PFD report

Liam Anthony CLARK · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 18 Feb 2020•Staffordshire South

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
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
10

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. Potential road safety hazard at the A5 junction with Streetway 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.7

  1. Action

    Routinely check vegetation at the junction through the vegetation-management programme.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 February 2020.
  2. Action

    Routinely monitor junction collisions and highway-asset condition, reviewing intervention needs if collision numbers or severity change.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 24 February 2020.
  3. Action

    Conduct a further safety review of the junction using updated collision data.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 24 February 2020.

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

  1. Position

    The A5 junction is subject to the national 60 mph speed limit, not the 50 mph limit stated in the concern.

    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

Potential road safety hazard at the A5 junction with Streetway Road

Wider context from the report

“1. The A5 is a major trunk road used by all types of vehicles. There are numerous junctions. At the scene the speed limit is reduced to 50mph. I should be grateful if you could look at the scene (the junction with Streetway Road ) to see if any improvements are warranted – such as increased signage or road layout change. ”

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

Routinely check vegetation at the junction through the vegetation-management programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The visibility requirements for the junction as prescribed by the Design Manual for Roads & Bridges (DMRB) is between 160 metres and 215 metres at a point 2.4 metres back from the ‘Give Way’ line, based on the type and design speed of the road. Overgrown vegetation was identified in the 2016 Safety Study and was addressed as part of the 2017 carriageway renewal scheme. Vegetation can be an issue due to its tendency to continue to grow and as a result it is routinely checked as part of Highways England’s vegetation management programme.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 5 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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

Routinely monitor junction collisions and highway-asset condition, reviewing intervention needs if collision numbers or severity change.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Due to the evidence demonstrating an improved collision history at the site, along with the post fatal collision report which did not identify any deficiencies within the highway layout, Highways England have not identified any further appropriate safety improvements at this time. However, the junction will be routinely monitored in terms of collisions and the condition of the highways assets and should the number or severity of collisions change then the need for intervention will be reviewed, and action taken if deemed appropriate.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 5 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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

Conduct a further safety review of the junction using updated collision data.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the receipt of the coroner’s report, Highways England requested a further safety review of the junction to update the 2016 Road Safety Study.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 4 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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

Carry out a post-fatal-collision site visit and assess the highway layout for deficiencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Highways England Post Fatal Collision Report”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 4 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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

Conduct a road safety study of the A5 Streetway Road junction and identify safety improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2016 Highways England carried out a road safety study at the A5 Streetway Road junction following a reported 10 collisions resulting in 18 casualties recorded in the proceeding 5-year period of available data (2010-2014).”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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 enhanced junction warning signs on approaches to the A5, Streetway Road and Old London Road junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Provision of warning signs to Diagram 506.1 (Side road ahead) of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 with yellow backing board in advance and of both approaches to the A5/Streetway Road/Old London Road junction.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 3 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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

Remove significant vegetation on the eastbound approach to the Streetway Road junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• The removal of significant vegetation on the eastbound approach to Streetway Road junction.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 3 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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 A5 junction is subject to the national 60 mph speed limit, not the 50 mph limit stated in the concern.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The A5 between the two roundabouts is a wide two way single carriageway approx. 10 metres wide. The alignment is straight and relatively level with the junction with Streetway Road sitting on a slight crest. The A5 is subject to the national speed limit (60mph for single carriageway) and is not restricted to 50mph as provided in the Coroner’s report. Street lighting is not present other than at the roundabouts at either end of the single carriageway section. The carriageway has one metre wide hard strips on both the nearside channels, and central hatched road markings to the centre of the road approx. one metre wide. Yellow backed junction warning signs are provided in both directions approx. 200 metres in advance of the junction.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 1 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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 further signage or road-layout improvements are considered warranted because collision evidence improved and the post-fatal review found no highway-layout deficiencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the fatal collision on the 10 September 2019, the Highways England Road Safety Team carried out a site visit. Their report concluded that there were no deficiencies within the highway layout at the collision location at the time of the site visit.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Highways-England
Page 4 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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-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. 1

    Consider creating a tail-swing hazard-perception clip for the driver theory test.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 February 2020.
  2. 2

    Raise required projection marking with the National Farmers’ Unions of England and Wales and Scotland.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 February 2020.
  3. 3

    Review official driver-learning advice on tail-swing hazards.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 24 February 2020.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    There is insufficient evidence that improving identification of rearward projections would have prevented the collision.

    Stated by Department for TransportDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Consider creating a tail-swing hazard-perception clip for the driver theory test.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have engaged with colleagues from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency as they lead on driver training standards. They have noted the detail of your inquest and have agreed to review the advice in their official learning materials and consider the creation of a specific hazard perception clip covering tail-swing for the driver theory test covering all vehicle types.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Department-for-Transport_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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

Raise required projection marking with the National Farmers’ Unions of England and Wales and Scotland.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Furthermore, we will raise the marking of projections with the National Farmers' Union of England and Wales and the National Farmers Union of Scotland where these are required.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Department-for-Transport_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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 official driver-learning advice on tail-swing hazards.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have engaged with colleagues from the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency as they lead on driver training standards. They have noted the detail of your inquest and have agreed to review the advice in their official learning materials and consider the creation of a specific hazard perception clip covering tail-swing for the driver theory test covering all vehicle types.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Department-for-Transport_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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

There is insufficient evidence that improving identification of rearward projections would have prevented the collision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In this case, it does appear that the deceased failed to appropriately assess the potential risk of the manoeuvring crop sprayer but the Department is not aware of significant evidence to suggest that a change in the requirements regarding improved identification of rearward projections would have prevented this collision.”

Source location

2020-0030-Response-from-Department-for-Transport_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 24 February 2020

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