PFD report

DANIEL WARWICK JONES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 3 Feb 2014•Dorset

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
2

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. Failure to provide sufficiently conspicuous warning and directional signage at A356 junctions
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signagePart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  2. 60 mph speed limit at or around road junctions
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
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

    Erect additional “Side Road Ahead” warning signs with distance plates on both approaches to the junction.

    Stated by Dorset County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 February 2014.
  2. Action

    Lay a “SLOW” road marking for eastbound traffic near the junction.

    Stated by Dorset County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 February 2014.

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

  1. Position

    The national speed limit remains appropriate for the A356 because its class, conditions and collision record do not justify a lower limit.

    Stated by Dorset County CouncilExisting 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 provide sufficiently conspicuous warning and directional signage at A356 junctions

Wider context from the report

“The court heard evidence from the car driver and her passenger, a rider of another motorcycle who was out with the deceased, two further independent witnesses and finally the Police Officer who conducted the accident investigation. It became clear from a number of witnesses who used the road on a regular basis that they were aware that there was a junction at this point but were unaware of the roadside warning triangle sign to indicate a junction or of the white arrow painted on the road surface to direct traffic travelling in the same direction as the deceased to pull into the nearside carriageway. This road is subject to 60 mph speed limit. Consideration needs to be given to improving the signage at this junction. Either by marking double white lines on the A356 to tell users that they must not overtake or improving the size and position of warning triangles indicating there is a junction, or both of those improvements together with anything further that would prevent a further accident at this junction. Further whether the speed limit at or around junctions on this road need to be reduced. The Police Officer who is an experienced road traffic officer who has to provide accident reports to the Coroners and other Courts was of the view that the signage at all junctions along the A356 may need to be considered. The inquest of course only heard evidence in connection with this junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage; Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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

60 mph speed limit at or around road junctions

Wider context from the report

“The court heard evidence from the car driver and her passenger, a rider of another motorcycle who was out with the deceased, two further independent witnesses and finally the Police Officer who conducted the accident investigation. It became clear from a number of witnesses who used the road on a regular basis that they were aware that there was a junction at this point but were unaware of the roadside warning triangle sign to indicate a junction or of the white arrow painted on the road surface to direct traffic travelling in the same direction as the deceased to pull into the nearside carriageway. This road is subject to 60 mph speed limit. Consideration needs to be given to improving the signage at this junction. Either by marking double white lines on the A356 to tell users that they must not overtake or improving the size and position of warning triangles indicating there is a junction, or both of those improvements together with anything further that would prevent a further accident at this junction. Further whether the speed limit at or around junctions on this road need to be reduced. The Police Officer who is an experienced road traffic officer who has to provide accident reports to the Coroners and other Courts was of the view that the signage at all junctions along the A356 may need to be considered. The inquest of course only heard evidence in connection with this junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

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

Erect additional “Side Road Ahead” warning signs with distance plates on both approaches to the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The County Council will erect additional 'Side Road Ahead' warning signs on the offside, on both approaches to the above junction, along with distance plates at the first of the existing deflection arrow road markings. A 'SLOW' road marking will also be laid for eastbound traffic on the nearside.”

Source location

2014-0049-Response-by-Dorset-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 3 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

Lay a “SLOW” road marking for eastbound traffic near the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The County Council will erect additional 'Side Road Ahead' warning signs on the offside, on both approaches to the above junction, along with distance plates at the first of the existing deflection arrow road markings. A 'SLOW' road marking will also be laid for eastbound traffic on the nearside.”

Source location

2014-0049-Response-by-Dorset-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 3 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 national speed limit remains appropriate for the A356 because its class, conditions and collision record do not justify a lower limit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The road is subject to the national speed limit since this is appropriate to the class and conditions generally found along the A356. Lower limits are used to protect communities from traffic travelling at unreasonable speeds in built-up areas. 50mph limits are used on some routes or sections of road with a poor collision record but this does not apply in the case of the A356 in Dorset.”

Source location

2014-0049-Response-by-Dorset-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 3 February 2014

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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    Double-white lines through the junction cannot be provided because they would conflict with Department for Transport guidelines where visibility is good.

    Stated by Dorset County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Double-white lines through the junction cannot be provided because they would conflict with Department for Transport guidelines where visibility is good.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The provision of double-white lines through the junctions, such as the one where the fatality occurred, would be contrary to the guidelines issued by the Department for Transport. Such measures are to be used where there is a visibility problem such as at bends or dips. They are also used to protect right-turn lanes and on three-lane roads. Their use through a junction where visibility is very good is likely to bring them into disrepute leading to non-compliance.”

Source location

2014-0049-Response-by-Dorset-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 3 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

Data last updated 7 September 2026