PFD report

MRS HILARY MOOCK and MRS JANICE TAYLOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Jan 2015•West Sussex

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
6

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 raised6

  1. Failure of the A285 to meet modern road design standards
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
  2. Risk to drivers from opposite-direction vehicles during a slowed approach into the road
  3. Lack of lighting at the road location
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
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

    Investigated the access track’s condition and whether it contributed to the collision.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 January 2015.
  2. Action

    Visited the site one year after the original investigation to assess the track’s condition.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 January 2015.
  3. Action

    Undertook daylight and darkness field tests of the right-turn manoeuvre and available visibility.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 January 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.7

  1. Position

    The Council considers it has no maintenance duty and potentially lacks legal power to extend asphalt into the bridleway.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilUnable 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 of the A285 to meet modern road design standards

Wider context from the report

“(1) The A285 is an ancient rural road and it does not meet the design standards of a modern road. It is noted that this road features in the list of persistently higher risk roads under the EuroRap fatal and serious collisions per kilometre travelled analysis. ”

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

Risk to drivers from opposite-direction vehicles during a slowed approach into the road

Wider context from the report

“(4) This hesitation could cause drivers to slow down their approach into the road and therefore put them at risk from vehicles travelling in the opposite direction. ”

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 lighting at the road location

Wider context from the report

“(2) The location of this accident is in a dark unlit area and there is no clear indication that there is an entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages. This is a difficult turn to make from the Northerly approach as the line of sight to the brow of the hill is only 90 metres. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

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 the entrance road surface to provide a sufficient even asphalted access

Wider context from the report

“(3) There is only limited amount of asphalt at the entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages of some 2 metres. The road then becomes “unmade” and uneven with several large potholes. It appeared from the evidence that because of this drivers are somewhat cautious when driving into the road. ”

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 clear indication of the entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages

Wider context from the report

“(2) The location of this accident is in a dark unlit area and there is no clear indication that there is an entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages. This is a difficult turn to make from the Northerly approach as the line of sight to the brow of the hill is only 90 metres. ”

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

Limited line of sight for the turn from the Northerly approach

Wider context from the report

“(2) The location of this accident is in a dark unlit area and there is no clear indication that there is an entrance into St Mary's Farm and Benges Cottages. This is a difficult turn to make from the Northerly approach as the line of sight to the brow of the hill is only 90 metres. ”

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

Investigated the access track’s condition and whether it contributed to the collision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our own investigation in October 2013 considered the condition of the access track to St Mary’s Farm and Benges Cottages and whether this had been a causative factor in the collision. Evidence given at the inquest in relation to the behaviour and actions of the driver of the vehicle executing the turn and the range of factors that may have affected his judgment on this specific occasion will be significant in terms of causation and will have been taken into account. It is not considered that the change in surface would of itself have been a significant factor outside those additional and particular factors pertinent to the incident.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 January 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

Visited the site one year after the original investigation to assess the track’s condition.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no public right of way by motor vehicles along the bridleway; such use is restricted to drivers with a private right of access. Responsibility for the maintenance of the surface for vehicular use falls to the private users. These drivers will be familiar with the location, its condition and its intersection with the main highway. We do not consider it likely that such drivers will exhibit excessive caution at this location due to the change in surface. It would seem reasonable to conclude that regular motor-vehicle users of the track are those best placed to make a decision on the suitable condition required for safe access to and from the main highway. At a site visit one year on from our original investigation it appeared that the track was in a similar condition to that on the date of the fatal collision.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 January 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

Undertook daylight and darkness field tests of the right-turn manoeuvre and available visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“adjustments on seeing a turning vehicle and maintains their speed. Our own on site field tests undertaken in daylight and darkness showed that from a standing start, handbrake on, wheels aligned straight and proceeding cautiously, the right turn manoeuvre was completed in between 3 and 3.5 seconds (to fully clear the southbound lane and enter the bridleway). In daylight it was possible to complete the turn without causing a southbound vehicle to adjust its speed if the manoeuvre was started before there was a southbound vehicle in sight. If a vehicle was in sight then the turn was not executed. At night it was far easier to judge the presence of oncoming vehicles as the glow from their headlights was apparent a significant time before they crested the rise. We conclude that the 90m forward visibility for a right turning driver is adequate for drivers exercising proper care and attention.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 January 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 Council considers it has no maintenance duty and potentially lacks legal power to extend asphalt into the bridleway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“4. There is no duty on West Sussex County Council as the Highway Authority to maintain the bridleway beyond that standard required for its publicly permitted use. More, the construction of an asphalt hard surface may go beyond the power to carry out works to improve highways given under Section 62 (2) of the Highways Act 1980 as this should be determined by the public use attaching to the route. Given this and the other considerations above the County Council does not consider there to be any grounds to carry out any works to extend the area of asphalt surface further into the bridleway.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 23 January 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

