PFD report

Jerome Antoine Marie GONNET · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Sep 2014•Teesside

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised3

  1. Failure of temporary no-entry signs to remain noticeable at the slip road exit
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signagePart of recurring concern: Unreliable safety controls for temporary traffic management schemes
  2. Continuing hazard of drivers entering the exit slip road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls preventing dangerous vehicle movements between slip roads and carriageways
  3. Lack of advance road-sign information identifying the slip road as no entry
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls preventing dangerous vehicle movements between slip roads and carriagewaysPart of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signagePart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
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.3

  1. Action

    Maintain supplementary illuminated “No entry” signs through regular inspection and prompt damage rectification.

    Stated by A-one+ Integrated Highway ServicesStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 September 2014.
  2. Action

    Submit a proposal for interchange safety improvement works during the next improvement-scheme funding round.

    Stated by A-one+ Integrated Highway ServicesStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 September 2014.
  3. Action

    Investigate options for safety improvements at the interchange following reported wrong-way driving incidents.

    Stated by A-one+ Integrated Highway ServicesStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 22 September 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Proposed interchange improvements depend on securing funding through the Highways Agency's prioritised improvement-scheme bidding process.

    Stated by A-one+ Integrated Highway ServicesUnable 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

Failure of temporary no-entry signs to remain noticeable at the slip road exit

Wider context from the report

“(2) At present there are temporary large ‘no entry’ signs at the exit of the slip road junction which have, on occasions, been knocked over and subsequently rendered unnoticeable. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage; Unreliable safety controls for temporary traffic management schemes.

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

Continuing hazard of drivers entering the exit slip road

Wider context from the report

“(3) It has been brought to the Coroners attention that since Mr Gonnet’s passing a further two drivers have driven down the exit slip road, in the same manner as the female driver who caused Mr Gonnet’s passing. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls preventing dangerous vehicle movements between slip roads and carriageways.

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

Lack of advance road-sign information identifying the slip road as no entry

Wider context from the report

“(1) It is unclear in advance of approaching the junction that the slip road upon which the female drove is ‘no entry’ slip road. There is no information in this regard on the road signs surrounding the junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls preventing dangerous vehicle movements between slip roads and carriageways; Inadequate road warning signage; Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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

Maintain supplementary illuminated “No entry” signs through regular inspection and prompt damage rectification.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In response to the road traffic collision of 2 May 2012, and at Cleveland Police’s request, supplementary ‘No entry’ signs, which are in addition to those mandated under statutory requirements, have been installed. However, one of these signs has been placed in a block paved area of carriageway and this sign is at times knocked over by passing vehicles, as indicated by the Report.”

Source location

2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 22 September 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

Submit a proposal for interchange safety improvement works during the next improvement-scheme funding round.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Both A-one+ and the Highways Agency have been made aware of one of these incidents by Cleveland Police. I can advise that an investigation has been undertaken to identify options for improvement at this interchange. The improvements which are being considered include installing demountable bollards or marker posts in the block paved area and installing additional road markings.”

Source location

2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 22 September 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

Investigate options for safety improvements at the interchange following reported wrong-way driving incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Two other incidents have been reported involving drivers travelling in the wrong direction on this exit slip road.”

Source location

2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 22 September 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

Proposed interchange improvements depend on securing funding through the Highways Agency's prioritised improvement-scheme bidding process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Both A-one+ and the Highways Agency have been made aware of one of these incidents by Cleveland Police. I can advise that an investigation has been undertaken to identify options for improvement at this interchange. The improvements which are being considered include installing demountable bollards or marker posts in the block paved area and installing additional road markings.”

Source location

2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 22 September 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

Responsibility for advance signs on local roads and roundabouts rests with Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council, not the Highways Agency or A-one+.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Local highway authorities are responsible for the management of maintenance of local roads, which are outside of the Highways Agency’s remit.”

Source location

2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 22 September 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

Permanent signs cannot be installed in the block-paved area because escorted abnormal loads must pass through it.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The block paved area at this location was installed to address problems associated with the lower than normal bridge deck level at Elton Interchange when the interchange was originally constructed. When abnormally tall and wide or long loads are being moved along the A66 eastbound carriageway, these vehicles are required to divert from the main carriageway of the A66 over the extents of this interchange. Some of these vehicles, under escort, need to pass through the block paved area and travel in an anticlockwise direction around the roundabout’s circulatory carriageway, in order to rejoin the A66.”

Source location

2014-0415-Response-by-A-one.pdf
Page 3 · response
Published 22 September 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026