PFD report

Freddie SLATER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Apr 2025•North West Kent

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in 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 raised1

  1. Lack of physical barriers on the grass verge between the M20 and M25/M20 slip road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls preventing dangerous vehicle movements between slip roads and carriageways
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

    Assess the barrier provision against current road restraint requirements using the Road Restraint Risk Assessment Process.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 May 2025.

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

  1. Position

    No further action or direct CD 377 amendment is intended because similar incidents are uncommon and changes must address safety and value for money.

    Stated by National HighwaysNo 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 physical barriers on the grass verge between the M20 and M25/M20 slip road

Wider context from the report

“(1) The grass verge which separates the M20 and M25/ M20 slip road does not have erected upon it any physical barriers to prevent traffic crossing the verge from either of the 2 roads referred to and entering a parallel lane the opposite side of the verge. (2) The evidence received from National Highways confirmed that under the present policy guidance, barriers would not normally be required as there are no features such as an incline on the slip road, bridge supports or trees requiring physical protection between the two merging roads of traffic travelling at similar speeds in the same direction. (3) The facts of the present case illustrate that in the event of a loss of control of a vehicle travelling on either the M20 or in the slip road there is the potential for that vehicle, without any warning to drivers travelling at or about the same area in the coastbound direction, cross the grass verge to their side and enter their lane of travel. As both the material roads are subject to the same national speed limit of 70MPH, the risk of a high speed collision and fatality arises. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls preventing dangerous vehicle movements between slip roads and carriageways.

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

Assess the barrier provision against current road restraint requirements using the Road Restraint Risk Assessment Process.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of the current barrier provision at this locality with reference to current requirements”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 19 May 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 further action or direct CD 377 amendment is intended because similar incidents are uncommon and changes must address safety and value for money.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of fatal incidents on the whole of the SRN in England has been undertaken to identify any other incidents where a vehicle has crossed over a strip at the end of the nosing at an on-slip road and impacted a vehicle on the adjacent slip road. This search has been limited to fatal incidents as there is typically insufficient detail available for serious, slight and damage-only incidents in order to make a detailed assessment of the circumstances of the incident.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 19 May 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 merge arrangements do not constitute a barrier-requiring hazard because traffic travels in the same direction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As identified in paragraph 5(2) of the Regulation 28 report, current design requirements would not require a barrier to be erected within the grassed medium between the M25 link and the M20 link.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 19 May 2025

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.2

  1. 1

    Review incidents at the locality during the five years to 30 September 2024 for infrastructure-related evidence.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 May 2025.
  2. 2

    Review fatal incidents across England’s Strategic Road Network for comparable vehicles crossing slip-road verges.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 19 May 2025.

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

  1. 1

    Existing barriers meet or exceed current design and containment requirements, so additional barriers are not considered necessary.

    Stated by National HighwaysExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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 incidents at the locality during the five years to 30 September 2024 for infrastructure-related evidence.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of incidents at this locality”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 19 May 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

Review fatal incidents across England’s Strategic Road Network for comparable vehicles crossing slip-road verges.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A review of similar incidents on the National Highways Strategic Road Network (SRN).”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 19 May 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

Existing barriers meet or exceed current design and containment requirements, so additional barriers are not considered necessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The RRRAP identified that current design requirements would require a full height barrier to extend 7.5 metres beyond the Button Street bridge pier (as the bridge pier is identified as the hazard requiring protection).”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 19 May 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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026