17 Sep 2019 Dr Jonathan Edward Ball · Prevention of Future Deaths report West Yorkshire Eastern
View report summary
Concerns raised 4 Failure of HGV rear hazard warning lights to remain working and sufficiently conspicuous View source Failure to train or instruct HGV drivers to report stranded vehicles to emergency services View source Lack of an HGV warning device for alerting approaching motorists to a stranded vehicle View source Lack of duplicate rear indicator and hazard warning lights on HGVs View source See 1 more concern
Actions described in response An action is something this recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to the concern raised. 1
Action
Issue a PDI safety kit containing two warning triangles with all new vehicles sold through the sales network.
View source
×
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. The report was sent to DAF Trucks Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
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 .
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to DAF Trucks Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to train or instruct HGV drivers to report stranded vehicles to emergency services
Wider context from the report “(2) The HGV driver had not been trained or instructed to contact the emergency services to report the foreseeable hazard created by his stranded HGV on a dual carriageway at night. The HGV was there for some 41 minutes before the fatal collision occurred (although the Inquest heard evidence there were several near misses before then). It was likely that when a mechanic did arrive at the scene the HGV would have been there for a further period before it was repaired or could have been towed to a safe location. In consequence, the police had no opportunity to guard the scene, position safety barrier or warning signs to alert approaching motorists of the hazard.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to DAF Trucks Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of an HGV warning device for alerting approaching motorists to a stranded vehicle
Wider context from the report “(1) The HGV was not equipped with a device (such as a warning triangle) which the driver could have positioned some way before his stranded vehicle to warn oncoming motorists of the hazard presented by a stranded 32 ton HGV blocking one lane of a dual carriageway in darkness.
” Open source report × Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. The report was sent to DAF Trucks Limited; that does not assign responsibility.
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.
” 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 Issue a PDI safety kit containing two warning triangles with all new vehicles sold through the sales network.
Verbatim wording from the response “a. DAF Trucks Ltd issues to all new vehicles sold via the sales network a PDI safety kit. This Bagged kit (DAF part number 9507301) includes x2 Hazard Warning Triangles x3 Tachograph paper roll, x1 Hi- Viz vest and a pair of safety working gloves. A photo of this kit is shown in Appendix 1.” Source location 2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
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 Driver and employer training and safe working systems were considered their responsibility, so no further action was deemed necessary from the manufacturer.
Verbatim wording from the response “a. DAF Trucks Ltd. provides to the DAF Sales Network, a driver training service which is offered to the original sales customer during the sales process. Since the introduction of Euro 4 in 2006 driver training has become a feature of sales transactions due to the complexity of modern vehicles. All DAF dealers, now have dedicated driver trainers available to teach the functions and features of the new vehicle. For retail customers, our DAF UK Sales Dealers offer discounted driver training incentives with a redeemable voucher scheme, this is to encourage all new vehicle owners and drivers to take advantage of the driver training at favourable costs to ensure all current vehicle features and OE vehicle operation are understood.” Source location 2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
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
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 supplied safety kit and operator responsibilities were considered sufficient, so no further action was deemed necessary regarding warning triangles.
Verbatim wording from the response “a. DAF Trucks Ltd issues to all new vehicles sold via the sales network a PDI safety kit. This Bagged kit (DAF part number 9507301) includes x2 Hazard Warning Triangles x3 Tachograph paper roll, x1 Hi- Viz vest and a pair of safety working gloves. A photo of this kit is shown in Appendix 1.” Source location 2019-0507-Response-from-DAF-trucks-Ltd-Redacted-1
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
Open published response
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations