PFD report

Brandon Aubrey ARNOLD · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 14 Oct 2016•Bedfordshire and Luton

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

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 raised1

  1. Failure to prevent motorcycles from using pedestrian pathways
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate controls preventing motorcycles from endangering pedestrians in public areas
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.3

  1. Action

    Carry out consultation with relevant stakeholders about proposed barriers for the foot/cycle path.

    Stated by Luton Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 October 2016.
  2. Action

    Introduce barriers to reduce motorcycle speeds along the foot/cycle path, subject to stakeholder comments.

    Stated by Luton Borough CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 14 October 2016.
  3. Action

    Conduct a feasibility study of physical measures to exclude motorcycles or reduce risks to legitimate path users.

    Stated by Luton Borough CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 14 October 2016.

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

  1. Position

    Physical measures cannot exclude motorcycles from the paths, although barriers can practicably reduce their speed.

    Stated by Luton Borough CouncilUnable 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 motorcycles from using pedestrian pathways

Wider context from the report

“(1) During the course of evidence it was stated that motor cycles on pathways in this area was a constant problem; (2) The motor cycle was travelling at 68 mph at point of impact; (3) It was approximately 13.30 hours; (4) The area is residential and it is reasonable to assume that the pathway is used by children, the infirm and pensioners; As a result I am concerned that there is a risk of death to pedestrians using the pathway appropriately ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate controls preventing motorcycles from endangering pedestrians in public areas.

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

Carry out consultation with relevant stakeholders about proposed barriers for the foot/cycle path.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It has been determined that although it is not possible to exclude motorcycles, it is practicable to reduce the speed along the foot/cycle path that the collision took place. It is therefore, our intention to introduce barriers as shown in Appendix D. A consultation with relevant stakeholders will be carried out in December with a view to implementing (subject to their comments) in February/March.”

Source location

2016-0365-Highway-Services
Page 1 · response
Published 14 October 2016

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

Introduce barriers to reduce motorcycle speeds along the foot/cycle path, subject to stakeholder comments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It has been determined that although it is not possible to exclude motorcycles, it is practicable to reduce the speed along the foot/cycle path that the collision took place. It is therefore, our intention to introduce barriers as shown in Appendix D. A consultation with relevant stakeholders will be carried out in December with a view to implementing (subject to their comments) in February/March.”

Source location

2016-0365-Highway-Services
Page 1 · response
Published 14 October 2016

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

Conduct a feasibility study of physical measures to exclude motorcycles or reduce risks to legitimate path users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“My officers have conducted a feasibility study into whether there are any physical measures that can be carried out to exclude motorcycles from the area in question or reduce the risk of motorcycles being used illegally injuring legitimate users of the paths. I enclose a copy of the report.”

Source location

2016-0365-Highway-Services
Page 1 · response
Published 14 October 2016

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

Physical measures cannot exclude motorcycles from the paths, although barriers can practicably reduce their speed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It has been determined that although it is not possible to exclude motorcycles, it is practicable to reduce the speed along the foot/cycle path that the collision took place. It is therefore, our intention to introduce barriers as shown in Appendix D. A consultation with relevant stakeholders will be carried out in December with a view to implementing (subject to their comments) in February/March.”

Source location

2016-0365-Highway-Services
Page 1 · response
Published 14 October 2016

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