Recurring concern

Inadequate controls preventing motorcycles from endangering pedestrians in public areas

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 14 Oct 2016•Latest report 17 Dec 2019

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures or hazards involving dedicated controls intended to prevent, restrict, detect or respond to motorcycle access or dangerous motorcycle operation in pedestrian-accessible public areas, including pedestrian pathways and public parks, where pedestrians are exposed to collision risk.

Not included

  • Excludes general road-traffic collisions, motorcycle training or licensing deficiencies unless they directly concern controlling motorcycle operation in pedestrian-accessible public areas.
  • Excludes hazards involving powered two-wheeled vehicles on ordinary roads where pedestrians are not exposed through unauthorised access or dangerous operation in a pedestrian-accessible public area.
  • Excludes pedestrian-crossing, lighting, signage and road-layout deficiencies unless they are specifically part of controlling motorcycles in pedestrian-accessible public areas.
  • Excludes generic public disorder or park-management concerns without an identified motorcycle-related pedestrian-safety condition.
Reports
2

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
2

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2016–2019

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
3

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Cardiff Council1
Luton Borough Council1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South Wales Central

    AI-generated summary

    Mr. Mark Anthony Anderson · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Mr Mark Anthony Anderson suffered fatal head injuries in a collision between motorcycles travelling in opposite directions on a narrow path in Trelai Park, Cardiff, on 28 May 2019. The report raises concern that motorcyclists were using the park for unrestricted racing and off-road activities, putting members of the public, particularly children and elderly people, at risk.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Unfettered motorcycle racing in Trelai Park endangering the general public

    Wider context from the report

    “The safety of the general public, in particular children and the elderly, is at risk while motorcyclists continue to use Trelai Park as an unfettered area for racing their motorcycles. ”

    Source location

    Mr. Mark Anthony Anderson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  2. Bedfordshire and Luton

    AI-generated summary

    Brandon Aubrey ARNOLD · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Brandon Aubrey ARNOLD, a 15-year-old boy, was riding a motorcycle along a pavement without a crash helmet when he lost control, collided with a lamp-post and metal railings, and later died in hospital from his injuries. The report raised concern about motorcycles using pathways in the area, including the risk of death to pedestrians using the pathway appropriately.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to prevent motorcycles from using pedestrian pathways

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) During the course of evidence it was stated that motor cycles on pathways in this area was a constant problem; (2) The motor cycle was travelling at 68 mph at point of impact; (3) It was approximately 13.30 hours; (4) The area is residential and it is reasonable to assume that the pathway is used by children, the infirm and pensioners; As a result I am concerned that there is a risk of death to pedestrians using the pathway appropriately ”

    Source location

    Brandon Aubrey ARNOLD · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Conduct a feasibility study of physical measures to exclude motorcycles or reduce risks to legitimate path users.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “My officers have conducted a feasibility study into whether there are any physical measures that can be carried out to exclude motorcycles from the area in question or reduce the risk of motorcycles being used illegally injuring legitimate users of the paths. I enclose a copy of the report.”

    Source location

    2016-0365-Highway-Services
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 October 2016

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Carry out consultation with relevant stakeholders about proposed barriers for the foot/cycle path.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It has been determined that although it is not possible to exclude motorcycles, it is practicable to reduce the speed along the foot/cycle path that the collision took place. It is therefore, our intention to introduce barriers as shown in Appendix D. A consultation with relevant stakeholders will be carried out in December with a view to implementing (subject to their comments) in February/March.”

    Source location

    2016-0365-Highway-Services
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 October 2016

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent action was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Introduce barriers to reduce motorcycle speeds along the foot/cycle path, subject to stakeholder comments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It has been determined that although it is not possible to exclude motorcycles, it is practicable to reduce the speed along the foot/cycle path that the collision took place. It is therefore, our intention to introduce barriers as shown in Appendix D. A consultation with relevant stakeholders will be carried out in December with a view to implementing (subject to their comments) in February/March.”

    Source location

    2016-0365-Highway-Services
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 October 2016

    Open published response

    Source evidence

    How this respondent position was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Physical measures cannot exclude motorcycles from the paths, although barriers can practicably reduce their speed.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It has been determined that although it is not possible to exclude motorcycles, it is practicable to reduce the speed along the foot/cycle path that the collision took place. It is therefore, our intention to introduce barriers as shown in Appendix D. A consultation with relevant stakeholders will be carried out in December with a view to implementing (subject to their comments) in February/March.”

    Source location

    2016-0365-Highway-Services
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 October 2016

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026