Recurring concern

Inadequate forward visibility from vehicles

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 30 Aug 2016•Latest report 2 Sep 2022

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures or hazards in vehicle design, equipment mounting, glazing, passenger configuration, glare management or other dedicated vehicle-visibility controls that materially obstruct or reduce the driver's forward view during road or operational use.

Not included

  • Excludes road geometry, vegetation, lighting, signage and surface conditions where the vehicle's own forward visibility is not the deficient control.
  • Excludes rearward, lateral or general blind-spot concerns unless they materially involve the driver's forward field of view.
  • Excludes generic vehicle approval, maintenance or driving-standard deficiencies where no forward-visibility problem is identified.
  • Excludes failures limited to a specific large-vehicle, railway, marine or other named system when that narrower system supplies the more faithful supported concern.
Reports
3

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
3

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2016–2022

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
1

Described in published responses

Reports over time

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Transport2
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency1
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency1
Oxfordshire County Council1

Concerns and responses across reports

Only concerns grouped under this recurring concern are included. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Oxfordshire

    AI-generated summary

    Jennifer Wong · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Jennifer Wong died at the scene of a road traffic accident on Headington Road, Oxford, on 26 September 2021, after a mobile crane turning left knocked her from her cycle and ran over her. The report identifies concerns about the crane driver's significant nearside blind spots and the lack of close-proximity mirrors or other visibility measures. It also raises concerns about the layout and width of the cycle lane, which may bring cyclists into conflict with vehicles turning left.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Inadequate near-side and forward visibility safeguards for mobile cranes

    Wider context from the report

    “It was apparent at inquest that the regulations concerning vehicles of this type are difficult to understand and to determine which regulations apply. The mobile crane in question was a Kato City Crane with a capacity of 22 tonnes, registration number P477 YHT. The odometer recorded 65,917 kilometres. According to the police Vehicle Examiner, it is classed as a mobile crane and operates outside of the Construction and Use regulations which governs HGV’s. It is said that it is governed by the Road Vehicles (Authorisation of Special Types) (General) Order 2003, otherwise known as STGO. I am further advised that under STGO it is likely to be classed a Cat B mobile crane. I understand it can also be regarded as a motor tractor/light locomotive/heavy locomotive under some regulations but at the same time it can also be classed as a road vehicle as it is intended for use on the road to get to site for example. Despite this, if I understand the position correctly, it is subject to reg 33 of the Construction and Use Regs and, for a vehicle first used after 1978 as this one was, it only requires a single offside mirror to be fitted. According to paragraph 9.8 of the Collision Investigator’s report, it is categorised as ‘Engineering Plant’ (Department of Transport 2010) and does not fall within the requirements for close proximity mirrors (EU 2007, UN 2013). 1. It is immediately striking that the driver has virtually no view of the nearside of his vehicle or immediately in front of it. The crane is designed in such a way so that the boom/jib extends along the near side of the cab obliterating most of the view. It had one side mirror on each side but there were very significant blind spots. These appear to be worse than what one might have with a HGV or bus for example which, very often, have more mirrors and perhaps camera’s and audible warnings. It is also noteworthy that the crane did not have indicators which could be seen by someone alongside the crane as opposed to being behind or in front of it. I refer you to the photographs in the report of the police collision investigator, ████████ ████████ and particularly from paragraph 9.10 and the figures which give a representation of the driver’s view. Notwithstanding the above, it appears that the vehicle is only required by regulations to have one offside mirror and no close proximity mirrors which are designed to reduce the driver’s blind spots. The regulations are confusing but regardless of whether the vehicle is classed as engineering plant or some form of locomotive, the reality is that such vehicles are permitted to drive on the roads through towns and cities with next to no near side view. It is the second such case I have dealt with this year in Oxford. I understand there may be some separate and safer regulations that apply in London called the Transport for London Direct Vision Standard which would classify this vehicle with a star rating of zero and require the fitting of safe system measures. ”

    Source location

    Jennifer Wong · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    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

