Daniel Mark HUGHES · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Dec 2020•Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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.

Concerns raised3

  1. Lack of warning of the concealed driveway
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  2. Potentially inappropriate speed limit at the bend
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locationsPart of recurring concern: Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends
  3. Inadequate visibility for right turns from the driveway or failure to deter turning
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safelyPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions

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. National Highways

    Complete a speed-limit review using speed surveys and injury-collision records to assess whether the A483 location requires a speed-limit change.

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

  1. National Highways

    Highways England cannot install a concealed entrance warning sign because it is not authorised under applicable traffic-sign regulations.

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

    Property owners, not Highways England, are responsible for improving visibility because the relevant walls, fences and hedgerows are privately owned.

    Redirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  3. National Highways

    The existing 60mph speed limit is considered appropriate because surveys found most drivers complied and injury collisions did not indicate change was needed.

    Existing 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

Lack of warning of the concealed driveway

Wider context from the report

“The motorist concerned was turning right from the driveway of a property approximately 90 meters south of a blind bend. There was little or no margin of error in crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. There are specific areas of concern: 1) Whether and how visibility to the right may be improved or turning deterred. 2) Whether the speed limit at the bend is appropriate. 3) Whether a warning of a concealed driveway could be displayed. ”

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

Potentially inappropriate speed limit at the bend

Wider context from the report

“The motorist concerned was turning right from the driveway of a property approximately 90 meters south of a blind bend. There was little or no margin of error in crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. There are specific areas of concern: 1) Whether and how visibility to the right may be improved or turning deterred. 2) Whether the speed limit at the bend is appropriate. 3) Whether a warning of a concealed driveway could be displayed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations; Uncontrolled collision risks at hazardous road bends.

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

Inadequate visibility for right turns from the driveway or failure to deter turning

Wider context from the report

“The motorist concerned was turning right from the driveway of a property approximately 90 meters south of a blind bend. There was little or no margin of error in crossing the southbound carriageway to travel north. There are specific areas of concern: 1) Whether and how visibility to the right may be improved or turning deterred. 2) Whether the speed limit at the bend is appropriate. 3) Whether a warning of a concealed driveway could be displayed. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely; Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions.

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

Complete a speed-limit review using speed surveys and injury-collision records to assess whether the A483 location requires a speed-limit change.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We completed a speed limit review for the A483 Trunk Road in 2016 when speed surveys took place both north and south of the incident site. The speed limit review showed that 85% of vehicle speeds recorded were found to be below the posted national speed limit of 60mph. When considering this speed survey result and the record of injury collisions on this section of the A483, this location was not identified as requiring consideration for a potential change in the speed limit.”

Source location

2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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 cannot install a concealed entrance warning sign because it is not authorised under applicable traffic-sign regulations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Highways England has powers to place signs on the Strategic Road Network under Part V of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, but signs placed on the Strategic Road Network must comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2016 as directed by the Secretary of State for Transport.”

Source location

2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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

Property owners, not Highways England, are responsible for improving visibility because the relevant walls, fences and hedgerows are privately owned.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Responsibility for the visibility exiting a property entrance is that of the property owner and not Highways England. Any steps to improve the visibility would also require amendments to boundary walls, fences and hedgerows on land which is not owned by Highways England. Therefore, no action is proposed.”

Source location

2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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 existing 60mph speed limit is considered appropriate because surveys found most drivers complied and injury collisions did not indicate change was needed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We completed a speed limit review for the A483 Trunk Road in 2016 when speed surveys took place both north and south of the incident site. The speed limit review showed that 85% of vehicle speeds recorded were found to be below the posted national speed limit of 60mph. When considering this speed survey result and the record of injury collisions on this section of the A483, this location was not identified as requiring consideration for a potential change in the speed limit.”

Source location

2020-0295-Response-from-Highways-England-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 8 January 2021

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