failed to identify the problem with this particular drain on the A5 . I believe that the process for inspection should be reviewed.
” 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 Complete a review of inspection requirements and processes across the Strategic Road Network, including the speed of driven inspections.
Verbatim wording from the response ““During the course of the evidence I heard how the roads are examined and monitored on a regular basis but that such inspections are conducted at speed and that the process failed to identify the problem with this particular drain on the A5. I believe that the process for inspection should be reviewed.”” Source location Response from Highways England
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 Issue a memorandum to all Areas highlighting recessed-gully locations, defect-recording methods, possible renewal of non-standard gullies, and communication of defects to Local Authorities.
Verbatim wording from the response “Following the review of inspection requirements and processes Highways England has decided to issue a memorandum to all our Areas to highlight the importance of:” Source location Response from Highways England
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 Move Area 8 from Asset Support Contract arrangements to the Asset Delivery approach, with inspections undertaken in-house by Highways England staff.
Verbatim wording from the response “From the 1st October 2019 Area 8 will be moving from the current Asset Support Contract arrangements to the new Asset Delivery approach. Asset Delivery inspections will be undertaken in-house by Highways England staff.” Source location Response from Highways England
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 Existing risk-based inspection requirements and processes are considered consistent and sufficient, so no changes are proposed beyond the Asset Delivery transition.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England’s review of the inspection requirements and processes used by Highways England’s Areas and Regions, and our supply chain, concluded they had a common risk based approach, and were understood by inspectors and applied consistently. Therefore, there are no proposals to change the requirements and processes.” Source location Response from Highways England
Open published response
22 Feb 2019 Mrs Doreen Fell · Prevention of Future Deaths report Cumbria
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Application of the national speed limit on the village section failing to provide safe pedestrian crossing conditions View source Exposure of children, elderly people and people with physical or mental impairments to crossing risk on the village road section View source Lack of signs indicating the alternative underpass route across the A590 View source Lack of street lighting on the road section View source See 1 more concern
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Mrs Doreen Fell · 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
Mrs Doreen Fell died at the scene after being struck by a car while crossing the A590 in Backbarrow on 17 January 2018. The report raised concerns about the 60mph national speed limit, inadequate lighting, and the safety of pedestrians—including elderly people, children, and those with impairments—using the crossing in darkness.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Application of the national speed limit on the village section failing to provide safe pedestrian crossing conditions
Wider context from the report “1. The application of the national speed limit for this short section of trunk road whilst it passes through the village of Backbarrow directly impacts on:
a) reaction times for pedestrians
b) reaction times for drivers
c) the size of gap in traffic required to execute a safe pedestrian crossing
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Exposure of children, elderly people and people with physical or mental impairments to crossing risk on the village road section
Wider context from the report “3. There is a village hall on the southbound side and a primary school on the northbound side of Backbarrow. It is foreseeable that children: the elderly or those with a physical or mental impairment will have occasion to cross this section of road. This aspect has a direct impact on the risk analysis applicable to points 1 & 2 above.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of signs indicating the alternative underpass route across the A590
Wider context from the report “As a footnote, it would seem that there are no signs indicating to residents, or visitors to the village, that there is an alternative route across the A590 via an underpass some 500m to the south of this accident.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of street lighting on the road section
Wider context from the report “2. The low levels of natural light on this section accentuates the present lack of any street lighting on this section of road which may otherwise assist pedestrians with executing a safe crossing during the hours of darkness.
” 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 Review the speed limit, street lighting, pedestrian crossing safety and underpass signing at the Backbarrow A590 location.
Verbatim wording from the response “As requested by the Coroner in his Regulation 28 Report dated 22 February 2019, Highways England have reviewed the speed limit, the street lighting, the safety of pedestrians and the provision of signing to the underpass at the location of the accident on 17 January 2018.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Investigate ownership of the missing public footpath sign at the southbound bus layby.
Verbatim wording from the response “The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Arrange reinstatement of the missing sign at the southbound bus layby.
Verbatim wording from the response “The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Existing routes and signing are considered sufficient, so additional signage directing pedestrians to the underpass is not considered justified.
Verbatim wording from the response “The presence of local facilities on both sides of the village means that there is likely to be significant pedestrian demand to cross the A590 and there are two available options for this: pedestrian refuge in question and an alternative underpass to the south. There are continuous footways on both sides of the A590 between the refuge and the underpass. The footpath to the underpass are signed from both bus laybys on the A590 and on both sides of the village where connecting footpaths meet local roads. We have identified that one of the signposts at the southbound bus layby is currently missing its sign. Although our records show that these public footpath signs are not Highways England’s, we are investigating their ownership to have the missing sign replaced at the earliest opportunity.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
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 The existing 60 mph national speed limit is considered appropriate and consistent with current guidance for this stretch of the A590.
