PFD report

Jamil Ahmed · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Nov 2019•Birmingham and Solihull

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

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 raised2

  1. Unsuitability of some motorway stretches for use as smart motorways
  2. Heightened collision hazard from stationary vehicles in motorway running lanes
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable safety controls for stationary vehicles on dynamic hard-shoulder motorways
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.5

  1. Action

    Repeat motorway safety information campaigns in four waves covering breakdowns, Red X, keeping left and variable speed limits.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 November 2019.
  2. Action

    Enhance emergency refuge-area visibility using redesigned signs, more frequent approach signage and orange road surfacing on the M6 southbound.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 November 2019.
  3. Action

    Conduct comprehensive driver information campaigns on breakdowns, Red X, keeping left and variable speed limits.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 15 November 2019.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.5

  1. Position

    Further rollout of innovative stopped-vehicle technologies cannot yet be timetabled because evaluation, testing and Government funding remain unresolved.

    Stated by National HighwaysUnable 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

Unsuitability of some motorway stretches for use as smart motorways

Wider context from the report

“Whilst any vehicle may break down on any road, in relation to motorways: (1) drivers do not expect to come across a stationary vehicle in a running lane, (2) the speed of traffic is high, (3) the volume of traffic is high increasing the number of people affected by a stationary vehicle, (4) the options for the occupants of a stationary vehicle to escape the road are more limited, and (5) not all stretches of motorway are necessarily appropriate for use as ‘smart’ motorways ; For example, the stretch of motorway in question was raised with a significant drop next to the hard shoulder, as opposed to a stretch of hard shoulder adjacent to a bank or field. All five matters mean it is less likely other drivers will be able to take evasive action when confronted with a stationary vehicle. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Heightened collision hazard from stationary vehicles in motorway running lanes

Wider context from the report

“Whilst any vehicle may break down on any road, in relation to motorways: (1) drivers do not expect to come across a stationary vehicle in a running lane, (2) the speed of traffic is high, (3) the volume of traffic is high increasing the number of people affected by a stationary vehicle, (4) the options for the occupants of a stationary vehicle to escape the road are more limited, and (5) not all stretches of motorway are necessarily appropriate for use as ‘smart’ motorways ; For example, the stretch of motorway in question was raised with a significant drop next to the hard shoulder, as opposed to a stretch of hard shoulder adjacent to a bank or field. All five matters mean it is less likely other drivers will be able to take evasive action when confronted with a stationary vehicle. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable safety controls for stationary vehicles on dynamic hard-shoulder motorways.

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

Repeat motorway safety information campaigns in four waves covering breakdowns, Red X, keeping left and variable speed limits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will be repeating our information campaigns on using motorways in four waves between early 2020 and March 2021. These will be focused on ‘what to do in a breakdown’, Red X, keeping left and variable speed limits. The date of the first phase of these campaigns has changed due to the ongoing evidence stocktake into smart motorways safety being carried out by the Department for Transport.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 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

Enhance emergency refuge-area visibility using redesigned signs, more frequent approach signage and orange road surfacing on the M6 southbound.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Smart motorways have regular refuge areas for drivers to use in the event of an emergency. In this case, the nearest emergency refuge area was 300 metres further forward. Over the last 18 months we have been rolling out enhancements to the emergency refuge areas across the smart motorway network to increase driver awareness of their location. This has included a brand-new design of sign, more frequent approach signage and an associated orange road surface. This work has recently been completed on the M6 southbound between Junctions 6 and 5.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 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

Conduct comprehensive driver information campaigns on breakdowns, Red X, keeping left and variable speed limits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Highways England has undertaken comprehensive information campaigns highlighting how drivers must only stop on the carriageway in an emergency, and how drivers can reduce the likelihood of such an event occurring. In addition, comprehensive information campaigns have been undertaken, both before and after the date of this incident, highlighting to drivers what to do in the event of a breakdown on the motorway.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 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

