PFD report

Jeffrey William Matthews · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Jun 2017•Cumbria

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
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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Failure to implement identified highway safety measures
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to implement identified safety actionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  2. Failure to maintain roadside vegetation so that the crossroads remains visible
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to control vegetation that obstructs safety-critical visibility
  3. Failure of independent highway safety investigations to identify obscured junction visibility
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety incident investigations
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.3

  1. Action

    Hold a further police site visit after installing the measures to identify necessary amendments or further improvements.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 1 October 2017.
  2. Action

    Consult the police, Parish Council and County Councillor on proposed high-friction surfacing, road-marking and signage improvements.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 1 October 2017.
  3. Action

    Allocate funding to implement the collision study’s safety recommendations in 2017/18.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 October 2017.

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

  1. Position

    The recommendations were not delayed by insufficient resources; funding had already been allocated for 2016/17 and the following year.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 implement identified highway safety measures

Wider context from the report

“The C1021 is a minor country road that runs from the A595 at Orton Grange Roundabout in a north westerly direction and terminates when it joins the C2051 at Great Orton village. The road is generally unmarked and just wide enough for two vehicles to pass in opposite directions. The statutory speed limit is 60 mph. Approximately 220 metres prior to the scene of the collision on the C1021, is a left hand bend as you approach from the A595. The bend travels through an angle of approximately 16 degrees before the road straightens on the approach to the crossroads. The C1021 is straight for approximately 196 metres from the bend to the crossroad and continues straight beyond the crossroads for approximately 159 metres before entering another left hand bend. The police collision investigation report dated 14th August 2017 identifies at paragraph 4.4 that at this point, the presence of the crossroad junction is not obvious to any approaching vehicle. The height of the roadside hedgerows and their close proximity cause a tunnel effect and as such obscure any sign of the crossroads. It is also noted that the presence of the 'Give Way' sign at the crossroad junction is lost in the background and therefore not obviously visible to approaching drivers from a distance. Cumbria County Council is responsible for implementing measures on the county highway network that aim to reduce casualties and the risk of collisions. The C2051 Great Orton Crossroad was previously identified as having a sufficiently serious collision record during the period 1st October 2012 up to 30th September 2015. Capita were commissioned to carry out an independent investigation and inspection. The finding in the police investigation report at paragraph 4.4 as set out above was not identified by Capita. Evidence was heard at the inquest that the recommendations made by Capita in their report dated May 2016 were not implemented due to a lack of resources. The recommendations were; 1. The application of High Friction Surfacing on the north and southbound approached 2. Vegetation trimming – cutting back vegetation to the south-east, north-east and north-west quadrant verge areas 3. Additional Road markings on C1021 junction approaches – provide ‘SLOW’ markings on red patch on the C1021 approaches, adjacent to warning signs. (1) The current warning signage on approach to the junction from a north westerly direction is inadequate. (2) The height of the roadside hedgerows and their close proximity causes a tunnel effect obscuring any sign of the crossroads restricting visibility. (3) Modifications to the junction on approach as recommended by Capita should be re-considered to minimise the risk of incidents and death in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to implement identified safety actions; Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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 to maintain roadside vegetation so that the crossroads remains visible

