PFD report

ADRIAN JOHN PICKARD · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 31 Dec 2013•West Yorkshire (East)

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
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 raised1

  1. Failure to weigh all laden vehicles before departure
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

    Continue weighing or spot-checking vehicles, including volumetric vehicles, before they operate on public roads.

    Stated by Lightwater Quarries LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 December 2013.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    There is no evidence that vehicle weight contributed to the collision or that weighing every laden vehicle would reduce future death risk.

    Stated by Lightwater Quarries 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 weigh all laden vehicles before departure

Wider context from the report

“(1) That not all of the Company’s vehicles, which vehicles travel on the public highway and are laden with e.g. aggregates, are weighed on each occasion prior to their departure from the Company’s premises. ”

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

Continue weighing or spot-checking vehicles, including volumetric vehicles, before they operate on public roads.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are grateful for the extension of time to provide a response and do so in the following terms. There is no legal requirement for the vehicles quoted within the report to be weighed on leaving the site. LQL always weighs aggregate vehicles for trading standards purposes. That requirement does not apply to volumetric vehicles (as was being driven here) because there is no obligation to do so but more importantly no need to. LQL already uses its weigh bridge to spot check all of its vehicles including volumetrics as a matter of good practice and is satisfied that such practice is fit for purpose. That practice will continue and in any event it is of course open to LQL to check which every vehicle on every occasion before it is operated on the public road and that as it happens is indeed the current position.”

Source location

2013-0358-Response-by-Lightwater-Quarries-Ltd
Page 1 · response
Published 31 December 2013

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

There is no evidence that vehicle weight contributed to the collision or that weighing every laden vehicle would reduce future death risk.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Consequently, we respectfully disagree that there is a risk that future deaths will occur unless all vehicles are weighed every time when leaving the site, because there is no evidence to support that proposition and it is in context quite unnecessary. It is noted that the Coroner’s concerns are ‘that not all of the Company’s vehicles which travel on the public highway are laden with e.g. aggregates, are weighed on each occasion prior to their departure from the Company’s premises.’”

Source location

2013-0358-Response-by-Lightwater-Quarries-Ltd
Page 3 · response
Published 31 December 2013

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

Regular weighbridge spot checks, including volumetric vehicles, are considered fit for purpose and will continue instead of mandatory weighing before every departure.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are grateful for the extension of time to provide a response and do so in the following terms. There is no legal requirement for the vehicles quoted within the report to be weighed on leaving the site. LQL always weighs aggregate vehicles for trading standards purposes. That requirement does not apply to volumetric vehicles (as was being driven here) because there is no obligation to do so but more importantly no need to. LQL already uses its weigh bridge to spot check all of its vehicles including volumetrics as a matter of good practice and is satisfied that such practice is fit for purpose. That practice will continue and in any event it is of course open to LQL to check which every vehicle on every occasion before it is operated on the public road and that as it happens is indeed the current position.”

Source location

2013-0358-Response-by-Lightwater-Quarries-Ltd
Page 1 · response
Published 31 December 2013

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.1

  1. 1

    Conduct a torque test at every periodic maintenance inspection.

    Stated by Lightwater Quarries LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 31 December 2013.

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

Conduct a torque test at every periodic maintenance inspection.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Since this incident LQL policy has been to conduct a torque test at each and every PMI. We would like to see such a test also introduced at the annual ministry test. Had this been part of the ministry test procedure then perhaps the defective automatic slack adjusters would have been identified at the immediately preceding annual test.”

Source location

2013-0358-Response-by-Lightwater-Quarries-Ltd
Page 5 · response
Published 31 December 2013

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