PFD report

Jan Bodnar · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Apr 2016•Hertfordshire

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
6

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 regularly cut back plant growth at road junctions
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to control vegetation that obstructs safety-critical visibilityPart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions
  2. Plant growth severely restricting drivers’ view at a junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions
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.5

  1. Action

    Clear vegetation at the A505 Slip End Farm junction within the central reserve safety barrier.

    Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2016.
  2. Action

    Assess similar junctions between Baldock and Royston to identify locations requiring additional vegetation clearance.

    Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2016.
  3. Action

    Revise highway safety inspectors’ remit to identify vegetation requiring corrective action on this length of road.

    Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 29 April 2016.

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 regularly cut back plant growth at road junctions

Wider context from the report

“(1) That the state of the central reservation at this junction was dangerous in that the plant growth severely restricted the view for a driver of traffic approaching from the left. (2) The evidence showed that the growth had been cut back a week or so after this incident, but the risk of danger to motorists will only be avoided if the growth at this junction is regularly cut back. (3) The evidence showed that similar risks may well be present at other similar junctions on this road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to control vegetation that obstructs safety-critical visibility; Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous 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

Plant growth severely restricting drivers’ view at a junction

Wider context from the report

“(1) That the state of the central reservation at this junction was dangerous in that the plant growth severely restricted the view for a driver of traffic approaching from the left. (2) The evidence showed that the growth had been cut back a week or so after this incident, but the risk of danger to motorists will only be avoided if the growth at this junction is regularly cut back. (3) The evidence showed that similar risks may well be present at other similar junctions on this road. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions; Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous 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

Clear vegetation at the A505 Slip End Farm junction within the central reserve safety barrier.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Cleared the vegetation (tree, shrubs and other plant growth) at the A505 Slip End Farm junction (inside the safety barrier within the central reserve) on 25 and 27 July 2015.”

Source location

2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016

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

Assess similar junctions between Baldock and Royston to identify locations requiring additional vegetation clearance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Carried out an assessment of similar junctions on this section of road between Baldock and Royston. This has revealed that of the 11 junctions, 6 require further vegetation clearance over and above what is covered by our cyclical grass cutting maintenance programme. This work is planned to be undertaken in July 2016, subject to weather and other factors outside of our control.”

Source location

2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016

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

Revise highway safety inspectors’ remit to identify vegetation requiring corrective action on this length of road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Revised the remit for our highway safety inspectors for this length of road to ensure that vegetation of this nature is identified, enabling corrective action to be programmed.”

Source location

2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016

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

Clear vegetation at six identified junctions between Baldock and Royston beyond cyclical grass-cutting maintenance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Carried out an assessment of similar junctions on this section of road between Baldock and Royston. This has revealed that of the 11 junctions, 6 require further vegetation clearance over and above what is covered by our cyclical grass cutting maintenance programme. This work is planned to be undertaken in July 2016, subject to weather and other factors outside of our control.”

Source location

2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016

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

Revise the vegetation maintenance regime so tree, shrub and plant-growth cutting is coordinated annually with grass cutting on this length of road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Revised the maintenance regime for vegetation for this length of road, so that the cutting of trees, shrubs and other plant growth will be carried out in co-ordination with grass cutting on an annual basis.”

Source location

2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 29 April 2016

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 forward-visibility requirements at similar junctions on other Hertfordshire roads using a risk- and asset-intelligence approach beginning with high-speed roads.

    Stated by Hertfordshire County CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 29 April 2016.

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 forward-visibility requirements at similar junctions on other Hertfordshire roads using a risk- and asset-intelligence approach beginning with high-speed roads.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Further to the items above, we are reviewing forward visibility requirements at similar junctions on other roads in Hertfordshire. We are using a risk/asset intelligence based approach starting with high speed roads. This assessment will be completed by the end of August 2016.”

Source location

2016-0166-Response-by-Hertfordshire-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 29 April 2016

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