Recipient

West Berkshire Highways Authority

Pin Request correction

First report 24 Feb 2014•Latest report 24 Feb 2014

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
1

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 West Berkshire Highways Authority linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Berkshire

    AI-generated summary

    Kenneth Gerald Aldridge · 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

    Kenneth Gerald Aldridge, aged 68, died after the car he was driving collided with another vehicle on the A4 near Woolhampton and then crashed into a tree. The principal concern was the appropriateness and potential danger of access to a service road from a 70-mile-per-hour dual carriageway, including vehicles turning into or pulling out of the service 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 West Berkshire Highways Authority; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unsafe vehicle egress from the service road onto the dual carriageway

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) For a vehicle to turn in to the service road running parallel to the A4 it would be necessary to slow considerably and then effect the manoeuvre. It is not possible to make a complete manoeuvre round to the left without then forming a u-turn which is not possible without either reversing and going forward again or encroaching onto the outside lane of the A4 to make a sweeping manoeuvre into the access. (2) In the course of the evidence, the Collision Investigator who investigated the crash on behalf of Thames Valley Police suggested that the ability to make such a manoeuvre on a fast dual carriageway is potentially dangerous. While the Officer expressed concerns about turning in, he was also concerned about vehicles pulling out of the service road on to the dual carriageway. (3) The evidence therefore gave rise to concern at the appropriateness of having an access to the service road at such a location, particularly given a speed limit of 70 miles per hour at that point. ”
    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 West Berkshire Highways Authority; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of the service-road access to permit safe vehicle turning in

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) For a vehicle to turn in to the service road running parallel to the A4 it would be necessary to slow considerably and then effect the manoeuvre. It is not possible to make a complete manoeuvre round to the left without then forming a u-turn which is not possible without either reversing and going forward again or encroaching onto the outside lane of the A4 to make a sweeping manoeuvre into the access. (2) In the course of the evidence, the Collision Investigator who investigated the crash on behalf of Thames Valley Police suggested that the ability to make such a manoeuvre on a fast dual carriageway is potentially dangerous. While the Officer expressed concerns about turning in, he was also concerned about vehicles pulling out of the service road on to the dual carriageway. (3) The evidence therefore gave rise to concern at the appropriateness of having an access to the service road at such a location, particularly given a speed limit of 70 miles per hour at that point. ”
    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 West Berkshire Highways Authority; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inappropriate location of the service-road access on a 70-mile-per-hour dual carriageway

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) For a vehicle to turn in to the service road running parallel to the A4 it would be necessary to slow considerably and then effect the manoeuvre. It is not possible to make a complete manoeuvre round to the left without then forming a u-turn which is not possible without either reversing and going forward again or encroaching onto the outside lane of the A4 to make a sweeping manoeuvre into the access. (2) In the course of the evidence, the Collision Investigator who investigated the crash on behalf of Thames Valley Police suggested that the ability to make such a manoeuvre on a fast dual carriageway is potentially dangerous. While the Officer expressed concerns about turning in, he was also concerned about vehicles pulling out of the service road on to the dual carriageway. (3) The evidence therefore gave rise to concern at the appropriateness of having an access to the service road at such a location, particularly given a speed limit of 70 miles per hour at that point. ”
    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