Source · Prevention of Future Deaths

Martin Leslie Brown

Ref: 2013-0209 Date: 29 Aug 2013 Coroner: Tom Osborne Area: Gloucestershire Responses identified: 1 / 7 View PDF

The certificate for a road resurfacing product (Milepave) contained ambiguous wording regarding speed limit applicability and road types, risking its inappropriate use on unsuitable roads.

Date 29 Aug 2013

56-day deadline 24 Oct 2013 est.

Responses identified 1 of 7

Road (Highways Safety) related deaths

Coroner's concerns

AI summary

The certificate for a road resurfacing product (Milepave) contained ambiguous wording regarding speed limit applicability and road types, risking its inappropriate use on unsuitable roads.

View full coroner's concerns

my opinion there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless action is taken.

(1) There may be a possible dispute as to the interpretation of BBA certificate number 06/H120 issued in respect of Milepave.

(2) In para 3.1 of the certificate it suggests that the product can be used on roads with posted speed limit of less than 4Omph. The same paragraph Gloucestershire Coroner's Court; Corinium Avenue, Barnwood, Gloucester GL4 3DJ Acting Senior Coroner: David M Dooley Asst; Coroners: Alexis J. Cassin, Sally Scanlon, Thomas R Osborne, Katy Skerrett 29th _

refers to use on "rural roads" that may, of course, be subject to the national speed limit of 60 mph: (3) The certificate does not specify that the product should not be used on roads where the posted speed limit is greater than 40 mph.

(4) My concern is that the correct use of the product Milepave is not clearly set out in the certificate and it may be used inappropriately because of the wording used in the certificate_ In my opinion action should be taken to prevent future deaths and believe your organisation have the power to take such action. You are under a duty to respond to this report within 56 days of the date of this report; I, the coroner; may extend the period. Your response must contain details of action taken or proposed to be taken setting out the timetable for action: Otherwise you must explain why no action is proposed: have sent a copy of my report to the Chief Coroner and to the Interested Persons who appeared at the inquest: am also under a duty to send the Chief Coroner a copy of your response. The Chief Coroner may publish either or both in a complete or redacted or summary form: He may send a copy of this report to any person who he believes may find it useful or of interest: You may make representations to me, the coroner; at the time of your response, about the release or the publication of your response by the Chief Coroner. await hearing from you with your response Yours sincerely Lltuuudy Jqe Tom Osborne Her Majesty's Assistant Coroner for Gloucestershire This report is being sent to: Family NIG Insurance Fletcher's Solicitors Gloucestershire Constabulary ORJ Solicitors Gloucestershire Highways Wragge & Co LLP Gloucestershire Coroner's Court; Corinium Avenue, Barnwood, Gloucester GL4 3DJ Acting Senior Coroner: Davld M Dooley Asst Coroners: Alexis J: Cassin; Sally Scanlon; Thomas R Osborne, Katy Skerrett

Responses

1 respondent

British Board of Agrement Other

9 Oct 2013 PDF

Action Planned

The BBA has revised paragraph 3.1 of Certificate 06/H120, removing the reference to rural roads, and will reissue the certificate with the revised wording by December 2013. (AI summary)

View full response

Dear Mr Osborne Re: Regulation 28 Report to Prevent Future Deaths Further to your letter dated 29 August 2013 relating to matters of concern arising the inquest into the death of Martin Leslie Brown and my initial response dated 5 September, would like to update you regarding the wording in the Certificate 06/H120 Miles Macadam Milepave. We have revised paragraph 3.1 and removed the reference to rural roads_ The sentence now reads: Milepave is satisfactory for use as a surface course on highways with posted speed limits up to and including 40 mph The reissue of the Certificate with this revised wording will be completed by no later than December 2013. In response to your concern that the Certificate does not say the system should not be used on roads with posted speed limits higher than 40 mph: Our Certificates are issued on a voluntary basis and they provide a platform for manufacturers to declare properties of their proprietary products that may fall outside of any National or International Standards. This information can be used to assist in making decisions on whether it is appropriate for specific sites or constructions, based upon third party statements, rather than just those of the manufacturer It is our policy to state the circumstances and situations where, in our opinion the product is suitable for use. other situations are, therefore, by definition outside of the scope of the Certificate_ The BBA is an organisation that offers technical approvals of systems and products and we are not linked to Road or Construction Authorities. We have no power to stop the use of any of our Certificated products being used on or in situations that are not identified in the Certificate_ If a Certificate holder, Road Authority, Engineer or Architect; etc decide, based on the information available, to use a product or system then that is their decision. If we can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact us_

Similar PFD reports

Shared signals

Report details

Reference: 2013-0209
Date of report: 29 August 2013
Coroner: Tom Osborne
Coroner area: Gloucestershire

Responses identified

Responses identified 1 of 7

6 responses not yet linked

Organisations named in PFD reports are normally expected to respond within 56 days. Deadline: 24 Oct 2013 (estimated).

Sent to

British Board of Agreement

Fletcher's Solicitors

Gloucestershire Constabulary

Gloucestershire Highways

NIG Insurance

ORJ Solicitors

Wragge & Co LLP

Source links

Judiciary.uk page → Report PDF →

Data: judiciary.uk.

Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v3.0.