PFD report

Mrs. Margaret Joyce Jones · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Feb 2017•Avon

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
4

Described in 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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised5

  1. Failure to maintain the high-friction road surface in the vicinity of the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair
  2. Inadequate or unrepaired carriageway markings warning drivers of the junction risk
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road markings for road-user safety
  3. Failure to set an appropriately safe speed limit on the A36 either side of Branch Road
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.4

  1. Action

    Progress a permanent replacement scheme for part of the high-friction surfacing through the prioritized value-management process.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  2. Action

    Complete a localized temporary repair to the high-friction surfacing at the junction.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 March 2017.
  3. Action

    Continue monitoring the locality for changes requiring appropriate safety action.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 March 2017.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Existing engineering measures and management arrangements address the identified risks, and no additional measures preventing the collision have been identified.

    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 maintain the high-friction road surface in the vicinity of the junction

Wider context from the report

“(3) The road signs including carriageway markings should be reviewed and improved so as to provide greater warning to drivers as to the risk from this junction. (4) Whilst not factors in this collision appropriate repairs should be made to the high friction surface and road markings in the vicinity of the junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair.

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

Inadequate or unrepaired carriageway markings warning drivers of the junction risk

Wider context from the report

“(3) The road signs including carriageway markings should be reviewed and improved so as to provide greater warning to drivers as to the risk from this junction. (4) Whilst not factors in this collision appropriate repairs should be made to the high friction surface and road markings in the vicinity of the junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road markings for road-user safety.

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 set an appropriately safe speed limit on the A36 either side of Branch Road

Wider context from the report

“(2)The speed limit in the section of the A36 either side of Branch Road should be reduced so as to improve the safety of drivers both those on A36 and those emerging from Branch Road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Inadequate road signs warning drivers of the risk from the junction

Wider context from the report

“(3) The road signs including carriageway markings should be reviewed and improved so as to provide greater warning to drivers as to the risk from this junction. (4) Whilst not factors in this collision appropriate repairs should be made to the high friction surface and road markings in the vicinity of the 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

Repeated road traffic collisions at the junction involving drivers emerging onto the A36

Wider context from the report

“(1) Notwithstanding the contribution made to this collision by the factors described above there have been a number of road traffic collisions at this junction involving drivers emerging on to the A36. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of recurring collision risks at hazardous road locations; Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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

Progress a permanent replacement scheme for part of the high-friction surfacing through the prioritized value-management process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our maintenance interventions are made on the basis of priority and safety. We have had our pavement specialists inspect the junction recently. The wear of the HFS is immediately opposite the junction, caused by tyre friction associated with vehicles turning off of the A36 and not in the braking zone for approaching vehicles.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 3 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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

Complete a localized temporary repair to the high-friction surfacing at the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our maintenance interventions are made on the basis of priority and safety. We have had our pavement specialists inspect the junction recently. The wear of the HFS is immediately opposite the junction, caused by tyre friction associated with vehicles turning off of the A36 and not in the braking zone for approaching vehicles.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 3 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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

Continue monitoring the locality for changes requiring appropriate safety action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The road surface, specifically the HFS, while showing signs of wear is still fit for purpose and what wear there is can be considered normal and adjacent to the junction rather than in the braking zone. It will of course be monitored and overtime be replaced during our normal cycle of renewals. On that basis I consider we have implemented appropriate repairs and management regimes.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 3 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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

Implement visibility and signing measures at the Branch Road junction, including warning signs, road markings, red surfacing, direction signs and vegetation clearance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A scheme was completed on 24th November 2015 at Branch Road, with the aim of raising the visibility of the Branch Road junction. It comprised the following elements:”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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

Existing engineering measures and management arrangements address the identified risks, and no additional measures preventing the collision have been identified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In summary, the A36 is an evolved rural route and we have in place a realistic speed limit and applied what engineering measures are possible to make the travelling public aware of the risks that they are approaching.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 3 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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 high-friction surfacing remains fit for purpose, with wear outside the braking zone managed through monitoring and normal renewal arrangements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our maintenance interventions are made on the basis of priority and safety. We have had our pavement specialists inspect the junction recently. The wear of the HFS is immediately opposite the junction, caused by tyre friction associated with vehicles turning off of the A36 and not in the braking zone for approaching vehicles.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 3 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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

Excessive speed did not contribute to the collision, so reducing the posted speed limit would be unlikely to prevent similar incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“With reference to this incident it seems the Scania vehicle travelling on the A36, based on the assessment in your letter, was traveling at about 35 mph which is significantly below the posted limit. It does not appear excessive speed was a factor on this occasion and a reduction in the posted limit would be unlikely to have avoided or influenced the unfortunate outcome of the incident of the 5th September 2016.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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

Official responses located
1/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026