Vichal Tonpradit
PFD Report
All Responded
Ref: 2016-0380
All 1 response received
· Deadline: 6 Dec 2016
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
A raised section of tarmac separating a motorway slip road from the main carriageway caused a motorcyclist to fall, leading to fatal injuries.
View full coroner's concerns
(1) The raised section of the tarmac separating the slip road from the main carriageway on the AI(M) approaching Junction 6 northbound is potentially hazardous_ (2) At the same location, the visual marking (solid white line)
Responses
Action Taken
National Highways obscured a redundant road marking with bituminous material. A Smart Motorway scheme is planned for 2020 that will alter the road layout. (AI summary)
National Highways obscured a redundant road marking with bituminous material. A Smart Motorway scheme is planned for 2020 that will alter the road layout. (AI summary)
View full response
1
REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
THIS RESPONSE IS BEING SENT TO:
1. The Senior Coroner for Hertfordshire, Mr Geoffrey Sullivan of The Old Courthouse St Albans Road East, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 0ES in response to a ‘Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths’ following an inquest hearing into the death of Mr Vichai Tonpradit that concluded on 11 October 2016.
1 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND
I am Mr Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Executive of Highways England Company Limited of Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, SURREY GU1 4LZ.
2 CORONER’S MATTERS OF CONCERN
The MATTERS OF CONCERN were identified as follows:–
a. The raised section of the tarmac separating the slip road from the main carriageway on the A1(M) approaching Junction 6 northbound is potentially hazardous; and
b. At the same location, the visual marking (solid white line) from the previous road layout is potentially confusing.
3 DETAILS OF ACTION TAKEN
a. The raised section of kerb separating the off slip road from the main carriageway on the A1(M) at Junction 6 northbound is addressed at point 6a. below.
b. Having reviewed the road markings at the location it would appear that since the incident on 10 November 2015 the road marking referred to was covered over by applying a bituminous material to obscure the redundant solid white line and this is no longer visible.
4 DETAILS OF FURTHER ACTION PROPOSED
The government announced as part of the Roads Investment Strategy 2015-2020 the proposal for a Smart Motorway for the A1(M) Junction 6 to 8. The introduction of the Smart Motorway scheme for this section of the A1(M) would alter the existing road layout at Junction 6 northbound and southbound. The preferred operating model for smart motorways is “All Lane Running”. This means the existing hard shoulder would be converted into a traffic lane providing three lanes for traffic with the addition of regular refuge areas in place of the hard shoulder for emergency use. As part of this scheme Highways England will assess a wide range of information about the road to establish the nature of any current issues along this section. This will assist us in developing an outline design concept and determine the Smart Motorway operating system best suited to this section of road. The start of works is currently programmed for March 2020.
5 TIMETABLE FOR ACTION
Date Action
March 2020 Start of works on the Smart Motorway – All Lane Running scheme on the A1(M) Junction 6 to 8
2
6 EXPLANATION AS TO WHY NO ACTION IS PROPOSED
a. Highways England (as far as we have been able to ascertain) was not a party to the inquest hearing on 11 October 2016. The ‘raised section of tarmac’ identified as a matter of concern by the Senior Coroner, is a specifically designed and installed section of raised kerbing to separate the off slip road from the main carriageway at Junction 6 of the A1(M) northbound.
The extension of the kerbing separating the slip road and main carriageway was introduced as part of a ‘pinch point’ scheme in 2015 to reduce congestion on this part of the strategic road network. The scheme was designed and constructed to the specified standards laid down in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and these standards remain current today. In addition, the scheme was subject to the Road Safety Audit process in accordance with the requirements of HD19/15 as directed by the DMRB Volume 5 Section 2.
7 SAFETY OF ROAD USERS
We apologise unreservedly for the lack of response on behalf of Highways England to the Senior Coroner’s Regulation 28 Report dated 12 October 2016. The safety of our road users is an imperative for our business in what we set out to achieve, and a core value of our organisation in how we go about it. The action we have taken and plan to take in the near future is designed in this light to help to prevent future deaths on our network.
8
05 October 2018 Signed:
, Asset Development Manager on behalf of
REGULATION 28 REPORT TO PREVENT FUTURE DEATHS
THIS RESPONSE IS BEING SENT TO:
1. The Senior Coroner for Hertfordshire, Mr Geoffrey Sullivan of The Old Courthouse St Albans Road East, Hatfield, Hertfordshire AL10 0ES in response to a ‘Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths’ following an inquest hearing into the death of Mr Vichai Tonpradit that concluded on 11 October 2016.
