Ralph Brazier

PFD Report All Responded Ref: 2017-0090
Date of Report 20 March 2017
Coroner Christopher Sutton-Mattocks
Coroner Area Surrey
Response Deadline est. 31 May 2017
All 1 response received · Deadline: 31 May 2017
Response Status
Responses 1 of 1
56-Day Deadline 31 May 2017
All responses received
About PFD responses

Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.

Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary

Coroners Concerns
Having heard cvidence from & nutmber of members of Surzey County Council, [ concerned that insufficient consideration is taken by the Council of the increasing number of cyclists On their highways; particular in relation to the categorisation of defects on the highway. I an particularly concerned that desighated cycle lanes are given higher priority relating to 4 defect than & highway, despite the high uumber Of cyclists the highway rather than cycle lancs with closer proximity to traffic including heavy vehicles Surrey County Council has failed to take into sufficient account the fact that cyclists use the highways as well as cycle lanes in their priority categorisations. That the great number of cyclists, and the risks to themt the highways, particularly the uearside section, are not specifically considered when Surrey County Council are assessing the highways fdr Re-consideration should be given to whether aty steps; including changes to thc categorisation of highway defects in light of the greater use of public highways by cyclists, can be taken to address the above concerns
Responses
Surrey County Council
27 Mar 2017
Response received
View full response
Surrey County Council's response to the Regulation 28 Report On 27th March 2017 Mr Christopher Sutton-Mattocks, H.M. Assistant Coroner for Surrey, issued a report under paragraph 7(1) of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 following the inquest touching the death of Ralph Ian Brazier ("the inquest"). The Coroner'$ concerns are as follows: "Having heard evidence from a number of members of Surrey County Council, am concerned that insufficient consideration is taken by the Council of the increasing number of cyclists on their highways, particular in relation to the categorisation of defects on the highway: am particularly concerned that designated cycle lanes are given higher priority relating to a defect than a highway, despite the high number of cyclists using the highway rather than cycle lanes with closer proximity to traffic including heavy goods vehicles. "The MATTERS OF CONCERN are: Surrey County Council has failed to take into sufficient account the fact that cyclists use the highways as well as cycle lanes in their priority categorisations_ That the number of cyclists, and the risks to them the highways, particularly the nearside section, are not specifically considered when Surrey County Council are assessing highways for repair. "Re-consideration should be given to whether any steps, including changes to the categorisation of highway defects in light of the greater use of public highways by cyclists, can be taken to address the above concerns This is the response of Surrey County Council to that report and to the coroner's concerns set out therein, Surrey County Council ("SCC") , as the highway authority, is responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of public highways within Surrey: The total length of the highway road network is approximately 3,000 miles across which there are approximately 175 miles of designated cycle routes On average 70,000 reported defects on the highway are repaired each year. SCC has published and applies a highway policy which includes a detailed inspection regime of the network and measurement criteria for the assessment and prioritisation of defects in the highway: The current Highway can be found at https LLwww surreyccgOv uklroads-and transportIroads-and-transport-policies-plans-and-consultationskroads-and-transport-policies-and: plans/highwar-safetx-inspections-standards-and procedures In formulating its highways policy SCC works in close partnership with Kier plc, which is responsible for undertaking the highway repairs. The aim is to maintain a policy that is compliant with the National Code of Practice and which enables the effective management of risk to the safety of all highway users across the whole Surrey network using great the Policy

