12 Nov 2025 Christopher Graham Ayerst SAMPSON · Prevention of Future Deaths report Birmingham and Solihull
View report summary
Concerns raised 7 Absence of a national road safety strategy View source Insufficient awareness among medical professionals of guidance on notifying the DVLA View source Uncertainty about the effectiveness of mechanisms for doctors to report patients' health issues to the DVLA View source Failure of medical professionals to report patients' health issues to the DVLA View source Failure to ensure drivers understand how and when to notify the DVLA of medical conditions View source Failure of drivers to self-report medical conditions to the DVLA View source Lack of published statistical evidence on DVLA health-issue reporting mechanisms View source See 4 more concerns
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
×
AI-generated summary
Christopher Graham Ayerst SAMPSON · 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
Christopher Graham Ayerst Sampson was a front-seat passenger in a Mazda that was struck by a Mercedes travelling at speeds exceeding 100 mph after its driver suffered an unexpected medical event. Christopher sustained unsurvivable injuries and was declared deceased at the scene. The principal concern was the risk of future deaths arising from drivers failing to self-report medical conditions to the DVLA, and uncertainty about the effectiveness and awareness of medical professionals’ reporting guidance.
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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Absence of a national road safety strategy
Wider context from the report “5. Following scrutiny of those reports, it is apparent that the DVLA and Department of Transport previously called for evidence in 2023 seeking views on the current legislative basis for establishing whether a person was medically fit to drive. At that time, officials were considering what that evidence and considering policy options as part of the government’s road safety strategy which was being developed and the details would be provided, “in due course”.
6. Two years later from that call for evidence, and still no national strategy has been announced . I understand that in August 2025 His Majesty's Government announced that a new Road Safety Strategy would be published in the Autumn of 2025. However, we are now in the depths of November and there is no sign currently of any Road Safety Strategy being published .
” 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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Insufficient awareness among medical professionals of guidance on notifying the DVLA
Wider context from the report “7. I am aware that the DVLA publishes guidance on GOV.UK called “Assessing fitness to drive: a guide for medical professionals” to support healthcare professionals (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-fitness-to-drive-a-guide-for-medical-professionals). What is unclear, however, is whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
8. I am also aware that The General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Optical Council (GOC) offer guidance about notifying DVLA when the person cannot or will not exercise their own legal duty to do so. Again, it is unclear whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals , and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
” 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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Uncertainty about the effectiveness of mechanisms for doctors to report patients' health issues to the DVLA
Wider context from the report “7. I am aware that the DVLA publishes guidance on GOV.UK called “Assessing fitness to drive: a guide for medical professionals” to support healthcare professionals (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-fitness-to-drive-a-guide-for-medical-professionals). What is unclear, however, is whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
8. I am also aware that The General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Optical Council (GOC) offer guidance about notifying DVLA when the person cannot or will not exercise their own legal duty to do so. Again, it is unclear whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
” 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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of medical professionals to report patients' health issues to the DVLA
Wider context from the report “9. Drivers may not self-report medical conditions due to a variety of reasons. This can be due to a lack of understanding, insight, or simply because someone has not explicitly told them what to do or how to do it. There are then those who are reckless and knowingly avoid notifying the DVLA of a health condition when explicitly told to do so - either through arrogance, pride or through fear of losing employment. The end result is the same: people are dying needlessly on our roads due to people who, legally, should not be on our roads.
10. There is a risk of future deaths occurring where drivers do not self-refer their conditions to the DVLA, or where medical professionals do not report those health issues to protect the wider public .
” 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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to ensure drivers understand how and when to notify the DVLA of medical conditions
Wider context from the report “9. Drivers may not self-report medical conditions due to a variety of reasons. This can be due to a lack of understanding, insight, or simply because someone has not explicitly told them what to do or how to do it . There are then those who are reckless and knowingly avoid notifying the DVLA of a health condition when explicitly told to do so - either through arrogance, pride or through fear of losing employment. The end result is the same: people are dying needlessly on our roads due to people who, legally, should not be on our roads.
10. There is a risk of future deaths occurring where drivers do not self-refer their conditions to the DVLA, or where medical professionals do not report those health issues to protect the wider public.
” 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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure of drivers to self-report medical conditions to the DVLA
Wider context from the report “9. Drivers may not self-report medical conditions due to a variety of reasons. This can be due to a lack of understanding, insight, or simply because someone has not explicitly told them what to do or how to do it. There are then those who are reckless and knowingly avoid notifying the DVLA of a health condition when explicitly told to do so - either through arrogance, pride or through fear of losing employment. The end result is the same: people are dying needlessly on our roads due to people who, legally, should not be on our roads.
10. There is a risk of future deaths occurring where drivers do not self-refer their conditions to the DVLA , or where medical professionals do not report those health issues to protect the wider public.
