PFD report

Graeme Stafford Flatman · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 10 Nov 2017•Newcastle upon Tyne

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
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 raised3

  1. Inappropriateness of a 60 mile per hour speed limit on a single carriageway road
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of vehicle loss-of-control risks on hazardous road sectionsPart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
  2. Absence of appropriate signage warning of visibility limitations on the road ahead
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
  3. Absence of appropriate signage warning of severe incline or decline on the road ahead
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signage
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.2

  1. Action

    Review the appropriateness of the 60 mph speed limit at the location.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 February 2018.
  2. Action

    Visit the collision site and review signage, involving police if possible.

    Stated by Cumbria County CouncilStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 15 February 2018.

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 the speed limit cannot be completed immediately because consultation and legal processes will take at least six months.

    Stated by Cumbria County 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

Inappropriateness of a 60 mile per hour speed limit on a single carriageway road

Wider context from the report

“The A593 is a scenic cross country road with a speed limit of 60 miles per hour. No signage is present within the area in which the collision occurred, warning road users of the severity of the road gradient or the limitations upon visibility. Coroners concerns are: 1. The absence of appropriate signage to warn road users approaching severe incline/decline on the road ahead 2. The absence of appropriate signage warning of visibility limitations on the road ahead 3. The appropriateness of a 60 mile per hour speed limit on a single carriageway road, with one lane in each direction containing numerous straight sections, bends and gradient changes ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of vehicle loss-of-control risks on hazardous road sections; Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations.

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

Absence of appropriate signage warning of visibility limitations on the road ahead

Wider context from the report

“The A593 is a scenic cross country road with a speed limit of 60 miles per hour. No signage is present within the area in which the collision occurred, warning road users of the severity of the road gradient or the limitations upon visibility. Coroners concerns are: 1. The absence of appropriate signage to warn road users approaching severe incline/decline on the road ahead 2. The absence of appropriate signage warning of visibility limitations on the road ahead 3. The appropriateness of a 60 mile per hour speed limit on a single carriageway road, with one lane in each direction containing numerous straight sections, bends and gradient changes ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage.

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

Absence of appropriate signage warning of severe incline or decline on the road ahead

Wider context from the report

“The A593 is a scenic cross country road with a speed limit of 60 miles per hour. No signage is present within the area in which the collision occurred, warning road users of the severity of the road gradient or the limitations upon visibility. Coroners concerns are: 1. The absence of appropriate signage to warn road users approaching severe incline/decline on the road ahead 2. The absence of appropriate signage warning of visibility limitations on the road ahead 3. The appropriateness of a 60 mile per hour speed limit on a single carriageway road, with one lane in each direction containing numerous straight sections, bends and gradient changes ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage.

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

Review the appropriateness of the 60 mph speed limit at the location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The speed limit of 60 mph is typical for the rural roads in the County but this will also be looked at with regard its appropriateness. Any changes to this will require a consultation and legal process which will take at least 6 months to complete.”

Source location

Response from Cumbria County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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

Visit the collision site and review signage, involving police if possible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a result of the Regulation 28 report we will visit the site, with the police if possible, and review the signage at the collision location. It is hoped to organise this site meeting early in the New Year and install any measures before the end of March.”

Source location

Response from Cumbria County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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 the speed limit cannot be completed immediately because consultation and legal processes will take at least six months.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The speed limit of 60 mph is typical for the rural roads in the County but this will also be looked at with regard its appropriateness. Any changes to this will require a consultation and legal process which will take at least 6 months to complete.”

Source location

Response from Cumbria County Council
Page 1 · response
Published 15 February 2018

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