Stephen Cloudsdale · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 19 November 2019 an investigation was commenced into the death of Stephen Cloudsdale (61 years). The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 27 January 2022. The conclusion of the inquest was that Mr Cloudsdale died as a result of a Road Traffic Collision; the medical cause of death being severe head injuries.

At approximately 5:30am on 11 November 2019, Stephen Cloudsdale had been travelling in the eastbound dual carriageway of the A66 at Stainmore in Cumbria. At the time, Mr Cloudsdale was travelling to his place of work in North Yorkshire, having set off from his home address in Millom. He was familiar with the road and with the controls and handling of his vehicle (a Ford Fiesta) which he had owned for approximately two years.

At the time of the incident, it was dark, and it was raining heavily. As Mr Cloudsdale approached the Stainmore Café, which is set back from the dual carriageway to the left, he moved into the second lane of the dual carriageway in order to initiate an overtake of a vehicle travelling in the first lane. He was utilising his car’s dipped beams at this time, and it is estimated that he was travelling at a maximum speed of 75 mph.

As Mr Cloudsdale approached the area of the central reservation connecting the east and westbound dual carriageways, he collided with the rear offside corner of an LGV which was positioned in the central reservation waiting to turn right onto the westbound carriageway. The rear offside corner of the LGV encroached into lane 2 of the eastbound carriageway by approximately 1 metre.

Mr Cloudsdale sustained non-survivable traumatic head injuries as a result of the collision and death was diagnosed at the scene at 5:50am.

The LGV had been parked overnight in the carpark of the Stainmore Café and the driver had set out to enter the westbound lane to begin his working day. The café is frequently used by LGV drivers, and the central reservation will be used by the drivers of such vehicles upon exiting the carpark in order to enter the westbound carriageway. The café does not remain open 24 hours a day and the premises are unlit after the daily close of business.

The inquest heard from a police officer who had prepared a collision investigation report and who had carried out a reconstruction of the incident utilising the LGV and a Ford Fiesta to simulate the positions of the vehicles at the time of the collision. The reconstruction was conducted during the hours of darkness to replicate the visibility conditions as far as possible.

It was determined from the evidence heard that:

• there is no lighting on the stretch of dual carriageway where the collision occurred;
• the national speed limit (70mph) applies to this stretch of carriageway;
• there does not appear to be sufficient or any signage warning of the dangers of large vehicles crossing the eastbound dual carriageway;
• visibility would have been further hampered by the adverse weather conditions at the time of the collision;
• Mr Cloudsdale had been travelling at a maximum speed of 75mph at the time of the collision;
• the hazard lights/reflectors on the side of the LGV would have been visible to Mr Cloudsdale from a distance of 223.7 metres;
• at a distance of 223.7 metres, the hazard lights could easily be mistaken for lights in the opposing carriageway and that the outline of the LGV could not be seen at that distance when dipped beams were employed;
• the LGV would have become clearly visible to Mr Cloudsdale at 32.1 metres when dipped beams were employed;
• travelling at 75mph, Mr Cloudsdale would have had 0.96 seconds in which to take evasive action to avoid a collision;
• research suggests that most drivers will respond to a hazard in 1.5 to 2.0 seconds;
• the collision occurred when Mr Cloudsdale’s vehicle struck the rear offside corner of the LGV which encroached into Mr Cloudsdale’s lane by approximately 1 metre.

1) The lack of lighting near to or at the point of the A66 dual carriageway where the collision occurred which renders the presence of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café difficult to see by approaching drivers during the hours of darkness and/or during adverse weather conditions.
2) The lack of appropriately positioned signage, warning approaching drivers of the possibility of vehicles crossing the carriageway from the café.
3) The speed of traffic on this stretch of the A66.
4) The sufficiency of the width of the central reservation to accommodate large vehicles fully without the danger of encroaching into either of the opposing carriageways.