PFD report

Frazer GOLDEN · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Oct 2020•County Durham and Darlington

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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. Lack of warning signs at a reduced-visibility bend
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signagePart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locationsPart of recurring concern: Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends
  2. Lack of double white hazard warning lines at a reduced-visibility bend
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road markings for road-user safetyPart of recurring concern: Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends
  3. Failure to ensure consistent speed-limit messaging through road markings and signs
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road markings for road-user safetyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
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 bend warning signs on both approaches to the bend.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 November 2020.
  2. Action

    Remove the two SLOW road markings.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 November 2020.

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

  1. Position

    Double white hazard lines will not be installed because the road does not meet the intervention criteria and the accident did not involve overtaking.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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

Lack of warning signs at a reduced-visibility bend

Wider context from the report

“I heard evidence from 2 police collision experts who could not explain in their examination of the A689 road between Ireshopeburn & St Johns Chapel why SLOW road markings were displayed on the carriageway when immediately leaving these 2 villages and the 30mph limit and entering a 60mph limit. The evidence heard was that it would appear to be confusing that a warning to SLOW was displayed when the immediately adjacent signs were confirming a change in speed limit from 30 to 60 mph. Evidence was also heard that at the collision location near Whit’s Hill on the A689 road between the 2 villages there is a bend where forward visibility is reduced. This is accepted in a Durham County Council Highways report read as evidence at the inquest. There are no warning signs or double white hazard warning lines approaching the bend or at the bend in either direction. The police experts further opined that a speed travelled by one of the motorcyclists into the bend of 51mph was not supported when considering the reduced view created by the bend. The speed limit in this area of the A689 is 60 mph. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage; Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations; Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends.

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 double white hazard warning lines at a reduced-visibility bend

Wider context from the report

“I heard evidence from 2 police collision experts who could not explain in their examination of the A689 road between Ireshopeburn & St Johns Chapel why SLOW road markings were displayed on the carriageway when immediately leaving these 2 villages and the 30mph limit and entering a 60mph limit. The evidence heard was that it would appear to be confusing that a warning to SLOW was displayed when the immediately adjacent signs were confirming a change in speed limit from 30 to 60 mph. Evidence was also heard that at the collision location near Whit’s Hill on the A689 road between the 2 villages there is a bend where forward visibility is reduced. This is accepted in a Durham County Council Highways report read as evidence at the inquest. There are no warning signs or double white hazard warning lines approaching the bend or at the bend in either direction. The police experts further opined that a speed travelled by one of the motorcyclists into the bend of 51mph was not supported when considering the reduced view created by the bend. The speed limit in this area of the A689 is 60 mph. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road markings for road-user safety; Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends.

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 to ensure consistent speed-limit messaging through road markings and signs

Wider context from the report

“I heard evidence from 2 police collision experts who could not explain in their examination of the A689 road between Ireshopeburn & St Johns Chapel why SLOW road markings were displayed on the carriageway when immediately leaving these 2 villages and the 30mph limit and entering a 60mph limit. The evidence heard was that it would appear to be confusing that a warning to SLOW was displayed when the immediately adjacent signs were confirming a change in speed limit from 30 to 60 mph. Evidence was also heard that at the collision location near Whit’s Hill on the A689 road between the 2 villages there is a bend where forward visibility is reduced. This is accepted in a Durham County Council Highways report read as evidence at the inquest. There are no warning signs or double white hazard warning lines approaching the bend or at the bend in either direction. The police experts further opined that a speed travelled by one of the motorcyclists into the bend of 51mph was not supported when considering the reduced view created by the bend. The speed limit in this area of the A689 is 60 mph. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road markings for road-user safety; Inadequate road warning signage.

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 bend warning signs on both approaches to the bend.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Bend warning signs: a bend warning sign will be erected on both approaches to the bend;”

Source location

2020-0197-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 27 November 2020

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

Remove the two SLOW road markings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The two SLOW road markings: there is no valid road safety / traffic management reason for these road markings. As such, I will arrange to have the two road markings removed;”

Source location

2020-0197-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 27 November 2020

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

Double white hazard lines will not be installed because the road does not meet the intervention criteria and the accident did not involve overtaking.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Double White Lines: the installation of a system of double white lines at this location is not considered appropriate as the road’s layout does not meet the criteria for this type of intervention as set out in the Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 5 Road Markings 2018. As stated in the Manual “It is important to note that the marking is not to be used where appropriate criteria are not satisfied otherwise it will be brought into disrepute”. It is also noted that the accident did not involve an overtaking manoeuvre”

Source location

2020-0197-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 27 November 2020

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.1

  1. 1

    Complete remedial measures for the missing gully cover.

    Stated by Durham County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 November 2020.

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

Complete remedial measures for the missing gully cover.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A missing gully cover was identified within the north westbound channel, at a point approximately 70 metres northwest of the access road to Whit’s Hill dwelling. The relevant highway maintenance personnel should assess the issue and take the appropriate action.”

Source location

2020-0197-Response-from-Durham-County-Council_Redacted.pdf
Page 2 · response
Published 27 November 2020

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