PFD report

Mr David Worthington · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 29 Aug 2018•South Yorkshire (Western)

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
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

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 to adequately assess high injury severity from unlikely events
  2. Failure to identify particular event locations as risks in risk assessments
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

    Consider all reasonably practicable eventualities in future route assessments and event planning, incorporating the coroner’s comments.

    Stated by A.S.O. U.K. LimitedStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 26 September 2018.

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

  1. Position

    The incident was not reasonably foreseeable during route planning because the road authority raised no concern and coaches rarely used the road.

    Stated by A.S.O. U.K. LimitedDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 adequately assess high injury severity from unlikely events

Wider context from the report

“a) The risk assessment prior to the event had not identified the particular location as a risk. In many ways this is understandable, Plank Gate is a minor junction. b) However, more detailed consideration might be thought to show a different picture. There were 2900 cyclists progressing swiftly down a lengthy descent into a blind bend. The organisers efforts in putting a 'slow' sign part way down the descent were, on the evidence of witnesses, largely ignored. c) Plank Gate is the entrance to a moderately busy riding school and hacking centre. Sunday morning is a common time for such activities. d) Whilst the risk of a vehicle leaving Plank Gate across the path of fast-moving cyclists might reasonably have been considered low, the other element of a risk assessment is the likelihood of injury if such an event did occur. The risk of harm, as identified by this collision was extremely high. e) It is accepted that the route of this prestigious and worthwhile event changes regularly so that Finkle Street lane is unlikely to be used again. Nonetheless, in my respectful submission there is room for a review of the risk assessment methods used for future events. As this incident shows, unlikely events can and do occur and where the risk of harm is high proper consideration is essential. ”

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 identify particular event locations as risks in risk assessments

Wider context from the report

“a) The risk assessment prior to the event had not identified the particular location as a risk. In many ways this is understandable, Plank Gate is a minor junction. b) However, more detailed consideration might be thought to show a different picture. There were 2900 cyclists progressing swiftly down a lengthy descent into a blind bend. The organisers efforts in putting a 'slow' sign part way down the descent were, on the evidence of witnesses, largely ignored. c) Plank Gate is the entrance to a moderately busy riding school and hacking centre. Sunday morning is a common time for such activities. d) Whilst the risk of a vehicle leaving Plank Gate across the path of fast-moving cyclists might reasonably have been considered low, the other element of a risk assessment is the likelihood of injury if such an event did occur. The risk of harm, as identified by this collision was extremely high. e) It is accepted that the route of this prestigious and worthwhile event changes regularly so that Finkle Street lane is unlikely to be used again. Nonetheless, in my respectful submission there is room for a review of the risk assessment methods used for future events. As this incident shows, unlikely events can and do occur and where the risk of harm is high proper consideration is essential. ”

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

Consider all reasonably practicable eventualities in future route assessments and event planning, incorporating the coroner’s comments.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Whilst we respectfully maintain that the events which tragically unfolded were not reasonably foreseeable, either prior to or during the event, we of course undertake to do our absolute best to ensure that, as far as reasonably practicable, we consider all potential eventualities when assessing routes and planning future events. As a company we analyse our events during their planning phase, during their delivery, and after the event to evaluate what, if anything, can be improved upon and learnt for future events. To that end, Human Race will of course take on board your comments when planning and risk assessing future events.”

Source location

2018-0257-Response-by-Humanrace
Page 3 · response
Published 26 September 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

The incident was not reasonably foreseeable during route planning because the road authority raised no concern and coaches rarely used the road.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In your regulation 28 report, you respectfully submit that “there is room for a review of the risk assessment methods used for future events”. As with any responsible business, we have attempted to learn from this tragic accident. The very happening of it has re-enforced the need for us to consider all potential eventualities when planning/risk assessing a route with the various stakeholders involved, however, it remains impossible to conceive or plan for all potential eventualities outwith those which are reasonably foreseeable, specifically in circumstances where the Highways Agency responsible for the road in question has not raised issue with a particular area, asked for the section of road to be closed, or installed any signs or street furniture, which might trigger a concern in the minds of those planning the route.”

Source location

2018-0257-Response-by-Humanrace
Page 2 · response
Published 26 September 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