Kial Ryce Thurman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 Aug 2024•Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

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
6

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. Inappropriately high speed limit at the bridge
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.6

  1. Staffordshire County Council

    Routinely monitor reported personal-injury collision data to identify accident clusters and trends.

  2. Staffordshire County Council

    Progress a long-term proposal to replace the bridge, subject to funding.

  3. Staffordshire County Council

    Review the road layout and bend-related safety concerns through a highways site visit.

  4. Staffordshire County Council

    Consult highways asset-management colleagues about the bridge and surrounding area’s history.

  5. Staffordshire County Council

    Analyse historical personal-injury collision data for the right-hand turn and bridge location.

  6. Staffordshire County Council

    Assess general traffic speeds at the location.

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

  1. Staffordshire County Council

    Existing bend, carriageway, electronic and reflective warning features are considered sufficient to warn drivers of the approaching bend.

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

    Recorded collision evidence does not indicate excessive or inappropriate speed or a collision pattern at the right-hand turn.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  3. Staffordshire County Council

    A lower speed limit is not necessarily safer because motorists may interpret it as a recommended target speed and increase risk.

    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

Inappropriately high speed limit at the bridge

Wider context from the report

“The rural, unlit road is governed by the national speed limit of 60 mph and narrows in both directions at the point of the bridge. Driving towards Uttoxeter, drivers are faced with a right-hand bend that the inquest heard can catch drivers unawares and has been the location of other road traffic accidents. The inquest heard that the bridge has been repaired a number of times as a consequence of collisions. Although the road has signs that warn drivers of the nature of the hazard ahead, a police collision expert considered that a reduction in the speed limit at this location would reduce the risk of collisions. I am concerned that the national speed limit on the A518 at the point of the Blythe Bridge at Lower Loxley is too high and carries the risk of future deaths. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — 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

Routinely monitor reported personal-injury collision data to identify accident clusters and trends.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of our statutory functions and commitment to our communities and road safety, Staffordshire County Council routinely monitors personal injury collision data reported on the public highway to identify accident clusters and trends. Any treatable pattern of accidents identified will have appropriate remedial measures put forward for funding and will be prioritised against other locations around Staffordshire. Any appropriate mitigating solutions identified at this location will be prioritised alongside our annual programme of road safety schemes.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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

Progress a long-term proposal to replace the bridge, subject to funding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Of note, a future long-term proposal to replace the bridge structure is currently underway depending on funding.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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 road layout and bend-related safety concerns through a highways site visit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• A site visit with representatives from Staffordshire County Council Highways has taken place to review the layout of the road and consider the points raised through the PFD report submitted.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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

Consult highways asset-management colleagues about the bridge and surrounding area’s history.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Wider highways asset management colleagues have been consulted regarding the history of the bridge and immediate area.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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

Analyse historical personal-injury collision data for the right-hand turn and bridge location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Research and analysis of historical personal injury collisions has been undertaken at the point of the right-hand turn and bridge location of concern.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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

Assess general traffic speeds at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• An assessment of the general speed of traffic has taken place.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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 bend, carriageway, electronic and reflective warning features are considered sufficient to warn drivers of the approaching bend.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to point 1, upon approach to the right hand turn when travelling towards Uttoxeter drivers are pre-warned by the following highway features:”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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

Recorded collision evidence does not indicate excessive or inappropriate speed or a collision pattern at the right-hand turn.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the last complete 5-year period (2018-2022) and including any reports we have received from Staffordshire Police since, there has been one other (slight injury) collision recorded in this area of concern, and not associated with the right-hand turn heading towards Uttoxeter. The causation of this other collision was due to a vehicle following another too close, there is no indication of excessive or inappropriate speed.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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

A lower speed limit is not necessarily safer because motorists may interpret it as a recommended target speed and increase risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“National speed limit roads are applied throughout the county network in accordance with the Department for Transport “setting of local speed limit” guidelines. Speed limits should be evidence-led and self-explaining and seek to reinforce people’s assessment of what is a safe speed to travel. They should encourage self-compliance. Speed limits should be seen by drivers as the maximum rather than a target speed. An assessment of the speeds at this location shows an all-day average traffic speed of 39.7mph, with 85% of the traffic travelling at 45.5mph or less.”

Source location

Response from Staffordshire County Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 August 2024

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