Warren Michael Myers · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Feb 2017•County Durham and Darlington

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an 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

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 raised1

  1. Inadequate warning signage on the approach to the corner

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. Durham County Council

    Install 10 hazard marker posts around the bend’s outer radius at 5-metre spacing.

  2. Durham County Council

    Erect an additional chevron sign for eastbound traffic beside the dropped kerbs and track.

  3. Durham County Council

    Install a “Reduce Speed Now” plate below the existing eastbound bend-warning and horse-warning sign arrangement by the end of May 2017.

  4. Durham County Council

    Increase both bend-ahead warning signs from 600mm to 750mm high.

  5. Durham County Council

    Re-erect the westbound chevron sign to restore clear visibility.

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

  1. Durham County Council

    The chevron sign remains functional, so no changes are required until it needs replacement.

    Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  2. Durham County Council

    The criteria for an advisory maximum speed sign are not met at this location.

    Disputes 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

Inadequate warning signage on the approach to the corner

Wider context from the report

“1. The warning signage on the approach to the corner is inadequate. ”

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

Install 10 hazard marker posts around the bend’s outer radius at 5-metre spacing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Hazard Marker Posts (10 no.) have been installed around the outer radius of the bend at 5 metre spacing.”

Source location

2017-0032-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 26 February 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

Erect an additional chevron sign for eastbound traffic beside the dropped kerbs and track.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. | Due to the amount of kerb strikes, this bend may benefit from additional engineering measures to warn of the bend and reduce approach speeds in both directions of travel. | An additional chevron sign (TSRGD Diagram 515) has been erected for eastbound traffic, offset to the right of the dropped kerbs/track.”

Source location

2017-0032-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 26 February 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

Install a “Reduce Speed Now” plate below the existing eastbound bend-warning and horse-warning sign arrangement by the end of May 2017.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The above criteria is met for this sign and therefore we will install a “Reduce Speed Now” sign plate below the existing eastbound combined ‘bend to the right/horse warning’ sign arrangement by the end of May 2017.”

Source location

2017-0032-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 26 February 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

Increase both bend-ahead warning signs from 600mm to 750mm high.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. | Provide suitable ‘Bend ahead’ warning signs in-line with the 85th percentile speeds on approach to the bend in both directions of travel. | Both ‘Bend Ahead’ warning signs have been increased in size from 600mm high to 750mm high.”

Source location

2017-0032-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 26 February 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

Re-erect the westbound chevron sign to restore clear visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. | The existing chevron plate for w/bound motorists has slipped down the post and is now not clearly visible. | The chevron sign has been re-erected and is clearly visible.”

Source location

2017-0032-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 26 February 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 chevron sign remains functional, so no changes are required until it needs replacement.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. | The appropriately sized chevrons (including appropriate yellow backing) should be provided on the bend to benefit both directions of travel. Clear visibility of the signs should be provided. | The size of the yellow boarder on the chevron signs conforms to TSRGD 1994. The chevron sign is still functional and therefore no requirement to make changes until the chevron needs to be replaced.”

Source location

2017-0032-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 26 February 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 criteria for an advisory maximum speed sign are not met at this location.

Verbatim wording from the response

““Maximum Speed Advised” is prescribed for use only in combination with the “Loose chippings” sign (Diag. 7009) or the bend warning signs (Diag. 512.1, 512.2 or 513). The sign should be used sparingly, as in general it should be for drivers to judge what speed to adopt. It is not easy to determine a standard safe speed to negotiate a bend; factors which influence this include radius of curvature, camber/super elevation, road surface condition and type of vehicle. The sign may be used where the road layout is such that a driver might be misled, e.g. at an exit from a high-speed road where significant slowing is required before negotiating a sharp bend. It may also be used on high-speed roads where the horizontal design radius cannot be achieved, but a mandatory speed limit is not imposed. It must not be used with mandatory speed limit signs, nor in place of repeater signs.””

Source location

2017-0032-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 26 February 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026