Recipient

Welsh Cycling

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Feb 2014•Latest report 21 Feb 2018

Recipient record

Reports, concerns and published responses

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

Reports
2

Naming this recipient

Published responses
50%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
4

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.

50%published responses found
4stated actions described

Topic comparisons are not available in the current evidence snapshot.

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Welsh Cycling linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

    AI-generated summary

    Richard Frederick PHILLIPS-SCHOFIELD · 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

    Richard Frederick PHILLIPS-SCHOFIELD fell from his cycle during a track race on 9 March 2014 and sustained unsurvivable head and chest injuries. He died in hospital on 11 March 2014; the principal concern was that ineffective procedures allowed cyclists to continue riding through the aftermath of the accident, and that formal procedures for halting races were lacking.

    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 Welsh Cycling; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of formal, effective procedures for halting cycle races after an accident or track hazard

    Wider context from the report

    “From the evidence given at the inquest, both by witnesses and a video of the race, the steps taken to halt the race after the accident were ineffectual to prevent numerous cyclists riding through the aftermath of the accident where a number of competitors, including the deceased, were lying injured. I was told in evidence that there are no formal, effective procedures in the regulations of any of the organisations controlling cycle racing in the United Kingdom for stopping a race in the event of an accident or hazard on the track. It would be left to the organisers on site to stop a race in whatever way they felt appropriate. I believe that the various national cycling organisations should consider introducing formal effective procedures for halting races which would be mandatory for all races organised under their regulations. ”
    Open source report

  2. Gwent

    AI-generated summary

    Benjamin James Carroll · 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

    Benjamin James Carroll was taking part in an open-road cycle event when his cycle crossed into the opposite carriageway and collided with an oncoming van; he later died from his injuries. The report raised concern that the road remained open to traffic while cyclists were grouped together and sprinting towards the finish line, despite accredited marshals being present.

    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 Welsh Cycling; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to close or control traffic on the road during the cycling sprint

    Wider context from the report

    “As the cyclists grouped together and sprinted towards the finish line, the road remained open to traffic despite the presence of accredited marshals with powers to stop/direct Traffic. ”
    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

    Remind riders, officials, and support staff before events about highway conditions, marshal limits, and oncoming traffic.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Prior to all British Cycling / Welsh Cycling events, all participants, including riders, officials, and support staff, are reminded of the conditions that the race is held under, including highlighting the risks associated with the event. All participants are reminded that events are held under standard highway conditions, that accredited marshals are only permitted to stop and hold traffic for short durations, typically at junctions, and that there will be oncoming traffic.”

    Source location

    2014-0068-Response-by-Welsh-Cycling
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 February 2014

    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

    Accredited marshals cannot suspend standard highway conditions or enforce road closures anywhere on the course, including finishes.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “It is important to note, therefore, that accredited marshals are not empowered to suspend standard highway conditions or enforce any kind of road closure, at any point on the course, including race finishes.”

    Source location

    2014-0068-Response-by-Welsh-Cycling
    Page 1 · response
    Published 20 February 2014

    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

50%
50%All other recipients 58%
0%100%

How actions were described at the time

This respondent
25%50%25%
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