Prevention of Future Deaths reports · 2017

Margaret Jones

Regulation 28 report to prevent future deaths, reference 2017-0053, written 22 Feb 2017. A coroner writes one of these when an inquest reveals a risk that could cause further deaths unless something changes.

Date of report22 Feb 2017
Reference2017-0053
DeceasedMargaret Jones
CoronerPeter Harrowing
Coroner areaAvon
CategoryRoad (Highways Safety) related deaths
Sourcejudiciary.uk record · original PDF
Responses published1

The report

Text recovered by OCR from a scanned PDF. OCR is imperfect: check anything you rely on against the source PDF. Reproduced verbatim, including the scan's own layout.

REGULATION 28: REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS

THIS REPORT iS BEING SENT TO:

1. Mr Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Executive, Highways England
2. (Daughter of the Deceased)
3. Avon & Somerset Constabulary
4. Chief Coroner
1 | CORONER

lam Dr. Peter Harrowing, LLM, Assistant Coroner, for the coroner Area of Avon

2 | CORONER’S LEGAL POWERS

| make this report under paragraph 7, Schedule 5, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009
and Regulations 28 and 29 of the Coroners (investigations) Regulations 2013. |

3. | INVESTIGATION and INQUEST

On 13th September 2016 | commenced an investigation into the death of Mrs. Margaret
Joyce Jones age 74 years. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 18th
January 2017. The conclusion of the inquest was that the medical cause of death was
l(a) Traumatic rupture of thoracic aorta. Multiple rib fractures, Fractured pelvis and the
short-form conclusion was that the death was due a ‘Road Traffic Collision’.

4 | CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DEATH

The circumstances of Mrs. Jones’ death was that on 5th September 2016 she was
driving her Ford Tourneo (Registration [i along Branch Road, Hinton
Charterhouse in the direction of the A36. She was alone in the car at the time. Her
daughter was driving the car ahead with two other occupants. At around 13:24 hours
Mrs. Jones was emerging from the Branch Road junction on to the A36 with the intention
of turning right (south east). Her daughter had just performed the same manoeuvre. As
she commenced the right turn on to the A36 a collision occurred between her vehicle and
a Scania R450 44 tonne articulated lorry travelling north, the driver of the lorry being
unable to avoid the collision.

SSPE

As a result of the collision Mrs. Jones received serious injuries from which she died at the
scene. She was pronounced dead at 14:20 hours. The driver of the lorry was physically
uninjured.

it

During the Inquest | heard evidence from witnesses to the collision as well as from i
of the Collision Investigation Unit, Avon & Somerset Constabulary who {

conducted the collision investigation. In evidence | heard that the weather at the time of
collision was dry, overcast with good visibility. The carriageway surface was mostly dry. |
Junction markings were worn but visible. The high friction coating of the A36 in the i
vicinity of the junction was worn in places. | heard evidence that the speed of the Scania i
R450 immediately before the collision was approximately 35 mph. The speed limit on the |
|

carriageway at the scene of the collision is 60 mph and 50mph for large goods vehicles.

The Ford Tourneo and the Scania R450 were both examined by specialist vehicle
examiners of the Collision Investigation Unit who reported that there were no defects in
either vehicle which would have caused or contributed to the collision. A medical
episode, alcohol and mobile phone use by either driver were not factors in the collision.

During the Inquest | heard evidence that opposite the junction were unauthorised road
side traders making and selling sizeable carved wooden objects. In addition | heard that
Mrs. Jones, who was following her daughter, was anxious not to lose sight of her
daughter as she was unsure of the route. This anxiousness on the part of Mrs. Jones
and the possible momentary distraction due to the traders opposite the junction | found to
be contributory factors to the collision.

During the course of the Inquest | heard evidence from a 3: there had been a
number of road traffic collisions at this junction involving vehicles emerging from Branch
Road, with both the speed of vehicles and traffic density being contributory factors. |
have since been informed of 17 collisions being reported to the Police between 30th
June 2008 and 5th September 2016 including the fatality of Mrs. Jones.

CORONER’S CONCERNS

During the course of the inquest the evidence revealed matters giving rise to concern. In
my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken. In the
circumstances it is my statutory duty to report to you.

The MATTERS OF CONCERN are as follows. —

(1) Notwithstanding the contribution made to this collision by the factors described above
there have been a number of road traffic collisions at this junction involving drivers
emerging on to the A36.