The Department of Transport publishes a Code of Practice which provides guidance and recommendations to highway authorities in the formulation of their highways policies. The Code of Practice distinguishes types of highway, including the carriageway for general use (vehicular, pedestrian and cycle) and cycle routes Code acknowledges that cycle routes can form part of the carriageway or be separate from it. The Code of Practice recognises that different factors and criteria apply to the assessment ofthe condition of the carriageway to that of designated cycle routes SCC is satisfied that its current highways policy complies with the requirements set out in the Code of Practice_ In particular the imposition of more stringent defect criteria on designated cycle routes is entirely in accordance with the advice and guidance provided by the Department of Transport: The latest revision of the Code of Practice was published in October 2016 and in accordance with the revision of this national document SCC has begun a review of its highway policy. As part of this review SCC will also consider the Coroner' $ concerns and ifand to what extent the inspection regime, including defect assessment and categorisation, should be amended, This will include for further analysis of the number of cyclists and differing use of the highway network by cyclists in Surrey: To allow for sufficient consideration of the revised national Code of Practice the authority has two years to make amendments to their policies following its publication. On this basis the latest timescale for implementation of any changes to our Highway Policy will be September 2018. In relation to the matter of assessment; highway inspectors, when assessing any defect in the highway, are required not only to apply the defect criteria set out in the policy but also to consider the particular circumstances of the locus including the potential danger created by the defect to all road users, cyclists as well as vehicle drivers Cyclists are entitled to, and do, use all parts of Surrey' s road network. Highway Inspectors take this into account when assessing potential defects. the Highway inspector who identified the defect scrutinised at the inquest; gave evidence that he took into account the potential dangers to cyclists when he categorised the defect: SCC is satisfied tha assessment fully complied with its highway policy; Inspector training requirements are set out in the Code of Practice and SCC is satisfied that it is compliant in this regard, To enhance the existing training regime SCC are preparing additional training for the highway inspectors in relation to the risk assessment for vulnerable users, which includes for cyclists This additional training will be completed by the end of August 2017 Ongoing training requirements will be further reviewed following the completion of the review ofthe highway policy: SCC are aware of the increased use of the network by cyclists within Surrey as a result of the London Olympics and Ride London and have implemented various measures to improve cycling safety in general; For example, SCC provide national standard Bikeability cycle training which teaches cyclists to ride away from the kerb; to avoid hazards, to improve their visibility to vehicle drivers, and to encourage vehicles to overtake as they would do other vehicles SCC have also utilised the DriveSMART initiative to engage with sports cyclists using Facebook and recently carried out a cycling safety campaign which included messages to cyclists to ride away from the kerb and also messages to motorists to give cyclists room _ The following link provides more information: http:LLWWW drivesmartsurrey org UkImedia-and-publicity-campaigns/cyclingl The any
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and [ believe that the people listed in paragraph one above have the power to take guch action
Report Sections
Circumstances of the Death
Mr Brazier; 4 52 year old man; was cycling with 6 other riders a8 part of thc Twickenham Cycling Club on ] March 2016. Thcy were cycling in the "through and off" foration whereby cyclists ride in (Wo parallel lines rotating positions. As the group approached Weybridge on the A317 Mr Brazier was cycling on the inside of the through and off formuation at approximately 20 The cyclists would ride 0.75m1-lm from the side of the kerb depending on the road surface-At a on the A317, just past the junction with Hamm Court Road; the front wheel of Mr Brazier' $ cycle hit a pot hole next to the drainage gully cover; His was stopped instantly and he WAs thrown forwards Janding on the road in ftont of the drain, The pot hole and gully cover bad been brought to the attention of Surrey County Council (SCC) after having becn reported by a local resident on 25 January 2016, On the sate day the SCC website reported (he kerbside surface breaking up around the drain gully: The gully appeared to be collapging aud it was classed category 2 by & SCC Highways Ispector; along mph; point cycle

On1 28 January 2016 tho gully was temporarily repaired by a Kier Plc team and immediatc response Was placed 0n the defect by the Highways inspector: On 12 February 2016 # permanent was made by the Kier Ple team whereby : new grating Was fitted and the gully frame wAs re-fitted, On 25 Febraary 2016, an inspection by highwayg inspector for SCC, showed that the permanent repair had suken and it was scheduled Priority 2 by" for $ working days, Had it been marked as Priority 2+ it would have been scheduled fOr within & much shorter time period, A highway inspector from SCC would see the defect, assess the travelling public, the risk ofharn} or damage to the highway user and then classify it, AIl road users are taken into account when inspecting & road however & patb would be inspected differently in respect of cyclists with 4 different defect categorisation For a highway the defect would have to be greater than 7Smm; for 4 2+ defect; whereas for & designated latle the defcct would have to be only in excess of 40mm)_ The planned date of repair was 2 March 2016, within the of P2 classification but One after Mr Brazier's death;
Copies Sent To
MATTOCKS lpsy Rav DATED this 23rd of March 2017 dey

Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.