PFD report

Lyn Morgan · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 26 Feb 2019•Swansea and Neath Port Talbot

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised1

  1. Failure of the barrier to safely redirect heavy vehicles along its length
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate roadside vehicle-restraint barriers
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

    Continue monitoring incidents and review containment policy and practice when future data indicate emerging risks.

    Stated by Welsh GovernmentStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  2. Action

    Continue collaborating with National Highways on reviews of modern default barrier-containment levels, including data contribution and discussion.

    Stated by Welsh GovernmentStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 9 June 2019.
  3. Action

    Apply national barrier-containment standards consistently across the Strategic Road Network.

    Stated by Welsh GovernmentStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 9 June 2019.

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

  1. Position

    No site-specific factors justified higher containment, so the concern that N2 was inadequate is disputed.

    Stated by Welsh GovernmentDisputes 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 of the barrier to safely redirect heavy vehicles along its length

Wider context from the report

“1. The barrier is designed to redirect the vehicle along its length, so that it doesn’t flip over or be redirected back onto the carriageway. On this occasion the height of the wheels and the lack of input on the steering wheel deflected the wheels and therefore redirected the lorry back onto the carriageway contrary to its design. 2. The road in question is extensively used by heavy vehicles and therefore the potential is there for these circumstances to arise again. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate roadside vehicle-restraint barriers.

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

Continue monitoring incidents and review containment policy and practice when future data indicate emerging risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• Continue to monitor incidents of this type and review containment policy and practice should future data indicate emerging risks such as central reserve breaches involving HGVs.”

Source location

Response from Welsh Government
Page 3 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Continue collaborating with National Highways on reviews of modern default barrier-containment levels, including data contribution and discussion.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• not be supported by national evidence on risk frequency. Changes of this scale are led at a UK national level by National Highways, who are currently carrying out research into future containment policy. Welsh Government continues to contribute network data and engage in these discussions.”

Source location

Response from Welsh Government
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Apply national barrier-containment standards consistently across the Strategic Road Network.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As stated above, the Welsh Government is committed to improving road safety. In line with this commitment, it will ensure that the following policy positions and forward actions are taken forward:”

Source location

Response from Welsh Government
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

No site-specific factors justified higher containment, so the concern that N2 was inadequate is disputed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Based on site characteristics, traffic volumes, and risk factors at the time of construction, there was no engineering justification to apply higher containment (e.g., H1/H2). National guidance requires such upgrades only where:”

Source location

Response from Welsh Government
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Retaining N2 containment was considered appropriate because it complied with national standards and policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Historic as-built records and information from our Operational Agent confirm that the nearside and central reserve barriers installed at the location at the time of the 2013 incident were systems of N2 containment level. N2 containment was, and continues to be, the nationally recognised default containment level for this category of dual carriageway. This aligns with long standing UK practice and the national standards applicable at the time.”

Source location

Response from Welsh Government
Page 1 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

A higher default containment level was not pursued because it would be disproportionately costly and require extensive network-wide reconstruction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• specific hazards such as structures or significant embankments. No such factors were present at this location. Retaining N2 containment was therefore appropriate and consistent with national policy. Introducing a higher default containment level across Wales would:”

Source location

Response from Welsh Government
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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

Changes to default containment policy are led nationally by National Highways, which is researching future policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“• not be supported by national evidence on risk frequency. Changes of this scale are led at a UK national level by National Highways, who are currently carrying out research into future containment policy. Welsh Government continues to contribute network data and engage in these discussions.”

Source location

Response from Welsh Government
Page 2 · response
Published 9 June 2019

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