PFD report

Harold James Davies · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 May 2016•Nottinghamshire

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
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 raised3

  1. Delays in approval and commencement of remedial junction safety work
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to ensure identified safety remedial works are completed
  2. Repeated fatal collisions at the junction involving vehicles emerging from Station Road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  3. 60mph speed limit on the Station Road approach to the junction for unfamiliar drivers
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
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.2

  1. Action

    Clear vegetation around the Station Road junction to improve visibility in all directions.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2016.
  2. Action

    Convene highway partners to discuss the Regulation 28 report and proposed junction safety measures.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2016.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.11

  1. Position

    There is no evidence that excessive approach speed contributes significantly to these accidents, and lowering the speed limit would be ineffective.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire County CouncilDisputes 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

Delays in approval and commencement of remedial junction safety work

Wider context from the report

“2. Highways England and their maintenance contractor A-One+ have undertaken an extensive risk assessment of the junction and there is a proposal to undertake the following remedial safety work: (a) vehicle activated signs on both carriageways of the A.46 to alert oncoming traffic of the presence of vehicles at the junction waiting to join or cross the carriageways (b) the installation of slim line bollards at the Station Road junction (c) appropriate demarcation of the central reservation/turning area. 3. Evidence was given at the inquest that there is no date for the approval of funding or the commencement of the remedial safety work. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to ensure identified safety remedial works are completed.

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

Repeated fatal collisions at the junction involving vehicles emerging from Station Road

Wider context from the report

“1. Although the current road layout and existing safety provisions did not cause or contribute to the particular circumstances of this collision, I am concerned that this is the 3rd fatality at this junction since 2010. The 2 most recent fatalities in January 2014 and November 2015 involving, vehicles emerging from Station Road into the northbound carriageway. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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

60mph speed limit on the Station Road approach to the junction for unfamiliar drivers

Wider context from the report

“4. The national speed limit on Station Road on its approach to the junction with the A.46 is 60mph. The SCIO gave evidence that additional warning signs and a possible reduction in speed limit on the approach would provide additional safety for drivers who were unfamiliar with the Station Road and its approach to the junction. Nottinghamshire Police has offered to meet with Nottinghamshire County Council, the authority responsible for the maintenance of Station Road, and undertake a risk assessment. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

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

Clear vegetation around the Station Road junction to improve visibility in all directions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We sent a crew out on the 4th June to clear the vegetation around the Station Road junction to improve the visibility in all directions.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Convene highway partners to discuss the Regulation 28 report and proposed junction safety measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I called together representatives of Highway England and Nottinghamshire County Council to attend a meeting at Nottinghamshire Police Lakeside Court building on the 2nd June 2016.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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 no evidence that excessive approach speed contributes significantly to these accidents, and lowering the speed limit would be ineffective.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Station Road is derestricted, that is, its speed limit is 60mph which is the national speed limit for such roads in the absence of any other posted limit. The situation is very common there are many thousands of miles of these derestricted roads in rural areas. The 60mph is an absolute upper limit, and drivers have to adapt their speed to suit the road layout and conditions as they find them throughout their journey. Therefore when approaching the junction with the A46, drivers on Station Road will slow and adapt their speed to allow them to negotiate the bend on the approach, and slow appropriately for the junction. We have no evidence that excessive high speed is occurring on this approach, or that it is leading to reports of injury accidents on Station Road. We also understand that approach speed is not a significant contributory factor in the accidents at the A46 junction.”

Source location

Response from Nottinghamshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Highways England is responsible for investigating accidents and developing safety measures on the A46.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The fatal accident and two previous fatal accidents occurred at the junction of the Trunk Road A46 and Station Road Collingham. Since the incidents happened on the Trunk Road, which are the responsibility of Highways England, the County Council has not carried out investigations on these individual incidents, or the group of accidents.”

Source location

Response from Nottinghamshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Investigating accidents on the A46 falls outside the Council’s responsibility because it is a trunk road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The fatal accident and two previous fatal accidents occurred at the junction of the Trunk Road A46 and Station Road Collingham. Since the incidents happened on the Trunk Road, which are the responsibility of Highways England, the County Council has not carried out investigations on these individual incidents, or the group of accidents.”

Source location

Response from Nottinghamshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Side-road approach measures are not usually effective for restart accidents; main-road measures are considered more appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It is understood that the two accidents were most likely restarts, Mr Davies was apparently indicating to turn right, suggesting he knew he was approaching the junction. It is not usually effective to try to affect this type of accident by measures on the side road approach. The measures proposed by Highways England on the main road A46 are more appropriate.”