(2)The speed limit in the section of the A36 either side of Branch Road should be
reduced so as to improve the safety of drivers both those on A36 and those emerging
from Branch Road.

(3) The road signs including carriageway markings should be reviewed and improved so
as to provide greater warning to drivers as to the risk from this junction.

(4) Whilst not factors in this collision appropriate repairs should be made to the high
friction surface and road markings in the vicinity of the junction.

ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN

In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and | believe your
organisation has the power to take such action.

YOUR RESPONSE

You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report,
namely by 19th April 2017. |, the coroner, may extend the period.

Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken, setting out
the timetable for action. Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed.

COPIES and PUBLICATION

| have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the following Interested
Persons: EE (O2uchter of the Deceased) as well as Avon & Somerset
Constabulary.

| am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response.

The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary
form. He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful

or of interest. You may make representations to me, the coroner, at the time of your
response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner.

22nd February 20 Assistant Coroner

Senate

Responses

1 response published against this report on judiciary.uk. A response is a body's written reply to the coroner's concerns; publication is at the discretion of the Chief Coroner's office, so an absent response does not mean nobody replied.

Response from Highways England
highways
england

Dr Peter Harrowing
The Coroners Court
The Courthouse
Old Weston Rd
Flax Bourton
BS48 1UL

Dear Dr Harrowing

Temple Quay House
2 The Square, Temple Quay
Bristol BS1 6HA

30 March 2017

DEATH OF MRS MARGARET JONES-REGULATION “28 REPORT

I write regarding your letter of 22 February 2017 to 
, our Chief Executive
Officer, concerning the unfortunate events of  5th September 2016 on the  A36  junction
with Branch Road that resulted in the tragic death of Mrs Margaret Jones.

First  of  all  can  I  extend  my  deep  sympathy  to  the  family  of  Mrs  Jones.  Highways
England considers the safety of its customers our number  one priority and an  incident
such as this is felt profoundly within the organisation.

In  your  letter,  you  refer  to  four  matters  of  concern  including  three  areas  where  you
consider  action  should  be  taken  and  that  Highways  England  is  the  organisation  that
could take action should it be justified.

Accident Profile in the locality of the A36/Branch Road Junction

In terms of the monitoring of accidents in a given locality, five years of accident data is
now  considered  when  assessing  a  problem  location  and  developing  an  appropriate
intervention, as accident profiles can change over time. The profile in recent years has
remained  stable  since  2012  and  improved  over  that  of  the  years  before.  It  is  still
considered  an  accident  cluster  site,  but  is  ranked number  37  in  our priority  list  in  the
northern part of our South West region.

Please  be  aware  that  Highways  England  has  to  apply  its  limited  funds  in  locations
where there is an evidenced accident profile and that the intervention progressed must
be an appropriate response to accident causation rather than incidents induced by other
factors. This is to ensure that the maximum can be achieved in terms of injury savings
for the travelling public in the correct locations.

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ
Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363

INVESTORS
IN  PEOPLE

 The posted speed limit on the approach to Branch Road and the potential for its
reduction

The  A36 is  a  strategic  road for  the movement  of  goods  and people from  ports  in  the
south to the large conurbations and motorway network in the north. As such a balance
has to be struck between this strategic function and local operation.

In the locality of Branch Road it is rural in nature. In order to be effective, posted speed
limits  need  to  be  intuitive  and  enforceable.  That  is  to  say  they  need  to  reflect  their
surroundings in terms of character and be seen by the travelling public as appropriate
and reasonable.

In cases where inappropriate speed limits are applied, they are generally not adhered to
and  in  some  cases  can  result  in  higher  speeds  as  motorists  react  negatively  to
something  they  consider  inappropriate.  In  addition,  given  the  rural  locality  the  Police
would find it difficult to enforce a reduced limit here with associated poor compliance.

In localities where there have been accidents, we have to be clear that we identify the
correct causation and apply an appropriate solution that is based on evidence and the
causation of accidents that are being targeted.

With reference to this incident it seems the Scania vehicle travelling on the A36, based
on the  assessment  in your letter,  was traveling at  about  35  mph  which is  significantly
below  the  posted  limit.  It  does  not  appear  excessive  speed  was  a  factor  on  this
occasion  and  a  reduction  in  the  posted  limit  would  be  unlikely  have  to  avoided  or
influenced the unfortunate outcome of the incident of the 5th September 2016.