Private users with vehicular access are responsible for maintaining the track surface for vehicular use.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no public right of way by motor vehicles along the bridleway; such use is restricted to drivers with a private right of access. Responsibility for the maintenance of the surface for vehicular use falls to the private users. These drivers will be familiar with the location, its condition and its intersection with the main highway. We do not consider it likely that such drivers will exhibit excessive caution at this location due to the change in surface. It would seem reasonable to conclude that regular motor-vehicle users of the track are those best placed to make a decision on the suitable condition required for safe access to and from the main highway. At a site visit one year on from our original investigation it appeared that the track was in a similar condition to that on the date of the fatal collision.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 January 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 access route is not considered to require ongoing maintenance given the history of incidents at this location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It could be surmised that regular users with private vehicular rights do not consider that its condition hinders motor vehicle access to the degree that it requires them to undertake regular and on-going maintenance. The Authority does not consider that access to or from the main carriageway requires such maintenance given the history of”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 23 January 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 specific junction does not have a sufficiently high collision rate to justify intervention under the Council’s investigation criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The A285 does feature on the EuroRap list of persistently high risk routes under the EuroRap fatal and serious collisions per kilometre travelled analysis. However the specific location of this incident does not express a high collision rate. In the five years to December 2014 there have been three reported injury collisions including that of the 28th September 2013. The other two collisions resulted in slight injuries. West Sussex County Council’s current criterion for investigating collision cluster sites for possible remedial measures is eight reported injury collisions in five years or five reported injury collisions in three years. The EuroRap listing is not therefore a useful reference point for an assessment of intervention need for the specific location of this incident.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 23 January 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

Available visibility is considered adequate for drivers exercising proper care and attention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Visibility is limited by the topography (a hill crest slightly north of “Benges”) which makes turning manoeuvres on this section of road slightly more difficult to negotiate than on a road designed to modern standards, but not exceptionally so. The visibility is not reduced below the stopping distances given in the Highway Code for 60mph.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 23 January 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 landowner may seek planning permission for surface improvements, subject to normal planning processes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The landowner may seek planning permission to make improvements to improve the quality of the surface so as to ease vehicular use and the County Council would not unreasonably object to such permission, subject to normal planning processes, should they wish to do so.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 23 January 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

Additional lighting is not considered necessary because the route is rural, lighting would be disproportionate, and it could distract drivers.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. The route is a rural road in the heart of the South Downs National Park and as such, in common with other rural roads, is unlit. The start of the entrance is indicated by a bridleway direction sign (to diagram No 2610 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002) sited at its junction with the A285, which serves as a marker. St Mary’s Farm, Benges and Benges Cottages are private destinations and it would be expected that visitors with private vehicular right of access would be familiar with the location of the entrance. Lighting for the route would be both disproportionate to benefit and would be contrary to light pollution minimisation within such a rural setting. Specific lighting for such a junction would be a distraction rather than a benefit to drivers.”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 23 January 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

    Conducted traffic speed surveys at the junction using automatic traffic counters.

    Stated by West Sussex County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 January 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

Conducted traffic speed surveys at the junction using automatic traffic counters.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Traffic speed surveys have recently been undertaken using automatic traffic counters that recorded data between the 20th January 2015 and the 4 February 2015. The results show that the average speed of southbound vehicles as they crest the hill and approach the junction is 43mph with an 85th percentile speed of 51mph. Within this range a southbound vehicle will cover the 90m between the hill crest and the junction in 4.6 to 3.9 seconds. This assumes that the approaching driver makes no reactive”

Source location

2015-0020-Response-by-West-Sussex-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 23 January 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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026