Kenneth Gerald Aldridge · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Feb 2014•Berkshire

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
3

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

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. Unsafe vehicle egress from the service road onto the dual carriageway
  2. Failure of the service-road access to permit safe vehicle turning in
  3. Inappropriate location of the service-road access on a 70-mile-per-hour dual carriageway
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. West Berkshire Council

    Introduce a 50mph speed limit on the A4, with its eastern start relocated approximately 140 metres west of the advertised location.

  2. West Berkshire Council

    Give consideration to installing pedestrian warning signs between the bus stops and measures assisting access and egress to dual-carriageway entrances.

  3. West Berkshire Council

    Consult local ward members and parish councils on proposals to block the first service-road entrance and create a replacement access.

  4. West Berkshire Council

    Implement improved signing at the A4 junction with Ufton Lane, including an additional “No Entry” sign, through the approved 2014/15 works programme.

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

  1. West Berkshire Council

    The accident data do not indicate that the A4 entrances and exits are particularly unsafe.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  2. West Berkshire Council

    The existing speed limit on the dual carriageway is considered appropriate and does not need reconsideration.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

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. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Unsafe road design and layout.

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 a 50mph speed limit on the A4, with its eastern start relocated approximately 140 metres west of the advertised location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The speed limit on the A4 between the two A340 roundabouts was considered by the Council’s Speed Limit Task Group at its meeting in April 2010 when it was agreed that further traffic survey information was required. This section was reconsidered again in December 2010 when it was agreed to introduce a 50mph speed limit to cover the junctions with Beenham Industrial Estate and Beenham village. The task group also agreed that the existing speed limit on the remaining length of the A4, which included the dual carriageway, was appropriate.”

Source location

2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 February 2014

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

Give consideration to installing pedestrian warning signs between the bus stops and measures assisting access and egress to dual-carriageway entrances.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was agreed that the speed limit does not need to be reconsidered but consideration needs to be given to the installation of pedestrian warning signs between the bus stops and measures to assist access and egress to the entrances within the length of dual carriageway.”

Source location

2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 24 February 2014

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

Consult local ward members and parish councils on proposals to block the first service-road entrance and create a replacement access.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To improve access into the service road the first entrance could be blocked up and a new access created as shown on the enclosed plan 213/002. This would prevent ‘U turn’ manoeuvres. However this could have the effect of vehicles entering the service road at speed. Due to the change in the nature of the road it is proposed to consult the local ward members and parish councils on the proposals and I will contact you again when I have received the comments to the consultation.”

Source location

2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 February 2014

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

Implement improved signing at the A4 junction with Ufton Lane, including an additional “No Entry” sign, through the approved 2014/15 works programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A TMA was undertaken on the dual carriageway section of the A4 during November 2013 and considered the recorded injury accident record, traffic speeds and volume and comments from local residents. It was recommended to improve the signing at its junction with Ufton Lane, and install an additional ‘No Entry’ sign.”

Source location

2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 24 February 2014

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 accident data do not indicate that the A4 entrances and exits are particularly unsafe.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have checked the accident data back to January 1994 to determine the number of injury accidents that have involved entrances/exits and below is a summary of the results:”

Source location

2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 24 February 2014

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 existing speed limit on the dual carriageway is considered appropriate and does not need reconsideration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The speed limit on the A4 between the two A340 roundabouts was considered by the Council’s Speed Limit Task Group at its meeting in April 2010 when it was agreed that further traffic survey information was required. This section was reconsidered again in December 2010 when it was agreed to introduce a 50mph speed limit to cover the junctions with Beenham Industrial Estate and Beenham village. The task group also agreed that the existing speed limit on the remaining length of the A4, which included the dual carriageway, was appropriate.”

Source location

2014-0071-Response-by-West-Berkshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 24 February 2014

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