PFD report

Nathan Thomas CYSTER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Feb 2026•Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
4

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 raised4

  1. Hazardous road layout requiring right-turning vehicles to cross multiple traffic-control areas
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
  2. Ambiguity in legal guidance on right turns across double solid white lines
  3. Lack of left-turn-only signage at the Moss Farm Shop exit
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
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.4

  1. Action

    Conduct a site visit and discuss observed traffic movements and overtaking at the A5 location.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 3 February 2026.
  2. Action

    Investigate road markings, signing and carriageway layout on the A5 within National Highways’ jurisdiction to identify potential overtaking mitigation measures.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 February 2026.
  3. Action

    Install a no-right-turn sign at the Moss Farm shop car-park exit.

    Stated by Moss Farm shopStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 3 February 2026.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.9

  1. Position

    Staffordshire Police is responsible for enforcing the double white line system.

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

Hazardous road layout requiring right-turning vehicles to cross multiple traffic-control areas

Wider context from the report

“1. Hazardous Right-Turn Manoeuvre Across Multiple Lanes and Road Markings Vehicles exiting Moss Farm Shop are currently required to cross a lane of traffic approaching from their right, traverse double solid white lines, and pass through a right-turn filter lane before entering the main carriageway. This configuration necessitates crossing areas specifically marked to restrict overtaking and protect turning movements, creating a complex and potentially hazardous manoeuvre for drivers. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe road design and layout.

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

Ambiguity in legal guidance on right turns across double solid white lines

Wider context from the report

“4. Ambiguity in Legal Guidance Regarding Right Turns Across Double White Lines The inquest was told that there is ambiguity and contradiction in the guidance regarding the legality of turning right out of premises across double solid white lines at the location of Moss Farm Shop. As per the police report: “It would appear that the rules surrounding crossing double white lines to enter and exit junctions and premises is a little more ambiguous. The Highway Code mentioning only entry into, whilst a government website states entry and exit.” This contradiction may lead to different drivers having different understandings of the law and whether they would anticipate vehicles turning right out of the farm shop across double white lines. ”

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

Lack of left-turn-only signage at the Moss Farm Shop exit

Wider context from the report

“2. Absence of Left-Turn Only Signage at Moss Farm Shop There is no “left turn only” signage—either in the form of a mandatory highway sign or an advisory sign positioned by the Farm itself—at the Moss Farm Shop exit. This is in contrast to other nearby businesses along the A5, which display such signage to discourage or prohibit right turns across the carriageway. ”

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

Failure of road markings to prevent prohibited overtaking and right turns

Wider context from the report

“3. Ineffectiveness of Road Markings in Preventing Prohibited Overtaking Although the road markings at this location—including double solid white lines and hatched areas—are intended to prohibit overtaking by vehicles (including motorcycles) travelling from Cannock and the Turf Island towards the Moss Farm junction, available evidence demonstrates that these markings are not effective in practice. CCTV analysis from the day of the collision and a separate 3-hour review period revealed that, within that window, 31 vehicles (28% of all vehicles exiting) turned right out of the Moss Farm Shop, and 7 motorcycles and 1 car overtook on the prohibited section prior to the junction. ”

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

Conduct a site visit and discuss observed traffic movements and overtaking at the A5 location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Road markings on the A5 All Purpose Trunk Road (APTR) – National Highways Road Safety engineers conducted a site visit to this location on 9th February 2026 to observe traffic movements, particularly any occurrences of overtaking in contravention of the double white line system. Further to this site visit engineers have undertaken an initial discussion of the results of the site observations on the 10th February 2026.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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

Investigate road markings, signing and carriageway layout on the A5 within National Highways’ jurisdiction to identify potential overtaking mitigation measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will investigate the location to establish if any measures can be identified to reduce the occurrence of injudicious overtaking by drivers in contravention of the double white line system. This investigation will be restricted to the A5 within our jurisdiction and will cover road markings, signing and carriageway layout.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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

Install a no-right-turn sign at the Moss Farm shop car-park exit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have taken away from the report that it is probably best if drivers leaving Moss Farm shop are advised not to turn right.”

