PFD report

Carol Metcalfe · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 6 Jun 2018•West Yorkshire Eastern

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
0

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. Lack of measures to protect pedestrians crossing the A63 dual carriageway
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Position

    Existing informal pedestrian crossing measures were considered the most appropriate provision, so no further highway intervention was offered.

    Stated by Leeds City CouncilExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so 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

Lack of measures to protect pedestrians crossing the A63 dual carriageway

Wider context from the report

“The need for measures to be taken to protect pedestrians crossing the A63 dual carriageway in the vicinity of Waterloo Manor Hospital. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate control of pedestrian crossing risks.

Open source report

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

Existing informal pedestrian crossing measures were considered the most appropriate provision, so no further highway intervention was offered.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have as part of this investigation assessed the site for a formal pedestrian crossing based on the national assessment criteria based the LTN 1/95 “The assessment of pedestrian crossings”. This assessment process considered the site characteristics, vehicular and pedestrian usage, forward visibility, road environment, speed of road and previous road safety history. My conclusion after this review was that informal measures which have already been provided are the most appropriate provision for this location.”

Source location

2018-0175-Response-by-Leeds-City-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 12 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