PFD report

Kevin Andrew Heffernan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 25 Oct 2016•Hertfordshire

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
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 raised1

  1. Flow of water across the carriageway during heavy rain
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

    Investigated the relevant section of carriageway and identified pavement, geometry and drainage findings.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 October 2016.
  2. Action

    Cleared drainage gratings, cleaned gullies and swept the v-channel to maintain unobstructed carriageway drainage.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 25 October 2016.
  3. Action

    Review the carriageway design, including design considerations from the major improvement scheme.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 25 October 2016.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Crossfall change and gradients were within normal design parameters and were considered in highway design.

    Stated by National HighwaysDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Flow of water across the carriageway during heavy rain

Wider context from the report

“(1) Police officers who attended the scene noticed, in addition to standing water on the carriageway, a flow of water across the westbound carriageway at or near the point where the BMW began to veer to the left. They measured the flow of water as being approximately 16 metres wide flowing towards the nearside. (2) A police officer gave evidence that in the 5 years prior to this incident 18 collisions had been recorded at this spot, with rain or water on the carriageway mentioned in 6 cases. (3) The evidence of the police officers was that this flow of water may well have been a contributory factor in Mr Heffernan losing control of his vehicle, and that it could be a source of danger to road users in cases of heavy rain. ”

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

Investigated the relevant section of carriageway and identified pavement, geometry and drainage findings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Action taken or to be taken by Highways England”

Source location

2016-0381-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 1 · response
Published 25 October 2016

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

Cleared drainage gratings, cleaned gullies and swept the v-channel to maintain unobstructed carriageway drainage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Drainage Condition”

Source location

2016-0381-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 25 October 2016

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 the carriageway design, including design considerations from the major improvement scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following your report we will undertake a further review of the design of this section of carriageway. This will include analysis of the design considerations that were made as part of the major improvement scheme and this is due to be completed in the spring of 2017.”

Source location

2016-0381-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 25 October 2016

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

Crossfall change and gradients were within normal design parameters and were considered in highway design.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our records for this section show that the crossfall (the slope of the carriageway perpendicular to the direction of travel) of the road surface changes direction prior to the point where Mr Heffernan’s vehicle started to move out of lane. The gradient (the slope of the carriageway parallel to the direction of travel) before and after this point is within normal design parameters. It is a characteristic of highway design that crossfall change will result in an increased depth of water flowing across the carriageway, in more extreme periods of rainfall. This is not an uncommon feature in highway geometry and is taken into design consideration.”

Source location

2016-0381-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 25 October 2016

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

Drainage inspections identified no issues affecting operation after gullies were cleared and cleaned.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On 15th March 2016 the gully gratings in this location were cleared of debris to ensure no obstruction to water flowing from the carriageway. On 19th April 2016 a full clean of the gullies on the anti-clockwise carriageway of the M25 between junctions 23 and 22 was carried out, along with sweeping of the v-channel; no issues affecting the operation of the drainage were identified at this time.”

Source location

2016-0381-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 25 October 2016

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

    Pavement surface characteristics were within design tolerances, with no identified rutting, profile or skidding-resistance issues.

    Stated by National HighwaysDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Pavement surface characteristics were within design tolerances, with no identified rutting, profile or skidding-resistance issues.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An analysis of surface characteristics at this location did not find any issues in relation to rutting, longitudinal profile or skidding resistance and is therefore considered within design tolerances. It should be noted that the skidding resistance (SCRIM) is measured using a method designed to mimic wet road conditions.”

Source location

2016-0381-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 25 October 2016

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