Source location

Response from Nottinghamshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

A lower speed limit is not considered appropriate because legal procedures, implementation costs and delay could outweigh its arguable benefits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A lowered speed limit would require a legal order to be brought into force, which would involve amongst other things a lengthy consultation process. The consequent delay in progressing the proposed Highways England improvement scheme, and the costs of signing and implementation of a speed limit, are therefore not appropriate given the arguable benefits.”

Source location

Response from Nottinghamshire County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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 speed-limit change was considered necessary because vehicles entered the junction at very low speeds or were stationary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“GC had investigated Station Road which was the County Council road that approached the junction (the junction being on the A46 which is the responsibility of Highways England) and had decided there was no merit in changing the speed limit on this road. GC’s separate report detailing this decision is attached. All partners agreed with this decision as the speed of entry into the junction at all three fatal collisions was extremely slow if not stationary.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Implementation of the accident remedial scheme was assigned to Highways England as the responsible highway authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A meeting has taken place with all highway representatives pertinent to this case and the report has been fully discussed. All parties agree that the best way forward to prevent further deaths which was the purpose of the Regulation 28 report issued by HM Coroner, would be for the accident remedial scheme designed by AOne + to be implemented by the Highways Agency.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 2 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Delivery of the junction improvement scheme was constrained by the lack of available funding and the need for investment approval.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Each partner had previously received a copy of the report from HD and the report was then discussed at length. RK reported that as stated at the inquest an accident remedial scheme had been designed by AOne + and RK was now trying to obtain the necessary funding from Highways England to get it put into the work programme. The scheme did not meet the criteria for funding from the ‘Minor Safety Improvement Fund’ so RK had escalated the funding request to senior manager level.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Highways England is responsible for securing funding for the recommended junction safety improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Unfortunately, A-one+ has taken this matter as far as it can and it is now the responsibility of Highways England to secure funding for the improvements.”

Source location

Response from A One
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Nottinghamshire County Council is solely responsible for safety concerns concerning the Station Road approach to the A46 junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you quite rightly noted at the Inquest, your concerns in relation to the approach from Station Road to the junction with the A46 is the sole responsibility of Nottinghamshire County Council.”

Source location

Response from A One
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Further junction improvements cannot be progressed because A-one+ lacks authority to undertake additional work.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Unfortunately, A-one+ has taken this matter as far as it can and it is now the responsibility of Highways England to secure funding for the improvements.”

Source location

Response from A One
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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.4

  1. 1

    Distribute the Regulation 28 report to relevant highway partners.

    Stated by Nottinghamshire PoliceStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2016.
  2. 2

    Make recommendations to Highways England to improve junction safety.

    Stated by A-One+Stated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 13 May 2016.
  3. 3

    Meet with Nottinghamshire Police, Nottinghamshire County Council and Highways England regarding the reported safety concerns.

    Stated by A-One+Stated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 May 2016.
  4. 4

    Provide ongoing support and cooperation to Highways England and relevant authorities on the reported safety concerns.

    Stated by A-One+Stated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 May 2016.

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

Distribute the Regulation 28 report to relevant highway partners.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Each partner had previously received a copy of the report from HD and the report was then discussed at length. RK reported that as stated at the inquest an accident remedial scheme had been designed by AOne + and RK was now trying to obtain the necessary funding from Highways England to get it put into the work programme. The scheme did not meet the criteria for funding from the ‘Minor Safety Improvement Fund’ so RK had escalated the funding request to senior manager level.”

Source location

Response from Highways England
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Make recommendations to Highways England to improve junction safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As confirmed by our ████████ at the recent Inquest, A-one+ has made a number of recommendations to Highways England with a view to improving the safety of the junction. These recommendations are helpfully set out at section 5 of your report.”

Source location

Response from A One
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Meet with Nottinghamshire Police, Nottinghamshire County Council and Highways England regarding the reported safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst A-one+ has taken this matter as far as it can, it has agreed to a meeting with Nottinghamshire Police, Nottinghamshire County Council and Highways England.”

Source location

Response from A One
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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

Provide ongoing support and cooperation to Highways England and relevant authorities on the reported safety concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A-one+ does not have the authority to progress this matter any further, but will fully support and co-operate with Highways England and the authorities in all cases.”

Source location

Response from A One
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2016

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
3/3

Data last updated 7 September 2026