Recipient

Family of the deceased

Pin Request correction

First report 9 Jul 2014•Latest report 9 Jul 2014

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 the deceased linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Manchester North

    AI-generated summary

    Georgina Lauren Taylor · 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

    Georgina Lauren Taylor died following a road traffic collision on the A627(M), in which a vehicle lost control at excessive speed, struck a tree and rolled. The report raised concerns about trees and other roadside features near the carriageway, including whether they were adequately protected or should have been removed, and about the lack of requirements to reassess protection as roadside vegetation developed.

    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 the deceased; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of inspection of developing soft estate to assess vehicle restraint protection requirements

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The introduction of the interim requirements for road restraint systems in 2002 identified that all trees with a girth exceeding 500mm (or several closely spaced trees) located within a distance of 4.5m from the paved carriageway require protection. The re-issued requirements in 2004 identified that trees above 300mm in girth should be protected by a suitable vehicle restraint system. 3. Current design standard TD19/06 includes a site specific risk process where topographical features, together with adjacent sources of risk are reviewed in order to identify the most appropriate restraint facility and containment levels and that in relation to the presence of trees adjacent to the nearside verge and protection requirements, it is unclear as to when these regimented and it is likely that they are all ‘self-seeded’ with the larger specimens being over 10 years old. Whilst the vehicle restraint systems in place comply with identified requirements at the time of the construction of the route, there are no current requirements to inspect soft estate as it develops in terms of assessing protection requirements. The application of more recent design standards would have required some of the trees at this location to be protected (as well as the lighting columns) or removed within the 4.5m threshold. ”
    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 the deceased; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to protect or remove trees within 4.5m of the paved carriageway

    Wider context from the report

    “2. The introduction of the interim requirements for road restraint systems in 2002 identified that all trees with a girth exceeding 500mm (or several closely spaced trees) located within a distance of 4.5m from the paved carriageway require protection. The re-issued requirements in 2004 identified that trees above 300mm in girth should be protected by a suitable vehicle restraint system. 3. Current design standard TD19/06 includes a site specific risk process where topographical features, together with adjacent sources of risk are reviewed in order to identify the most appropriate restraint facility and containment levels and that in relation to the presence of trees adjacent to the nearside verge and protection requirements, it is unclear as to when these regimented and it is likely that they are all ‘self-seeded’ with the larger specimens being over 10 years old. Whilst the vehicle restraint systems in place comply with identified requirements at the time of the construction of the route, there are no current requirements to inspect soft estate as it develops in terms of assessing protection requirements. The application of more recent design standards would have required some of the trees at this location to be protected (as well as the lighting columns) or removed within the 4.5m threshold. ”
    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