Neil JONES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 May 2018•Warwickshire

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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.

Concerns raised1

  1. Fatal road traffic collision hazard at the site despite a 50 mph speed limit
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations

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. Warwickshire County Council

    Complete prioritisation and short-listing of casualty-reduction schemes for the A446 site and decide the outcome by the end of September.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Warwickshire County Council

    No immediate highway safety actions were considered necessary following the post-collision site inspection.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  2. Warwickshire County Council

    Finite casualty-reduction funding and prioritisation requirements prevent commitment to a scheme before the shortlisting process is complete.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Fatal road traffic collision hazard at the site despite a 50 mph speed limit

Wider context from the report

“(1) There have been 4 (four) fatal road traffic collisions at this site over 10 years despite a reduction in the speed limit to 50 mph. in 2008. I am aware that the site is being considered as a casualty reduction scheme although I understand no final decision has been made. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

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 prioritisation and short-listing of casualty-reduction schemes for the A446 site and decide the outcome by the end of September.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The death of Mr Jones increases the number of casualties on this length of the A444 and thus will affect the prioritisation of schemes. However, until we have completed our scheme short listing process it is not possible to commit to any scheme. Given that the resources available are finite, any decision to implement one scheme will mean that one or more other schemes cannot be implemented elsewhere. Therefore, it is important that the prioritisation process is adhered to before committing funds to a scheme. We are currently undertaking this process and would expect to make a decision by the end of September at which point we will be able to confirm the outcome.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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 immediate highway safety actions were considered necessary following the post-collision site inspection.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The purpose of the site visit is to ascertain whether for safety reasons there are any immediate actions that need to be taken in respect to the highway and any possible defects and/or improvements that should be remedied or carried out without delay. At the time of the inspection officers attending agreed there were no immediate actions that needed to be undertaken.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Finite casualty-reduction funding and prioritisation requirements prevent commitment to a scheme before the shortlisting process is complete.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The County Council addresses road safety in a number of ways. In the case of this length of road, the relevant programme is the casualty reduction programme. We undertake an annual review of all collision cluster sites and routes across the County in order to identify those with the worst collision records and where there is a pattern of causes which can be addressed by engineering measures. The number of possible schemes considered each year across the County exceeds the annual funding available for the programme and, therefore, it is necessary to prioritise schemes according to objective criteria. The criteria identify those schemes which will deliver the greatest reduction in casualties for the money spent.”

Source location

Response from Warwickshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 8 July 2018

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026