Kenneth (“Ken”) McCurdy and Mary (“Maida”) Brunton Cunningham McCurdy · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Oct 2015•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
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 signage prohibiting eastbound U turns or right turns at the central-reservation gap
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  2. Lack of no-entry signage for eastbound vehicles at the central-reservation gap
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage

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

    Place a funding bid for the proposed safety work, subject to priority-based allocation.

  2. National Highways

    Work with Durham Constabulary to identify the route the driver intended to take.

  3. National Highways

    Investigate amendments to signing and road markings at appropriate locations to provide improved advance information.

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

  1. National Highways

    No legally approved or appropriate sign can indicate the gap restriction because it could mislead westbound drivers and create danger.

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

    Funding is unavailable for work beyond the proposed investigations, so implementation depends on a future priority-based funding bid.

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

    Turning manoeuvres cannot be prohibited without suitable alternative U-turn facilities, which are absent between Bowes Interchange and Cross Lanes junction.

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

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 signage prohibiting eastbound U turns or right turns at the central-reservation gap

Wider context from the report

“2. There is no signage at or leading up to the said gap in the central reservation to indicate that there is a prohibition to U turns or right turns to vehicles travelling east. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage.

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 no-entry signage for eastbound vehicles at the central-reservation gap

Wider context from the report

“1. There is no signage at the gap in the central reservation for vehicles travelling west to turn right towards Hulands Quarry to indicate that it is no entry to vehicles travelling east for any form of manoeuvre. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage.

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

Place a funding bid for the proposed safety work, subject to priority-based allocation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regrettably at this time, no funding is currently available to undertake this work, beyond the investigations described. A bid will be placed to request funding, which is normally allocated on a priority basis to ensure that funds are targeted at sites that are likely to provide the greatest collision savings and safety benefit to road users.”

Source location

2015-0369-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 1 October 2015

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

Work with Durham Constabulary to identify the route the driver intended to take.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is however recognised that Mr McCurdy was performing a U-turn manoeuvre when the collision occurred. Such manoeuvres are normally made when a driver either realises that he is driving, or he is under the misconception that he is driving, in the wrong direction. Highways England therefore proposes to work with Durham Constabulary in December to identify the route that Mr McCurdy had intended to take. Using this information, we will investigate amendments to signing and road markings at appropriate locations that will provide drivers with improved advance information. This is aimed at reducing driver confusion and hence reducing future collision risk. By 31 March 2016 we aim to deliver investigations that will recommend proposals for this length of the A66”

Source location

2015-0369-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 1 October 2015

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

Investigate amendments to signing and road markings at appropriate locations to provide improved advance information.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is however recognised that Mr McCurdy was performing a U-turn manoeuvre when the collision occurred. Such manoeuvres are normally made when a driver either realises that he is driving, or he is under the misconception that he is driving, in the wrong direction. Highways England therefore proposes to work with Durham Constabulary in December to identify the route that Mr McCurdy had intended to take. Using this information, we will investigate amendments to signing and road markings at appropriate locations that will provide drivers with improved advance information. This is aimed at reducing driver confusion and hence reducing future collision risk. By 31 March 2016 we aim to deliver investigations that will recommend proposals for this length of the A66”

Source location

2015-0369-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 1 October 2015

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 legally approved or appropriate sign can indicate the gap restriction because it could mislead westbound drivers and create danger.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• There is no currently legally approved or appropriate sign that can be installed on the A66 westbound carriageway to indicate to drivers that the gap cannot be entered by vehicles passing from the eastbound carriageway. Vehicles exiting the Hulands Quarry access have the need and right to pass through the central”

Source location

2015-0369-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 1 · response
Published 1 October 2015

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

Funding is unavailable for work beyond the proposed investigations, so implementation depends on a future priority-based funding bid.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regrettably at this time, no funding is currently available to undertake this work, beyond the investigations described. A bid will be placed to request funding, which is normally allocated on a priority basis to ensure that funds are targeted at sites that are likely to provide the greatest collision savings and safety benefit to road users.”

Source location

2015-0369-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 1 October 2015

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

Turning manoeuvres cannot be prohibited without suitable alternative U-turn facilities, which are absent between Bowes Interchange and Cross Lanes junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• By prohibiting certain turning manoeuvres, Highways England has a duty to provide an alternative facility for users. In this case, drivers would be required to divert elsewhere to perform U-turn manoeuvres. Currently there are no suitable alternative U-turn facilities on the A66 between Bowes Interchange and Cross Lanes junction.”

Source location

2015-0369-Response-by-Highways-England
Page 2 · response
Published 1 October 2015

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