PFD report

Emma Victoria HARPER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 11 Sep 2024•Manchester West

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised3

  1. Failure to prevent continued use of an unsafe foot bridge as an alternative route
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridgesPart of recurring concern: Unreliable guidance and closure controls for unsafe pedestrian paths
  2. Failure to provide bridge barriers preventing pedestrians from easily climbing over and falling from the bridge
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridgesPart of recurring concern: Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas
  3. Failure to apply a clear basis for including foot bridges in barrier safety works
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. Action

    Complete a study of suicide-related issues at bridges and structures along the M602 route.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 September 2024.
  2. Action

    Increase parapet fence heights to 1.8 metres at six bridges with the highest numbers of suicide-related incidents.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 18 September 2024.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    Available funding and achievable benefits constrain parapet upgrades, so locations with the highest number of incidents are prioritised.

    Stated by National HighwaysUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to prevent continued use of an unsafe foot bridge as an alternative route

Wider context from the report

“1. During the course of evidence it was stated that the foot bridge which the deceased fell from had not been considered suitable for amendments to be made to the level of barrier which would prevent a pedestrian crossing the bridge from easily climbing over and falling onto the highway below. 2. Other bridges in the locality were considered and selected for an increase in the height of the barrier or other works to prevent the risk of falling from the bridge onto the M602 motorway. 3. It was unclear on what basis the foot bridge that the deceased fell from has been excluded from such works and there is a risk that this bridge may still be accessed by people who may be at risk of falling as an alternative to other bridges were works had been undertaken in the locality. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges; Unreliable guidance and closure controls for unsafe pedestrian paths.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to provide bridge barriers preventing pedestrians from easily climbing over and falling from the bridge

Wider context from the report

“1. During the course of evidence it was stated that the foot bridge which the deceased fell from had not been considered suitable for amendments to be made to the level of barrier which would prevent a pedestrian crossing the bridge from easily climbing over and falling onto the highway below. 2. Other bridges in the locality were considered and selected for an increase in the height of the barrier or other works to prevent the risk of falling from the bridge onto the M602 motorway. 3. It was unclear on what basis the foot bridge that the deceased fell from has been excluded from such works and there is a risk that this bridge may still be accessed by people who may be at risk of falling as an alternative to other bridges were works had been undertaken in the locality. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges; Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to apply a clear basis for including foot bridges in barrier safety works

Wider context from the report

“1. During the course of evidence it was stated that the foot bridge which the deceased fell from had not been considered suitable for amendments to be made to the level of barrier which would prevent a pedestrian crossing the bridge from easily climbing over and falling onto the highway below. 2. Other bridges in the locality were considered and selected for an increase in the height of the barrier or other works to prevent the risk of falling from the bridge onto the M602 motorway. 3. It was unclear on what basis the foot bridge that the deceased fell from has been excluded from such works and there is a risk that this bridge may still be accessed by people who may be at risk of falling as an alternative to other bridges were works had been undertaken in the locality. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls for fatal falls from bridges.

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

Complete a study of suicide-related issues at bridges and structures along the M602 route.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to the M602 a study of suicide related issues along the route was undertaken in 2022, specifically in relation to the number of incidents occurring at bridges and structures spanning the route. The ████████ footbridge that you have raised as a concern was one of eight structures included in this assessment. It was identified that an increase in parapet fence height from the standard 1 metre to 1.8 metres was a potential intervention but noted that the boundary is difficult to effectively secure around the bridge itself. The footpaths along ████████ and ████████ which run for several hundred metres alongside and above the M602 have concrete boundary walls of approximately the same height as the existing bridge parapet fence.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 1 · response
Published 18 September 2024

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

Increase parapet fence heights to 1.8 metres at six bridges with the highest numbers of suicide-related incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“During the current road investment period (2020-25) in the North West region we have increased parapet fence heights to 1.8 metres at six of our bridges with the highest number of suicide related incidents. These are ████████ and ████████ over the M60 in ████████, ████████ and ████████ at Junction █ of the M60, and ████████ and ████████ over the M56 in Wythenshawe.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 18 September 2024

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

Available funding and achievable benefits constrain parapet upgrades, so locations with the highest number of incidents are prioritised.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Increasing the parapet fence height from the standard 1 metre to 1.8 metres can cost up to £1m per bridge. In addressing concerns surrounding these sites we are constrained by the available funding and the benefits that can be achieved. We therefore prioritise locations with the highest number of suicide related incidents. This is the reason that some bridges have already received upgraded parapets, as historically they have exhibited a far higher level of risk. An example in this area is ████████ which crosses the M602 adjacent to ████████.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 18 September 2024

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

No parapet-height increase is currently proposed because the footbridge recorded three incidents, none causing injury or fatality, during the assessment period.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When assessing the available information relating to suicide related incidents along the M602, there were three recorded at the ████████ footbridge during the five-year study assessment period from 2017 to 2021, none of which had resulted in an injury or fatality. We therefore currently have no proposals to increase the parapet fence height at ████████ footbridge.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 18 September 2024

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

National Highways is responsible for considering remedial works because the bridge structure, parapets and retaining walls are its assets.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Salford City Council have been in discussion with National Highways regarding this matter. They confirmed that the bridge structure, parapets and retaining walls on ████████ are National Highway assets. As such we believe they are looking into the feasibility of remedial works at this location following this recent incident.”

Source location

Response from Salford Council
Page 1 · response
Published 18 September 2024

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Continue monitoring and assessing North West locations where suicide-related incidents are recorded.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 September 2024.
  2. 2

    Develop schemes for several M602 bridges for potential implementation during the 2025–30 road investment period.

    Stated by National HighwaysStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 18 September 2024.
  3. 3

    Assist with temporary traffic regulation orders and temporary traffic management affecting Salford’s road network as required.

    Stated by Salford City CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 18 September 2024.

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

Continue monitoring and assessing North West locations where suicide-related incidents are recorded.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We will continue to monitor and assess all locations in the North West in the future where these types of incidents are recorded, and take the appropriate actions where necessary.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 18 September 2024

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

Develop schemes for several M602 bridges for potential implementation during the 2025–30 road investment period.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In comparison the nearby bridges at ████████ recorded 68 incidents during the same period. Several other bridges spanning the M602 have also recorded significant numbers of incidents and schemes for these are currently being developed for potential implementation during the next road investment period from 2025-30.”

Source location

Response from National Highways
Page 2 · response
Published 18 September 2024

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

Assist with temporary traffic regulation orders and temporary traffic management affecting Salford’s road network as required.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Salford will assist and support in terms of any Temporary Traffic Regulation Orders, temporary traffic management etc as required that might impact our network.”

Source location

Response from Salford Council
Page 1 · response
Published 18 September 2024

Open published response
Back to top

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026