Recurring concern

Unsafe vehicle lighting and signalling controls

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

First reported 9 Mar 2015•Latest report 9 Dec 2021

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures of vehicle lighting and signalling controls involving missing or prohibited lamps, inadequate visibility or conspicuity, insufficient redundancy, masking, confusing positioning or colour, and comparable design or maintenance deficiencies that impair reliable signalling or warning to road users.

Not included

  • Excludes broader vehicle approval or type-approval regime failures where vehicle lighting or signalling is not the specific deficient control.
  • Excludes general vehicle maintenance, road lighting, driver behaviour and road-infrastructure deficiencies that do not concern vehicle-mounted lighting or signalling.
  • Excludes vehicle visibility hazards involving mirrors, windows or blind spots where lighting or signalling is not the shared unsafe condition.
  • Excludes failures limited to a particular lighting component when no recurring vehicle lighting or signalling safety condition is supported.
Reports
4

Distinct published reports

Individual concerns
5

A report can raise multiple concerns

Date range
2015–2021

First to latest report issue date

Stated actions
8

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
Bucher Municipal Limited1
Ceredigion County Council1
DAF Trucks Limited1
Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency1
Road Haulage Association Limited1
Traffic Commissioners for Great Britain1
Whitelock Plant Ltd.1

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. West Sussex

    AI-generated summary

    James McKeough · 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

    James McKeough died after his motorcycle collided with a tractor towing a slurry tanker on 3 February 2020. The report raised concerns that the positioning, brightness and colour of the tanker’s rear flashing LED lights may have masked or confused the tractor’s right indicator, contributing to the collision.

    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 ensure that rear flashing warning lights are distinguishable from directional indicator lights

    Wider context from the report

    “1. The positioning and size of the rear mounted flashing LED lights on the SlurryKat and other types of similar trailers. 2. The fact that these lights emitted a brighter light than the right or left turn indicator light therefore masking the indicator lights. 3. These rear flashing lights are the same colour as the indicator lights. 4. The indicator light seems to get lost amongst the other flashing lights or can be misinterpreted as an additional non directional warning lamp. 5. On this particular trailer (SlurryKat) the indicator lights are at the same height as the indicators. It was found that this issue may have been a contributing factor in Mr McKeough's death as it appears he did not see the right indicator flashing. ”

    Source location

    James McKeough · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report
  2. County of Ceredigion

    AI-generated summary

    Roy Charles Evans · 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

    Roy Charles Evans, aged 55, died from injuries sustained when a road sweeper he was operating on Cefnllan Hill, Aberystwyth, went out of control and collided with a stone wall on 13 July 2018. The principal concerns were that the vehicle had a worn tyre, a fractured trailing arm pivot and missing indicator side repeater lamps, and that these faults should have resulted in the vehicle being taken out of service before the collision.

    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

    Missing indicator side repeater lamps

    Wider context from the report

    “a. The Vehicle Examination Report prepared by Vehicle Examiner ████████ of the Driver and Vehicle Standard Agency noted that the offside rear tyre was worn with little tread depth visible. b. The offside rear trailing arm pivot had fractured resulting in excessive abnormal movement of the trailing arm which would cause stability control to the compromise. That defect should have rendered the vehicle not fit for service. c. Maintenance documentation indicated that indicator side repeater lamps were missing. These are listed as immediate prohibitions within the categorised of the defects manual. d. The conclusion of the Dyfed Powys Collision Investigators Report indicated that these three faults would have been categorised as immediate prohibitions and due to this the sweeper should have been taken out of service following the inspection on the 9ᵗʰ July 2018 and should not have been in use until the faults had been rectified. ”

    Source location

    Roy Charles Evans · 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

    Provide customers with lifelong servicing and maintenance information, spare parts, technical training, and maintenance and repair services through the service network.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “a. We provide all customers with information necessary to service and maintain the machine for the whole of its life. We offer spare parts and technical training for all machines. Through our own service network, we also offer a maintenance and repair service either at the customer’s premises or our own.”

