Recurring concern

Inadequate front-obstruction visibility controls for large vehicles

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 28 May 2014•Latest report 2 Sep 2022

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of vehicle design, mirrors, visibility adaptations, sensors, cameras, alarms or other controls specifically intended to detect or warn drivers about pedestrians or obstructions in the vehicle's forward blind area.

Not included

  • Excludes generic vehicle approval or road-safety deficiencies that are not specifically concerned with detecting front obstructions or preserving forward visibility.
  • Excludes rear visibility, reversing and general side-visibility concerns unless the report explicitly connects them to the same forward-obstruction hazard.
  • Excludes generic driver training, staffing or operational failures where the vehicle's front-obstruction visibility or warning controls are not themselves deficient.
  • Excludes unrelated machinery detection systems, such as automatic bin-lift person detection, unless the assertion concerns a large road vehicle's forward blind area.
Reports
5

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
7

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2014–2022

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
9

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 Transport5
Lorry Driver1
Oxfordshire County Council1
Road Haulage Association Limited1
Scania1
S & J Transport1

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. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Suzanna Jayne Bull · 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

    Dr Suzanna Bull died after being struck and dragged beneath a 32-tonne lorry while cycling in a designated bus/cycle lane on 9 October 2017. The lorry driver's aftermarket dashboard tray and items placed on it obscured the front and nearside view, creating a blind spot. The substantive concerns were the absence of warnings that such trays can create blind spots and should not be fitted while a vehicle is moving.

    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

    Lack of general warnings to lorry manufacturers and haulage firms against using such trays in moving vehicles

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The fact that the tray creates a blind spot may not be apparent to users. There is no warning on the tray to say that it can create a blind spot when fixed in place whilst the vehicle is moving. Consideration should be given to placing a clear warning on the tray that it should not be fitted. 2. There is no general warning to lorry manufacturers and haulage firms to advise against the use of such trays in a moving vehicle due to the blind spot it creates. Consideration should be given to sending out a warning to all manufacturers and users to highlight the concern. 3. There is no warning on the dashboard tray to say that it should only be fitted when the vehicle is parked up and stationary. ”

    Source location

    Suzanna Jayne Bull · 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

    Inform additional haulage umbrella bodies about the concerns and seek transmission of the information to their members.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “• the Department for Transport will make umbrella bodies (in addition to the Road Haulage Association to whom you sent your letter) such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Trades and the Freight Transport Association aware of the areas of concern in your report and seek they also transmit information to their members.”

    Source location

    2019-0404-Response-from-the-Department-for-Transport-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 29 December 2019

    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

    Highlight the report’s safety concerns at the Heavy Vehicle Industry Forum and ask attendees to pass the information to their members.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “On the 6 May 2020 we propose to highlight the areas of concern in your report to attendees at our regular Heavy Vehicle Industry Forum. This is a meeting we host with attendees including industry trade bodies, such as the Society of Motor Manufacturers and”

    Source location

    2019-0404-Response-from-Driver-and-Vehicle-Standards-Agency-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 29 December 2019

    Open published response

  3. Manchester West

    AI-generated summary

    Norah Mary Fairhurst · 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

    Norah Mary Fairhurst died after being struck by a large goods vehicle while crossing a road away from a puffin crossing in Ashton in Makerfield on 8 August 2015. The principal concern was that large goods vehicles registered before 26 January 2008 were not required to have Class VI front mirrors, creating blind spots in which pedestrians or cyclists directly in front of the vehicle could not be seen.

    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

    Lack of Class VI front mirrors on large goods vehicles registered before the 26th January 2008

    Wider context from the report

    “i. Due to the lack of Class VI front mirrors on large goods vehicles registered before the 26th January 2008, future deaths could occur involving pedestrians or cyclists who are positioned directly in front of such a vehicle due to the fact they cannot be seen by the driver of the large goods vehicle. ”

    Source location

    Norah Mary Fairhurst · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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

    Carry out preliminary work on retrofitting Class VI mirrors to currently exempt vehicles.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I would like to assure you that the Department takes the safety of all road users very seriously and my team is active in the area of improving vision for drivers, both direct and indirect. Last year we carried out preliminary work on retrofitting a Class VI mirror to currently exempt vehicles from January 2000 onwards. Although there are a number of collisions involving vulnerable road users and goods vehicles each year, the benefit of a Class VI mirror is limited to circumstances where the vehicle is stationary and about to move off. This is reflected in casualty statistics which show little difference for such collisions involving pre and post 2007 vehicles.”

    Source location

    Norah-Mary-Fairhurst-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 January 2016

    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

    Consider alternative solutions to protect vulnerable road users by improving driver vision.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Consideration has been given to developing other solutions to provide protection for a wide range of vulnerable road users, and efforts have focussed on ways of providing enhanced vision for drivers.”

    Source location

    Norah-Mary-Fairhurst-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 January 2016

    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

    Assess aftermarket vulnerable-road-user detection devices to develop a ranking method.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Department is also working with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), Transport for London (TfL) and other stakeholders on HGV safety. This activity includes the development and promotion of safer lorry designs. The work is informed by research which has been carried out for DfT and TfL. Manufacturers are being encouraged to develop new vehicle designs that offer better direct vision, and some improved vehicle designs are currently undergoing trials with operators in London. A number of aftermarket devices to detect vulnerable road users have been assessed to develop a method for ranking these devices, and key stakeholders from the operating industry are involved in all of this work.”

