Recurring concern

Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safety

First to latest report 8 Aug 2014 — 1 Apr 2026

Reports that mention this concern
24
Times this concern has been raised
38
Stated actions linked to this concern
27

What this concern includes

Includes licence-status accuracy, medical-fitness review and graduated or risk-based restrictions for inexperienced, medically high-risk or otherwise higher-risk drivers.

What is not included
  • Driver training or enforcement where licensing controls are adequate
  • Vehicle design, road layout or telematics controls that do not affect licensing entitlement
  • Individual unlawful driving despite an accurate and appropriate licence decision

Reports and published responses 24 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

  1. Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

    AI-generated summary

    Geoffrey Frank 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

    Geoffrey Frank Taylor, aged 75, died from fatal injuries sustained in a road traffic collision while driving in Cornwall on 8 August 2016. Concerns were raised about the criteria and processes for issuing and surrendering driving licences after medical events, including potential conflicts for GPs and difficulties faced by elderly drivers who may be reluctant to report health problems or surrender their licences.

    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 drivers to surrender licences when medically necessary

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences. In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk. There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive, which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient. This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence. ”

    Source location

    Geoffrey Frank Taylor · 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

    Unclear criteria for issuing and surrendering driving licences

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences. In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk. There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive, which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient. This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence. ”

    Source location

    Geoffrey Frank Taylor · 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

    Conflict of interests affecting GPs’ reporting of driving-related medical issues

    Wider context from the report

    “At the inquest concerns were raised by the police and family members as to the criteria required by the DVLA and Department of Transport for the issuing and surrendering of driving licences. In this case Mr Taylor had voluntarily given up his licence after medical events on a number of occasions. It was considered that a good number of drivers may not have given up their licence for fear or losing their independence putting their own health and other at risk. There was further concern that the driver’s GP could have a conflict of interests in such situations as they would have a duty to inform the DVLA of medical issues which can affect a person’s ability to drive, which could result in deterioration of the GP relationship with the patient. This was thought to be of particular concern in the elderly who may or may not have insight into their failing health (e.g. eye sight, immobility) and who would be reluctant to voluntarily surrender their licence or inform their GP of significant medical events which would result in the surrendering of their licence. ”

    Source location

    Geoffrey Frank Taylor · 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

    Developed straightforward processes for licence renewal, health investigations and voluntary licence surrender.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “The DVLA has developed its processes to renew a licence, investigate health, or facilitate the surrender of a licence so as to be as straightforward as possible. Last year, it launched an online service allowing car and motorcycle drivers to notify the DVLA of a medical condition (the existing paper channel is still available). A key message of the campaign that launched the service was the importance of drivers speaking to their GPs about their health and driving.”

    Source location

    2017-0226-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 October 2017

    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

    Published and publicised revised fitness-to-drive guidance for medical professionals through medical publications and professional organisations.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “I recognise your concern that GPs could have a conflict of interest in notifying the DVLA of their patient’s medical condition. GPs play an important role in the driver licensing process by advising their patients of the implications of their condition on driving, the effect of any treatment or medication and whether they should notify the DVLA. The DVLA published “Assessing Fitness to Drive: a Guide for Medical Professionals”, in 2016.”

    Source location

    2017-0226-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 2 · response
    Published 6 October 2017

    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 licensing, medical assessment, notification and professional guidance arrangements address health-related driving fitness and GP reporting concerns.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “You asked that the Department look at the process for issuing driving licences to those with health conditions. By law, all drivers must meet the appropriate health standards for driving and a licence will only be issued to those who meet those standards. When applying for, or renewing a driving licence, applicants must declare whether they have any medical conditions. All drivers of any age also have a legal responsibility to notify the DVLA at any time of a health condition that affects safe driving. In this context, the DVLA will also investigate notifications from third parties, including concerned relatives, neighbours, police and health professionals. This recognises that there may be occasions where drivers do not notify the DVLA appropriately as they fear losing their licence or because a health condition affects their insight into their driving safety.”

