Shaun Neal

Contact,

Direct Tel:
email:
Your ref: JET/AB/2005 /17
Our ref: OC 1488

By email

hmcoroner@durham.gov.uk

Mr James E Thompson

HM Assistant Coroner for County Durham and Darlington
PO Box 282

Bishop Auckland

County Durham

DL14 4FY

7th June 2019

Dear Mr Thompson
Regulation 28 — Mr Shaun David Neal (Inquest 15 April 2019)

Thank you for your letter and Regulation 28 Report dated 15" April 2019 which Terry Collins,
Chief Executive, has asked me to respond to. This was a tragic accident and the Council
wishes to express its sincere condolences to the family and friends of Mr Neal.

In accordance with Regulation 28 we have considered whether any improvements should
be made to the section of A68 road to prevent future accidents and this letter is our response
pursuant to Regulation 29.

Site Investigation Following Fatal Accident Report

The Council has an Accident Investigation and Prevention team and one of their roles is to
investigate every fatal accident in conjunction with Durham Constabulary’s Traffic
Management Unit. Please find attached a copy of the report at Appendix 1. These reports
are undertaken to help identify any defects or improvements to the highway infrastructure.

The report made the following observations / recommendations although it noted that they
were not considered contributory factors in the accident.

___| Observation / Recommendation Action

As part of the general maintenance | An order was placed for the
programme, at the earliest recovery of road markings in the
vicinity of Hermitage Bridge.

Regeneration and Local Services
Durham County Council, County Hall, Durham DH1 5UF
Main Telephone 03000 26 0000

Text Messaging Service 07860 093 073

www.durham.gov.uk

Page 2 of 4

convenience, refurbish the road

]
markings showing signs of wear.
1/2 Review the existing hazard marker | Hazard marker posts were
| provision with regard to level of checked, and a works order
deterioration and maintained placed to replace any defective

conspicuousness during periods of | posts.
vegetation growth. Replace posts, if
required, and address any visibility
concerns as part of the general

| maintenance programme.

3 Given the observations made in the | A visibility survey was
visibility at junctions and bends undertaken to determine whether
section, determine the requirement | a system of double white lines
for additional highway infrastructure | was required. Such a system
such as supplementary road was not identified as being

markings and upright signing. justified.

A full review of the Council's accident report including further survey work has been
undertaken. Accordingly, in responding to the ‘Matters of Concern’ that you raise in your
report, we would comment as follows:

e It is acknowledged that in cases where a traffic accident has arisen from a vehicle
overtaking another vehicle and, in so doing entering the opposing carriageway and
colliding with an oncoming vehicle, the suggestion of a restriction to prevent
overtaking at that location may have prevented the incident. This statement could
be said for any location where an accident occurs arising from an overtaking
manoeuvre and if restrictions were introduced because of such accidents, there
would be a proliferation of restrictive measures throughout the highway network. It
is therefore necessary to ensure that restrictions are only used where they are fully
justified by an adherence to the national standards which have been developed to
ensure the credibility of the restrictions, a consistent and appropriate usage;

e There is no mandatory requirement to introduce double white line systems on the
road network therefore this discretionary decision rests with the Traffic Authority to
make, who in turn would consult with the Police due to contravention of the fining
system being an endorsable offence as per Section 36 of the Road Traffic
Regulation Act 1988;

e The criteria for the use and design of double white line systems is given in Chapter
5 of the Traffic Signs Manual issued by the Department for Transport. This
document was revised and reissued in 2019 and consideration of the request for
the introduction of double white lines has been reviewed in accordance with the
latest version of this document.

e Where double white lines are to be considered, the road should be surveyed in
accordance with the procedure detailed in Chapter 5 Section 3.9.

Page 3 of 4

e The road has been surveyed as detailed in the procedure. The survey of the
location identified only a short length where visibility was impaired although this was
below the criteria for the provision of a system of double white lines.

e - Chapter 5, paragraph 3.1.2 states that where visibility is just above the minimum
standard, but overtaking may nevertheless present a danger, the warning line to
Diagram 1004 (hazard line) should be used.

e Chapter 5, paragraph 3.1.5 indicates that where forward visibility is less than the
desirable minimum it does not automatically follow that double white lines should
always be installed and that regard to the route should be part of the consideration.
It goes on to suggest that it is important not to use the marking where the
appropriate criteria are not satisfied, otherwise it will be brought into disrepute and
eventuaily lose the respect of drivers.

e Chapter 5 paragraph 3.1.6 states that the emphasis should always be on not using
double white lines except where they are clearly justified by the criteria on both the
length in question and as part of the route as a whole.

e The A68 is a principal road through the County which is primarily rural in nature and
follows the topography of the land through which it passes. Along the route there
are sections of the road which have systems of double white lines provided
although these are generally associated with the vertical profile of the road (hidden
dips and long crests). Notwithstanding this, there are other locations along the
route where forward visibility is impaired due to either or both the horizontal and
vertical alignment which currently are not subject to double white line systems and
where a hazard line is provided. The introduction of double white lines, particularly
over short distances at sporadic locations along the A68 where visibility is slightly
impaired is likely to lead to increased confusion amongst motorists as to where it is
safe and where it is not safe to overtake. Provision at this location would be
inconsistent with the rest of the route.

e An integral part of the assessment process is the consideration of the previous
accident history along the section of road and the circumstances relating to any
accidents which have occurred. There are no previous accidents over the last 10
years (the extent of available detailed data) relating to overtaking where visibility is
impaired.

e Consideration has also been made regarding other guidance for motorists and, in
particular Rule 127 of the Highway Code which describes a hazard line, stating do
not cross it unless you can see the road is clear and wish to overtake or turn off. In
addition, Rule 166 of the Highway Code indicates that a motorist must not overtake
if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is
safe. It goes on to give examples of a corner or bend, a hump bridge and the brow
of a hill.

e tis concluded that the criteria for the provision of a system of double white lines
has not been met and there is no previous history of overtaking accidents
associated with impaired forward visibility at this location. Therefore, there is no

Page 4 of 4

justification for the introduction of double white lines and the current provision of a
hazard marking is considered appropriate and consistent with the rest of the A68
route.

Whilst it was not considered appropriate to introduce a system of double white lines at this
location, it was noted during the survey that a number of hawthorn bushes contributed to

* the reduced visibility. An order for the removal of these bushes was subsequently made
and they have since been removed. We have consulted with the Police Traffic
Management Officer who is supportive of this decision.

Our condolences go to Mr Neal's family and friends on their tragic loss. | hope the above
goes some way towards offering a considered response to your correspondence.

If you would like to discuss this matter further please contact Traffic

Asset Senior —_— on a number EEE OF by email at

Your sincerely

oo

Strategic Highways Manager

Enc
Appendix 1