Wider context from the report

“The C1021 is a minor country road that runs from the A595 at Orton Grange Roundabout in a north westerly direction and terminates when it joins the C2051 at Great Orton village. The road is generally unmarked and just wide enough for two vehicles to pass in opposite directions. The statutory speed limit is 60 mph. Approximately 220 metres prior to the scene of the collision on the C1021, is a left hand bend as you approach from the A595. The bend travels through an angle of approximately 16 degrees before the road straightens on the approach to the crossroads. The C1021 is straight for approximately 196 metres from the bend to the crossroad and continues straight beyond the crossroads for approximately 159 metres before entering another left hand bend. The police collision investigation report dated 14th August 2017 identifies at paragraph 4.4 that at this point, the presence of the crossroad junction is not obvious to any approaching vehicle. The height of the roadside hedgerows and their close proximity cause a tunnel effect and as such obscure any sign of the crossroads. It is also noted that the presence of the 'Give Way' sign at the crossroad junction is lost in the background and therefore not obviously visible to approaching drivers from a distance. Cumbria County Council is responsible for implementing measures on the county highway network that aim to reduce casualties and the risk of collisions. The C2051 Great Orton Crossroad was previously identified as having a sufficiently serious collision record during the period 1st October 2012 up to 30th September 2015. Capita were commissioned to carry out an independent investigation and inspection. The finding in the police investigation report at paragraph 4.4 as set out above was not identified by Capita. Evidence was heard at the inquest that the recommendations made by Capita in their report dated May 2016 were not implemented due to a lack of resources. The recommendations were; 1. The application of High Friction Surfacing on the north and southbound approached 2. Vegetation trimming – cutting back vegetation to the south-east, north-east and north-west quadrant verge areas 3. Additional Road markings on C1021 junction approaches – provide ‘SLOW’ markings on red patch on the C1021 approaches, adjacent to warning signs. (1) The current warning signage on approach to the junction from a north westerly direction is inadequate. (2) The height of the roadside hedgerows and their close proximity causes a tunnel effect obscuring any sign of the crossroads restricting visibility. (3) Modifications to the junction on approach as recommended by Capita should be re-considered to minimise the risk of incidents and death in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to control vegetation that obstructs safety-critical visibility.

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 independent highway safety investigations to identify obscured junction visibility

Wider context from the report

“The C1021 is a minor country road that runs from the A595 at Orton Grange Roundabout in a north westerly direction and terminates when it joins the C2051 at Great Orton village. The road is generally unmarked and just wide enough for two vehicles to pass in opposite directions. The statutory speed limit is 60 mph. Approximately 220 metres prior to the scene of the collision on the C1021, is a left hand bend as you approach from the A595. The bend travels through an angle of approximately 16 degrees before the road straightens on the approach to the crossroads. The C1021 is straight for approximately 196 metres from the bend to the crossroad and continues straight beyond the crossroads for approximately 159 metres before entering another left hand bend. The police collision investigation report dated 14th August 2017 identifies at paragraph 4.4 that at this point, the presence of the crossroad junction is not obvious to any approaching vehicle. The height of the roadside hedgerows and their close proximity cause a tunnel effect and as such obscure any sign of the crossroads. It is also noted that the presence of the 'Give Way' sign at the crossroad junction is lost in the background and therefore not obviously visible to approaching drivers from a distance. Cumbria County Council is responsible for implementing measures on the county highway network that aim to reduce casualties and the risk of collisions. The C2051 Great Orton Crossroad was previously identified as having a sufficiently serious collision record during the period 1st October 2012 up to 30th September 2015. Capita were commissioned to carry out an independent investigation and inspection. The finding in the police investigation report at paragraph 4.4 as set out above was not identified by Capita. Evidence was heard at the inquest that the recommendations made by Capita in their report dated May 2016 were not implemented due to a lack of resources. The recommendations were; 1. The application of High Friction Surfacing on the north and southbound approached 2. Vegetation trimming – cutting back vegetation to the south-east, north-east and north-west quadrant verge areas 3. Additional Road markings on C1021 junction approaches – provide ‘SLOW’ markings on red patch on the C1021 approaches, adjacent to warning signs. (1) The current warning signage on approach to the junction from a north westerly direction is inadequate. (2) The height of the roadside hedgerows and their close proximity causes a tunnel effect obscuring any sign of the crossroads restricting visibility. (3) Modifications to the junction on approach as recommended by Capita should be re-considered to minimise the risk of incidents and death in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety incident investigations.

