PFD report

Ayse Yalcinkaya · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 27 Nov 2017•Milton Keynes

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
3

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised2

  1. Failure to provide clear lane-use signage on the slip road at Junction 14
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  2. Lack of a run-off lane prior to the junction at Junction 14 of the M1
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
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

    Commission and obtain an investigation of traffic flow, signage and queueing at M1 Junction 14.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 27 February 2018.
  2. Action

    Review the investigation findings to determine appropriate further works addressing the identified concerns.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 27 February 2018.

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 clear lane-use signage on the slip road at Junction 14

Wider context from the report

“(1) I was told by the Police Collision Investigator that the traffic had started queuing on the slip road at Junction 14 into lane one. It was suggested that there was some uncertainty by drivers using the slipway as to which lane they should use and that the signage is not clear. ”

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

Lack of a run-off lane prior to the junction at Junction 14 of the M1

Wider context from the report

“(2) I was also informed that on the most recently build slip roads on other motorways there is now provision for a run off lane to be provided prior to the junction. Perhaps a similar lane could be provided at junction 14 of the M1? ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe road design and layout.

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

Commission and obtain an investigation of traffic flow, signage and queueing at M1 Junction 14.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a. On 7 December 2018 Highways England commissioned our Asset Support Contractor, Kier, to undertake an investigation report addressing the ‘Matters of Concern’ raised by the Coroner.”

Source location

2017-0422-Response-by-Highways-Englands
Page 1 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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

Review the investigation findings to determine appropriate further works addressing the identified concerns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Highways England received the “Fatal Collision 25 7 15, Investigation Report” from Kier on 15 January 2018. The report included observations of traffic flow, signage, and queueing at M1 Junctions 14 made on a site inspection from Kier Services Highways Division on Tuesday 9 January 2018 between 06:45hrs and 09:30hrs. These findings are being reviewed by the Highways England Asset Development Team to determine what action may be appropriate for further work in 2018/19. This review is to be completed by 31 March 2018.”

Source location

2017-0422-Response-by-Highways-Englands
Page 1 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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.1

  1. 1

    Implement the proposed M1 Junctions 13–16 smart motorway project, adding a running lane and variable speed limits.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 27 February 2018.

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

Implement the proposed M1 Junctions 13–16 smart motorway project, adding a running lane and variable speed limits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b. Highways England are currently proposing a Smart Motorway Project (All Lane Running) to be implemented between M1 Junction 13 to Junction 16 (Northamptonshire) on both carriageways. The proposal will increase the capacity of the main carriageway to provide an additional running lane by”

Source location

2017-0422-Response-by-Highways-Englands
Page 1 · response
Published 27 February 2018

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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026