PFD report

George Robert DILLON · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 May 2024•Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampton

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Inability of drivers to see the road immediately beyond the crest
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely
  2. Absence of warning signs for the crest hazard at night
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Road crest permitting loss of vehicle control at the national speed limit
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of vehicle loss-of-control risks on hazardous road sections
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. Action

    Recommend providing crossroads warning signs, reduce-speed-now signs and SLOW road markings on both approaches to the Spaniard’s Lane crossroads.

    Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 September 2024.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Inability of drivers to see the road immediately beyond the crest

Wider context from the report

“C. When travelling south, approaching the crest, as the Deceased did, it is possible to see a bend in the road in the distance, but the road immediately beyond the crest is not visible to a car driver. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Absence of warning signs for the crest hazard at night

Wider context from the report

“E. I am concerned that at night the extent of the hazard posed by the crest even to a vehicle travelling within the speed limit is not readily apparent and there is an absence of warning signs ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Road crest permitting loss of vehicle control at the national speed limit

Wider context from the report

“B. The maximum speed at which a person can travel over the crest whilst remaining in full control of the vehicle is 45mph. A driver negotiating the crest around the speed limit of 60 mph will run the risk of the vehicle leaving the ground, or at the very least a momentary loss of effective steering control, followed by the underside ‘bottoming out’ on the road surface. Numerous historical gouge marks on the road surface either side of the junction demonstrate that “numerous vehicles have previously ‘bottomed out.” ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of vehicle loss-of-control risks on hazardous road sections.

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

Recommend providing crossroads warning signs, reduce-speed-now signs and SLOW road markings on both approaches to the Spaniard’s Lane crossroads.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In summary, after careful consideration, we have recommended that crossroad warning signs and reduce speed now signs together with SLOW road markings are provided along Lee Lane on both approaches to the Spaniard’s Lane crossroads.”

Source location

Response from Hampshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 2024

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.1

  1. 1

    Complete a further Casualty Reduction Programme review of collision circumstances at the location.

    Stated by Hampshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 September 2024.

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 further Casualty Reduction Programme review of collision circumstances at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Actions Taken Your report highlighted several areas of concern, particularly regarding the speed of vehicles and number of collisions at this location. This has prompted another review by the Casualty Reduction Programme team into the circumstances of Mr Dillon’s collision. We attach this review for your attention.”

Source location

Response from Hampshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 September 2024

Open published response
Back to top

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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026