PFD report

Alan George DIMBLEBY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 23 Mar 2016•Surrey

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
2

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Concerns raised2

  1. HSE guidance suggesting that operator seat restraints may not be needed or are inappropriate for self-propelled sprayers
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems
  2. Lack of appropriate operator seat restraints on self-propelled sprayers
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

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

  1. Action

    Redesign sprayer cabs to include seat restraints and fit one to every vehicle before it leaves the workshop.

    Stated by R.J. Bateman (Engineering) LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 23 March 2016.
  2. Action

    Raise seat-restraint concerns at the next appropriate agricultural machinery safety standards meeting for consideration in future revisions.

    Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 March 2016.
  3. Action

    Consider revising HSE guidance wording to better inform vehicle choice when working on slopes.

    Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 23 March 2016.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.3

  1. Position

    The secure cab enclosure was considered sufficient to protect drivers without requiring operator seat restraints.

    Stated by R.J. Bateman (Engineering) LimitedExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

HSE guidance suggesting that operator seat restraints may not be needed or are inappropriate for self-propelled sprayers

Wider context from the report

“Operator Seat Restraint 1. Consideration should be given to fitting operator seat restraints to self-propelled sprayers. The cabin of the vehicle was such that it would have provided adequate protection to Mr Dimbleby had he not been thrown out of the vehicle. However, without appropriate operator seat restraints there is a serious risk that the operator will be thrown from the vehicle should it overturn and, as such, a safe cabin does not provide adequate protection. 2. Consideration should be given to removing self-propelled sprayers from the class of vehicles in respect of which the HSE guidance suggests that operator seat restraints may not be needed or are inappropriate [Agriculture Information Sheet 37 (revision1)]. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Lack of appropriate operator seat restraints on self-propelled sprayers

Wider context from the report

“Operator Seat Restraint 1. Consideration should be given to fitting operator seat restraints to self-propelled sprayers. The cabin of the vehicle was such that it would have provided adequate protection to Mr Dimbleby had he not been thrown out of the vehicle. However, without appropriate operator seat restraints there is a serious risk that the operator will be thrown from the vehicle should it overturn and, as such, a safe cabin does not provide adequate protection. 2. Consideration should be given to removing self-propelled sprayers from the class of vehicles in respect of which the HSE guidance suggests that operator seat restraints may not be needed or are inappropriate [Agriculture Information Sheet 37 (revision1)]. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems.

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

Redesign sprayer cabs to include seat restraints and fit one to every vehicle before it leaves the workshop.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, since I became aware of the circumstances of Mr Dimbleby's accident, I have changed the design of the cabs to include seat restraints and no vehicle leaves our workshop without one being fitted.”

Source location

2016-0120-Response-by-Bateman-Engineering-Ltd
Page 1 · response
Published 23 March 2016

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

Raise seat-restraint concerns at the next appropriate agricultural machinery safety standards meeting for consideration in future revisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“HSE works with the relevant British Standards (BSI) and European Standards (CEN) committees on agricultural machinery safety, and we will raise this issue at the next appropriate meeting for the consideration in future revisions of the applicable standards.”

Source location

Alan-DIMBLEBY-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 23 March 2016

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

Consider revising HSE guidance wording to better inform vehicle choice when working on slopes.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On your second point, concerning HSE guidance on the use of seat restraints, similar constraints apply to how far this can be changed. Our guidance has to apply to the full range of self-propelled work equipment (including those fitted with ROPS and those not fitted with ROPS). It gives advice on the steps that should be taken to comply with health and safety legislation. The guidance is not intended to be comprehensive, and does not cover every possible configuration of self-propelled work equipment. Very specifically we cannot recommend the use of seat restraints for a vehicle that is not also fitted with a ROPS for the reasons given above. We do nonetheless keep all of our guidance under review and at the next opportunity we will consider whether the wording can be revised to better inform the choice of vehicle when working on slopes.”

Source location

Alan-DIMBLEBY-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 23 March 2016

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 secure cab enclosure was considered sufficient to protect drivers without requiring operator seat restraints.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As I set out in my statement provided for the Inquest, there is no requirement for sprayers to have seat restraints. We have always focussed on making the cab enclosure as safe and secure as possible so that the driver is protected irrespective of whether they are wearing a seat restraint. In the report you acknowledge that the cabin of the sprayer was still intact and generally undamaged following the accident.”

Source location

2016-0120-Response-by-Bateman-Engineering-Ltd
Page 1 · response
Published 23 March 2016

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

Universal seat restraints cannot be advocated because restraints may increase overturn injury risk where sprayers lack suitable ROPS.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the first issue, the use of seat restraints has to be considered in conjunction with the design of the machine. If a seat restraint is to be effective in an overturn situation it must be in conjunction with a roll over protective structure (ROPS). A ROPS is a protective structure intended to provide the operator with a protective zone to reduce the risk of injury. Vehicles fitted with ROPS are fitted with seat restraints so that the operator remains within the protective zone. In 2009 the relevant standard was revised and required seat belt anchorage points if the sprayer was fitted with ROPS. However the standard, which was most recently revised in 2013, allows the manufacturer to choose how to reduce the risk of an overturn, or to mitigate the likelihood of injury in an overturn and ROPS is only one of the options”

Source location

Alan-DIMBLEBY-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 23 March 2016

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

Guidance cannot recommend seat restraints for non-ROPS vehicles because restraints may increase injury risk during overturns.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Where a non-ROPS cab is present, which is particularly likely on older machines, the fitting and wearing of seat restraints is not recommended as it can increase the risk of injury in the event of a roll over. A non-ROPS cab is not designed to, nor will it have been tested to demonstrate that it can, withstand the forces to which it is exposed during a roll over. Consequently, in an overturn, the structure is likely to deform and fail, and penetrate the zone occupied by the restrained driver resulting in a risk of serious personal injury. Additionally, on older machines regardless of whether or not they have ROPS fitted, there may not be any suitable anchorage points for seat restraints and fitting them may be unfeasible.”

Source location

Alan-DIMBLEBY-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 23 March 2016

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    The reference to Portuguese authorities is considered irrelevant to the incident, so no action will be taken there.

    Stated by Health and Safety ExecutiveDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 reference to Portuguese authorities is considered irrelevant to the incident, so no action will be taken there.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In your report (Section 6) you state that HSE is in a position to draw these concerns to the appropriate authority in Portugal who has the power to take action. We do not understand the reference to Portugal which does not appear to have any relevance to this incident. Therefore, we do not intend to take this action.”

Source location

Alan-DIMBLEBY-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 23 March 2016

Open published response
Back to top

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

Data last updated 7 September 2026