Recurring concern

Unreliable vehicle reversing safety controls around pedestrians

Get email alerts

Request correction

First reported 23 Jul 2014•Latest report 19 Jul 2021

Definition

What this concern includes

Includes failures in controls specifically dedicated to safe vehicle reversing around pedestrians, including reversing visibility and blind-spot controls, cameras, audible warnings, banksman or equivalent assistance, driver procedures, vehicle design or policy requirements, maintenance and assurance where these directly address reversing-collision risk.

Not included

Excludes general vehicle driving, forward-visibility, road-design or pedestrian-crossing concerns where reversing is not the material safety condition.
Excludes collisions or near misses without an asserted continuing failure in vehicle-reversing safety controls.
Excludes generic driver training, staffing, communication or policy deficiencies unless they directly impair safe vehicle reversing around pedestrians.
Excludes vehicle maintenance or equipment failures unrelated to detecting, warning about or controlling hazards during reversing.

Reports: 3
Individual concerns: 6
Date range: 2014–2021
Stated actions: 3

Reports over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

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

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Transport3

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.

19 Jul2021
County of Dorset
Concerns raised2
1. Failure to provide banksman assistance for reversing Large Goods Vehicles
2. Lack of mandatory rear-camera fitting for Large Goods Vehicles
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
Actions described in response 3
1. Action
  Finalize international technical requirements for reversing detection systems using cameras, sensors, or both on LGVs.
  Stated by Department for TransportStated completed
2. Action
  Develop the new approval system for vehicles registered for use in Great Britain.
  Stated by Department for TransportStated in progress
3. Action
  Conduct a call for evidence on available technologies, including reversing detection systems, and record the coroner’s observations in the responses.
  Stated by Department for TransportStated planned
AI-generated summary

Sarah Lewis · 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 16 November 2020, Sarah Lewis was fatally struck by a reversing large goods vehicle while crossing behind it in Weymouth. The principal concern was the blind spot behind large goods vehicles and the absence of a legal requirement for rear cameras, particularly where no banksman is present. The report also noted uncertainty about the possible effect of fluoxetine levels above the therapeutic range.

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 provide banksman assistance for reversing Large Goods Vehicles
Wider context from the report
“(1) A Large Goods Vehicle was being driven which had reverse warning lights and a reversing alarm. The driver was assisted by 7 mirrors. A pedestrian was stood on the pavement and she was not seen by the driver. It is likely that the driver was checking his nearside mirror or the road around him when the pedestrian stepped out behind the reversing lorry which resulted in a complete blind spot once she was behind the vehicle. (2) The evidence I heard is that it is not mandatory for Large Goods Vehicles to be fitted with a camera at the rear of the vehicle to assist drivers and prevent this blind spot. A lot of drivers complete journeys alone without a banksman to assist them in safely reversing. (3) There is no legal requirement for vehicles to have a rear camera and yet this may prevent future deaths. At the very least it would prevent a large number of accidents. ”
Source location
Sarah Lewis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · 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 mandatory rear-camera fitting for Large Goods Vehicles
Wider context from the report
“(1) A Large Goods Vehicle was being driven which had reverse warning lights and a reversing alarm. The driver was assisted by 7 mirrors. A pedestrian was stood on the pavement and she was not seen by the driver. It is likely that the driver was checking his nearside mirror or the road around him when the pedestrian stepped out behind the reversing lorry which resulted in a complete blind spot once she was behind the vehicle. (2) The evidence I heard is that it is not mandatory for Large Goods Vehicles to be fitted with a camera at the rear of the vehicle to assist drivers and prevent this blind spot. A lot of drivers complete journeys alone without a banksman to assist them in safely reversing. (3) There is no legal requirement for vehicles to have a rear camera and yet this may prevent future deaths. At the very least it would prevent a large number of accidents. ”
Source location
Sarah Lewis · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 3 · 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
Finalize international technical requirements for reversing detection systems using cameras, sensors, or both on LGVs.

Verbatim wording from the response
“The DfT has been working at international level to develop appropriate requirements to improve vision for drivers around LGVs. This work includes a reversing detection system using cameras, sensors or a combination of these to enable the driver to be aware of an obstacle or person directly behind their vehicle. The technical requirements for the system have been finalised and were formally agreed earlier this year.”

