Recipient

Family of Anais Thouvenot

Pin Request correction

First report 18 Mar 2015•Latest report 18 Mar 2015

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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
0%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
0

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
0

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.

0%published responses found
0stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Family of Anais Thouvenot linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Leicester City and South Leicestershire

    AI-generated summary

    Anais Chantal Thouvenot · 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

    Anais Chantal Thouvenot was knocked from her bicycle by a passing vehicle at a road junction in Leicester on 9 November 2014, sustained a serious head injury, and died at Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, on 16 November 2014. Concerns were raised about the junction’s safety, including visibility, inadequate or absent filter lanes, heavy traffic, and the road contour, with reported near misses involving cyclists.

    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 Family of Anais Thouvenot; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate visibility at the road traffic junction

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the investigation I was made aware of specific concerns regarding the safety of the road traffic junction at Upper Kings Street and Regent Road, Leicester. These concerns were highlighted to me by the Leicester Cycling Campaign Group (LCCG) and a member of the public ████████ who has also raised these concerns for the attention of Councillors ████████ and ████████. The LCCG have informed me that they believe the junction to be inherently dangerous quoting a number of 'near misses' as experienced by their cycling group. The specific concerns relate to visibility at the junction and absent or inadequate filter lanes, exacerbated by heavy traffic and the contour of the road at this junction. It is also known to be on a major cycle route into the city. ”
    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 Family of Anais Thouvenot; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Absence or inadequacy of filter lanes at the road traffic junction

    Wider context from the report

    “During the course of the investigation I was made aware of specific concerns regarding the safety of the road traffic junction at Upper Kings Street and Regent Road, Leicester. These concerns were highlighted to me by the Leicester Cycling Campaign Group (LCCG) and a member of the public ████████ who has also raised these concerns for the attention of Councillors ████████ and ████████. The LCCG have informed me that they believe the junction to be inherently dangerous quoting a number of 'near misses' as experienced by their cycling group. The specific concerns relate to visibility at the junction and absent or inadequate filter lanes, exacerbated by heavy traffic and the contour of the road at this junction. It is also known to be on a major cycle route into the city. ”
    Open source report
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

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

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
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