PFD report

Luke John Saxton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Nov 2018•North Yorkshire

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

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 raised1

  1. Lack of street lighting in the collision area and at nearby bus stops
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lightingPart of recurring concern: Inadequate outdoor safety lighting
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    Street lighting is not considered necessary because collision history, pedestrian and night-time traffic flows, precedent, and costs do not justify intervention.

    Stated by North Yorkshire 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

Lack of street lighting in the collision area and at nearby bus stops

Wider context from the report

“1) The collision occurred in darkness in an area where there was no street lighting; 2) Mr Saxton had been attending a wedding at nearby Broughton Hall, a popular wedding venue; 3) There are bus stops in the area where the collision occurred which were also in darkness; 4) Consideration should be given to erecting street lighting to cover the area where the collision occurred up to the bus stops at either side of the Bull at Broughton public house. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate and unreliable public-road street lighting; Inadequate outdoor safety lighting.

Open source report

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 is not considered necessary because collision history, pedestrian and night-time traffic flows, precedent, and costs do not justify intervention.

Verbatim wording from the response

“When assessing the need for street lighting a range of factors are considered, one of the most significant being the long term collision record.”

Source location

2018-0373-Response-by-North-Yorkshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 10 May 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-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.2

  1. 1

    Improve signing and road markings at the A59/Gargrave Road junction to address vehicle-turning risks.

    Stated by North Yorkshire CouncilStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 10 May 2019.
  2. 2

    Review the feasibility and implications of installing non-prescribed pedestrian warning signs on the A59.

    Stated by North Yorkshire CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 10 May 2019.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Prescribed pedestrian-in-the-road warning signs are not considered necessary because the road has footway, verge or hard strip, and satisfactory visibility.

    Stated by North Yorkshire CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.
  2. 2

    A footway is not considered necessary because pedestrian flows are likely low and an existing nearer bus-stop footpath serves the area.

    Stated by North Yorkshire CouncilNo action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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

Improve signing and road markings at the A59/Gargrave Road junction to address vehicle-turning risks.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although not directly associated with this collision, further road safety works are being introduced at the nearby A59/Gargrave Road junction which has been identified a high risks site for vehicles making turning movements. Improvements to the existing signing and marking will be introduced at the very earliest opportunity, (subject to weather conditions for lining works) and will contribute towards improving overall road safety in this area.”

Source location

2018-0373-Response-by-North-Yorkshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 10 May 2019

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 feasibility and implications of installing non-prescribed pedestrian warning signs on the A59.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, it is noted that work has been done to use the metre hard strip as an unofficial cycle lane with measures installed to guide cyclists from the west bound traffic lane to this strip. Furthermore, it is wholly feasible that a pedestrian may not wish to walk on the grass verge and chose to walk on the surfaced carriageway. Combined this may offer some more mitigating circumstance. Further consideration will need to be given to this as the installation of none prescribed signs on the highway would result in the County Council being held accountable should a future collision occur in which this sign(s) was struck or in some way involved. Nevertheless a pragmatic approach must be taken and this will be looked at in more detail by the relevant officers. Additional Action”

Source location

2018-0373-Response-by-North-Yorkshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 10 May 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

Prescribed pedestrian-in-the-road warning signs are not considered necessary because the road has footway, verge or hard strip, and satisfactory visibility.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) does prescribe a pedestrian in the road warning sign (TSRGD Diagram 544.1). However, it is specified that it can only be installed at locations where the road does not have a footway(s) and with no verge or metre hard strip. This section of the A59 in question does have a footway on the south side extending between the Bull Public House and the bus stop. The carriageway also has a metre wide hard strip and grass verge for its remaining length between the bus stop and its junction with the side road leading to Broughton Hall, from where it is understood Mr Saxton travelled from. This section of carriageway is also relatively flat and affords satisfactory inter-visibility between drivers and pedestrians. On that basis, this section of the A59 does not merit the installation of these signs.”

Source location

2018-0373-Response-by-North-Yorkshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 10 May 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

A footway is not considered necessary because pedestrian flows are likely low and an existing nearer bus-stop footpath serves the area.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Consideration must also be given to precedent, over 80% of the County’s roads are currently unlit and to take this course of action at this location and collision history, would likely lead to numerous other locations in the county being equally of merit. At present there are no footpaths linking Broughton Hall and the bus stop on the south side of the A59, nearest to the Bull Public House, where the collision occurred for the reason there is a nearer bus stop located to the west of the side road junction, with a footpath link. It would not be expected for people to be walking that route specifically, even if the hall is a popular wedding venue. Pedestrian flows on this section of the A59 are likely to be very low and similarly traffic flows on the A59 during the night time is also considered to be relatively low. Therefore, there is no direct justification to install a footway.”

Source location

2018-0373-Response-by-North-Yorkshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 10 May 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