    Source location

    2017-0226-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
    Page 1 · response
    Published 6 October 2017

    Open published response

  2. Manchester South

    AI-generated summary

    Philip James Clayton · 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

    Philip James Clayton was a passenger in a Zcar Mini that collided with another vehicle on 24 April 2016, and he died at the scene. The report raises concerns that sellers of high-powered kit-built vehicles are not required to provide a driving course, that such vehicles may not undergo rigorous regular testing after initial approval, and that current legislation permits people with a normal driving licence to drive modified or powerful vehicles regardless of experience.

    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 impose graduated licensing restrictions for drivers of modified or powerful vehicles

    Wider context from the report

    “The vehicle in question was a Z car which is a type of vehicle built using a kit and to which a high powered engine is fitted. There are a number of sellers of such vehicles in the country. None of these sellers have to provide any form of driving course in the use of such vehicles before they are sold. These vehicles once built have to undergo a rigorous test to comply with Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency under the Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA). This test is more a lot more involved than a normal MOT and checks things from the conformity of switches to the actual construction of the vehicle body and everything in between. Each item fitted to the vehicle is checked to ensure it conforms to the current legislation, if the vehicle passed the IVA then it is assigned a registration number more often than not a “Q” plate. However once this designation has been given it appears that the vehicles do not undergo such rigorous testing on a regular basis. In addition, the driver of the vehicle was relatively inexperienced and had very limited experience of driving vehicles such as the one involved in this case. The current legislation allows a person to drive any modified or powerful vehicle once they have passed a normal driving test within the UK. This contrasts with the position where a person passes a motorcycle test. In that case then they are restricted by age to ride a reduced power machine for a period of time ”

    Source location

    Philip James Clayton · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 1 · concerns

    Open source report

  3. Birmingham and Solihull

    AI-generated summary

    Ricky Craig HUDSON · 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

    Ricky Craig HUDSON died at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham on 13 August 2015 from injuries sustained when he fell from a quad bike on 11 August 2015. The principal concerns were that quad bike riders are not required to wear crash helmets on public roads and that no additional driving qualifications are required to drive a quad bike.

    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 additional driving qualification requirements for quad bike driving

    Wider context from the report

    “(1) That quad bike riders are not required to wear crash helmets when driving on public roads. (2) That there are no additional driving qualifications required to drive a quad bike. ”

    Source location

    Ricky Craig HUDSON · 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

    Additional driving qualifications are unnecessary because licensed quad-bike motorists have already passed theory, hazard perception and practical driving tests.

    Verbatim wording from the response

    “Driver licensing and training”

    Source location

    Ricky-Hudson-Response
    Page 3 · response
    Published 1 December 2015

    Open published response

  4. South Lincolnshire

    AI-generated summary

    Charles Albert William Pierson · 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 December 2013, Charles Albert William Pierson was involved in a vehicle collision in a Tesco car park. His seat belt had a clip that inhibited its proper operation, and he sustained a fractured sternum that led to his death; the report noted that such clips remained available for sale and their use was not presently unlawful.

    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 opticians to inform DVLA of findings indicating drivers did not meet vision standards

    Wider context from the report

    “A practitioner registered with the General Optical Council gave a statement to the effect that the deceased, when subject to an eye examination was able to meet the vision standard set for drivers by the DVLA. A review of his documented findings by DVLA staff indicated that was not the case. The DVLA opinion is that the deceased should have been informed by his optician to inform DVLA of the findings. This was not done and as a result the deceased continued to drive without a review of his vision defects by the DVLA. I should tell you that there is no evidence that his vision defects contributed to the collision that led to his death. ”

    Source location

    Charles Albert William Pierson · Prevention of Future Deaths report
    Page 2 · concerns

    Open source report

Actions and positions describe what organisations say in published responses. Implementation is not independently verified.

Back to top

Data last updated 7 September 2026