PFD report

Mitchell Harvey Clifton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 13 May 2014•Staffordshire South

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
1

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 raised2

  1. Failure of the access-way layout to adequately accommodate regular pedestrian and vehicle use
  2. Reduction in off-side visibility from vehicle adaptations
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.1

  1. Action

    Arrange additional highway markings at the car-park junction, including reinstated double yellow lines, extended central hatching, and give-way or carriageway-edge markings.

    Stated by Staffordshire County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 13 May 2014.

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

  1. Position

    Changes to existing window or mirror requirements are not proposed because their effectiveness in preventing similar incidents is unproven.

    Stated by Department for TransportNo 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 of the access-way layout to adequately accommodate regular pedestrian and vehicle use

Wider context from the report

“The access way is a wide one to the Co-operative car park. It is likely that pedestrians and vehicles use this access way on a regular basis. I wonder if you could give consideration as to if the lay-out of this access way might be improved. Possibilities might include tactile or coloured paving, extension of the double yellow lines (or other road markings), or the insertion of a central island. ”

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

Reduction in off-side visibility from vehicle adaptations

Wider context from the report

“The van in question was a Mercedes Sprinter being used as a security van. As part of the adaptations for it to be a security van the size of the driver's door window had been reduced. The off-side wing mirror was standard. A reduction in the available view to the off-side may have been a factor why the van driver did not spot Mitchell. Perhaps you can kindly confirm that the design of this vehicle has been duly approved and consider if any further adaptations regarding either the window or mirror are appropriate. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Arrange additional highway markings at the car-park junction, including reinstated double yellow lines, extended central hatching, and give-way or carriageway-edge markings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Some of the road markings have become worn and the Co-operative has agreed to renew them. In addition, I have made arrangements for further markings to be provided on the highway to compliment the markings provided on the car park. This will involve returning the double yellow lines to the rear of the footway, extending the central hatching to the edge of the carriageway and providing a give way marking/edge of carriageway marking at the junction of the car park with Landywood Lane. These measures should highlight the presence of the Co-operative entrance for both pedestrians and vehicles.”

Source location

2014-0227-Response-by-Staffordshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 13 May 2014

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

Changes to existing window or mirror requirements are not proposed because their effectiveness in preventing similar incidents is unproven.

Verbatim wording from the response

“You have asked me to consider whether adaptations to the window or the mirror requirements are appropriate. As I have indicated, I take the matter of vehicle safety seriously and have considered the national road safety data for light commercial vehicles to understand better the contribution of a reduced view of the road to collisions, compared to other factors such as driver error or inattention, and the potential for making regulation to improve the situation. The circumstances of this case are tragic but I am not convinced that making changes to the existing requirements would necessarily prevent such an incident from happening again. On this basis I do not propose adaptations to the current requirements.”

Source location

2014-0227-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 13 May 2014

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