Recipient

Suffolk Highways

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Aug 2021•Latest report 25 Jul 2022

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Other public bodies · Sub-organisation. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
3

Naming this recipient

Published responses
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

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

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Suffolk Highways linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Stephen John COOMBES · 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 ‘John’ Coombes died at Addenbrookes Hospital on 3 September 2021 after a single-vehicle collision in which the Porsche he was driving left the road and overturned. The report identifies concern that inadequate signage failed to communicate a temporary 30 mph speed limit, leaving road users unaware of the reduced limit and potentially resulting in further fatalities if similar road defects occur.

    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 Suffolk Highways; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate provision of temporary reduced-speed signage

    Wider context from the report

    “The court heard that the depression was known to be present by the Highways Authority, and a temporary 30 mph speed limit (instead of the usual 50mph) had been put in place. Evidence was heard from the Forensic Crash Investigation Officer from Suffolk Constabulary, who conducted an investigation into the road traffic collision which caused John’s death. This officer told the court, how he and a colleague drove a police vehicle over the depression in the road at various speeds to observe the reaction the vehicle had to damaged road surface. At 30 mph the police vehicle negotiated the depression in the road with relative ease. At 50 mph, the police vehicle reacted significantly when negotiating the depression. At the time of Johns collision, he had just overtaken another vehicle and therefore crossed the depression a slight angle as he returned to his own side of the carriage way. When the police officers replicated this vehicle movement at 50 mph, the police vehicle reacted violently, with one of the wheels leaving the surface of the road. The officer driving that vehicle was not prepared to attempt the same manoeuvre at any higher speed due to the risk involved. The police officer then told the court that the attending officers themselves were unaware of 30 mph speed limit on this stretch of road. The officer told the court that the main 50 mph signs, the smaller repeater 50 mph signs and the 50 mph roundels painted on the road surface were all clearly visible on this stretch of road. Prior to the depression the officer saw one temporary 30mph partially obscured in the verge, but assumed it was left over from previous works, as all of the 50mph signs remained in view. Evidence was heard that in the normal course of events, when a temporary reduction in a speed limit is imposed on a stretch of road, any signage indicating a higher speed limit should be covered by either securing a dark bag or sack over each sign, or spray painting it out. On the basis of the police officers’ evidence, that clearly did not occur in this case, and this, coupled to there being only one 30mph temporary sign in place prior to the depression in the road, left road users (and attending police officers) unaware of the reduced speed limit in place. I am therefore concerned that should further identified road defects require a reduction in the speed limit, that any repeat of the provision of inadequate signage and/or a failure obscure higher speed limits may result in further fatalities. ”
    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 Suffolk Highways; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to obscure higher speed-limit signage when imposing temporary reductions

    Wider context from the report

    “The court heard that the depression was known to be present by the Highways Authority, and a temporary 30 mph speed limit (instead of the usual 50mph) had been put in place. Evidence was heard from the Forensic Crash Investigation Officer from Suffolk Constabulary, who conducted an investigation into the road traffic collision which caused John’s death. This officer told the court, how he and a colleague drove a police vehicle over the depression in the road at various speeds to observe the reaction the vehicle had to damaged road surface. At 30 mph the police vehicle negotiated the depression in the road with relative ease. At 50 mph, the police vehicle reacted significantly when negotiating the depression. At the time of Johns collision, he had just overtaken another vehicle and therefore crossed the depression a slight angle as he returned to his own side of the carriage way. When the police officers replicated this vehicle movement at 50 mph, the police vehicle reacted violently, with one of the wheels leaving the surface of the road. The officer driving that vehicle was not prepared to attempt the same manoeuvre at any higher speed due to the risk involved. The police officer then told the court that the attending officers themselves were unaware of 30 mph speed limit on this stretch of road. The officer told the court that the main 50 mph signs, the smaller repeater 50 mph signs and the 50 mph roundels painted on the road surface were all clearly visible on this stretch of road. Prior to the depression the officer saw one temporary 30mph partially obscured in the verge, but assumed it was left over from previous works, as all of the 50mph signs remained in view. Evidence was heard that in the normal course of events, when a temporary reduction in a speed limit is imposed on a stretch of road, any signage indicating a higher speed limit should be covered by either securing a dark bag or sack over each sign, or spray painting it out. On the basis of the police officers’ evidence, that clearly did not occur in this case, and this, coupled to there being only one 30mph temporary sign in place prior to the depression in the road, left road users (and attending police officers) unaware of the reduced speed limit in place. I am therefore concerned that should further identified road defects require a reduction in the speed limit, that any repeat of the provision of inadequate signage and/or a failure obscure higher speed limits may result in further fatalities. ”
    Open source report

