Kevin Lawrenson
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2014-0577
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 12 Feb 2015
Sent To
Response Status
Responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
12 Feb 2015
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
Coroner’s Concerns
In the circumstances it is my statutory duty to make this report to you.
in relation to slow moving vehicles at the location, signage and steps that may be possible to reduce the likelihood of a similar accident occurring in future.
It will be seen from paragraph 2.3 of report that there have been a large number of similar accidents at or near this location, including 3 fatalities since 2008. It will also be seen from paragraph 3.1.1 that there are two signs prior to the location of the scene warning of slow moving vehicles. On page 10 of report there is a photograph of the first of the 2 signs. It does not appear to be a very large sign; it is sited quite low down.
I heard oral evidence from Mr about the system of monitoring and reporting in place and that, as recommended in the 2013 Safety Monitoring Report prepared on behalf of UK Highways Limited, a further study between junction 5 to 6 has been undertaken and a report is due to be completed very shortly. it is understood that the report is likely to outline possible improvements to signage and other steps. For example, there is the potential of increasing signage and/ or making the additional signs more visible. I was told there was insufficient room in the central reservation to place a sign. I understand chevrons for lane separation is a possibility, as is an electronic sign which detects slow moving vehicles and warns other motorists. I appreciate of course that there will be considerations around the issue of funding if improvements are to be implemented.
in relation to slow moving vehicles at the location, signage and steps that may be possible to reduce the likelihood of a similar accident occurring in future.
It will be seen from paragraph 2.3 of report that there have been a large number of similar accidents at or near this location, including 3 fatalities since 2008. It will also be seen from paragraph 3.1.1 that there are two signs prior to the location of the scene warning of slow moving vehicles. On page 10 of report there is a photograph of the first of the 2 signs. It does not appear to be a very large sign; it is sited quite low down.
I heard oral evidence from Mr about the system of monitoring and reporting in place and that, as recommended in the 2013 Safety Monitoring Report prepared on behalf of UK Highways Limited, a further study between junction 5 to 6 has been undertaken and a report is due to be completed very shortly. it is understood that the report is likely to outline possible improvements to signage and other steps. For example, there is the potential of increasing signage and/ or making the additional signs more visible. I was told there was insufficient room in the central reservation to place a sign. I understand chevrons for lane separation is a possibility, as is an electronic sign which detects slow moving vehicles and warns other motorists. I appreciate of course that there will be considerations around the issue of funding if improvements are to be implemented.
Responses
Response received
View full response
Dear Mr Salter 12 FEB 2615 KEVIN ROBERT LAWRENSON REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHRRECEIVED DATE OF DEATH: 18 JUNE 2014 INQUEST AT OXFORD CORONER'S COURT ON 17 DECEMBER 2014 Further to your letter dated 18 December and my acknowledgement of 29 December now provide a substantive response to your report: We are now in possession of an investigation report commissioned from UK Highways M4O Limited, the company that operates the M4O motorway on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport; which has studied accidents on the M4O between Junctions 6 and 5, Stokenchurch Cutting: We have carefully considered the recommendations in this report and we have now instructed UK Highways M4O Limited to initiate work to improve signing on the southbound approach to the Stokenchurch Cutting: UK Highways M4O Limited will be producing detailed designs, road safety audits and site surveys as part of this work and we expect the improved signing to include an additional sign 'Slow Moving Lorries' closer to the steeper section of the carriageway: will also raise the height of existing signing and provide yellow, high visibility backing boards to increase their conspicuity. We currently expect this work to be completed this summer
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 26 June 2014 I opened an Inquest into the death of Mr Kevin Lawrenson who was 39 years of age when he sadly died following a road traffic collision on the M40 Motorway (just past Junction 6) in Oxfordshire. I concluded the Inquest on 17 December 2014 at Oxford Coroner’s Court. A copy of the Record of Inquest is attached. It will be seen that I gave a conclusion of ‘Accident’ and made the following findings:
Kevin Lawrenson was driving his works van at approximately 18.55 hours on 18 June 2014 Southbound on the M40 Motorway between Junction 6 towards Junction 5 at Lewknor near Stokenchurch, Oxfordshire when he collided with the rear of a slow moving lorry in lane 1 on an incline uphill.
There was oral evidence at the Inquest from 4 witnesses. This included the Police Collision Investigator and from the Traffic Management Unit of Hampshire Constabulary/ Thames Valley Police Roads Policing. Additionally, I arranged for a representative from the Highways Agency to attend and give evidence. Mr Michael Freeman, Departments Representative, based at Bedford, gave evidence. My office provided the Highways Agency with a copy of the Inquest file prior to the hearing. Consequently, I have not provided you with a copy of the file with this letter but I do attach a copy of the report of Collision Investigator, and the report prepared by dated 31 July 2014.
Kevin Lawrenson was driving his works van at approximately 18.55 hours on 18 June 2014 Southbound on the M40 Motorway between Junction 6 towards Junction 5 at Lewknor near Stokenchurch, Oxfordshire when he collided with the rear of a slow moving lorry in lane 1 on an incline uphill.
There was oral evidence at the Inquest from 4 witnesses. This included the Police Collision Investigator and from the Traffic Management Unit of Hampshire Constabulary/ Thames Valley Police Roads Policing. Additionally, I arranged for a representative from the Highways Agency to attend and give evidence. Mr Michael Freeman, Departments Representative, based at Bedford, gave evidence. My office provided the Highways Agency with a copy of the Inquest file prior to the hearing. Consequently, I have not provided you with a copy of the file with this letter but I do attach a copy of the report of Collision Investigator, and the report prepared by dated 31 July 2014.
Circumstances of the Death
The circumstances are briefly set out above but are explained in more detail in the report of the Collision Investigator. Mr Lawrenson drove into the rear of a Romanian HGV as it drove very slowly (22mph according to the Tachograph) uphill in lane 1 of the M40. The collision occurred just past Junction 6. The HGV was loaded with 23 tonnes of bricks. It was not overladen however. It is understood that the HGV was initially driving behind a recovery vehicle which was towing a vehicle and that this is also partly the reason why the HGV was driving so slowly.
Copies Sent To
and to
Mr D. M Salter
HM Senior Coroner
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes with this PFD
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Revise signal sighting standard to explicitly consider signal readability
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Define additional time required for reading gantry-mounted and complex signals
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Clarify "very short duration" definition within the signal sighting standard
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Identify and retrospectively review locations affected by "very short duration" ambiguity
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Clarify "overhead line equipment" in signal sighting standard to mean wires and droppers
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Define acceptable limits for temporary signal obscuration in sighting standards
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Explicitly define cab sight lines for signal positioning based on driver's eye
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Railtrack to conduct safety examination of Paddington station layout and operations.
Ladbroke Grove Inquiry
Hazardous road design
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.