PFD report

Kian Singh GILL · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Jun 2015•Leicester City and South Leicestershire

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
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 raised3

  1. Failure to reduce the speed limit at the junction
  2. Lack of signage indicating the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signagePart of recurring concern: Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions
  3. Failure to maintain clear visibility into and approaching the junction
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions
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

    Place “Slow” road markings on Ullesthorpe Road to encourage drivers to reduce speed near the junction.

    Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 June 2015.
  2. Action

    Place give-way road markings on Bonehams Lane.

    Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 22 June 2015.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    Reducing the speed limit was not considered necessary because the junction showed no elevated risk and speed limits should not address isolated hazards alone.

    Stated by Leicestershire County CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that 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 reduce the speed limit at the junction

Wider context from the report

“(3) The speed limit is not curtailed from the national speed limit despite there being a junction. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Lack of signage indicating the junction

Wider context from the report

“(2) There is no signage to indicate that there is a junction there and ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage; Inadequate safety controls at high-risk road junctions.

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 clear visibility into and approaching the junction

Wider context from the report

“(1) The hedgerows by the side of both roads are overgrown and obscure a driver's view into the junction and the road leading up to it. This meant that neither the rider nor the driver had view of each other until the final moments prior to impact. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate visibility for road users at hazardous junctions.

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

Place “Slow” road markings on Ullesthorpe Road to encourage drivers to reduce speed near the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“b) It is proposed to place “Slow” markings on Ullesthorpe Road to advise drivers of the presence of a junction with a view to encouraging them to reduce their speed.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 12 · response
Published 22 June 2015

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

Place give-way road markings on Bonehams Lane.

Verbatim wording from the response

“a) It is proposed to place give way road markings on Bonehams lane;”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 12 · response
Published 22 June 2015

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

Reducing the speed limit was not considered necessary because the junction showed no elevated risk and speed limits should not address isolated hazards alone.

Verbatim wording from the response

“47. It is relevant in this context, that the Council has checked its safety records dating back to 1 January 1979 and it has not identified any previous reported injury road traffic accidents (let alone fatalities) at the junction between Bonehams Road and Ullesthorpe Road.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 9 · response
Published 22 June 2015

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

Additional junction signage was considered unnecessary because existing visual cues should alert reasonably careful road users to the junction.

Verbatim wording from the response

“34. Although the Council is prepared to take further measures to enhance road safety, the Council does not believe that the presence of additional signage was necessary to alert a reasonably careful road user on Bonehams Lane of the existence of a junction.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 7 · response
Published 22 June 2015

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

Hedgerow-cutting enforcement was considered unnecessary because the hedgerows were already situated a safe distance from the carriageway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“17. Hedgerows are generally owned by the owners of neighbouring land and not therefore the property of the Council. I acknowledge that the Council may enforce restrictions on the expansion of hedgerows under Section 152 of the Highways Act 1980.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 4 · response
Published 22 June 2015

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

Visibility at the junction exceeded applicable national guidance, so restricted sight lines were not considered the cause of delayed evasive action.

Verbatim wording from the response

“11. For traffic positioned at a setback distance of 2.4 metres from the edge of the junction, the minimum visibility distance required for a 60 m.p.h. design speed is 215 metres (please see the table at page “2/4” of Tab 1). The measured visibility from Bonehams Lane was 270 metres looking west and 250m looking east. Relevant photographic evidence arising from the inspections is enclosed at tab 7 of the bundle.”

Source location

Response from Leicestershire County Council
Page 3 · response
Published 22 June 2015

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