On that basis it would seem inappropriate to reduce the speed limit in a locality where it
is unlikely to be adhered to and have any positive effect.

Signing and road markings on the approach to Branch Road

A  scheme  was  completed  on  24th November  2015  at  Branch  Road  with  the  aim  of
raising the visibility of the Branch Road junction. It comprised the following elements:

(cid:127)  The introduction of a double white line system to prohibit motorists overtaking

(cid:127)  The replacement of two existing “BEND AHEAD” warning signs to also include a junction
warning sign  on  yellow backing boards to raise  awareness and the  visual profile of  the
junction for approaching motorists.

(cid:127)  SLOW road markings adjacent to the signs.

(cid:127)  Red surfacing on the right-turn facilities to’discourage encroachment on to them.

(cid:127)  New  direction  signing  on  passive  posts  to  improve  driver  awareness  and  reduce  the

potential for sudden changes in direction in the locality of the junction.

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ
Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363

t 

\ 

INVESTORS
I N PEOPLE

 1

The validation of STATS 19 accident data takes some time to come through to us. We
do not have a full year of validated accident data after implementation of the scheme in
order  to determine its  effectiveness or otherwise.  Normally  we undertake Road Safety
Audit (RSA) 4a and 4b at 12 months and 36 months respectively to monitor the effect of
a scheme on the accident profile.

Appropriate Repairs to High Friction Surfacing

Our maintenance interventions  are made  on  the basis  of priority and safety. We have
had  our  pavement  specialists  inspect  the  junction  recently.  The  wear  of  the  HFS  is
immediately  opposite  the  junction,  caused  by  tyre  friction  associated  with  vehicles
turning off of the A36 and not in the braking zone for approaching vehicles.

It is not currently safety critical and it can reasonably be assumed that at the time of the
accident  was  in  better  condition  that  it  is  now.  Following  monitoring,  a  localised
temporary  repair  was recently implemented and a permanent  replacement scheme for
part  of the  HFS is being progressed through the normal prioritized value management
process.

Conclusion

In  summary, the  A36 is  an evolved  rural  route  and  we have  in  place a  realistic  speed
limit and  applied what engineering measures are possible to make the travelling public
aware of the risks that they are approaching.

The road surface, specifically the HFS, while showing signs of wear is still fit for purpose
and  what  wear there  is can  be  considered normal and  adjacent  to  the  junction  rather
than in the braking zone. It will of course be monitored and overtime be replaced during
our  normal  cycle  of  renewals.  On  that  basis  I  consider  we  have  implemented
appropriate repairs and management regimes.

Other  factors  influenced  the  tragic  events  of  5th September  2016  and  these  were  not
associated  with  the  physics  of  the  A36  or  Branch  Road.  You  have  found  that  the
anxiousness of Mrs Jones not to lose sight of her daughter and the possible momentary
distraction due to traders opposite the junction were contributory factors to the collision.
Given  the  factors  that  colluded  against  Mrs  Jones  it  is  difficult  to  identify  any
engineering measures that  would have prevented this tragedy that were not  already in
place.

We are of course not complacent and will continue to monitor the locality as we do with
our  entire  network.  If  the  situation  changes  here  we  would  look  to  act  within  our
constraints and in an appropriate manner

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ
Highways England Company Limited registered in England and Wales number 09346363

INVESTORS
I N PEOPLE

V Z  

 I trust this information is of use.

Yours sincerely

Team Leader
South West Operations Division - Growth & Improvement Team

Registered office Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford GU1 4LZ
Highways England Company Limited registered In England and Wales number 09346363

INVESTORS
, N PEOPLE

Related reports

Other reports by Peter Harrowing

See all →

More reports categorised “Road (Highways Safety) related deaths”

See all →

Track Road (Highways Safety) related deaths

See every Prevention of Future Deaths report matching Road (Highways Safety) related deaths, and how often a new one appears.

What would an alert for this have sent me? Search the full text

Free to try — the preview shows the real matches and how many arrived in the last 12 months. Your first email alert is free.

These reports are published by the Chief Coroner's office at judiciary.uk and are © Crown copyright. The text here is reproduced from the published PDF so it can be searched. If something on this page is wrong, or you are a person named in it and want it reviewed, email drcjar@gmail.com and we will act promptly.