Recipient

A.S.O. U.K. Limited

Pin Request correction

First report 29 Aug 2018•Latest report 29 Aug 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

Private and voluntary organisations · Private limited company. This page brings together reports naming this recipient and response statements clearly connected to concerns raised in those reports.

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
2

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
1

Described in responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

Evidence profile

Report topics

Share of this recipient’s reports compared with all other recipients.

100%published responses found
1stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from A.S.O. U.K. Limited linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. South Yorkshire (Western)

    AI-generated summary

    Mr David Worthington · 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 David Worthington suffered fatal injuries while taking part in a cycling event on 30 April 2017, after colliding with a coach turning across the cyclists’ path at a bend with limited visibility. Concerns included inadequate identification of the location’s risks, the high potential severity of harm, and the need to review risk-assessment methods for future events.

    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. The report was sent to A.S.O. U.K. Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to adequately assess high injury severity from unlikely events

    Wider context from the report

    “a) The risk assessment prior to the event had not identified the particular location as a risk. In many ways this is understandable, Plank Gate is a minor junction. b) However, more detailed consideration might be thought to show a different picture. There were 2900 cyclists progressing swiftly down a lengthy descent into a blind bend. The organisers efforts in putting a 'slow' sign part way down the descent were, on the evidence of witnesses, largely ignored. c) Plank Gate is the entrance to a moderately busy riding school and hacking centre. Sunday morning is a common time for such activities. d) Whilst the risk of a vehicle leaving Plank Gate across the path of fast-moving cyclists might reasonably have been considered low, the other element of a risk assessment is the likelihood of injury if such an event did occur. The risk of harm, as identified by this collision was extremely high. e) It is accepted that the route of this prestigious and worthwhile event changes regularly so that Finkle Street lane is unlikely to be used again. Nonetheless, in my respectful submission there is room for a review of the risk assessment methods used for future events. As this incident shows, unlikely events can and do occur and where the risk of harm is high proper consideration is essential. ”
    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to A.S.O. U.K. Limited; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to identify particular event locations as risks in risk assessments

    Wider context from the report

    “a) The risk assessment prior to the event had not identified the particular location as a risk. In many ways this is understandable, Plank Gate is a minor junction. b) However, more detailed consideration might be thought to show a different picture. There were 2900 cyclists progressing swiftly down a lengthy descent into a blind bend. The organisers efforts in putting a 'slow' sign part way down the descent were, on the evidence of witnesses, largely ignored. c) Plank Gate is the entrance to a moderately busy riding school and hacking centre. Sunday morning is a common time for such activities. d) Whilst the risk of a vehicle leaving Plank Gate across the path of fast-moving cyclists might reasonably have been considered low, the other element of a risk assessment is the likelihood of injury if such an event did occur. The risk of harm, as identified by this collision was extremely high. e) It is accepted that the route of this prestigious and worthwhile event changes regularly so that Finkle Street lane is unlikely to be used again. Nonetheless, in my respectful submission there is room for a review of the risk assessment methods used for future events. As this incident shows, unlikely events can and do occur and where the risk of harm is high proper consideration is essential. ”
    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

    Consider all reasonably practicable eventualities in future route assessments and event planning, incorporating the coroner’s comments.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Whilst we respectfully maintain that the events which tragically unfolded were not reasonably foreseeable, either prior to or during the event, we of course undertake to do our absolute best to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, we consider all potential eventualities when assessing routes and planning future events. As a company we analyse our events during their planning phase, during their delivery, and after the event to evaluate what, if anything, can be improved upon and learnt for future events. To that end, Human Race will of course take on board your comments when planning and risk assessing future events.”

    Source location

    2018-0257-Response-by-Humanrace
    Page 3 · response
    Published 26 September 2018

    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

    The incident was not reasonably foreseeable during route planning because the road authority raised no concern and coaches rarely used the road.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In your regulation 28 report, you respectfully submit that “there is room for a review of the risk assessment methods used for future events”. As with any responsible business, we have attempted to learn from this tragic accident. The very happening of it has re-enforced the need for us to consider all potential eventualities when planning/risk assessing a route with the various stakeholders involved, however, it remains impossible to conceive or plan for all potential eventualities outwith those which are reasonably foreseeable, specifically in circumstances where the Highways Agency responsible for the road in question has not raised issue with a particular area, asked for the section of road to be closed, or installed any signs or street furniture, which might trigger a concern in the minds of those planning the route.”

    Source location

    2018-0257-Response-by-Humanrace
    Page 2 · response
    Published 26 September 2018

    Open published response
Back to top

Published response patterns

Compared with other recipients in reports included in PFD Monitor

Describes published response evidence, not performance.

Published responses found

100%
100%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
100%
All other recipients
47%25%27%<1%<1%
  • Completed
  • In progress
  • Planned
  • Unclear
  • Partially completed

Statuses reflect what recipients said at the time. PFD Monitor does not verify whether actions happened.

Types of action described in responses

Percentages use all actions described by each group. An action may have more than one type, so percentages do not total 100%.

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026