PFD report

David Holman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 30 Jan 2017•Cheshire

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
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 raised3

  1. Dip in the kerb edge
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control and visibility of hazardous kerb edges
  2. Obstruction of the footpath by a road-sign support
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roads
  3. Lack of a cycle lane on a busy road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safety
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

    Complete a road safety assessment of the carriageway stretch concerning cycleway provision.

    Stated by Mike SuarezStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 February 2017.
  2. Action

    Remove the road sign assembly and relocate it away from the footway.

    Stated by Mike SuarezStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 February 2017.
  3. Action

    Re-kerb the affected length to provide a consistently higher kerb edge.

    Stated by Mike SuarezStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 19 February 2017.

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

Dip in the kerb edge

Wider context from the report

“It appears that there is no cycle lane there and the road gets very busy, so the footpath was being ridden along. There is a road sign situated just after the area at which the descent into the road is thought to have taken place. One support of this goes into the footpath causing an obstruction. There is also a dip in the kerb edge there. No one seemed to know why it was situated there as there is no field entrance or other opening opposite it. It was thought possible that either one or the other or both of these things could have had some effect in the causation of him leaving the footpath. We should appreciate your consideration of these facts to see if any changes need to be made to less the chance of a similar occurrence happening. ”

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

Obstruction of the footpath by a road-sign support

Wider context from the report

“It appears that there is no cycle lane there and the road gets very busy, so the footpath was being ridden along. There is a road sign situated just after the area at which the descent into the road is thought to have taken place. One support of this goes into the footpath causing an obstruction. There is also a dip in the kerb edge there. No one seemed to know why it was situated there as there is no field entrance or other opening opposite it. It was thought possible that either one or the other or both of these things could have had some effect in the causation of him leaving the footpath. We should appreciate your consideration of these facts to see if any changes need to be made to less the chance of a similar occurrence happening. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to provide safe pedestrian routes alongside roads.

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 a cycle lane on a busy road

Wider context from the report

“It appears that there is no cycle lane there and the road gets very busy, so the footpath was being ridden along. There is a road sign situated just after the area at which the descent into the road is thought to have taken place. One support of this goes into the footpath causing an obstruction. There is also a dip in the kerb edge there. No one seemed to know why it was situated there as there is no field entrance or other opening opposite it. It was thought possible that either one or the other or both of these things could have had some effect in the causation of him leaving the footpath. We should appreciate your consideration of these facts to see if any changes need to be made to less the chance of a similar occurrence happening. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate cycle-lane provision for cyclist safety.

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 road safety assessment of the carriageway stretch concerning cycleway provision.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It has also been scheduled for the Road Safety Team to make a complete Safety Assessment of this stretch of carriageway with regards to the provision of a cycleway.”

Source location

2017-0018-Response-by-Cheshire-East-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 February 2017

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

Remove the road sign assembly and relocate it away from the footway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Regarding the road sign that has a support post situated in the footway; Works are programmed to remove the sign assembly and to relocate it away from the footway.”

Source location

2017-0018-Response-by-Cheshire-East-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 February 2017

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

Re-kerb the affected length to provide a consistently higher kerb edge.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Another area of concern was the dip in the kerb edge/height; Works are programmed to re-kerb this length, this will provide a higher consistent kerb height at this location.”

Source location

2017-0018-Response-by-Cheshire-East-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 19 February 2017

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