PFD report

Leigh NARDELLI · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Jun 2025•Milton Keynes

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised1

  1. Failure to replace hazardous P1 terminals with safer bifurcated systems
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

    Develop a design to remove the material-location P1 terminal and replace it with a compliant bifurcated barrier.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 July 2025.
  2. Action

    Start a design brief to remove six ramped-end terminals along the A5 and replace them with CD 377-compliant bifurcations.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 July 2025.
  3. Action

    Survey central-reserve barrier provision and condition along the A5 between Old Stratford and Kelly’s Kitchen.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 July 2025.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    The existing barrier condition is considered adequate to perform its intended function, so renewal was not considered urgent.

    Stated by National HighwaysExisting 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

Failure to replace hazardous P1 terminals with safer bifurcated systems

Wider context from the report

“The hazard posed by the design of the P1 terminal was known by National Highways and it was due for replacement at the site of the collision in 2022. It presented and continues to present a significant risk and was not replaced for financial reasons. There is a gradual roll out programme across National Highways to replace P1 terminals with a safer bifurcated system but I consider the implications of the financial limitations represents an ongoing safety concern for vehicles approaching them on designated roads. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Develop a design to remove the material-location P1 terminal and replace it with a compliant bifurcated barrier.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A design was developed ready for implementation in around 2022 to remove the P1 terminal at the material location and replace it with a bifurcation as set out above, but lack of resources and road space constraints meant the renewal could not be delivered at the end of the financial year. The renewal was only considered to be delivered at that time due to budget availability in the East region and was considered against other renewal opportunities elsewhere in the region.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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

Start a design brief to remove six ramped-end terminals along the A5 and replace them with CD 377-compliant bifurcations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Date | Action Mid-August 2025 | Survey work of the central reserve barrier provision to start Late 2025 | Subject to overall network need, barrier condition along the route and current funding levels, design brief to be started to remove the six ramped end terminals within the central reserve along this length of the A5 (between the junction with the A508 (Old Stratford) and Kelly’s Kitchen) and replace them with bifurcations compliant with CD 377.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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

Survey central-reserve barrier provision and condition along the A5 between Old Stratford and Kelly’s Kitchen.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Formal survey work”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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 barrier condition is considered adequate to perform its intended function, so renewal was not considered urgent.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The central reserve safety barrier renewal on the material section of the A5 was identified for renewal in 2020 mainly based on its age. It is over 25 years old and so nearing its expected end of serviceable life. However visual condition inspections are also done to assess the urgency or priority of the timing of a renewal intervention and due to its condition, this section was not considered to be urgent.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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

Barrier renewal could not be delivered at the planned time because of insufficient resources and road-space constraints.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A design was developed ready for implementation in around 2022 to remove the P1 terminal at the material location and replace it with a bifurcation as set out above, but lack of resources and road space constraints meant the renewal could not be delivered at the end of the financial year. The renewal was only considered to be delivered at that time due to budget availability in the East region and was considered against other renewal opportunities elsewhere in the region.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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

Renewal programming beyond 2025/26 cannot be committed until Central Government confirms the next multi-year funding settlement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Central Government awards funding to National Highways in multi-year settlements (usually 5-year cycles). National Highways then determines how much of the funding is assigned to different assets in each region. The indicative next allocation of funding did not assign a high level of funding to the East region for the renewal of VRS. The funding that is available will be targeted to the poorest condition assets across the East region. The condition of the VRS asset on the material section of the A5 is expected to warrant an intervention in the next 5 years so is currently earmarked for renewal in that period. However, if its condition proves not to be deteriorating as much as expected and other sections of barrier in the East region are a higher priority, then a decision may have to be made to reassign funding to those other VRS renewals.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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

Current barrier standards will not be applied retrospectively because doing so is not considered proportionate or an effective use of public resources.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When a new standard is produced, it only applies to new works/designs and therefore TD 19/06 and CD 377 would not be applied retrospectively to existing barrier systems, nor would it be a proportionate and effective use of public resources to do so.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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

Fatal incidents involving ramped terminals and bridge piers are considered uncommon on the Strategic Road Network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of fatal incidents on the whole of the SRN in England has been undertaken to identify any other incidents where a vehicle has impacted a ramped end terminal in the central reserve and subsequently impacted a bridge pier. This search has been limited to fatal incidents as there is typically insufficient detail available for serious, slight and damage-only incidents in order to make a detailed assessment of the circumstances of the incident.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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

    Review fatal incidents across England’s Strategic Road Network for comparable ramped-terminal and bridge-pier impacts.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 July 2025.
  2. 2

    Review incidents on the A5 locality to identify reported impacts with the central-reserve barrier.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 July 2025.

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

Review fatal incidents across England’s Strategic Road Network for comparable ramped-terminal and bridge-pier impacts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of similar incidents on the National Highways Strategic Road Network (SRN).”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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

Review incidents on the A5 locality to identify reported impacts with the central-reserve barrier.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of incidents at this locality”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 4 · response
Published 14 July 2025

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