Aaron Lauder
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2021-0021
All 1 response received
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
The primary cause of the collision was an obstructed view for both drivers at the accident site.
View full coroner's concerns
I concluded that the prime cause of the collision was the lack of view available to either driver at the accident locus.
Responses
Action Planned
Cornwall Council has agreed to fund a scheme to improve visibility at the farm access, with Cormac's Safety Engineering team having begun the design process and work planned for autumn. (AI summary)
Cornwall Council has agreed to fund a scheme to improve visibility at the farm access, with Cormac's Safety Engineering team having begun the design process and work planned for autumn. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Cox
Regulation 28 Report – Mr Aaron Anthony Lauder (deceased)
Thank you for the extension to the response period to your letter and Regulation 28 Report of 28th January 2021. This has been necessary to carry out a series of preliminary investigations and to confirm certain legal and financial issues with Cornwall Council. I am now able to reply in full as to the highway authority’s response to your recommendations.
Cornwall Council has agreed to fund a scheme to improve visibility at the farm access. The highway authority is intending to obtain the relevant land and set back the Cornish hedge, with the landowner’s full cooperation; Cormac’s Safety Engineering team has begun the design process. It is likely that the work will be undertaken in the autumn of this year.
I think it would be worth detailing the reasoning behind this decision, however, if only to set out clearly the legal issues and why this situation may be viewed as exceptional.
The highway authority has no general responsibility or duty to improve visibility from private accesses such as this. In fact, using public funds to do so – effectively improving private property at public expense – presents obvious difficulties. It would therefore normally be for the property owner to make such an improvement, not least as they would generally be the principal beneficiary.
Nonetheless, in certain circumstances, the highway authority may exercise a power to fund improvements to private property where the aim and result would be a gain in public safety. Any improvement to private property would simply be seen as an incidental benefit.
In the case of the access to Higher Drift Farm, a number of factors have been balanced.
Although visibility to the west out of the access is limited, Mr Lauder’s collision was the first to have been recorded here in the 50 years of our accident record system. This is likely to be for several reasons. Firstly, approach speed from the west is significantly constrained by the road alignment; our recent readings show an average speed of only 38mph and an 85th-percentile speed (generally used for road assessment) of 43mph (March 2021, 12,000 vehicles). Only 3% of drivers exceed 50mph.
Information Classification: CONTROLLED Secondly, as a private access it is used relatively infrequently. The owners tend to turn left out of the access due to both the greater difficulty of a right turn and the most common destinations simply being to the east. Both factors reduce the ‘exposure’ risk of collision for main road traffic.
Thirdly, due to the left-hand curvature of the road, drivers approaching from the west have a slightly greater view to the front of an emerging vehicle (approximately 55m), than the emerging driver has of them (just over 40m). Given the generally moderate speeds at which drivers are travelling, this usually gives them sufficient opportunity to react and to warn or brake to avoid an emerging vehicle. ‘Stopping distance’ is quoted at 38m from 40mph, and 53m from 50mph (Highway Code). Of course, all drivers have a duty to be able to stop well within the distance they can see to be clear in all circumstances (Highway Code R.126).
I suspect that the absence of preceding accidents is largely attributable to the combination of these factors, protecting the access from the relatively limited emerging visibility.
Against this, without going into the precise circumstances, Mr Lauder’s tragic death plainly demonstrates that the risk exists – however small – of a combination of factors that result in a collision.
Furthermore, following discussion with the landowners, it is plainly impractical to expect that they would be able to fund and undertake the relatively extensive scheme required to set back the hedge and improve visibility themselves (nor could they be compelled to).
In summary, while the risk of a similar accident occurring is very low, it cannot be ruled out. As the highway authority is the only body that realistically has the ability in this situation to address the risk, Cornwall Council is satisfied that it would be a suitable use of public funds in this instance and can be justified on the grounds of improving the safety of the public highway.
I note the other potential suggestions outlined in your Report and thank you for them. There are reasons why these would not be particularly effective or appropriate at this location, but as the visibility improvement gets to the heart of the safety issue, it is probably not necessary to respond to these in any detail here, although I would be happy to discuss them separately if desired.
I trust this is satisfactory. Please feel free to contact me should you wish for any further information.
Regulation 28 Report – Mr Aaron Anthony Lauder (deceased)
Thank you for the extension to the response period to your letter and Regulation 28 Report of 28th January 2021. This has been necessary to carry out a series of preliminary investigations and to confirm certain legal and financial issues with Cornwall Council. I am now able to reply in full as to the highway authority’s response to your recommendations.
Cornwall Council has agreed to fund a scheme to improve visibility at the farm access. The highway authority is intending to obtain the relevant land and set back the Cornish hedge, with the landowner’s full cooperation; Cormac’s Safety Engineering team has begun the design process. It is likely that the work will be undertaken in the autumn of this year.
I think it would be worth detailing the reasoning behind this decision, however, if only to set out clearly the legal issues and why this situation may be viewed as exceptional.
The highway authority has no general responsibility or duty to improve visibility from private accesses such as this. In fact, using public funds to do so – effectively improving private property at public expense – presents obvious difficulties. It would therefore normally be for the property owner to make such an improvement, not least as they would generally be the principal beneficiary.