Roll out stopped-vehicle detection capability to similar smart-motorway schemes, beginning with the M3 between Junctions 2 and 4a.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Until trials were undertaken by Highways England, there has been no system to detect stopped lone vehicles in a live lane on any high-speed road therefore, as already highlighted, this risk is not confined to smart motorways. This risk is considerably higher when traffic volumes are lower, due to higher vehicle speeds. Also, the density of traffic at higher volumes means it is very difficult to detect stopped lone vehicles without an unmanageable amount of false alarms. Highways England recognised this risk and has undertaken successful trials of a radar detection system which detects stopped vehicles in low flow conditions. This is now operational on all of the smart motorway sections of the M25 without a hard shoulder.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 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

Explore and evaluate CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowdsourced data to reduce risks to stopped vehicles in higher-flow conditions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are exploring other technologies which could reduce the risk to stopped vehicles in higher flow conditions. These include CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowd sourced data. As these are innovative solutions, which require evaluation and testing, Highways England is unable at this time to set out a timetable if and when this technology will be rolled out on the motorway network. This is also subject to our Government funding settlement for the period 2020-2025 which is yet to be confirmed.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 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

Further rollout of innovative stopped-vehicle technologies cannot yet be timetabled because evaluation, testing and Government funding remain unresolved.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are exploring other technologies which could reduce the risk to stopped vehicles in higher flow conditions. These include CCTV analytics, vehicle telemetry and crowd sourced data. As these are innovative solutions, which require evaluation and testing, Highways England is unable at this time to set out a timetable if and when this technology will be rolled out on the motorway network. This is also subject to our Government funding settlement for the period 2020-2025 which is yet to be confirmed.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 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

Existing smart motorway technology and operational procedures are considered sufficient to mitigate risks from stopped vehicles, including lane closures, warnings and traffic officer assistance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“If a driver does not stop in a place of relative safety (such as an emergency refuge area) smart motorways have far greater operational oversight and technology than other high-speed roads to reduce the risk to road users. Once our control centre is aware of the situation (which may be via the Police or roadside technology, such as CCTV), we can use the smart motorway”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 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

Existing MIDAS, CCTV coverage and operational management are considered sufficient to mitigate stopped-vehicle risks during higher traffic flows.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our assessments have shown that the risk to drivers is reduced when using a dynamic hard shoulder running scheme compared to motorways not operating dynamic hard shoulder running schemes. This is largely due to the additional technology and enhanced operational management which is not present on conventional motorways. When flows are higher our Motorway Incident Detection and Automatic Signalling (MIDAS) system detects slow moving traffic, and warns drivers by setting appropriate message and speed limits without operator intervention. This is a proven safety system which, along with comprehensive CCTV coverage, helps to mitigate the risk to stopped vehicles when traffic flows are higher.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 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

Stopped-vehicle detection on future smart motorway schemes is conditional on the availability of funding.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have begun to rollout stopped vehicle detection capability to similar schemes which will commence with the M3 between Junctions 2 and 4a to be completed by December 2020. Subject to funding, stopped vehicle detection capability will be included on all future smart motorway schemes beginning construction from March 2020.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 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

Safety assessments indicate smart motorways are as safe as, or safer than, conventional motorways, and the stopped-vehicle risk is not confined to smart motorways.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The introduction of smart motorways has been Government policy since 2008. The smart motorway package of measures is considered appropriate for Highways England’s network and gives flexibility to allow for increased demand from road users, whilst maintaining or improving the safety of our roads.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 15 November 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 positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    The Department for Transport is responsible for completing and publishing the evidence stocktake on smart motorway safety.

    Stated by National HighwaysRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.
  2. 2

    No further dynamic hard shoulder schemes will be built because this form of motorway is not intuitive for drivers.

    Stated by National HighwaysNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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 Department for Transport is responsible for completing and publishing the evidence stocktake on smart motorway safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Recognising concerns around smart motorways, the Secretary of State for Transport has asked the Department for Transport to carry out an evidence stocktake to gather the facts about smart motorways safety. We are supporting the Department in its work on this. The Department for Transport will be publishing the outcome of this stocktake.”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 15 November 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

No further dynamic hard shoulder schemes will be built because this form of motorway is not intuitive for drivers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Highways England recognises that dynamic hard shoulder running is not as”

Source location

Response-from-Highways-England_Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 15 November 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