PFD report

Luke Mumford · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Feb 2017•Mid Kent and Medway

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised3

  1. Narrow carriageway
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe road width for vehicle passage
  2. Lack of road lighting at night
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lightingPart of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
  3. Lack of kerb or pavement bordering the road
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
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.1

  1. Action

    Programme a scheme to reduce the road’s speed limit to 50 mph.

    Stated by Kent County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 March 2017.

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

Narrow carriageway

Wider context from the report

“(1) The nature of the road is such that it is unsafe to drive at 70 mph in that i) The carriageway is very narrow ii) The road is unlit at night iii) The road is not bordered by any kerb or pavement but rather hedgerows and trees iv) At Inquest the evidence of a Police Pursuit Driver and Accident Collision Investigator was that they had felt unsafe traversing the road above 50 mph. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe road width for vehicle passage.

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

Lack of road lighting at night

Wider context from the report

“(1) The nature of the road is such that it is unsafe to drive at 70 mph in that i) The carriageway is very narrow ii) The road is unlit at night iii) The road is not bordered by any kerb or pavement but rather hedgerows and trees iv) At Inquest the evidence of a Police Pursuit Driver and Accident Collision Investigator was that they had felt unsafe traversing the road above 50 mph. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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

Lack of kerb or pavement bordering the road

Wider context from the report

“(1) The nature of the road is such that it is unsafe to drive at 70 mph in that i) The carriageway is very narrow ii) The road is unlit at night iii) The road is not bordered by any kerb or pavement but rather hedgerows and trees iv) At Inquest the evidence of a Police Pursuit Driver and Accident Collision Investigator was that they had felt unsafe traversing the road above 50 mph. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe road design and layout.

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

Programme a scheme to reduce the road’s speed limit to 50 mph.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The road is narrow and unlit and is bordered by hedgerows and trees. In its context as a ‘de-restricted’ dual carriageway the speed limit is 70mph, however it should be noted that the speed limit is the absolute maximum speed – it doesn’t mean it is safe to drive at this speed in all conditions. Notwithstanding this, in response to the incident and the very clear coroner recommendation, Kent County Council will be programming a scheme to reduce the speed limit of the road to 50mph.”

Source location

2017-0047-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 5 March 2017

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.1

  1. 1

    Investigate a crash remedial measure to improve the dual carriageway’s safety.

    Stated by Kent County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 March 2017.

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

Investigate a crash remedial measure to improve the dual carriageway’s safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In order to ensure that introducing a speed limit of 50mph does not lead to an increase in safety concerns, Kent County Council will also investigate a Crash Remedial Measure to seek to improve the ‘safety’ of this dual carriageway; this may include additional signs, lines and barriers although the exact composition will be determined by a full and proper study. We must be mindful when introducing a 50mph speed limit that the presence of ‘repeater signs’ does not encourage high speeds, as there may be sections of this road that may not be safe to drive at that speed, especially for an inexperienced driver.”

Source location

2017-0047-Response-by-Kent-County-Council
Page 1 · 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026