Mr Kevin O'Reilly · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 17 Feb 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
2

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

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 raised2

  1. Lack of stopping areas between refuse areas on all lanes open motorways
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety controls for stationary vehicles on dynamic hard-shoulder motorways
  2. Failure to monitor all lanes open motorways

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. National Highways

    Complete the nationwide programme constructing and installing more than 150 additional emergency areas on all-lane-running motorways.

  2. National Highways

    Continue delivering the T.R.I.P. road-safety campaign through seasonal and regular journey-planning and incident-prevention communications with partner organisations.

  3. National Highways

    Deliver the scheduled ‘Know the HGV zones’ road-safety campaign in October 2025, subject to government approval for paid marketing.

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

  1. National Highways

    New emergency-area standards are not retrospectively funded for the existing Strategic Road Network.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. National Highways

    The M6 section’s emergency areas were spaced 1.2 miles apart, within the applicable 1.6-mile design maximum.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  3. National Highways

    No additional emergency areas were planned because safety data identified higher-priority locations where they would provide greater immediate benefit.

    No 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 stopping areas between refuse areas on all lanes open motorways

Wider context from the report

“i. It was accepted at inquest that Mr O’Reilly was on an all lanes open motorway. This type of motorway has all lanes open for vehicles to use, and areas for vehicles to stop every 1.6 miles, but not areas in between. ii. It was accepted that there was no area for vehicles to stop should they need to, unless they were near to the refuse areas spaced 1.6 miles apart, and the all lanes open motorways were not monitored. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety controls for stationary vehicles on dynamic hard-shoulder motorways.

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 monitor all lanes open motorways

Wider context from the report

“i. It was accepted at inquest that Mr O’Reilly was on an all lanes open motorway. This type of motorway has all lanes open for vehicles to use, and areas for vehicles to stop every 1.6 miles, but not areas in between. ii. It was accepted that there was no area for vehicles to stop should they need to, unless they were near to the refuse areas spaced 1.6 miles apart, and the all lanes open motorways were not monitored. ”

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

Complete the nationwide programme constructing and installing more than 150 additional emergency areas on all-lane-running motorways.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Over the last 2 years, National Highways has been adding additional emergency areas to some ALR sections of motorway. We recently completed a nationwide programme to construct and install more than 150 additional emergency areas². We prioritised locations where emergency areas could make the most difference and bring benefits to drivers. The M6 junction 10a to 13 was not included as one of the locations for additional emergency areas because after looking at the frequency of live lane stops alongside safety data, other locations were determined to be higher priority as emergency areas could make the most difference and bring benefits to drivers as soon as possible.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 17 February 2025

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 delivering the T.R.I.P. road-safety campaign through seasonal and regular journey-planning and incident-prevention communications with partner organisations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also co-ordinated a wider programme of road safety campaigns including our ‘Top up, Rest, Inspect, Prepare’ (T.R.I.P.) campaign which was launched in July 2023 where ‘Top up’ refers specifically to topping up fuel/charge prior to a journey on the Strategic Road Network. These campaigns are delivered seasonally with the messaging tailored specifically for the time of year. The media channel mix is integrated with traditional media such as radio and out of home (roadside billboards etc), digital and social media.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 17 February 2025

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

Deliver the scheduled ‘Know the HGV zones’ road-safety campaign in October 2025, subject to government approval for paid marketing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will continue the public education campaigns – pending government approvals, T.R.I.P and ‘Know the HGV zones’ will continue to be included in the paid media road safety communications investment in the 2025/26 financial year.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 17 February 2025

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

New emergency-area standards are not retrospectively funded for the existing Strategic Road Network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When a new standard is produced, National Highways is not funded to retrofit the Strategic Road Network (SRN) but to apply the new standard in any new works/designs. Currently, there are no plans for the addition of more emergency areas to this section of the M6 motorway.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 17 February 2025

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 M6 section’s emergency areas were spaced 1.2 miles apart, within the applicable 1.6-mile design maximum.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This location complied with the design standards at the time (IAN/161) which required places to stop in an emergency at a maximum spacing of 2.5km (1.6 miles).”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 17 February 2025

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

No additional emergency areas were planned because safety data identified higher-priority locations where they would provide greater immediate benefit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Over the last 2 years, National Highways has been adding additional emergency areas to some ALR sections of motorway. We recently completed a nationwide programme to construct and install more than 150 additional emergency areas². We prioritised locations where emergency areas could make the most difference and bring benefits to drivers. The M6 junction 10a to 13 was not included as one of the locations for additional emergency areas because after looking at the frequency of live lane stops alongside safety data, other locations were determined to be higher priority as emergency areas could make the most difference and bring benefits to drivers as soon as possible.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 17 February 2025

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