PFD report

Leanne Carmen Gower · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 19 Nov 2014•Northamptonshire

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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised3

  1. Failure to routinely check provided damage-only incident data
  2. Displaced road bollard
  3. Failure to record damage-only incidents
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road-traffic-collision reporting for highway safety management
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Financial pressures and required savings make allocating staff time to collate and analyse damage-only collision data difficult to justify.

    Stated by Northamptonshire PoliceUnable 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

Failure to routinely check provided damage-only incident data

Wider context from the report

“It emerged in evidence that the police do not routinely check all provided data in relation to damage only incidents to the Council, MGWSP or any other party responsible for the maintenance of roads. It was the evidence of PC ████████ that such damage only incidents stopped being recorded in January 2011, although the reason for that decision was unclear. In this particular case, the damage only collisions data was as follows:- 2010 – 5 2011 – 7 2012 – 3 2013 – 8 2014 – 13 to date Although there were no reported incidents since the returturing of the relevant stretch of road, there is evidence of further incidents as one of the bollards has been displaced since. ████████ of the Police’s Safer roads team agreed in evidence that damage only collisions that are reported should be taken into consideration when determining whether any works are required to a particular stretch of highway. ████████ Principal Asset Engineer at Northamptonshire County Council also believed that collision only data would be helpful. ”

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

Displaced road bollard

Wider context from the report

“It emerged in evidence that the police do not routinely check all provided data in relation to damage only incidents to the Council, MGWSP or any other party responsible for the maintenance of roads. It was the evidence of PC ████████ that such damage only incidents stopped being recorded in January 2011, although the reason for that decision was unclear. In this particular case, the damage only collisions data was as follows:- 2010 – 5 2011 – 7 2012 – 3 2013 – 8 2014 – 13 to date Although there were no reported incidents since the returturing of the relevant stretch of road, there is evidence of further incidents as one of the bollards has been displaced since. ████████ of the Police’s Safer roads team agreed in evidence that damage only collisions that are reported should be taken into consideration when determining whether any works are required to a particular stretch of highway. ████████ Principal Asset Engineer at Northamptonshire County Council also believed that collision only data would be helpful. ”

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

Failure to record damage-only incidents

Wider context from the report

“It emerged in evidence that the police do not routinely check all provided data in relation to damage only incidents to the Council, MGWSP or any other party responsible for the maintenance of roads. It was the evidence of PC ████████ that such damage only incidents stopped being recorded in January 2011, although the reason for that decision was unclear. In this particular case, the damage only collisions data was as follows:- 2010 – 5 2011 – 7 2012 – 3 2013 – 8 2014 – 13 to date Although there were no reported incidents since the returturing of the relevant stretch of road, there is evidence of further incidents as one of the bollards has been displaced since. ████████ of the Police’s Safer roads team agreed in evidence that damage only collisions that are reported should be taken into consideration when determining whether any works are required to a particular stretch of highway. ████████ Principal Asset Engineer at Northamptonshire County Council also believed that collision only data would be helpful. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road-traffic-collision reporting for highway safety management.

Open source report

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

Financial pressures and required savings make allocating staff time to collate and analyse damage-only collision data difficult to justify.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no statutory requirement to collect, collate and analyse damage only data. If this activity were to be graded in terms of necessity and weighed against policing priorities, then it would likely be given a very low priority. Current financial conditions and the requirement to make significant savings would also make the need to fund staff time to deal with damage only data difficult to justify. Consequently I would not recommend that formal steps be taken to collate and analyse damage only data within this organisation. My conclusion supports the decision of Chief Officers taken in September 2011.”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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

Damage-only collision data is too limited, unreliable and insufficiently rigorous to determine meaningful road-safety interventions safely.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where non-injury collisions are recorded by the police, details are again very brief and held in their administrative system for reference purposes. Reports are not forwarded to Northamptonshire Highways and we do not have the resource capacity to input the detail on our database.”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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

Formal collation and analysis of damage-only collision data is not considered necessary because there is no statutory requirement and it has low priority.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no statutory requirement to collect, collate and analyse damage only data. If this activity were to be graded in terms of necessity and weighed against policing priorities, then it would likely be given a very low priority. Current financial conditions and the requirement to make significant savings would also make the need to fund staff time to deal with damage only data difficult to justify. Consequently I would not recommend that formal steps be taken to collate and analyse damage only data within this organisation. My conclusion supports the decision of Chief Officers taken in September 2011.”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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

Non-injury collision data is too incomplete, unreliable and scientifically weak to identify sites confidently or determine meaningful safety interventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Non-injury collision data held by the police is retained in a form that is of no evidential value for analysis purposes and is therefore not considered by the Panel. An explanation of the police non-injury collision recording policy is provided later in this report.”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-County-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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.2

  1. 1

    Brief county road-safety problem solvers on the incident and require them to report emerging collision-location concerns informally.