  2. Suffolk

    AI-generated summary

    Ethan Jake Wright · 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

    Ethan Jake Wright died on 18 November 2021 after sustaining serious head injuries when the bicycle he was riding collided with a van in Lowestoft. The principal concern was that the junction where the bridleway joined Higher Drive had severely restricted visibility and no physical barrier or other measure to make cyclists or fast-moving pedestrians slow down before entering the road.

    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 Suffolk Highways; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Severely restricted visibility for cyclists and pedestrians approaching Higher Drive

    Wider context from the report

    “In evidence it was heard that the public bridleway, Woods Lake West, is predominantly used by pedestrians and cyclists. As part of the police investigation, photographs were provided that showed the area where Woods Lake West joins Higher Drive. Woods Lake West joins Higher Drive at approximately a 90-degree angle and vehicle access to the Lake is prevented by two concrete bollards. These bollards are placed wide enough apart as not to cause a hinderance to either cyclists or pedestrians. When cycling from Woods Lake West onto Higher Drive, the view afforded of Higher Drive is severely restricted by fencing, and it is only once a cyclist or pedestrian is on the pavement of Higher Drive itself, are they afforded any view of the main road to their right. This is the direction of travel of the van with which Ethan collided. The police officer who investigated Ethan's tragic death, stated in evidence that there was no physical barrier, or any other measure in place, that would make a cyclist or fast-moving pedestrian slow down before entering Higher Drive. The police officer was particularly concerned about children using the Lake as a cycle path, as these young riders have a much lower perception of risk. The officer was of the opinion that some physical means of preventing direct access onto Higher Drive from Woods Lake West, or some other measure to ensure a cyclist or fast-moving pedestrian slowed down on approaching Higher Drive, would prevent a further tragedy 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 Suffolk Highways; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to slow cyclists and fast-moving pedestrians before entering Higher Drive

    Wider context from the report

    “In evidence it was heard that the public bridleway, Woods Lake West, is predominantly used by pedestrians and cyclists. As part of the police investigation, photographs were provided that showed the area where Woods Lake West joins Higher Drive. Woods Lake West joins Higher Drive at approximately a 90-degree angle and vehicle access to the Lake is prevented by two concrete bollards. These bollards are placed wide enough apart as not to cause a hinderance to either cyclists or pedestrians. When cycling from Woods Lake West onto Higher Drive, the view afforded of Higher Drive is severely restricted by fencing, and it is only once a cyclist or pedestrian is on the pavement of Higher Drive itself, are they afforded any view of the main road to their right. This is the direction of travel of the van with which Ethan collided. The police officer who investigated Ethan's tragic death, stated in evidence that there was no physical barrier, or any other measure in place, that would make a cyclist or fast-moving pedestrian slow down before entering Higher Drive. The police officer was particularly concerned about children using the Lake as a cycle path, as these young riders have a much lower perception of risk. The officer was of the opinion that some physical means of preventing direct access onto Higher Drive from Woods Lake West, or some other measure to ensure a cyclist or fast-moving pedestrian slowed down on approaching Higher Drive, would prevent a further tragedy at this location. ”
    Open source report

  3. Suffolk

    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 Suffolk 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 Suffolk 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
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

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

How actions were described at the time

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

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

Types of action described in responses

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

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026