PFD report

Vichai Tonpradit · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Oct 2016•Hertfordshire

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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.

Concerns raised2

  1. Potential confusion from a visual marking from a previous road layout
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road markings for road-user safety
  2. Potential hazard from a raised tarmac section separating a slip road from a main carriageway
    Part of recurring concern: Uncontrolled roadside obstacles endangering road users
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.2

  1. Action

    Introduce raised kerbing to separate the off-slip road from the main carriageway.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 October 2016.
  2. Action

    Obscure the redundant solid white line with bituminous material.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 October 2016.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    The raised kerbing was designed to current standards and safety-audited, so it is not treated as requiring further action.

    Stated by National HighwaysDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Potential confusion from a visual marking from a previous road layout

Wider context from the report

“(2) At the same location, the visual marking (solid white line) from the previous road layout is potentially confusing ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road markings for road-user safety.

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

Potential hazard from a raised tarmac section separating a slip road from a main carriageway

Wider context from the report

“(1) The raised section of the tarmac separating the slip road from the main carriageway on the A1(M) approaching Junction 6 northbound is potentially hazardous. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Uncontrolled roadside obstacles endangering road users.

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

Introduce raised kerbing to separate the off-slip road from the main carriageway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. Highways England (as far as we have been able to ascertain) was not a party to the inquest hearing on 11 October 2016. The ‘raised section of tarmac’ identified as a matter of concern by the Senior Coroner, is a specifically designed and installed section of raised kerbing to separate the off slip road from the main carriageway at Junction 6 of the A1(M) northbound.”

Source location

2016-0380-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 11 October 2016

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

Obscure the redundant solid white line with bituminous material.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b. Having reviewed the road markings at the location it would appear that since the incident on 10 November 2015 the road marking referred to was covered over by applying a bituminous material to obscure the redundant solid white line and this is no longer visible.”

Source location

2016-0380-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 1 · response
Published 11 October 2016

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 raised kerbing was designed to current standards and safety-audited, so it is not treated as requiring further action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. Highways England (as far as we have been able to ascertain) was not a party to the inquest hearing on 11 October 2016. The ‘raised section of tarmac’ identified as a matter of concern by the Senior Coroner, is a specifically designed and installed section of raised kerbing to separate the off slip road from the main carriageway at Junction 6 of the A1(M) northbound.”

Source location

2016-0380-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 11 October 2016

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.2

  1. 1

    Start works on the Smart Motorway All Lane Running scheme between A1(M) Junctions 6 and 8.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 October 2016.
  2. 2

    Assess road information to develop an outline design concept and determine the appropriate Smart Motorway operating system.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 October 2016.

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

Start works on the Smart Motorway All Lane Running scheme between A1(M) Junctions 6 and 8.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of this scheme Highways England will assess a wide range of information about the road to establish the nature of any current issues along this section. This will assist us in developing an outline design concept and determine the Smart Motorway operating system best suited to this section of road. The start of works is currently programmed for March 2020.”

Source location

2016-0380-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 1 · response
Published 11 October 2016

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

Assess road information to develop an outline design concept and determine the appropriate Smart Motorway operating system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The introduction of the Smart Motorway scheme for this section of the A1(M) would alter the existing road layout at Junction 6 northbound and southbound. The preferred operating model for smart motorways is “All Lane Running”. This means the existing hard shoulder would be converted into a traffic lane providing three lanes for traffic with the addition of regular refuge areas in place of the hard shoulder for emergency use.”

Source location

2016-0380-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 1 · response
Published 11 October 2016

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