Nonetheless, in certain circumstances, the highway authority may exercise a power to fund improvements to private property where the aim and result would be a gain in public safety. Any improvement to private property would simply be seen as an incidental benefit.
In the case of the access to Higher Drift Farm, a number of factors have been balanced.
Although visibility to the west out of the access is limited, Mr Lauder’s collision was the first to have been recorded here in the 50 years of our accident record system. This is likely to be for several reasons. Firstly, approach speed from the west is significantly constrained by the road alignment; our recent readings show an average speed of only 38mph and an 85th-percentile speed (generally used for road assessment) of 43mph (March 2021, 12,000 vehicles). Only 3% of drivers exceed 50mph.
Information Classification: CONTROLLED Secondly, as a private access it is used relatively infrequently. The owners tend to turn left out of the access due to both the greater difficulty of a right turn and the most common destinations simply being to the east. Both factors reduce the ‘exposure’ risk of collision for main road traffic.
Thirdly, due to the left-hand curvature of the road, drivers approaching from the west have a slightly greater view to the front of an emerging vehicle (approximately 55m), than the emerging driver has of them (just over 40m). Given the generally moderate speeds at which drivers are travelling, this usually gives them sufficient opportunity to react and to warn or brake to avoid an emerging vehicle. ‘Stopping distance’ is quoted at 38m from 40mph, and 53m from 50mph (Highway Code). Of course, all drivers have a duty to be able to stop well within the distance they can see to be clear in all circumstances (Highway Code R.126).
I suspect that the absence of preceding accidents is largely attributable to the combination of these factors, protecting the access from the relatively limited emerging visibility.
Against this, without going into the precise circumstances, Mr Lauder’s tragic death plainly demonstrates that the risk exists – however small – of a combination of factors that result in a collision.
Furthermore, following discussion with the landowners, it is plainly impractical to expect that they would be able to fund and undertake the relatively extensive scheme required to set back the hedge and improve visibility themselves (nor could they be compelled to).
In summary, while the risk of a similar accident occurring is very low, it cannot be ruled out. As the highway authority is the only body that realistically has the ability in this situation to address the risk, Cornwall Council is satisfied that it would be a suitable use of public funds in this instance and can be justified on the grounds of improving the safety of the public highway.
I note the other potential suggestions outlined in your Report and thank you for them. There are reasons why these would not be particularly effective or appropriate at this location, but as the visibility improvement gets to the heart of the safety issue, it is probably not necessary to respond to these in any detail here, although I would be happy to discuss them separately if desired.
I trust this is satisfactory. Please feel free to contact me should you wish for any further information.
Sent To
- Cornwall Council
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
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
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On 27/1/21, I concluded an inquest into the death of Aaron Antony Lauder, 38, who died in a road traffic collision on the A30 near Higher Drift Farm, Penzance. . The medical cause of death was recorded as: 1a) Displaced Basal Skull Fracture Traversing Middle Cranial Fossa Vault with Underlying Traumatic Brain Injury Cerebral Oedema; Bilateral Rib Fractures Complicated by Flail Segment, Pneumothorax and Multiple Pulmonary Lacerations 1b) Blunt Force Head and Chest Trauma 1c) Motor vehicle collision II)
I recorded a Conclusion of Road Traffic Collision.
I recorded a Conclusion of Road Traffic Collision.
Circumstances of the Death
Mr Lauder was riding his Kawasaki motorbike along the A30 in an easterly direction from St Buryan towards Penzance. At the scene of the collision, a John Deere tractor was turning right in a westerly direction across Mr Lauder’s path. The national speed limit of 60mph is in force at the location. The Collision Investigator recorded that there was a ‘distinct lack of view to the right especially given the speed limit’ available to the tractor driver. The view was similarly restricted for Mr Lauder.
Action Should Be Taken
While it is the Highway Authority who has the expertise in how to improve road safety at the junction, it seems to me there are a number of steps that may sensibly be considered:
- The hedge obstructing the view could be taken down. If Cornwall Council is not the landowner of the hedge, could you kindly provide me with the name and Information Classification: CONTROLLED contact address of the owner so I may write to them in similar terms;
- The 30mph speed limit that begins at the outskirts of the village of Drift could be extended in a westerly direction to include this junction and the bend immediately preceding it when approaching from an easterly direction;
- A suitably sized mirror could be placed in the hedge opposite the mouth of the junction so that drivers turning right could have a view of approaching vehicles otherwise out of sight behind the bend;
- Rumble strips and/or a warning sign of a hidden junction could be placed on the carriageway or before the bend where the incident occurred.
- The hedge obstructing the view could be taken down. If Cornwall Council is not the landowner of the hedge, could you kindly provide me with the name and Information Classification: CONTROLLED contact address of the owner so I may write to them in similar terms;
- The 30mph speed limit that begins at the outskirts of the village of Drift could be extended in a westerly direction to include this junction and the bend immediately preceding it when approaching from an easterly direction;
- A suitably sized mirror could be placed in the hedge opposite the mouth of the junction so that drivers turning right could have a view of approaching vehicles otherwise out of sight behind the bend;
- Rumble strips and/or a warning sign of a hidden junction could be placed on the carriageway or before the bend where the incident occurred.
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.