PFD report

Shaun David Neal · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 May 2019•County Durham and Darlington

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
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

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. Failure to provide double solid white line markings to prevent overtaking at the collision location
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road markings for road-user safetyPart of recurring concern: Unsafe overtaking controls on hazardous road sections
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

    Survey visibility to determine whether additional double white lines were justified.

    Stated by the CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 June 2019.
  2. Action

    Order recovery of worn road markings near Hermitage Bridge.

    Stated by the CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 June 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Double white lines were not justified because visibility and accident-history criteria were unmet; the existing hazard marking was considered appropriate.

    Stated by the CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so 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

Failure to provide double solid white line markings to prevent overtaking at the collision location

Wider context from the report

“1. Evidence heard at inquest confirms only ‘broken’ white line hazard road markings were present on the road surface at the location of the collision 2. Durham County Council Traffic Section have surveyed the scene and found no requirement to change the road markings from broken hazard white lines to double solid white lines as it was thought a short section of double white lines may confuse drivers. 3. Expert evidence from a police collision investigator believed the presence of double white solid line markings would, in a driver obeying the restriction prevent such a manoeuvre that led to the collision, by removing the option to overtake on that section of road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road markings for road-user safety; Unsafe overtaking controls on hazardous road sections.

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

Survey visibility to determine whether additional double white lines were justified.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3 | Given the observations made in the visibility at junctions and bends section, determine the requirement for additional highway infrastructure such as supplementary road markings and upright signing. | A visibility survey was undertaken to determine whether a system of double white lines was required. Such a system was not identified as being justified.”

Source location

2019-0009-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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

Order recovery of worn road markings near Hermitage Bridge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“No. | Observation / Recommendation | Action 1 | As part of the general maintenance programme, at the earliest | An order was placed for the recovery of road markings in the vicinity of Hermitage Bridge.”

Source location

2019-0009-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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

Double white lines were not justified because visibility and accident-history criteria were unmet; the existing hazard marking was considered appropriate.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• It is concluded that the criteria for the provision of a system of double white lines has not been met and there is no previous history of overtaking accidents associated with impaired forward visibility at this location. Therefore, there is no”

Source location

2019-0009-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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

    Check hazard marker posts and order replacement of defective posts.

    Stated by the CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 14 June 2019.
  2. 2

    Remove hawthorn bushes contributing to reduced visibility at the location.

    Stated by the CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 June 2019.

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

Check hazard marker posts and order replacement of defective posts.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2 | Review the existing hazard marker provision with regard to level of deterioration and maintained conspicuousness during periods of vegetation growth. Replace posts, if required, and address any visibility concerns as part of the general maintenance programme. | Hazard marker posts were checked, and a works order placed to replace any defective posts.”

Source location

2019-0009-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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 hawthorn bushes contributing to reduced visibility at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst it was not considered appropriate to introduce a system of double white lines at this location, it was noted during the survey that a number of hawthorn bushes contributed to the reduced visibility. An order for the removal of these bushes was subsequently made and they have since been removed. We have consulted with the Police Traffic Management Officer who is supportive of this decision.”

Source location

2019-0009-Response-by-Durham-County-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 14 June 2019

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