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 warning signage on the north-westerly approach to the junction

Wider context from the report

“The C1021 is a minor country road that runs from the A595 at Orton Grange Roundabout in a north westerly direction and terminates when it joins the C2051 at Great Orton village. The road is generally unmarked and just wide enough for two vehicles to pass in opposite directions. The statutory speed limit is 60 mph. Approximately 220 metres prior to the scene of the collision on the C1021, is a left hand bend as you approach from the A595. The bend travels through an angle of approximately 16 degrees before the road straightens on the approach to the crossroads. The C1021 is straight for approximately 196 metres from the bend to the crossroad and continues straight beyond the crossroads for approximately 159 metres before entering another left hand bend. The police collision investigation report dated 14th August 2017 identifies at paragraph 4.4 that at this point, the presence of the crossroad junction is not obvious to any approaching vehicle. The height of the roadside hedgerows and their close proximity cause a tunnel effect and as such obscure any sign of the crossroads. It is also noted that the presence of the 'Give Way' sign at the crossroad junction is lost in the background and therefore not obviously visible to approaching drivers from a distance. Cumbria County Council is responsible for implementing measures on the county highway network that aim to reduce casualties and the risk of collisions. The C2051 Great Orton Crossroad was previously identified as having a sufficiently serious collision record during the period 1st October 2012 up to 30th September 2015. Capita were commissioned to carry out an independent investigation and inspection. The finding in the police investigation report at paragraph 4.4 as set out above was not identified by Capita. Evidence was heard at the inquest that the recommendations made by Capita in their report dated May 2016 were not implemented due to a lack of resources. The recommendations were; 1. The application of High Friction Surfacing on the north and southbound approached 2. Vegetation trimming – cutting back vegetation to the south-east, north-east and north-west quadrant verge areas 3. Additional Road markings on C1021 junction approaches – provide ‘SLOW’ markings on red patch on the C1021 approaches, adjacent to warning signs. (1) The current warning signage on approach to the junction from a north westerly direction is inadequate. (2) The height of the roadside hedgerows and their close proximity causes a tunnel effect obscuring any sign of the crossroads restricting visibility. (3) Modifications to the junction on approach as recommended by Capita should be re-considered to minimise the risk of incidents and death in the future. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage; Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road 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

Hold a further police site visit after installing the measures to identify necessary amendments or further improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Once all measures have been installed a further site visit will be held with the police to see if any amendments need to be made or if any further improvements are required.”

Source location

Jeffrey-Matthews-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 1 October 2017

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

Consult the police, Parish Council and County Councillor on proposed high-friction surfacing, road-marking and signage improvements.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The scheme to introduce the high friction surfacing, improved road marking and signage is currently out to consultation with the police, the Parish Council and the local County Councillor and subject to agreement, the measures will be introduced as soon as practicable. The vegetation has already been reduced by the local landowners, presumably as a result of the media coverage of the inquest.”

Source location

Jeffrey-Matthews-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 1 October 2017

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

Allocate funding to implement the collision study’s safety recommendations in 2017/18.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As you state in your report a study into road traffic collisions over the 3 year period, October 2012 to September 2015, was carried out by Capita and the report was published in May 2016. As a consequence of this report funding was allocated to implement the recommendations in the current financial year, 2017/18. This is standard practice in allocating funds for safety improvements i.e. the study is carried out in one financial year and depending on priorities the recommendations are implemented in the following financial year.”

Source location

Jeffrey-Matthews-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 1 October 2017

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 recommendations were not delayed by insufficient resources; funding had already been allocated for 2016/17 and the following year.

Verbatim wording from the response

“A statement is made in your letter that the Capita recommendations were not installed due to a lack of resources but they were not installed as by May 2016 the funding had already been allocated for the 2016/17 financial and funding was allocated for the following year, as explained previously.”

Source location

Jeffrey-Matthews-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 1 October 2017

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

    Improve the white lining following the fatal collision and site inspection.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 1 October 2017.

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

Improve the white lining following the fatal collision and site inspection.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Following the fatal collision in March 2017, a site visit was carried out by staff from the highways department and they immediately actioned the improvement of the white lining. This is in agreement with the police that any defect should be rectified as soon as possible and should not be delayed awaiting the outcome of an investigation or inquest.”

Source location

Jeffrey-Matthews-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 1 October 2017

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