    Write to the Construction Plant-hire Association raising mobile crane compliance and encouraging members to consider additional driver-vision devices or technology.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Irrespective of these measures, the vehicle appears to have been used in a condition which was not compliant with regulations. Whilst it is impossible to determine with any certainty whether full compliance with the regulations would have prevented this collision, I shall be writing to the CPA in the next month to raise the issue of compliance and encouraging its members to consider additional devices or technology to help improve mobile crane driver vision.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 3 · response
    Published 16 January 2023

    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

    Existing construction and use regulations set the minimum standards considered necessary for vehicle vision and mirrors.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Regulation 30 of C&U covers view to the front and requires every motor vehicle to be so designed and constructed that the driver has a full view of the road and traffic ahead. As you have noted, for the purposes of Regulation 33 of C&U, the subject vehicle is classified as a locomotive and requires as a minimum one exterior mirror fitted to the offside. From the evidence provided, the vehicle appears compliant with regards to the C&U requirements. However, these regulations set the minimum standards considered necessary and there is flexibility for manufacturers/operators to install additional devices for indirect vision, including additional mirrors, cameras, and sensors should they wish to do so, and I note from the evidence that this vehicle is fitted with an additional mirror to the nearside.”

    Source location

    Response from Department for Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 January 2023

    Open published response

  2. Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Christopher Lloyd TAYLOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Christopher Lloyd TAYLOR died after falling from his bicycle and being run over by an agricultural crop sprayer on a narrow rural road on 15 June 2020. The principal concern was that a screen mounted inside the sprayer’s cab created a blind spot, preventing the driver from seeing the cyclist; the screen had no function while driving on the public highway and did not need to be fixed in place.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure to prevent a fixed monitor from obstructing the driver's field of view during public-highway driving

    Wider context from the report

    “(i) The driver of the crop sprayer sat in a cab at the front of his vehicle. It provided an elevated view of the road with full length windows to the front and both sides. (ii) Directly in front of the driver was a steering wheel and an A pillar at each front corner of the cab. (III) To the right hand A pillar there was affixed a flat screen monitor. That was for use only when the crop sprayer was being used for agricultural purposes. (IV) A police reconstruction established that the presence of the screen fixed created a 'blind-spot' in the drivers field of view extending several metres in depth. (V) The driver of the crop sprayer had not seen the cyclist approach throughout the limited time he would have been in view. On balance that occurred directly as a consequence of the presence of the screen. (vi) The screen had no function at all whilst the vehicle was being driven on the public highway and did not need to be on a fixed mounting. ”

    Source location

    Christopher Lloyd TAYLOR · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

  3. Central Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Robert Arnold Dearing · Prevention of Future Deaths report

    This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

    Report summary

    Robert Arnold Dearing was struck from behind by a motor car while cycling on Sand Lane, Barkston, on 3 July 2015. The inquest concluded that he died as a result of the road traffic collision, with head injury recorded as the medical cause of death. Concerns related to the use of an unregulated anti-glare visor, which substantially reduced light transmission and could obscure the driver’s view of the road ahead.

    Read the report on judiciary.uk

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

    PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Anti-glare visors dangerously obscuring drivers’ forward vision

    Wider context from the report

    “(IV) I received evidence that whilst there is specific legislation governing the light transmission qualities of vehicle windscreen glass, that the legislation does not currently extend to such devices, which are unregulated. I received evidence that there is currently no British Standard certification for such items. (V) I received evidence that there was a legal requirement that the vehicle windscreen should have a Visual Light Transmission (VLT) reading of not less than 75%. (VI) I received evidence that an analysis of the anti-glare visor demonstrated that if used in single thickness mode, it had a VLT of between 17.5% and 22.1%. When used in double thickness mode, as in this case, the VLT readings were greatly reduced, to between 3.9% and 4.2%. (VII) I received evidence that such results could be considered dangerous in that the driver’s vision of the road ahead may be considerably obscured. In addition I received evidence that, if used in single mode, the fold line between the two sections may fall across the driver’s eye-line and present a further impediment to the driver’s field of view. ”

    Source location

    Robert Arnold Dearing · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026