    Source location

    2021-0112-Response-from-Bucher-Municipal-Ltd_Published
    Page 2 · response
    Published 16 April 2021

    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

    Conduct random monthly gate checks covering at least ten vehicles across the operating centres, including vehicle condition, defect books and drivers’ hours records.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “████████ Yes, so we are auditing, we've enhanced, we were previously carrying out gate checks, and we've enhanced that the gate checks happen every month...”

    Source location

    2021-0112-Response-from-Ceredigion-County-Council_Published-1
    Page 11 · response
    Published 16 April 2021

    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

    Maintain Transport Maintenance Unit professional development, including HGV inspection training, IRTEC technician accreditation and relevant MOT-tester training.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “████████ Just to confirm as well, that the mechanics, fitters and foreman, are now trained and certified to a...”

    Source location

    2021-0112-Response-from-Ceredigion-County-Council_Published-1
    Page 12 · response
    Published 16 April 2021

    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 maintenance, identifying defects, assessing roadworthiness and withdrawing the machine were not the manufacturer's responsibility.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Bucher Municipal are the original manufacturer of the machine that was involved in the accident. Our customer, Ceredigion County Council, purchased the machine in November 2014. In this case we were neither the user nor maintainer of the machine and as such we were not responsible for the regular maintenance of the machine. During the period the machine was in service we carried out several repairs either under warranty or at the request of Ceredigion County Council. None of our interventions are likely to have had any bearing on the accident and the last intervention we made was in July 2017.”

    Source location

    2021-0112-Response-from-Bucher-Municipal-Ltd_Published
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 April 2021

    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 matters of concern did not cause or contribute to the death, and no similar vehicle incidents have occurred.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Inquest, of course, found that the “matters of concern” in the Regulation 28 Report did not cause or contribute to the sad death of Mr Evans. Although the Inquest was not able to determine exactly what had caused Mr Evans’ fatal collision, it was able to establish that it was not any of these issues with the vehicle. There have been no incidents similar to Mr Evans’ collision at CCC either prior to or since Mr Evans’ death.”

    Source location

    2021-0112-Response-from-Ceredigion-County-Council_Published-1
    Page 1 · response
    Published 16 April 2021

    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 vehicle maintenance systems, subsequent enhancements, and independent regulatory findings were considered sufficient to address future risk.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “1. There already were systems in place for Preventative Maintenance Inspections to ensure that vehicles were properly maintained by CCC – the inspections for the sweeper vehicle involved in the accident were every six weeks. These inspections were carried out by trained and competent mechanics, and when they identified that vehicles had defects that made them unroadworthy, they were not allowed to be used until those defects had been rectified.”

    Source location

    2021-0112-Response-from-Ceredigion-County-Council_Published-1
    Page 15 · response
    Published 16 April 2021

    Open published response
  3. West Yorkshire Eastern

    AI-generated summary

    Dr Jonathan Edward Ball · 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

    On 24 November 2018, Dr Jonathan Edward Ball died after his Skoda collided with a stationary 32-ton HGV on the A647 Stanningley bypass near Pudsey, Leeds. The substantive concerns related to the absence of advance warning equipment and emergency-service notification for the stranded HGV, and the limited visibility or resilience of its rear hazard warning lights.

    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 of HGV rear hazard warning lights to remain working and sufficiently conspicuous

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The evidence of the other motorists on the A647 at the material time indicated that the rear offside hazard warning light was hard to see (or thought not to be working) thus giving the impression that the HGV was indicating to turn left (and thereby potentially confusing approaching motorists). In such circumstances there was no added resilience to the lights displayed, such as would have been provided by having duplicate indicator/hazard lights on the rear corners of the HGV. Given the arduous work of such vehicles and the propensity for the light to become dirty at the end of a working day, concern was expressed at the Inquest as to the danger which might be created in the event (a) the HGV broke down in a hazardous location and (b) the rear lights were not working or insufficiently conspicuous. ”

    Source location

    Dr Jonathan Edward Ball · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · 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 duplicate rear indicator and hazard warning lights on HGVs