Verbatim wording from the response “The Department for Transport Circular 01/2013 Setting Local Speed Limits advises that speed limits should reflect the function of the road and its environment. They should also reinforce people’s assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. The A590 is part of the Strategic Road Network and as such its primary function is to cater for through traffic between the M6 motorway and Barrow-in-Furness. Whilst the A590 trunk road bisects the village of Backbarrow into two distinct sections, practically none of the village itself fronts directly onto the road. The western and eastern sides of the village are accessed via two junctions situated to the north and south of the pedestrian refuge island. Much of the village is screened from the A590 by trees and the only frontage development is a small parking area to the rear of Brow Edge Road and the driveway to South Lakes Boarding Kennels.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
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 Existing conditions and the low collision record are considered sufficient, so installing street lighting on this A590 stretch is not considered appropriate or beneficial.
Verbatim wording from the response “The A590 is unlit throughout the National Park area with the exception of the major roundabout junctions at Meathop, Newby Bridge and Greenodd. The pedestrian refuge itself contains a basic lit bollard and high-level beacon on either side which highlights the refuge to approaching motorists. The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges document TA 49/07 which covers the appraisal of new lighting on the trunk road network states that the role of road lighting as a safety benefit has limitations and should be considered alongside measures with less adverse environmental impact. It should not be used to mitigate a high darkness collision record unless an investigation carried out a qualified Road Safety Engineer indicates this would be the best solution. In this case there are a low proportion of collisions in the dark (section b.” Source location 2019-0109-Response-by-Highways-England
Open published response
9 Aug 2018 ADITYA PURI · Prevention of Future Deaths report Derby and Derbyshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 1 Absence of street lighting on the A50 View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
ADITYA PURI · 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
ADITYA PURI was killed on 23 February 2017 after losing control of his vehicle on the eastbound A50 and colliding with a stationary lorry. The principal concern was that the stretch of the A50 lacked street lighting, with the report noting four additional fatal road traffic collisions there between 2017 and 2018.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of street lighting on the A50
Wider context from the report “(1) The A50 in question does not have street lighting. Street lighting in this area would be beneficial to prevent future deaths occurring.
” Open source report
×
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 Implementation of improvement projects, including any feasibility-study outcome, depends on funding being made available through the value management process.
Verbatim wording from the response “The outcome of the investigations and analysis identified at (a) to (d) above, may require a feasibility study to establish if there are options for changes to the assets (such as lighting) on the A50 Junction 3 to Junction 4 to improve safety. If so, the feasibility study will commence at the beginning of April 2019.” Source location Response from Highways England
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 The accident patterns identified no highway improvements that could be introduced to prevent future deaths at this location.
Verbatim wording from the response “Conclusion” Source location Response from Highways England
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 The identified accident types would not conclusively be prevented by introducing street lighting, so lighting would not appropriately address these incidents.
Verbatim wording from the response “The types of accidents occurring during the hours of darkness did not fall into the above three categories. Two of the fatal accidents involved pedestrians, however the A50 has no pedestrian facilities and drivers should not be expecting to see pedestrians in the carriageway. It was only due to other incidents or driver behaviours that the pedestrians were in the carriageway and therefore the introduction of street lighting would not be appropriate to address these incidents.” Source location Response from Highways England
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 Night-time carriageway visibility was adequate, and existing lining and reflective road studs were in good condition.
Verbatim wording from the response “The next step would be to increase the definition of the carriageway using lining/reflective road studs and/or any other engineering measures specific to the location. Only once all other engineering measures had been introduced or discounted would new street lighting be considered.” Source location Response from Highways England
Open published response
27 Nov 2017 Ayse Yalcinkaya · Prevention of Future Deaths report Milton Keynes
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Failure to provide clear lane-use signage on the slip road at Junction 14 View source Lack of a run-off lane prior to the junction at Junction 14 of the M1 View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Ayse Yalcinkaya · 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
Ayse Yalcinkaya, aged 35, was the sole occupant of a stationary car at Junction 14 of the M1 when a lorry collided with it, and she died from multiple injuries. Concerns included unclear signage and uncertainty about lane use on the slip road, as well as whether a run-off lane should be provided before the junction.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to provide clear lane-use signage on the slip road at Junction 14
Wider context from the report “(1) I was told by the Police Collision Investigator that the traffic had started queuing on the slip road at Junction 14 into lane one. It was suggested that there was some uncertainty by drivers using the slipway as to which lane they should use and that the signage is not clear .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of a run-off lane prior to the junction at Junction 14 of the M1
Wider context from the report “(2) I was also informed that on the most recently build slip roads on other motorways there is now provision for a run off lane to be provided prior to the junction . Perhaps a similar lane could be provided at junction 14 of the M1 ?
