Thomas Ian Hunt · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Jan 2015•South Lincolnshire

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in 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 raised2

  1. Failure to record non-injury collisions on the local authority database
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road-traffic-collision reporting for highway safety management
  2. Inappropriately high 60mph speed limit on the B1192 through Brothertoft village
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. Lincolnshire County Council

    Review the Lincolnshire Speed Limit Policy and take the revised policy through scheduled scrutiny consideration.

  2. Lincolnshire County Council

    Investigate and assess whether the road section meets criteria for reducing its speed limit, including under any adopted revised policy.

  3. Lincolnshire County Council

    Resurface the B1192 bend at Brothertoft.

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

  1. Lincolnshire County Council

    A speed-limit reduction assessment cannot be completed until the revised Speed Limit Policy is reviewed and adopted; interim investigation will assess current criteria.

    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

Failure to record non-injury collisions on the local authority database

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest evidence was presented describing how there have been a number of non-injury collisions at the scene of the collision where Thomas died. These would not have been recorded on the local authority's database. The national speed limit of 60mph applies to the B1192 as it passes through Brothertoft village. Evidence was presented to the effect that a 50mph limit would be more appropriate given that the B1192, as it passes through Brothertoft, is bordered by residential properties and farm entrances. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road-traffic-collision reporting for highway safety management.

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

Inappropriately high 60mph speed limit on the B1192 through Brothertoft village

Wider context from the report

“During the inquest evidence was presented describing how there have been a number of non-injury collisions at the scene of the collision where Thomas died. These would not have been recorded on the local authority's database. The national speed limit of 60mph applies to the B1192 as it passes through Brothertoft village. Evidence was presented to the effect that a 50mph limit would be more appropriate given that the B1192, as it passes through Brothertoft, is bordered by residential properties and farm entrances. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate traffic-speed controls on residential roads.

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 Lincolnshire Speed Limit Policy and take the revised policy through scheduled scrutiny consideration.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of our Speed Management Review in Lincolnshire, we are currently in the process of reviewing our existing Speed Limit Policy. The revised new Policy is due to be considered by the Council's Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee on 9 March 2015. Subject to the outcome at this meeting, we will proceed to the public consultation on the revised new Policy. It is anticipated that any new revised Policy will be formally adopted by the Council in the Autumn.”

Source location

2015-0004-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2015

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

Investigate and assess whether the road section meets criteria for reducing its speed limit, including under any adopted revised policy.

Verbatim wording from the response

“An assessment for reducing the current speed limit along this section of the road will be actioned once the outcome of the current review has been completed and any revised new Policy is adopted by the Council. In the meantime, we intend to commence the investigation and assessment process to determine whether this site meets the current policy criteria.”

Source location

2015-0004-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2015

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

Resurface the B1192 bend at Brothertoft.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I can confirm that a section of the B1192, on the bend at Brothertoft, was resurfaced in November 2014. The request to reduce the current speed limit along this section of road will be addressed in accordance with Lincolnshire County Council's Speed Limit Policy.”

Source location

2015-0004-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2015

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 speed-limit reduction assessment cannot be completed until the revised Speed Limit Policy is reviewed and adopted; interim investigation will assess current criteria.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of our Speed Management Review in Lincolnshire, we are currently in the process of reviewing our existing Speed Limit Policy. The revised new Policy is due to be considered by the Council's Highways and Transport Scrutiny Committee on 9 March 2015. Subject to the outcome at this meeting, we will proceed to the public consultation on the revised new Policy. It is anticipated that any new revised Policy will be formally adopted by the Council in the Autumn.”

Source location

2015-0004-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 9 January 2015

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
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026