    Stated by Northamptonshire PoliceStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 November 2014.
  2. 2

    Review the Skidding Resistance Strategy to identify whether further changes or improvements are required.

    Stated by Northamptonshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 November 2014.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.4

  1. 1

    Northamptonshire Highways lacks resource capacity to input brief, unvalidated police records of non-injury collisions into its database.

    Stated by Northamptonshire PoliceUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. 2

    The Red Route process and working party are already subject to monthly expert review and annual assessment, so further process changes are not indicated.

    Stated by Northamptonshire County CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.
  3. 3

    Reviewing Department for Transport design guidance for the motorway and trunk-road network falls outside the County Council’s remit.

    Stated by Northamptonshire County CouncilOutside remitThe respondent said that this matter was outside its role or authority.
  4. 4

    The Council lacks capacity to input police-held non-injury collision details into its database, preventing their analysis for safety interventions.

    Stated by Northamptonshire County CouncilUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Brief county road-safety problem solvers on the incident and require them to report emerging collision-location concerns informally.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However I do acknowledge the concerns raised by the Coroner and propose instead to highlight this issue to the small group of officers, located around the county, who have taken on a role as road safety problem solvers. I will brief them on the circumstances of this particular incident and ask that, as part of their role, they informally report any concerns that they become aware of in relation to collision locations. Where it”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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 Skidding Resistance Strategy to identify whether further changes or improvements are required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) Skidding Resistance Policy The County Council’s policy and utilisation of SCRIM data modifies the Department of Transport guidance for use on the County Principal Road network. NCC considers that strict application of HD28/04 is too stringent for a local road network because the national”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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

Northamptonshire Highways lacks resource capacity to input brief, unvalidated police records of non-injury collisions into its database.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where non-injury collisions are recorded by the police, details are again very brief and held in their administrative system for reference purposes. Reports are not forwarded to Northamptonshire Highways and we do not have the resource capacity to input the detail on our database.”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-Police
Page 3 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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 Red Route process and working party are already subject to monthly expert review and annual assessment, so further process changes are not indicated.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Red Route Working Party and Red Route Process This is the working party referred to in your report and the process is more of a strategy rather than a policy. The process has been in place since 2000 and the working party meets on a monthly basis with expert practitioners from Northamptonshire Highways, Northamptonshire police and Northamptonshire Fire & Rescue Service. The Red Route process has evolved over the years and an annual review of routes, interventions, working practices and inclusion of SCRIM data ensures that the most effective strategy is in place. This means that the process is already subject to regular review.”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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

Reviewing Department for Transport design guidance for the motorway and trunk-road network falls outside the County Council’s remit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. Department of Transport Design Manual National Guidance HD 28/04 is published by the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency for use on the Motorway and Trunk Road network. As such, it is without the remit of the County Council to review. However, I would comment that in the period 2001 to 2004, Northamptonshire saw considerable changes to its principal road network as a result of the government’s national programme of trunking and detrunking. This consisted of the A45 (from M1 Jn 15 to A14) becoming a trunk road and sections of the A6, A428, A43, A45 and A47 ceasing to be trunk roads and becoming part of the county A road network.”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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 Council lacks capacity to input police-held non-injury collision details into its database, preventing their analysis for safety interventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where non-injury collisions are recorded by the police, details are again very brief and held in their administrative system for reference purposes. Reports are not forwarded to Northamptonshire Highways and we do not have the resource capacity to input the detail on our database. To put this in context we currently input around 1200 personal injury collisions per year on our database and the police file around 2,500 non-injury collisions in their system. This is in hard copy form and presents no opportunity to interrogate, validate or analyse the information. We spend a great deal of time validating the data contained within personal injury collision forms in order to ensure that the information available on the database has a high degree of accuracy.”

Source location

2014-0567-Response-by-Northamptonshire-County-Council
Page 4 · response
Published 19 November 2014

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
2/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026