” 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 Commission and obtain an investigation of traffic flow, signage and queueing at M1 Junction 14.
Verbatim wording from the response “a. On 7 December 2018 Highways England commissioned our Asset Support Contractor, Kier, to undertake an investigation report addressing the ‘Matters of Concern’ raised by the Coroner.” Source location 2017-0422-Response-by-Highways-Englands
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 Review the investigation findings to determine appropriate further works addressing the identified concerns.
Verbatim wording from the response “Highways England received the “Fatal Collision 25 7 15, Investigation Report” from Kier on 15 January 2018. The report included observations of traffic flow, signage, and queueing at M1 Junctions 14 made on a site inspection from Kier Services Highways Division on Tuesday 9 January 2018 between 06:45hrs and 09:30hrs. These findings are being reviewed by the Highways England Asset Development Team to determine what action may be appropriate for further work in 2018/19. This review is to be completed by 31 March 2018.” Source location 2017-0422-Response-by-Highways-Englands
Open published response
22 Sep 2017 Shahbaz Salim Bhim and Shana Sutaria · Prevention of Future Deaths report Nottinghamshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Failure to effectively drain the collision scene View source Gap in the vehicle restraint barrier permitting unimpeded vehicle passage from the carriageway View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Shahbaz Salim Bhim and Shana Sutaria · 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
Shahbaz Salim Bhim and Shana Sutaria were travelling in a BMW on the A46 during heavy rain when standing water caused the vehicle to leave the carriageway and enter Fairham Brook. They likely survived the initial collision but were subsequently struck by a van and sustained fatal injuries; concerns included blocked drainage causing standing water and a gap in the vehicle restraint barrier that allowed vehicles to leave the carriageway.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to effectively drain the collision scene
Wider context from the report “c. The scene of the collision is in a natural ‘bowl’ and that, unless effectively drained , it is a point at which standing water will accumulate during and/or after heavy rainfall ;
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Gap in the vehicle restraint barrier permitting unimpeded vehicle passage from the carriageway
Wider context from the report “d. The gap in the vehicle restraint barrier (Highways England’s location code X-465224,Y-328926) at the entrance to the land owned and/or occupied by ████████ (and registered at the Land Registry under title number TN514257) is a hazard to traffic in that it permits vehicles to pass unimpeded from the carriageway .
” 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 Assess options for removing the field access and determine associated costs and a reasonable land-access value for an offer to the landowner.
Verbatim wording from the response “████████ and his land agent understand the Coroner’s reasons for raising the entrance to the field as a matter of concern and are open to discussions on how the closure of the access can be achieved. Highways England will assess the options to remove the access to the field and close the corresponding gap in the centre reservation. Highways England Land Team will assist in assessing the relevant costs and allow us to place a reasonable monetary value on the land access so that we are able to offer this to ████████ in return for closing the existing access.” Source location Response from Highways England
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 Progress the drainage scheme, including ditch clearance, pipe repairs or replacement, cleaning, and additional drainage installation.
Verbatim wording from the response “a. The drainage scheme is progressing as planned through the design and development phases with an estimated start date on the A46 in February 2018. The work will take place over a period of approximately 20 weeks with a planned completion date of June 2018.” Source location Response from Highways England
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 Continue discussions with the landowner and agent to secure removal of the field access and closure of the barrier gap.
Verbatim wording from the response “b. Highways England are in discussions with ████████ his land agent ████████ Shouler & Son) regarding the removal of the access to the field which will allow us to install a continuous vehicle safety restraint barrier. Communication was made with ████████ during week commencing 25 September 2017 immediately following the inquest. As a result, discussions with ████████ began on the 4 October 2017 and continued on the 23 October 2017.” Source location Response from Highways England
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 Vehicle restraint barrier alterations cannot be implemented until agreement is reached with the landowner to close the field access.