Source location
2021-0251-Response-from-Department-for-Transport_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 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
Develop the new approval system for vehicles registered for use in Great Britain.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the UK leaving the European Union, a new approval system for vehicles being registered for use in Great Britain is being developed. A call for evidence is planned later this year to gather views on the inclusion of a wide range of technologies that are becoming available, including reversing detection systems. The outcome will inform decisions on future legislation to require these technologies to be fitted to new vehicles. We will hold and record your observations on the use of reversing camera systems within the responses to the call for evidence.”

Source location
2021-0251-Response-from-Department-for-Transport_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 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 a call for evidence on available technologies, including reversing detection systems, and record the coroner’s observations in the responses.

Verbatim wording from the response
“Following the UK leaving the European Union, a new approval system for vehicles being registered for use in Great Britain is being developed. A call for evidence is planned later this year to gather views on the inclusion of a wide range of technologies that are becoming available, including reversing detection systems. The outcome will inform decisions on future legislation to require these technologies to be fitted to new vehicles. We will hold and record your observations on the use of reversing camera systems within the responses to the call for evidence.”

Source location
2021-0251-Response-from-Department-for-Transport_Published
Page 2 · response
Published 23 July 2021
Open published response
26 Jun2015
Derby and Derbyshire
Concerns raised2
1. Lack of reversing aids on light goods vehicles
2. Lack of reversing aids on light goods vehicles
This report raised 4 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Richard Anthony Marshall TURNER · 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

Richard Anthony Marshall Turner was struck by a reversing Mercedes Sprinter van in Cherry Tree Square on 13 November 2014 and died later that day after collapsing while being assisted home. The report raised concerns about significant blind spots behind light goods vehicles and the absence of reversing aids, noting evidence that a rear-facing camera system could have prevented the fatality and that similar incidents may be underreported.

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 reversing aids on light goods vehicles
Wider context from the report
“(3) The evidence from both the driver and the attending officers were that had this vehicle been fitted with some form of reversing aid this collision may have been avoided. In particular the use of an audio reversing warning may have provided Mr Turner with an opportunity to avoid the collision, although the evidence of the driver and the attending officers of Derbyshire Constabulary was clear, and uncontested, that the use of a rear facing camera system would have prevented this fatality. ”
Source location
Richard Anthony Marshall TURNER · 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 reversing aids on light goods vehicles
Wider context from the report
“(4) Whilst it is appreciated that there is currently no legislation to require the fitting of reversing aids, I note that a large fleet of light good vehicles are used daily around the United Kingdom, with significantly obstructed visibility and without the need to employ any reversing aids that could prevent similar deaths. ”
Source location
Richard Anthony Marshall TURNER · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
23 Jul2014
South Lincolnshire
Concerns raised2
1. Lack of legislative requirement for automatically operated audible reverse warning devices on light commercial vehicles
2. Failure to fit light commercial vehicles with automatically operated audible reverse warning devices
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

No linked response statements
No respondent-stated action or position is linked to these concerns in the published data.
AI-generated summary

Kenneth John PAUL · 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

Kenneth John Paul sustained fatal injuries after being run over by a reversing delivery vehicle on 29 November 2013. The vehicle had no automatically operating audible warning device when reverse gear was engaged, and there was no legislative requirement for such a device on light commercial vehicles of that type.

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 legislative requirement for automatically operated audible reverse warning devices on light commercial vehicles
Wider context from the report
“The delivery vehicle, a Mercedes Sprinter that collided with Mr Paul, a vehicle with no windows behind the driver's position, was not fitted with an audible warning device that operated automatically when reverse gear was engaged and there is no legislative requirement for such a device to be fitted to light commercial vehicles of this type. ”
Source location
Kenneth John PAUL · 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
Failure to fit light commercial vehicles with automatically operated audible reverse warning devices
Wider context from the report
“The delivery vehicle, a Mercedes Sprinter that collided with Mr Paul, a vehicle with no windows behind the driver's position, was not fitted with an audible warning device that operated automatically when reverse gear was engaged and there is no legislative requirement for such a device to be fitted to light commercial vehicles of this type. ”
Source location
Kenneth John PAUL · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report

Data last updated 7 September 2026

What this concern includes

Not included

Reports over time

Concerns raised2

Failure to provide banksman assistance for reversing Large Goods Vehicles

Lack of mandatory rear-camera fitting for Large Goods Vehicles

Actions described in response An action is something a respondent says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised.3

Concerns raised2

Lack of reversing aids on light goods vehicles

Lack of reversing aids on light goods vehicles

Concerns raised2

Lack of legislative requirement for automatically operated audible reverse warning devices on light commercial vehicles

Failure to fit light commercial vehicles with automatically operated audible reverse warning devices

Actions described in response 3