Ibrahima YAHAIA · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 1 Dec 2020•Bedfordshire and Luton

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Design flaws in the Busway
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe busway and adjacent-road design
  2. Inadequate signage warning pedestrians not to enter the Busway
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to keep pedestrians out of cycle paths through clear safety guidancePart of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signagePart of recurring concern: Unreliable guidance and closure controls for unsafe pedestrian paths
  3. Failure to implement measures preventing injury or death to vulnerable people on the Busway

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. Luton Borough Council

    Complete an updated police Memorandum of Understanding covering operations, traffic regulation and incident investigation, with regular safety-review meetings.

  2. Luton Borough Council

    Replace faded or missing signs on the Hatters Way section of the Busway.

  3. Luton Borough Council

    Include the Health and Safety Executive in reviewing Busway safety measures.

  4. Luton Borough Council

    Review the remaining Busway for upgraded signage at emergency access points and other locations where additional warning signs may assist.

  5. Luton Borough Council

    Continue engaging Roads Policing teams to identify lessons from the Busway incidents.

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

  1. Luton Borough Council

    Unauthorised access cannot be prevented along the Busway’s full 8.3-mile length.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. Luton Borough Council

    The Council disputes that the Busway has design flaws or presents a material pedestrian risk, citing few incidents and no regular unauthorised access.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.
  3. Luton Borough Council

    Street lighting cannot be installed at the accident location because the area is designated as bat habitat.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  4. Luton Borough Council

    Entire-length fencing cannot be installed because it would be prohibitively expensive and is not considered necessary for busway infrastructure.

    Unable 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

Design flaws in the Busway

Wider context from the report

“(3) Evidence from the local Forensic Collision Investigation Unit suggests there are clear and evident design flaws with this Busway; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe busway and adjacent-road design.

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

Inadequate signage warning pedestrians not to enter the Busway

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is a pedestrian footway which runs parallel to the Busway in places and pedestrians have access to the Busway at bus stops. Pedestrians may cross the Busway at the bus stops and there is no physical prevention for pedestrians to enter the Busway lanes. There is no signage on the Busway, itself stating pedestrians should not enter and only a small sign on a post by the footpath which states pedestrians should not trespass on the Busway. Although the footpaths which run parallel to the Busway are separated by fences, there are a number of places where pedestrians may freely enter the Busway. Hatters Way, Luton has many gaps in the fence, with no gate, giving pedestrians free access to roam in and out of the Busway lanes. There are no signs of bus stops near these gaps in the fences and, at the Bury Park end of Hatters Way, there is no fencing which again means pedestrians are free to enter the Busway lanes. Unlike train tracks, where the only way to get access is via a station, the Busway is easily accessed, yet it is just as dangerous; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to keep pedestrians out of cycle paths through clear safety guidance; Inadequate road warning signage; Unreliable guidance and closure controls for unsafe pedestrian paths.

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 implement measures preventing injury or death to vulnerable people on the Busway

Wider context from the report

“(4) The local Forensic Collision Unit has seen no evidence of any steps being taken to prevent further vulnerable people from being injured/killed in incidents on this Busway. ”

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

Failure to prevent pedestrian access to Busway lanes

Wider context from the report

“(1) There is a pedestrian footway which runs parallel to the Busway in places and pedestrians have access to the Busway at bus stops. Pedestrians may cross the Busway at the bus stops and there is no physical prevention for pedestrians to enter the Busway lanes. There is no signage on the Busway, itself stating pedestrians should not enter and only a small sign on a post by the footpath which states pedestrians should not trespass on the Busway. Although the footpaths which run parallel to the Busway are separated by fences, there are a number of places where pedestrians may freely enter the Busway. Hatters Way, Luton has many gaps in the fence, with no gate, giving pedestrians free access to roam in and out of the Busway lanes. There are no signs of bus stops near these gaps in the fences and, at the Bury Park end of Hatters Way, there is no fencing which again means pedestrians are free to enter the Busway lanes. Unlike train tracks, where the only way to get access is via a station, the Busway is easily accessed, yet it is just as dangerous; ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to prevent public access to closed or restricted hazardous sites; Inadequate physical barriers preventing access to dangerous drops or areas; Inadequate physical separation between pedestrians and vehicular traffic.

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 an updated police Memorandum of Understanding covering operations, traffic regulation and incident investigation, with regular safety-review meetings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are in the process of completing an updated Memorandum of Understanding with the police in relation to operations, traffic regulation and investigation of incidents and to keep safety under review through regular meetings.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2021

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

Replace faded or missing signs on the Hatters Way section of the Busway.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the section at Hatters Way any faded or missing signs have been replaced and the rest of the Busway is in the process of being reviewed for upgrading of signage at emergency access points and any other locations, including Jeans Way, where additional signage may be thought to assist in emphasizing that access to the Busway is not permitted.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2021

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

Include the Health and Safety Executive in reviewing Busway safety measures.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We have also included the Health & Safety Executive in the process of reviewing safety measures for the Busway.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2021

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

Review the remaining Busway for upgraded signage at emergency access points and other locations where additional warning signs may assist.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the section at Hatters Way any faded or missing signs have been replaced and the rest of the Busway is in the process of being reviewed for upgrading of signage at emergency access points and any other locations, including Jeans Way, where additional signage may be thought to assist in emphasizing that access to the Busway is not permitted.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2021

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

Continue engaging Roads Policing teams to identify lessons from the Busway incidents.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Luton Council has continued to engage with the Bedfordshire, Hertfordshire and Cambridgeshire Constabulary Roads Policing team to determine what lessons might be learnt from these tragic occurrences.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 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

Unauthorised access cannot be prevented along the Busway’s full 8.3-mile length.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I feel that I must nonetheless point out that it is impossible to prevent unauthorised access to the Busway along its 8.3 mile length of which 4.6 miles is guided.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 3 · response
Published 4 January 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 Council disputes that the Busway has design flaws or presents a material pedestrian risk, citing few incidents and no regular unauthorised access.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There is no evidence of pedestrians regularly straying onto the live Busway and the three incidents in the view of LBC and CBC constitute a very small risk profile when compared with the number of journeys completed.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 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

Street lighting cannot be installed at the accident location because the area is designated as bat habitat.

Verbatim wording from the response

“It may be thought that street lighting would improve safety but that is not possible in the area where the accident involving Mr. Yahaia occurred as it is an area designated as occupied by bats so we cannot install street lighting at this location.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 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

Entire-length fencing cannot be installed because it would be prohibitively expensive and is not considered necessary for busway infrastructure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“At no stage has LBC or CBC been advised that the Busway should be fenced along its entire length and indeed to do so would be prohibitively expensive. I understand that no busways are fenced in the same way as a railway and the two should not be seen as comparable.”

Source location

2020-0262-Response-from-Luton-Council-Redacted
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 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

Official responses located
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026