Verbatim wording from the response “████████ and his land agent understand the Coroner’s reasons for raising the entrance to the field as a matter of concern and are open to discussions on how the closure of the access can be achieved. Highways England will assess the options to remove the access to the field and close the corresponding gap in the centre reservation. Highways England Land Team will assist in assessing the relevant costs and allow us to place a reasonable monetary value on the land access so that we are able to offer this to ████████ in return for closing the existing access.” Source location Response from Highways England
Open published response
16 Aug 2017 Frederick George DUDLEY · Prevention of Future Deaths report Staffordshire South
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Obstructed visibility at the pedestrian crossing View source Speed limit increase before the pedestrian crossing View source Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on a busy dual carriageway View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
AI-generated summary
Frederick George DUDLEY · 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
Frederick George Dudley, aged 90, was struck by a vehicle while crossing the A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point after alighting from a bus. The vehicle was travelling above the speed limit, failed to stop, and the driver's view may have been obstructed by other vehicles. Concerns included the crossing's location on a bend, obstructions to visibility, high speed limit, and proximity to several facilities and road users, including an elderly care home and a bus layby.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Obstructed visibility at the pedestrian crossing
Wider context from the report “(1)The deceased had alighted from a bus and was crossing the very busy A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point. The crossing is :
1. On a bend
2. Obscured by a brick wall in the centre of the carriageway.
3. The speed limit changes from 40 mph to 60 mph 260m prior to the crossing.
4. Uncontrolled.
5. Adjacent or very near to a public house, an elderly care home, a housing estate,
a bus layby and a road junction.
In this case the view of the pedestrian was obscured by vehicles travelling in the nearside lane. The deceased was elderly, another young female passenger had also alighted from the bus and crossed the road at the same point. She needed to hurry to avoid the approaching vehicles. The inquest was given to understand from police that there had been other incidents ( not necessarily fatal) at this location.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Speed limit increase before the pedestrian crossing
Wider context from the report “(1)The deceased had alighted from a bus and was crossing the very busy A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point. The crossing is :
1. On a bend
2. Obscured by a brick wall in the centre of the carriageway.
3. The speed limit changes from 40 mph to 60 mph 260m prior to the crossing.
4. Uncontrolled.
5. Adjacent or very near to a public house, an elderly care home, a housing estate,
a bus layby and a road junction.
In this case the view of the pedestrian was obscured by vehicles travelling in the nearside lane. The deceased was elderly, another young female passenger had also alighted from the bus and crossed the road at the same point. She needed to hurry to avoid the approaching vehicles. The inquest was given to understand from police that there had been other incidents ( not necessarily fatal) at this location.
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Uncontrolled pedestrian crossing on a busy dual carriageway
Wider context from the report “(1)The deceased had alighted from a bus and was crossing the very busy A449 dual carriageway at an uncontrolled pedestrian crossing point . The crossing is :
1. On a bend
2. Obscured by a brick wall in the centre of the carriageway.
3. The speed limit changes from 40 mph to 60 mph 260m prior to the crossing.
4. Uncontrolled.
5. Adjacent or very near to a public house, an elderly care home, a housing estate,
a bus layby and a road junction.
In this case the view of the pedestrian was obscured by vehicles travelling in the nearside lane. The deceased was elderly, another young female passenger had also alighted from the bus and crossed the road at the same point. She needed to hurry to avoid the approaching vehicles. The inquest was given to understand from police that there had been other incidents ( not necessarily fatal) at this location.
” Open source report
5 Jun 2017 Jack Edward Braniff · Prevention of Future Deaths report Manchester North
View report summary
Concerns raised 2 Failure to fully consider road safety when deciding the size, position and location of illuminated advertising boards on public highways View source Reduction in tree looping resulting in overhanging canopies that compound road visibility issues View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
AI-generated summary
Jack Edward Braniff · 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
At approximately 01:00 on 5 November 2016, Jack Braniff stepped into the path of an oncoming car on Middleton Road and died at hospital at 02:10 from injuries sustained in the collision. Concerns related to an illuminated advertising board obstructing pedestrians’ and drivers’ views, and overhanging tree canopies compounding visibility problems and potentially contributing to further fatalities.
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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to fully consider road safety when deciding the size, position and location of illuminated advertising boards on public highways
Wider context from the report “1. The evidence was that the size and position of the illuminated advertising board at the site of the collision obstructed pedestrians’ view of the road and drivers’ view of pedestrians . The concern is to ensure that road safety is fully considered when decisions are made about the size, position and location of illuminated advertising boards on public highways .
” 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 National Highways; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Reduction in tree looping resulting in overhanging canopies that compound road visibility issues
Wider context from the report “2. The overhanging tree canopies at the site of the collision compounded the visibility issues which led to this death. The evidence suggested that there is a nexus between a reduction in the tree looping in the Greater Manchester area and an increase in road traffic collisions. The concern is that if this continues, it may lead to further fatalities.
” Open source report
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations