Toyota Motor Corporation

Private and voluntary organisations · Company

Pin Request correction

First report 20 Nov 2025•Latest report 20 Nov 2025

Reports, concerns and published responses

Reports over time

Reports naming this recipient by issue year.

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

Reports
1

Naming this recipient

Published responses
100%

Found for named reports

Concerns addressed
1

Across all linked responses

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Concerns and recipient responses

Statements from Toyota Motor Corporation linked to the concerns in each report. Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

  1. Surrey

    AI-generated summary

    Lisa Marie Bowen · 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

    Lisa Marie Bowen died instantaneously from fatal injuries after her Toyota Corolla’s tyre detached while she was driving on the M25, and the vehicle failed to stop before colliding with a stationary lorry. The principal concerns were that the anti-locking braking system substantially reduced braking after tyre detachment, and that the lorry’s under-run protection device was insufficiently strong to prevent or reduce the under-run. The report also raised concerns about the adequacy of relevant testing, regulations and protection requirements.

    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 Toyota Motor Corporation; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of anti-locking braking systems to reliably recognise tyre detachment

    Wider context from the report

    “Concern 1 As stated above, the brakes on the Deceased’s Toyota Corolla did not work effectively because, when the brake pedal was pressed, the vehicle’s anti-locking braking system was activated, and it operated to reduce the braking effect almost entirely. At the inquest I heard evidence that: (i) Following the tyre detachment, the speed of the wheel with a detached tyre was much higher than the speed of the three other wheels with undamaged tyres. (ii) The anti-locking braking system recognised this differential in speed, but perceived that the problem lay with the three slower wheels and assumed that they had locked or were at risk of doing so. (iii) Consequently, each time the brake was applied, the anti-locking braking system immediately released the braking pressure to the three slower wheels in order to avoid them locking, thereby prioritising the preservation stability and steerability over braking. (iv) In this way, the anti-locking braking system was working in accordance with its design. (v) The system was unable to recognise that the problem in fact lay with the fourth wheel which was rotating much more quickly than the other wheels because its tyre had detached. (vi) The outcome was an unintended effect of the system’s design which arose because the specific scenario, of tyre detachment occurring whilst the vehicle was being driven, which was thought to be a rare occurrence, had not been taken into account in the design process. (vii) Testing of anti-locking braking systems and braking performance, following a tyre detachment, is not undertaken by the industry as a whole and, therefore, relevant data is not collated. At the inquest and PFD hearing I was informed that – (i) A large number Toyota Corolla motor cars continue to be driven on the roads of the UK with the same anti-locking braking system as was in Ms Bowen’s vehicle. (ii) Anti-locking braking systems are developed by a small number of specialist companies and it may well be that other vehicles currently on the roads of the UK have systems similar to that in Ms Bowen’s car. (iii) The company which developed the anti-locking braking system used in Ms Bowen’s car (Advics) has since developed and improved its system so that it is better able to recognise if one wheel speed is so different from the others that the data from that wheel should be ignored as unreliable. However, the improvements are not foolproof, not least because acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle affects this function. (iv) The anti-locking braking system now used in Toyota Corolla motor cars has been developed by a different company (Bosch) and it is not known by Toyota precisely how it would respond following a tyre detachment whilst the vehicle is being driven. (v) It seems that relevant regulations concerning anti-locking braking systems do not address or specify requirements relating to the scenario faced by Ms Bowen. Although the detachment of a tyre whilst a vehicle is being driven is thought to be a rare occurrence, I am concerned that that may not be the case and that if it were to happen again, in the same or similar circumstances, the risk of future death continues. ”
    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 Toyota Motor Corporation; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of regulatory requirements for under-run protection device strength

    Wider context from the report

    “Concern 2 This concern relates to the catastrophic failure of the under-run protection bar (“the Device”) that was in place on the piece of the lorry with which Ms Bowen collided. At the inquest I heard and accepted expert evidence which established that: (i) The Device was compliant with all relevant regulations and legal requirements, save only that fixing bolts of an incorrect strength had been used to attach it to the lorry’s chassis. (ii) The strength of the Device was grossly insufficient, either to have prevented any underrun, or even to have reduced the extent of the Toyota’s under-run. (iii) The Device would not have been strong enough to do so even if the correct fixing bolts had been used. One expert stated that he was aware that some under-run protection devices are capable of providing protection against much greater forces than is currently required under the law and he expressed disappointment that the relevant legislation and regulations are not more robustly framed, so as to require the use of these much stronger devices. I am concerned that, in the absence of more stringent requirements in relation to the degree of force that an under-run protection device should be capable of withstanding, a risk of future death arises. ”
    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 Toyota Motor Corporation; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Lack of industry testing and data collection on braking following tyre detachment

    Wider context from the report

    “Concern 1 As stated above, the brakes on the Deceased’s Toyota Corolla did not work effectively because, when the brake pedal was pressed, the vehicle’s anti-locking braking system was activated, and it operated to reduce the braking effect almost entirely. At the inquest I heard evidence that: (i) Following the tyre detachment, the speed of the wheel with a detached tyre was much higher than the speed of the three other wheels with undamaged tyres. (ii) The anti-locking braking system recognised this differential in speed, but perceived that the problem lay with the three slower wheels and assumed that they had locked or were at risk of doing so. (iii) Consequently, each time the brake was applied, the anti-locking braking system immediately released the braking pressure to the three slower wheels in order to avoid them locking, thereby prioritising the preservation stability and steerability over braking. (iv) In this way, the anti-locking braking system was working in accordance with its design. (v) The system was unable to recognise that the problem in fact lay with the fourth wheel which was rotating much more quickly than the other wheels because its tyre had detached. (vi) The outcome was an unintended effect of the system’s design which arose because the specific scenario, of tyre detachment occurring whilst the vehicle was being driven, which was thought to be a rare occurrence, had not been taken into account in the design process. (vii) Testing of anti-locking braking systems and braking performance, following a tyre detachment, is not undertaken by the industry as a whole and, therefore, relevant data is not collated. At the inquest and PFD hearing I was informed that – (i) A large number Toyota Corolla motor cars continue to be driven on the roads of the UK with the same anti-locking braking system as was in Ms Bowen’s vehicle. (ii) Anti-locking braking systems are developed by a small number of specialist companies and it may well be that other vehicles currently on the roads of the UK have systems similar to that in Ms Bowen’s car. (iii) The company which developed the anti-locking braking system used in Ms Bowen’s car (Advics) has since developed and improved its system so that it is better able to recognise if one wheel speed is so different from the others that the data from that wheel should be ignored as unreliable. However, the improvements are not foolproof, not least because acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle affects this function. (iv) The anti-locking braking system now used in Toyota Corolla motor cars has been developed by a different company (Bosch) and it is not known by Toyota precisely how it would respond following a tyre detachment whilst the vehicle is being driven. (v) It seems that relevant regulations concerning anti-locking braking systems do not address or specify requirements relating to the scenario faced by Ms Bowen. Although the detachment of a tyre whilst a vehicle is being driven is thought to be a rare occurrence, I am concerned that that may not be the case and that if it were to happen again, in the same or similar circumstances, the risk of future death continues. ”
    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 Toyota Motor Corporation; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Insufficient strength of under-run protection devices

    Wider context from the report

    “Concern 2 This concern relates to the catastrophic failure of the under-run protection bar (“the Device”) that was in place on the piece of the lorry with which Ms Bowen collided. At the inquest I heard and accepted expert evidence which established that: (i) The Device was compliant with all relevant regulations and legal requirements, save only that fixing bolts of an incorrect strength had been used to attach it to the lorry’s chassis. (ii) The strength of the Device was grossly insufficient, either to have prevented any underrun, or even to have reduced the extent of the Toyota’s under-run. (iii) The Device would not have been strong enough to do so even if the correct fixing bolts had been used. One expert stated that he was aware that some under-run protection devices are capable of providing protection against much greater forces than is currently required under the law and he expressed disappointment that the relevant legislation and regulations are not more robustly framed, so as to require the use of these much stronger devices. I am concerned that, in the absence of more stringent requirements in relation to the degree of force that an under-run protection device should be capable of withstanding, a risk of future death arises. ”
    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 Toyota Motor Corporation; that does not assign responsibility.

    PFD Monitor interpretation

    Failure of anti-locking braking regulations to specify requirements for tyre detachment

    Wider context from the report

    “Concern 1 As stated above, the brakes on the Deceased’s Toyota Corolla did not work effectively because, when the brake pedal was pressed, the vehicle’s anti-locking braking system was activated, and it operated to reduce the braking effect almost entirely. At the inquest I heard evidence that: (i) Following the tyre detachment, the speed of the wheel with a detached tyre was much higher than the speed of the three other wheels with undamaged tyres. (ii) The anti-locking braking system recognised this differential in speed, but perceived that the problem lay with the three slower wheels and assumed that they had locked or were at risk of doing so. (iii) Consequently, each time the brake was applied, the anti-locking braking system immediately released the braking pressure to the three slower wheels in order to avoid them locking, thereby prioritising the preservation stability and steerability over braking. (iv) In this way, the anti-locking braking system was working in accordance with its design. (v) The system was unable to recognise that the problem in fact lay with the fourth wheel which was rotating much more quickly than the other wheels because its tyre had detached. (vi) The outcome was an unintended effect of the system’s design which arose because the specific scenario, of tyre detachment occurring whilst the vehicle was being driven, which was thought to be a rare occurrence, had not been taken into account in the design process. (vii) Testing of anti-locking braking systems and braking performance, following a tyre detachment, is not undertaken by the industry as a whole and, therefore, relevant data is not collated. At the inquest and PFD hearing I was informed that – (i) A large number Toyota Corolla motor cars continue to be driven on the roads of the UK with the same anti-locking braking system as was in Ms Bowen’s vehicle. (ii) Anti-locking braking systems are developed by a small number of specialist companies and it may well be that other vehicles currently on the roads of the UK have systems similar to that in Ms Bowen’s car. (iii) The company which developed the anti-locking braking system used in Ms Bowen’s car (Advics) has since developed and improved its system so that it is better able to recognise if one wheel speed is so different from the others that the data from that wheel should be ignored as unreliable. However, the improvements are not foolproof, not least because acceleration or deceleration of the vehicle affects this function. (iv) The anti-locking braking system now used in Toyota Corolla motor cars has been developed by a different company (Bosch) and it is not known by Toyota precisely how it would respond following a tyre detachment whilst the vehicle is being driven. (v) It seems that relevant regulations concerning anti-locking braking systems do not address or specify requirements relating to the scenario faced by Ms Bowen. Although the detachment of a tyre whilst a vehicle is being driven is thought to be a rare occurrence, I am concerned that that may not be the case and that if it were to happen again, in the same or similar circumstances, the risk of future death continues. ”
    Open source report
Back to top

Information checked against published PFD reports and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Data last updated 7 September 2026