1 HIGHWAYS ENGLAND
I am Mr Jim O’Sullivan, Chief Executive of Highways England Company Limited of Bridge House, 1 Walnut Tree Close, Guildford, SURREY GU1 4LZ.
2 CORONER’S MATTERS OF CONCERN
The MATTERS OF CONCERN were identified as follows:–
a. The raised section of the tarmac separating the slip road from the main carriageway on the A1(M) approaching Junction 6 northbound is potentially hazardous; and
b. At the same location, the visual marking (solid white line) from the previous road layout is potentially confusing.
3 DETAILS OF ACTION TAKEN
a. The raised section of kerb separating the off slip road from the main carriageway on the A1(M) at Junction 6 northbound is addressed at point 6a. below.
b. Having reviewed the road markings at the location it would appear that since the incident on 10 November 2015 the road marking referred to was covered over by applying a bituminous material to obscure the redundant solid white line and this is no longer visible.
4 DETAILS OF FURTHER ACTION PROPOSED
The government announced as part of the Roads Investment Strategy 2015-2020 the proposal for a Smart Motorway for the A1(M) Junction 6 to 8. The introduction of the Smart Motorway scheme for this section of the A1(M) would alter the existing road layout at Junction 6 northbound and southbound. The preferred operating model for smart motorways is “All Lane Running”. This means the existing hard shoulder would be converted into a traffic lane providing three lanes for traffic with the addition of regular refuge areas in place of the hard shoulder for emergency use. As part of this scheme Highways England will assess a wide range of information about the road to establish the nature of any current issues along this section. This will assist us in developing an outline design concept and determine the Smart Motorway operating system best suited to this section of road. The start of works is currently programmed for March 2020.
5 TIMETABLE FOR ACTION
Date Action
March 2020 Start of works on the Smart Motorway – All Lane Running scheme on the A1(M) Junction 6 to 8
2
6 EXPLANATION AS TO WHY NO ACTION IS PROPOSED
a. Highways England (as far as we have been able to ascertain) was not a party to the inquest hearing on 11 October 2016. The ‘raised section of tarmac’ identified as a matter of concern by the Senior Coroner, is a specifically designed and installed section of raised kerbing to separate the off slip road from the main carriageway at Junction 6 of the A1(M) northbound.
The extension of the kerbing separating the slip road and main carriageway was introduced as part of a ‘pinch point’ scheme in 2015 to reduce congestion on this part of the strategic road network. The scheme was designed and constructed to the specified standards laid down in the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (DMRB) and these standards remain current today. In addition, the scheme was subject to the Road Safety Audit process in accordance with the requirements of HD19/15 as directed by the DMRB Volume 5 Section 2.
7 SAFETY OF ROAD USERS
We apologise unreservedly for the lack of response on behalf of Highways England to the Senior Coroner’s Regulation 28 Report dated 12 October 2016. The safety of our road users is an imperative for our business in what we set out to achieve, and a core value of our organisation in how we go about it. The action we have taken and plan to take in the near future is designed in this light to help to prevent future deaths on our network.
8
05 October 2018 Signed:
, Asset Development Manager on behalf of
Sent To
- Highways England
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 1
56-Day Deadline
6 Dec 2016
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 the 11th November 2015 commenced an investigation into the death of Vichai Tonpradit; The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 11 October 2016. The conclusion of the inquest was & Narrative Verdict: Road Traffic Collision contributed to by the road layout. raised section of the tarmac presents a hazard t0 road users, and a solid white line left from the previous road layout running into the kerb is potentially confusing:
Circumstances of the Death
On the 1Oth November 2015 at around 19.28hrs Vichai Tonpradit was riding his motorcycle northbound on the AI(M) in the nearside lane towards Junction 6 at Welwyn: When he attempted t0 cross the hatched area of the exit to rejoin the main carriageway he struck a raised section of tarmac separating the slip road from the main carriageway_ He fell to the road surface and as he rose was struck by a heavy goods vehicle and then by a small hatchback travelling in the northbound carriageway: Vichai Tonpradit was confirmed deceased at the scene at 19.41hrs by a paramedic. Multiple Traumatic Injuries
Action Should Be Taken
In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe you have the power to take such action:
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
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.