    Wider context from the report

    “(3) The evidence of the other motorists on the A647 at the material time indicated that the rear offside hazard warning light was hard to see (or thought not to be working) thus giving the impression that the HGV was indicating to turn left (and thereby potentially confusing approaching motorists). In such circumstances there was no added resilience to the lights displayed, such as would have been provided by having duplicate indicator/hazard lights on the rear corners of the HGV. Given the arduous work of such vehicles and the propensity for the light to become dirty at the end of a working day, concern was expressed at the Inquest as to the danger which might be created in the event (a) the HGV broke down in a hazardous location and (b) the rear lights were not working or insufficiently conspicuous. ”

    Source location

    Dr Jonathan Edward Ball · 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

    Instruct drivers to check rear light lenses during shifts and clean them when necessary.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “(3) The concerns raised by the evidence, indicating warning lights were not as conspicuous as they might, may have resulted from the adverse weather conditions in the winter season. Drivers have now, via a Toolbox Talk, been instructed to check rear light lenses periodically through their shift and wipe clean when required. This again is included within the driver’s induction to capture new staff. All lights are also checked as working, as part of the existing daily pre-use driver checks. This action has been instigated and will be complete by end November 2019 or sooner.”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-Whitelocks-Development-Ltd-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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 fitting rear auxiliary warning lights to each vehicle.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “In line with the suggestion of additional/duplicate warning lights, each vehicle is under consideration for fitting of rear auxiliary warning lights either linked to the hazard lights or the amber cab beacon.”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-Whitelocks-Development-Ltd-Redacted
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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

    Raise awareness of equipment shortages and driver training through weekly member emails and the members’ app.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Having set out the above, I can say that we, at the RHA, are keen to assist in any way we can and to this end we are proposing taking the following steps to raise awareness of the issues surrounding a lack of equipment (including warning triangles and additional emergency lighting) as well as driver training:”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-The-Road-Haulage-Association-Redacted-1
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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

    Publish a members’ magazine article examining the shortcomings identified by the coroner.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Having set out the above, I can say that we, at the RHA, are keen to assist in any way we can and to this end we are proposing taking the following steps to raise awareness of the issues surrounding a lack of equipment (including warning triangles and additional emergency lighting) as well as driver training:”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-The-Road-Haulage-Association-Redacted-1
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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

    Raise equipment and driver-training issues at forthcoming member events, briefings and future compliance conferences.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Having set out the above, I can say that we, at the RHA, are keen to assist in any way we can and to this end we are proposing taking the following steps to raise awareness of the issues surrounding a lack of equipment (including warning triangles and additional emergency lighting) as well as driver training:”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-The-Road-Haulage-Association-Redacted-1
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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