    Source location

    Norah-Mary-Fairhurst-Response
    Page 2 · response
    Published 18 January 2016

    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

    The benefit of retrofitted Class VI mirrors is limited to stationary vehicles about to move, with casualty statistics showing little difference between vehicle cohorts.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I would like to assure you that the Department takes the safety of all road users very seriously and my team is active in the area of improving vision for drivers, both direct and indirect. Last year we carried out preliminary work on retrofitting a Class VI mirror to currently exempt vehicles from January 2000 onwards. Although there are a number of collisions involving vulnerable road users and goods vehicles each year, the benefit of a Class VI mirror is limited to circumstances where the vehicle is stationary and about to move off. This is reflected in casualty statistics which show little difference for such collisions involving pre and post 2007 vehicles.”

    Source location

    Norah-Mary-Fairhurst-Response
    Page 1 · response
    Published 18 January 2016

    Open published response

  4. West Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    Giuseppina Incisivo · 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

    Giuseppina Incisivo was crossing North Street in Midhurst when she moved in front of a lorry as traffic moved off; she was run over and died at the scene within minutes. The principal concerns were that front blind-spot mirrors may not provide sufficient visibility of pedestrians close to high-fronted vehicles, and that supplementary warning systems and greater awareness may be needed to reduce reliance on such mirrors.

    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

    Insufficient visibility of pedestrians through convex front blind spot mirrors

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That whilst the relevant EU Directives (2003/97/EC and 2005/27/EC) and associated legal requirements for some high-fronted goods vehicles require the fitting of a ‘front blind spot mirror’ (Class VI) of a certain size, shape and resulting view, the actual shape (convex) and size of such mirrors does not provide sufficient visibility of slow moving pedestrians (especially the elderly), or those not wearing highly visible clothing, especially when very close to the front of the vehicle. ”

    Source location

    Giuseppina Incisivo · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of secondary front obstruction warning systems supplementing the mirror

    Wider context from the report

    “(2) That the lack of secondary ‘front obstruction’ warning systems, such as sensors which sound an audible alarm (similar to front parking sensors), or show a red/amber/green ‘safe to move’ light in the cab, or a forward facing camera with a screen in the cab, which would supplement the mirror means that over-reliance is placed on the mirror when, patently, it may not always serve its purpose. ”

    Source location

    Giuseppina Incisivo · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

    Source evidence

    How this individual concern was interpreted

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

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Pedestrian assumptions that front blind spot mirrors ensure driver visibility

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) That pedestrians, especially the elderly and children, whose height makes them difficult for drivers of such vehicles to observe may assume (wrongly) that a vehicle with a front ‘blind spot’ mirror ‘must’ see them when the reality is the opposite. ”

    Source location

    Giuseppina Incisivo · 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

    Consider improvements to direct and indirect HGV vision through EU Working Groups.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Engineers in my team are working at both national and international level to improve the safety of HGVs. Consideration is being given in EU Working Groups to improving direct and indirect vision for drivers, which we anticipate will help to prevent future collisions with vulnerable road users. We are also working closely with Transport for London (TfL) on safety measures. Research by the Transport Research Laboratory for TfL on a range of technologies which can be fitted to HGVs to detect pedestrians and cyclists is currently being peer reviewed, and this could form the basis of advice to manufacturers and operators, in advance of changes to approval regulations for new vehicles being agreed in the EU.”

    Source location

    2015-0303-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 30 July 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

    Work with Transport for London on HGV safety measures and related detection technology research.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Engineers in my team are working at both national and international level to improve the safety of HGVs. Consideration is being given in EU Working Groups to improving direct and indirect vision for drivers, which we anticipate will help to prevent future collisions with vulnerable road users. We are also working closely with Transport for London (TfL) on safety measures. Research by the Transport Research Laboratory for TfL on a range of technologies which can be fitted to HGVs to detect pedestrians and cyclists is currently being peer reviewed, and this could form the basis of advice to manufacturers and operators, in advance of changes to approval regulations for new vehicles being agreed in the EU.”

    Source location

    2015-0303-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 30 July 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

    Sensor technology cannot yet reliably distinguish pedestrians from street furniture or other vehicles, limiting its current use as a safety solution.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Although sensor technology is available to identify objects around a vehicle, the technology has not yet developed sufficiently to distinguish between people and street furniture or other vehicles. As the technology improves this may offer a solution in future.”

    Source location

    2015-0303-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 30 July 2015

    Open published response

  5. Black Country

    AI-generated summary

    Arnold SOULSBY · 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

    Arnold SOULSBY was killed when a lorry moved off at traffic lights and knocked him down while he was crossing the road. The concern was that forward-facing mirror requirements for lorries were not retrospective, leaving many older lorries without this facility and potentially limiting drivers’ visibility of pedestrians.

    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 apply forward-facing mirror requirements retrospectively to lorries

    Wider context from the report

    “I am concerned that the regulations that have been introduced requiring lorries to have forward facing mirrors are not retrospective, hence there are a large number of lorries on the road which do not have this facility. I have conducted a number of inquests where the circumstances are similar and I have previously drawn the attention of the department to this problem on (I believe) two occasions, one prior to the 2007 Regulations providing for forward facing mirrors and one thereafter. ”

    Source location

    Arnold SOULSBY · 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

    Prepare a consultation on retrofitting forward-facing Class VI mirrors to older heavy goods vehicles, assessing benefits, costs and engineering issues.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Driver vision is an important factor in minimising collisions of large vehicles with vulnerable road users and I have recently asked officials to prepare a consultation which is specifically about retro-fitting forward facing (Class VI) mirrors above the windscreen of heavy goods vehicles that were first registered prior to 26 January 2007. These mirrors were required as standard fitment on heavy goods vehicles first used after that date.”

    Source location

    2014-0241-Response-by-Department-of-Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 28 May 2014

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026