Source location

2026-0051- Response Moss Farm Shop
Page 1 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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

Consider the coroner’s concerns about ambiguity when next reprinting Know Your Traffic Signs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for flagging your concerns about an apparent ambiguity and contradiction between guidance in the Highway Code and information on a government webpage. The Department’s position is that there is no contradiction. The Department acknowledges that ‘Know Your Traffic Signs’ (KYTS) refers to turning movements into or out of a side road, while the Highways Code refers only to the entry into a side road. This difference arises because the statutory marking requirements captured in the Highway Code apply only to traffic on the road on which the marking is placed, while the KYTS webpage provides broader explanatory guidance covering both the main road and the side road. We will consider the coroners’ concerns about this ambiguity at a future reprint of Know Your Traffic Signs.”

Source location

2026-0051 - Response from Department of Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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

Staffordshire Police is responsible for enforcing the double white line system.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The responsibility for enforcement of the double white line system sits with Staffordshire Police.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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 Department for Transport is responsible for guidance on traffic signs regulations and the Highway Code.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. Legal guidance regarding right turns across double white lines - To be answered by the Department for Transport. National Highways is not responsible for the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) traffic signs guidance or the Highway Code.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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

Moss Farm Shop is responsible for controlling traffic and providing signage within its private premises.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Right turn manoeuvre exiting Moss Farm Shop - To be answered by Moss Farm Shop. National Highways is not responsible for the control of traffic exiting a private business and is therefore unable to assist on this point.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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

Enforcement of the road layout and guidance to road users is outside the respondent’s authority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having read the report I can see that I can do very little to enforce the road layout and the guidance given to road users, as this is down to the highways department and the police to prevent motorists from breaking the rules of the road that are signed and have the appropriate road markings.”

Source location

2026-0051- Response Moss Farm Shop
Page 1 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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

Enforcement of signed road rules and road markings is assigned to the highways department and police.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Having read the report I can see that I can do very little to enforce the road layout and the guidance given to road users, as this is down to the highways department and the police to prevent motorists from breaking the rules of the road that are signed and have the appropriate road markings.”

Source location

2026-0051- Response Moss Farm Shop
Page 1 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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

National Highways is responsible for deciding appropriate road markings and signing at the specific site on its strategic road network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department’s role is to set the overarching legal and policy framework, and to provide guidance to local highway authorities on how to provide various traffic management measures. National Highways is a government-owned company, established under the Infrastructure Act 2015, and operates at arm’s length from ministers. It is responsible for the day-to-day operation, maintenance and improvement of the strategic road network.”

Source location

2026-0051 - Response from Department of Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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 evidence does not necessarily show that drivers misunderstand the double white line marking; a site-specific factor may explain non-compliance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department believes that the meaning of this marking is well understood by drivers. Regarding the evidence provided, this does not necessarily translate to a lack of understanding of the road marking. There could be a specific site factor that causes the prohibition not to cross the white line marking to be disregarded.”

Source location

2026-0051 - Response from Department of Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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 prescribed double white line marking and its inclusion in the Highway Code are considered sufficient for drivers to understand its meaning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to your comments on the double white line markings’ effectiveness to prevent overtaking in practice, the road marking has been prescribed in the”

Source location

2026-0051 - Response from Department of Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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 contradiction between the Highway Code and Know Your Traffic Signs because they provide guidance with different scopes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Thank you for flagging your concerns about an apparent ambiguity and contradiction between guidance in the Highway Code and information on a government webpage. The Department’s position is that there is no contradiction. The Department acknowledges that ‘Know Your Traffic Signs’ (KYTS) refers to turning movements into or out of a side road, while the Highways Code refers only to the entry into a side road. This difference arises because the statutory marking requirements captured in the Highway Code apply only to traffic on the road on which the marking is placed, while the KYTS webpage provides broader explanatory guidance covering both the main road and the side road. We will consider the coroners’ concerns about this ambiguity at a future reprint of Know Your Traffic Signs.”

Source location

2026-0051 - Response from Department of Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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.1

  1. 1

    Implementation of identified mitigation measures is subject to internal funding allocated according to the Midlands Region’s prioritised needs.

    Stated by National HighwaysUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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 identified mitigation measures is subject to internal funding allocated according to the Midlands Region’s prioritised needs.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The implementation of any potential mitigation measures identified is subject to internal funding being made available based on the prioritised need of the Midlands Region as a whole.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 3 February 2026

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