Joshua David Booth · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Mar 2015•Central 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
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published 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 raised3

  1. Failure to provide appropriately located and informative warning signage for road subsidence
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate road warning signagePart of recurring concern: Inadequate speed control at hazardous road locations
  2. Failure to provide suitable roadside protection at the foot of the bank
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate roadside vehicle-restraint barriers
  3. Failure to maintain the road in a safe condition following subsidence
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair

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

    Provide and sign an advisory 40 mph speed limit on Fodderdyke Bank.

  2. Lincolnshire County Council

    Level the subsided road section with bituminous material to provide a more regular public surface.

  3. Lincolnshire County Council

    Erect and retain temporary uneven-road signage, with regular inspection and review.

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

  1. Lincolnshire County Council

    Safety barriers cannot be erected without significant structural works because the embankment lacks sufficient strength.

    Unable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. Lincolnshire County Council

    Providing safety barriers would be excessively costly and divert limited resources from repairing other county road defects.

    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 provide appropriately located and informative warning signage for road subsidence

Wider context from the report

“(II)       Appropriate signage needs to be erected to warn of the imminent danger of the road subsidence. The signage needs to be closer to the section of road in question and should include an appropriate advisory speed limit. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate road warning signage; 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

Failure to provide suitable roadside protection at the foot of the bank

Wider context from the report

“(III)      The posts at the foot of the bank constitute a serious danger to vehicles leaving this section of road. An Armco barrier should be erected along this section of the road to provide security to passing motorists. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate roadside vehicle-restraint barriers.

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 maintain the road in a safe condition following subsidence

Wider context from the report

“(I)        The subsided section of road is seriously substandard and a danger to passing motorists and formed a contributory factor to Mr Booth's death. The section of road requires immediate repair. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to maintain roads, pavements and verges in a safe state of repair.

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

Provide and sign an advisory 40 mph speed limit on Fodderdyke Bank.

Verbatim wording from the response

“3. Following an earlier review there is an advisory speed limit of 40 mph on Fodderdyke Bank which is signed accordingly.”

Source location

2015-0125-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 March 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

Level the subsided road section with bituminous material to provide a more regular public surface.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1. The discrete section of road identified in your report which had been subject to subsidence has now been levelled with bituminous material to provide a more regular surface for the public.”

Source location

2015-0125-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 March 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

Erect and retain temporary uneven-road signage, with regular inspection and review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“2. Signage exists at regular intervals along the section of Fodderdyke Bank between Stickney and Friskney. Temporary signage was erected which includes the area which has now been repaired. This signage advising of uneven road surface has been left in place and supplements the existing permanent signs. The "uneven road" signage in the area is subject to regular inspection and review.”

Source location

2015-0125-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 1 · response
Published 16 March 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

Safety barriers cannot be erected without significant structural works because the embankment lacks sufficient strength.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Due to the nature of the embankments (constructed from a mixture of clay, peat and silts in general) there is not enough strength to enable safety barriers to be erected without significant structural works to support the barrier.”

Source location

2015-0125-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 March 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

Providing safety barriers would be excessively costly and divert limited resources from repairing other county road defects.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The cost of providing barriers would be excessive and divert resources from repairing the defects and failings in the road construction throughout the County and would not be best use of limited resources.”

Source location

2015-0125-Response-by-Lincolnshire-County-Council
Page 2 · response
Published 16 March 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
1/1

Data last updated 7 September 2026