PFD report

Joshua Lee Edwards · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 2 Oct 2018•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
5

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised5

  1. Failure to provide road signs that preserve emergency vehicle access at designated crossing points
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency access arrangements for respondersPart of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency arrangements for organised public events
  2. Failure to escalate repeated requests for an ambulance in the control room
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe emergency call handling
  3. Failure to ensure public-event personnel and participants are informed about emergency vehicle crossings
    Part of recurring concern: Unreliable emergency arrangements for organised public events
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

    Continually review event road closures to ensure they remain appropriate, minimal and safe.

    Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Stated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 2 March 2019.

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

  1. Position

    Ambulance crews do not need event-morning briefings because Emergency Operations Centre directions provide the most appropriate response information at the time.

    Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Existing 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

Failure to provide road signs that preserve emergency vehicle access at designated crossing points

Wider context from the report

“(4) Road closure signs at such designated crossing points should be replaced by signs indicating ‘Access to emergency vehicles only’ or equivalent wording. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency access arrangements for responders; Unreliable emergency arrangements for organised public events.

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 escalate repeated requests for an ambulance in the control room

Wider context from the report

“(1) The ambulance despatched to the scene encountered roads closed for the Leeds 10K run that day. It then navigated a route around the course, thus encountering a delay in reaching the casualty. The Police Officers at the scene telephoned three times to ask where the ambulance was but this did not result in the situation being escalated in the control room at Yorkshire Ambulance Service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe emergency call handling.

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 ensure public-event personnel and participants are informed about emergency vehicle crossings

Wider context from the report

“(3) In the preparation for such public events, the organisers should be required to brief their Marshalls that at specified crossing points, the event may require to be halted momentarily to allow emergency response vehicles to cross. In short, that an emergency may take precedence. Participants in the event should also be forewarned of the possibility of this occurring. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable emergency arrangements for organised public events.

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 ensure ambulance crews understand emergency authority to cross road closure signs

Wider context from the report

“(2) Evidence taken at the Inquest indicated that ambulance crews were unclear as to whether they were entitled to cross ‘road closure’ signs in an emergency. Clarification of the Ambulance Service authority to do so in an emergency has been given, but has not yet been circulated to all ambulance crews. This needs to be done on the morning of such events. Ambulance crews should be reminded of this power by way of a refresher briefing. Similar considerations arise in relation to the Fire and Rescue Service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance access through road closures and diversions; Unreliable communication and understanding of emergency policies and procedures.

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 maintain emergency vehicle access during public events

Wider context from the report

“(1) The ambulance despatched to the scene encountered roads closed for the Leeds 10K run that day. It then navigated a route around the course, thus encountering a delay in reaching the casualty. The Police Officers at the scene telephoned three times to ask where the ambulance was but this did not result in the situation being escalated in the control room at Yorkshire Ambulance Service. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unreliable ambulance access through road closures and diversions; Unreliable emergency access arrangements for responders; Unreliable emergency arrangements for organised public events.

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

Continually review event road closures to ensure they remain appropriate, minimal and safe.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst some road closures are inevitable with the events in the city, we are also continually reviewing these to make sure they are appropriate, kept to a minimum and are as safe as possible.”

Source location

2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 March 2019

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

Ambulance crews do not need event-morning briefings because Emergency Operations Centre directions provide the most appropriate response information at the time.

Verbatim wording from the response

“These actions taken by the Ambulance Service provide a more secure outcome than simply briefing the Ambulance crews on the morning of the event. Ambulance crews may become available to respond to emergencies during shift changes or brought to the location from outside of the area at short notice. Individual response direction from the Emergency Operations Centre will ensure that crews are informed of the most appropriate response at the time in a more holistic way.”

Source location

2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 2019

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

Replacing road-closure signs could weaken their prohibition and create safety risks; existing signs should remain under current legislation with controlled emergency access measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Road closure signs during events are placed for the safety of event participants and road users alike. In the current climate of vehicle incursion we would not seek to weaken their prohibition of vehicles by allowing anyone to confuse or misinterpret the message to suggest that any form of access is permitted. In doing so there will always be road users who interpret the signs to their advantage. In discussions with emergency services and traffic regulation colleagues I feel it is preferable to maintain the road closure signing as it is set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions legislation and take other measures such as those described above. This will provide authority to those who legitimately need access in a controlled way. This will ensure that any delays to genuine emergencies are minimised and the safety of the event participant is not compromised.”

Source location

2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 3 · response
Published 2 March 2019

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 event management plans, designated crossing points and trained marshals sufficiently address emergency vehicle access and temporary event stoppages.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Every major event such as the half-marathon and Leeds 10k run includes an Event Management Plan which sets out the process for emergency responses, emergency vehicle access and the training of Marshalls. Emergency routes are agreed with emergency services during the planning for each event. Specific locations to cross the routes are designated. These are used wherever possible. Other locations can be used under the control of Event Control. All road closure points are staffed with marshals capable of assisting access and halting events in the case of an emergency.”

Source location

2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 2019

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

  1. 1

    West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service considers its standard practice for emergency access sufficient, so staff briefings before every event are unnecessary.

    Stated by Highways & Transportation (Leeds City Council)Existing arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service considers its standard practice for emergency access sufficient, so staff briefings before every event are unnecessary.

Verbatim wording from the response

“West Yorkshire Fire and Rescue Service (WYFRS) crews/control are aware that road closures can be compromised and events stopped for emergency purposes. This WYFRS default/standard practice for all events, unless WYFRS resilience team initiates a command structure for a bespoke response procedure. As a result the Fire Service have suggested a briefing for staff of this procedure before every event is not required. The Fire Service have agreed to publish an Operational Policy Information Document (OPID) to reiterate and confirm the procedures for WYFRS staff.”

Source location

2018-0335-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 2 March 2019

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