” 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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Lack of published statistical evidence on DVLA health-issue reporting mechanisms
Wider context from the report “7. I am aware that the DVLA publishes guidance on GOV.UK called “Assessing fitness to drive: a guide for medical professionals” to support healthcare professionals (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/assessing-fitness-to-drive-a-guide-for-medical-professionals). What is unclear, however, is whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
8. I am also aware that The General Medical Council (GMC) and the General Optical Council (GOC) offer guidance about notifying DVLA when the person cannot or will not exercise their own legal duty to do so. Again, it is unclear whether a) that guidance is well known amongst medical professionals, and b) whether that process is an effective mechanism for doctors to report patients with health issues, as there does not appear to be any published statistical evidence on the issue.
” 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 Maintain guidance explaining when registrants should disclose confidential information about patients who may be unfit to drive.
Verbatim wording from the response “We set standards for the individuals and businesses on our register. Standard 11 of our Standards of Practice (10 in the Standards for Optical Students) outlines that our registrants must promptly raise concerns about their patients, colleagues, employer or other organisation(s) if patient or public safety might be at risk. This would include raising concerns where a patient may not be safe to drive but where the registrant believes that the patient will not/cannot inform the Driver Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). To help our registrants comply with this standard, we have produced guidance on disclosing confidential information (which includes a section on driving vision standards), as you note in the Report.” Source location Response from General Optical Council
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 Include information in the next registrant newsletter highlighting responsibilities concerning drivers’ health and fitness to drive.
Verbatim wording from the response “Whilst we await the strategy, we will also carry out the following actions:” Source location Response from General Optical Council
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 Explore using the annual registrant survey to identify barriers preventing referrals about drivers’ ability to drive.
Verbatim wording from the response “Whilst we await the strategy, we will also carry out the following actions:” Source location Response from General Optical Council
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 Encourage DVLA to improve data collection on the sources of referrals concerning drivers’ fitness to drive.
Verbatim wording from the response “Any mandatory reporting requirement for healthcare professionals would need to be supported by an adequate electronic reporting system. We have also encouraged DVLA to consider improvements to data collection since there is no reliable information available at present on the source of existing referrals to DVLA.” Source location Response from General Optical Council
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 Remind registrants about existing guidance on reporting patients who may be unfit to drive to authorities.
Verbatim wording from the response “You have identified the issue of drivers failing to self-refer health issues (including deteriorating or poor eyesight) as a persisting public safety issue and have called for action to be taken. We are mindful that this issue has been highlighted in other recent Prevention of Future Deaths reports. In April following the publication of HM Senior Coroner for Lancashire’s report, we took prompt action to remind registrants of our existing guidance on when they should report patients who are unfit to drive to the authorities.” Source location Response from General Optical Council
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 Government must decide the road safety strategy and whether to introduce mandatory reporting or mandatory sight testing for drivers.
Verbatim wording from the response “The road safety strategy will frame or narrow what initiatives might most effectively respond to those concerns, but the options available to Government include legislating to introduce mandatory reporting of concerns by healthcare professionals (as happens in cases of suspected Female Genital Mutilation) and mandatory sight testing for drivers. Whichever approach the Government takes in their strategy, they will need to be mindful of unintended consequences. Mandatory reporting by healthcare professionals in the absence of mandatory sight tests might disincentivise people from having sight tests for fear of losing their licence even if this would not be the outcome. This could have the perverse effect of making the roads more dangerous as well as adversely impacting the quality of life of those avoiding sight testing.” Source location Response from General Optical Council
Open published response
8 Aug 2014 Charles Albert William Pierson · Prevention of Future Deaths report South Lincolnshire
View report summary
Concerns raised 3 Failure to prohibit use of seat-belt clips producing loose and ineffective seat belts View source Continued sale of seat-belt clips that produce loose and ineffective seat belts View source Failure of opticians to inform DVLA of findings indicating drivers did not meet vision standards View source
Responses linked to these concerns
Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.
No linked response statements No action or position from this recipient is clearly linked to the concerns in this report.
×
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. The report was sent to General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Failure to prohibit use of seat-belt clips producing loose and ineffective seat belts
Wider context from the report “Mr Pierson had one of these clips attached to his seat belt. This inhibited its effective operation and resulted in him sustaining the fractured sternum that led to his death. Whilst less common than they used to be these devices remain on sale and their use, to produce in effect, a loose and ineffective seat belt is not presently unlawful .
” 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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
PFD Monitor interpretation Continued sale of seat-belt clips that produce loose and ineffective seat belts
Wider context from the report “Mr Pierson had one of these clips attached to his seat belt. This inhibited its effective operation and resulted in him sustaining the fractured sternum that led to his death. Whilst less common than they used to be these devices remain on sale and their use, to produce in effect, a loose and ineffective seat belt is not presently unlawful.
” 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 General Optical Council; that does not assign responsibility.
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.
” Open source report
Pin
Request correction
Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations