PFD report

Deborah Roberts and Marshall Roberts · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Jun 2015•Mid Kent and Medway

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.

Concerns raised4

  1. Failure to reduce the Sheppey Road Bridge speed limit from 70 mph
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
  2. High vehicle speeds on the Sheppey Road Bridge
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
  3. Insufficient forward visibility caused by the geometry of the Sheppey Road Bridge
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely
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

    Implement a temporary 50-mile-per-hour speed restriction along the specified A249 approach roads and crossing in both directions.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 June 2015.
  2. Action

    Complete and publish a safety review of the A249 Swale Crossing, focusing particularly on the speed limit.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 11 June 2015.
  3. Action

    Enhance incident management by enabling more flexible use of variable-message-sign messages through the regional control centre.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 June 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Kent Police should actively assist Highways England and SRL in achieving compliance with the posted speed limit over the crossing.

    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

Failure to reduce the Sheppey Road Bridge speed limit from 70 mph

Wider context from the report

“• Accident data reveals that in addition to the collision subject of this inquest which resulted in two fatalities, there have been a number of rear end collisions on the Sheppey Road Bridge associated with stationary vehicles being struck including a multiple vehicle collision in September 2013 • A review of the safety of the Sheppey Road Bridge published in February 2015 has concluded that a combination of the geometry of the bridge affecting the forward visibility available to drivers and the high speeds of vehicles travelling over the bridge which has a 70 mph limit impacts on the safety of the bridge. The review recommended a reduction in the speed limit to 50 mph to mitigate the safety concerns • The speed limit for the bridge remains at 70 mph ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

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

High vehicle speeds on the Sheppey Road Bridge

Wider context from the report

“• Accident data reveals that in addition to the collision subject of this inquest which resulted in two fatalities, there have been a number of rear end collisions on the Sheppey Road Bridge associated with stationary vehicles being struck including a multiple vehicle collision in September 2013 • A review of the safety of the Sheppey Road Bridge published in February 2015 has concluded that a combination of the geometry of the bridge affecting the forward visibility available to drivers and the high speeds of vehicles travelling over the bridge which has a 70 mph limit impacts on the safety of the bridge. The review recommended a reduction in the speed limit to 50 mph to mitigate the safety concerns • The speed limit for the bridge remains at 70 mph ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

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

Insufficient forward visibility caused by the geometry of the Sheppey Road Bridge

Wider context from the report

“• Accident data reveals that in addition to the collision subject of this inquest which resulted in two fatalities, there have been a number of rear end collisions on the Sheppey Road Bridge associated with stationary vehicles being struck including a multiple vehicle collision in September 2013 • A review of the safety of the Sheppey Road Bridge published in February 2015 has concluded that a combination of the geometry of the bridge affecting the forward visibility available to drivers and the high speeds of vehicles travelling over the bridge which has a 70 mph limit impacts on the safety of the bridge. The review recommended a reduction in the speed limit to 50 mph to mitigate the safety concerns • The speed limit for the bridge remains at 70 mph ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road sight distance for drivers to identify hazards safely.

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

Rear-end collision hazard involving stationary vehicles on the Sheppey Road Bridge

Wider context from the report

“• Accident data reveals that in addition to the collision subject of this inquest which resulted in two fatalities, there have been a number of rear end collisions on the Sheppey Road Bridge associated with stationary vehicles being struck including a multiple vehicle collision in September 2013 • A review of the safety of the Sheppey Road Bridge published in February 2015 has concluded that a combination of the geometry of the bridge affecting the forward visibility available to drivers and the high speeds of vehicles travelling over the bridge which has a 70 mph limit impacts on the safety of the bridge. The review recommended a reduction in the speed limit to 50 mph to mitigate the safety concerns • The speed limit for the bridge remains at 70 mph ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Implement a temporary 50-mile-per-hour speed restriction along the specified A249 approach roads and crossing in both directions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b) A temporary 50 mile per hour speed restriction from the end of the current 50 mile per hour speed restriction at the Neats Court roundabout (Thomsett Way) through to Grovehurst junction in both directions has been implemented. These points have been chosen at this stage in order to ensure that the implementation of a temporary speed limit did not create a new risk of its own and was at least no less safe than the circumstances existing at the time of the accident on 1 July 2014.”

Source location

Response from Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 11 June 2015

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

Complete and publish a safety review of the A249 Swale Crossing, focusing particularly on the speed limit.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a) Following the tragic deaths of Deborah and Marshall Roberts, a review of safety of the A249 Swale Crossing was commissioned, with a particular emphasis on the speed limit (“the ARUP review”). The ARUP review (published in February 2015) concluded that a combination of geometry of the bridge affecting the forward visibility available to drivers and the high average speeds of vehicles travelling over the bridge had an impact upon the safety of the bridge. The report offered evidence that these high average speeds were created by those driving in excess of the posted speed limit which takes the subject of reduced Stopping Sight Distance outside the scope of DMRB.”

Source location

Response from Highways
Page 3 · response
Published 11 June 2015

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 incident management by enabling more flexible use of variable-message-sign messages through the regional control centre.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It will additionally enhance incident management by providing greater flexibility in the use of the VMS message sets through the Highways England Traffic Officer Service Regional Control Centre, with whom Kent Police already have agreed working protocols.² Highways England awaits information about the delivery date for this work.”

Source location

Response from Highways
Page 4 · response
Published 11 June 2015

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

Kent Police should actively assist Highways England and SRL in achieving compliance with the posted speed limit over the crossing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In paragraph 6 of the Regulation 28 report the coroner states that she believes that Highways England has the power to take action to prevent future deaths. Highways England accepts that it has power to take action and refers to the measures set out above. However, based upon its understanding of the information available in relation to the 1st July 2014 fatal collision, Highways England considers that it is also crucial that compliance with the posted speed limits is achieved. This view is reinforced by consideration of other collisions at the locus, as noted in the ARUP review (paragraph 5.2) in which it is noted that speed is likely to have been a factor in all the collisions reviewed.”

Source location

Response from Highways
Page 4 · response
Published 11 June 2015

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 bridge design and maintenance comply with DMRB, achieving scheme objectives and an acceptable balance between safety, cost and economic growth.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a) Highways England considers that the bridge is designed and built and is being maintained in accordance with the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (“DMRB”) and that it has delivered the scheme objectives, as set out at Public Inquiry. The Post Opening Project Evaluation report dated July 2012 reiterated these as follows:”

Source location

Response from Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 11 June 2015

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 crossing's collision rate is substantially below the national average, so the available evidence does not establish an unusually high safety risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“c) Whilst every accident is undesirable and may have tragic consequences, as does the present one, when considering an appropriate response to the concerns raised, it is important to consider this accident in the context both of the volume of traffic passing through the accident locus and other data which is available. Some 30,000 vehicles pass over the crossing each day. Post-accident reports confirm that in the 5 year period up to mid-2014, there were 7 relevant personal injury collisions on the crossing, in addition to this tragic accident. There was also a multi-vehicle incident in heavy fog just off the crossing in September 2013 (which is not included in the above statistics). Highways England notes the collision rate as assessed in the February 2015 ARUP review of safety (please see below) is substantially less than the national average collision rate.¹”

Source location

Response from Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 11 June 2015

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

    Review the actions' impact on the DBFO project-road payment mechanism and submit a proposed revision to Schedule 9.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 11 June 2015.

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 actions' impact on the DBFO project-road payment mechanism and submit a proposed revision to Schedule 9.

Verbatim wording from the response

“e) In parallel to the above Highways England will need to review the impact these actions may have in relation to the DBFO project road payment mechanism and provide a proposal of revision to Schedule 9 to SRL.”

Source location

Response from Highways
Page 4 · response
Published 11 June 2015

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