PFD report

Danielle Lea Broadhead · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 15 Apr 2021•West Yorkshire (Western)

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
2

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 raised2

  1. Inadequate measures highlighting the commencement of the kerb to oncoming motorists
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control and visibility of hazardous kerb edges
  2. Failure of the existing road layout to meet correct regulations and standards
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe road design and layout
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.1

  1. Action

    Extend the northern footway, install dropped kerbs, and modify the kerb line to create a safer 90-degree pedestrian crossing point.

    Stated by Kirklees Borough CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 16 April 2021.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Existing edge and centre-line markings comply with applicable requirements and direct drivers away from the kerb transition.

    Stated by Kirklees Borough CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Inadequate measures highlighting the commencement of the kerb to oncoming motorists

Wider context from the report

“• To review and consider the existing road layout to ensure that it meets the correct regulations and standards. • To consider the appropriateness of measures which highlight the commencement of the kerb to oncoming motorists. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control and visibility of hazardous kerb edges.

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 of the existing road layout to meet correct regulations and standards

Wider context from the report

“• To review and consider the existing road layout to ensure that it meets the correct regulations and standards. • To consider the appropriateness of measures which highlight the commencement of the kerb to oncoming motorists. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe road design and layout.

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

Extend the northern footway, install dropped kerbs, and modify the kerb line to create a safer 90-degree pedestrian crossing point.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It was agreed at the site meeting that there was no certainty of the kerb being a factor in the collision. However, it was identified that there could be a potential risk to pedestrians at this point on the network, and as there was a planned footway resurfacing scheme for Barnsley Road between Flockton and Grange Moor, Highway Officers decided to investigate the potential to amend this detail.”

Source location

2021-0104-Response-from-Kirklees-Council-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 16 April 2021

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

Existing edge and centre-line markings comply with applicable requirements and direct drivers away from the kerb transition.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The location of the kerb, where there is a change from grassed verge to made footway, is approximately 500m to the West of the junction of Haigh Lane opposite a private drive entrance. At the point of the change there is an existing edge of carriageway line leading drivers away from where the kerb starts. This line was last re-instated in 2016 as part of the road surface dressing works. The Google image above was captured in Sept 2020. The centre lane is made up of a double white line system (also reinstated in 2016) both have been installed in accordance with “Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016” and associated “TSM Chapter 5 – Road Markings” The change from verge to footway is made by transition kerbs, into full height kerb, with the verge and made tarmac footway being same width.”

Source location

2021-0104-Response-from-Kirklees-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 16 April 2021

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.1

  1. 1

    Complete the required Road Safety Audit for the proposed footway extension and crossing scheme.

    Stated by Kirklees Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 16 April 2021.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The kerb was not established as a collision factor, and there was no evidence that it had frequently been struck by vehicles.

    Stated by Kirklees Borough CouncilDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 the required Road Safety Audit for the proposed footway extension and crossing scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These proposals (shown on the diagram below) have been subject to the required Road Safety Audit process, and no concerns regarding the scheme and its detail design have been raised.”

Source location

2021-0104-Response-from-Kirklees-Council-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 16 April 2021

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 kerb was not established as a collision factor, and there was no evidence that it had frequently been struck by vehicles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of that request, an officer from KHST and an officer from MCET attended a site meeting, on Barnsley Rd, on 18 August 2020. At that time, it was mentioned, by MCET, that an issue with a kerb, as now referred to in the Regulation 28 notice, had been mention to them by residents of Flockton whilst they were carrying out their initial investigations into the accident. At the time there was no decision or indication that this kerb was a factor in the accident, nor has this been suggested or confirmed since, until the Council received the Regulation 28 notice, that this report is in response to. They identified, on site, the kerb in question as one some 135m west of the site of the collision, and there was no evidence on site, at the time of the visit, or since, that this kerb has frequently been struck by vehicles.”

Source location

2021-0104-Response-from-Kirklees-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 16 April 2021

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