    Another organisation controlled completion approval and rear-lamp conspicuity, so the manufacturer considered no action necessary on that issue.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “a. DAF Trucks supplies vehicles such as OG034509 FAD CF 370, from factory as a “Chassis Cab” only vehicle. The vehicle therefore is incomplete (No Body) at point of delivery, to the customers chosen Body Builder, in this case a company called “Thompsons of Blackburn”, at which point the “tipper” or “skip body” and its associated equipment, including the rear light arrangement, would have been permanently mounted to the new body and commissioned by Thompsons of Blackburn. The end choice of lamp arrangement and the conspicuousness of the rear lamps in the final phases of build for this vehicle, would have therefore been controlled by the completion of the build in accordance with Thompsons of Blackburn’s chosen Legislative Approval methods, before the vehicle was moved to the PDI dealer (Lancashire DAF in this case) prior to delivery to the original customer MV Commercials, Brownsburn Ind.”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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 original lighting system was replaced with alternative LED lamps, removing bulb monitoring, so the manufacturer considered no action necessary.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “All DAF vehicles are supplied with rear light assemblies secured to transport bars and with regards to the case of OG034509 the vehicle was supplied with standard incandescent rear lamp cluster part number 1875581 (Right) and 1875580 (Left). These OE rear lamps comply with Regulation 48 of UNECE-R48 light signalling devices. These OE rear lamps work in conjunction with an electronic safety system of “bulb monitoring”. This bulb monitoring feature, advises the driver by an in cab display if any bulb of the vehicle lighting system fails during operation.”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
    Page 3 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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 trade association lacks authority to compel haulage operators to address equipment and training shortcomings.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We, at the RHA, are a trade association who have strong links with the industry and do represent a significant proportion of goods vehicle operators (we have some 7,000 members). However, as a trade association, we do not have a specific mandate or authority by which we can force operators to take action in an attempt to prevent similar shortcomings such as those that led to the tragic death of Dr Ball. Within the haulage industry, the organisations and individuals that may have power should include the industry regulator (the traffic commissioners), the primary enforcement authority (the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency – DVSA) as well as those responsible for legislation (the Department for Transport).”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-The-Road-Haulage-Association-Redacted-1
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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 Department for Transport is responsible for considering vehicle-design legislation and mandatory warning-triangle requirements.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The Senior Traffic Commissioner was concerned to learn of the events leading to Dr Ball’s death and of course shares your desire to prevent similar circumstances arising in the future. You will appreciate that it is the role of Government, through the Department for Transport, to consider the need to legislate on the matters relating to vehicle design or to impose a mandatory requirement for warning triangles to be deployed at a time of a breakdown. To assist you we have identified the relevant section of the Department for Transport, namely the Freight, Operator Licensing and Roadworthiness Division at:”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-the-Office-of-the-Traffic-Commissioner-Redacted
    Page 2 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    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

    Regulators and the Department for Transport hold the relevant powers over enforcement, operator expectations and legislation.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “We, at the RHA, are a trade association who have strong links with the industry and do represent a significant proportion of goods vehicle operators (we have some 7,000 members). However, as a trade association, we do not have a specific mandate or authority by which we can force operators to take action in an attempt to prevent similar shortcomings such as those that led to the tragic death of Dr Ball. Within the haulage industry, the organisations and individuals that may have power should include the industry regulator (the traffic commissioners), the primary enforcement authority (the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency – DVSA) as well as those responsible for legislation (the Department for Transport).”

    Source location

    2019-0507-Response-from-The-Road-Haulage-Association-Redacted-1
    Page 1 · response
    Published 14 May 2020

    Open published response
  4. County Durham and Darlington

    AI-generated summary

    ANDREW JAMES PEACOCK · 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

    Andrew James Peacock suffered fatal injuries after swerving his motorcycle when a large tractor with a long trailer entered the main road from a minor road. A substantive concern was that the tractor did not have or display an amber warning beacon, which might have made it more visible and provided greater opportunity to avoid the collision; the report raises whether such beacons should be required on these vehicles on all roads.

    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 requirements for flashing warning beacons on such vehicles travelling on roads outside the 1989 Regulations

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) The tractor did not have and was not illuminating an amber warning beacon. It is possible that had the tractor been fitted with and was displaying such a flashing amber beacon the tractor and trailer might have been more readily visible to the motorcyclist who thus may have had greater opportunity to take evasive action and avoid the collision. Police collision investigators have advised that it was not necessary for the tractor to have fitted or indeed to have illuminated a flashing warning beacon because such regulations only apply to vehicles being driven on an unrestricted dual carriageway. I would draw your attention to Part 3, Regulation 26 of The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and, Part 2, Regulation 17, the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. Consideration could be given as to whether the use of such flashing warning beacons should apply to such vehicles travelling on all roads not just those falling with the ambit of the aforementioned 1989 Regulations. ”

    Source location

    ANDREW JAMES PEACOCK · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    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

    Available collision statistics do not suggest that mandatory amber beacon requirements would reduce casualties, making such a requirement unlikely to be supported.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Overall the statistics do not suggest that a mandatory requirement for agricultural vehicles to be fitted with, and use, warning beacons on all roads would deliver road casualty reductions. It appears unlikely that an impact assessment would support introducing such a requirement.”

    Source location

    2015-0086-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 9 March 2015

    Open published response
Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026