Philip James Clayton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 31 Jul 2017•Manchester South

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
3

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
4

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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 raised3

  1. Failure to impose graduated licensing restrictions for drivers of modified or powerful vehicles
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safety
  2. Failure to subject vehicles passing Individual Vehicle Approval to regular rigorous testing
    Part of recurring concern: Vehicle approval failing to control serious safety risks
  3. Lack of mandatory driving-course provision for purchasers of high-powered kit vehicles

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. Department for Transport

    Consult on allowing learner drivers to use motorways.

  2. Department for Transport

    Improve motorcycle training.

  3. Department for Transport

    Increase penalties for drivers using handheld mobile phones.

  4. Department for Transport

    Commission a £2 million research programme evaluating measures to improve young and novice driver safety before and after testing.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Department for Transport

    Ongoing regular IVA-standard testing is inappropriate because IVA applies only to unregistered vehicles and assesses new-vehicle design, not subsequent wear and tear.

    Disputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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

Failure to impose graduated licensing restrictions for drivers of modified or powerful vehicles

Wider context from the report

“The vehicle in question was a Z car which is a type of vehicle built using a kit and to which a high powered engine is fitted. There are a number of sellers of such vehicles in the country. None of these sellers have to provide any form of driving course in the use of such vehicles before they are sold. These vehicles once built have to undergo a rigorous test to comply with Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency under the Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA). This test is more a lot more involved than a normal MOT and checks things from the conformity of switches to the actual construction of the vehicle body and everything in between. Each item fitted to the vehicle is checked to ensure it conforms to the current legislation, if the vehicle passed the IVA then it is assigned a registration number more often than not a “Q” plate. However once this designation has been given it appears that the vehicles do not undergo such rigorous testing on a regular basis. In addition, the driver of the vehicle was relatively inexperienced and had very limited experience of driving vehicles such as the one involved in this case. The current legislation allows a person to drive any modified or powerful vehicle once they have passed a normal driving test within the UK. This contrasts with the position where a person passes a motorcycle test. In that case then they are restricted by age to ride a reduced power machine for a period of time ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate driver licensing controls for road safety.

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

Failure to subject vehicles passing Individual Vehicle Approval to regular rigorous testing

Wider context from the report

“The vehicle in question was a Z car which is a type of vehicle built using a kit and to which a high powered engine is fitted. There are a number of sellers of such vehicles in the country. None of these sellers have to provide any form of driving course in the use of such vehicles before they are sold. These vehicles once built have to undergo a rigorous test to comply with Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency under the Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA). This test is more a lot more involved than a normal MOT and checks things from the conformity of switches to the actual construction of the vehicle body and everything in between. Each item fitted to the vehicle is checked to ensure it conforms to the current legislation, if the vehicle passed the IVA then it is assigned a registration number more often than not a “Q” plate. However once this designation has been given it appears that the vehicles do not undergo such rigorous testing on a regular basis. In addition, the driver of the vehicle was relatively inexperienced and had very limited experience of driving vehicles such as the one involved in this case. The current legislation allows a person to drive any modified or powerful vehicle once they have passed a normal driving test within the UK. This contrasts with the position where a person passes a motorcycle test. In that case then they are restricted by age to ride a reduced power machine for a period of time ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Vehicle approval failing to control serious safety risks.

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 mandatory driving-course provision for purchasers of high-powered kit vehicles

Wider context from the report

“The vehicle in question was a Z car which is a type of vehicle built using a kit and to which a high powered engine is fitted. There are a number of sellers of such vehicles in the country. None of these sellers have to provide any form of driving course in the use of such vehicles before they are sold. These vehicles once built have to undergo a rigorous test to comply with Driver & Vehicle Standards Agency under the Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA). This test is more a lot more involved than a normal MOT and checks things from the conformity of switches to the actual construction of the vehicle body and everything in between. Each item fitted to the vehicle is checked to ensure it conforms to the current legislation, if the vehicle passed the IVA then it is assigned a registration number more often than not a “Q” plate. However once this designation has been given it appears that the vehicles do not undergo such rigorous testing on a regular basis. In addition, the driver of the vehicle was relatively inexperienced and had very limited experience of driving vehicles such as the one involved in this case. The current legislation allows a person to drive any modified or powerful vehicle once they have passed a normal driving test within the UK. This contrasts with the position where a person passes a motorcycle test. In that case then they are restricted by age to ride a reduced power machine for a period of time ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

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

Consult on allowing learner drivers to use motorways.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Government operates within the framework set by the British Road Safety statement of 2015. It sets out the Department for Transport’s vision, values and priorities in relation to British road safety. This has led to a significant programme of activity including increased penalties for drivers using hand held mobile phones, consulting on allowing learner drivers on motorways and improving motorcycle training.”

Source location

2017-0323-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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

Improve motorcycle training.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Government operates within the framework set by the British Road Safety statement of 2015. It sets out the Department for Transport’s vision, values and priorities in relation to British road safety. This has led to a significant programme of activity including increased penalties for drivers using hand held mobile phones, consulting on allowing learner drivers on motorways and improving motorcycle training.”

Source location

2017-0323-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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

Increase penalties for drivers using handheld mobile phones.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Government operates within the framework set by the British Road Safety statement of 2015. It sets out the Department for Transport’s vision, values and priorities in relation to British road safety. This has led to a significant programme of activity including increased penalties for drivers using hand held mobile phones, consulting on allowing learner drivers on motorways and improving motorcycle training.”

Source location

2017-0323-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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

Commission a £2 million research programme evaluating measures to improve young and novice driver safety before and after testing.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As part of this action, we recently commissioned a £2 million research programme to explore the effectiveness of a range of measures designed to improve the safety of young and novice drivers, both before they take their test and after they have passed. The measures being researched are:”

Source location

2017-0323-Response
Page 1 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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

Ongoing regular IVA-standard testing is inappropriate because IVA applies only to unregistered vehicles and assesses new-vehicle design, not subsequent wear and tear.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The purposes of MOT and Individual Vehicle Approval (IVA) testing differ greatly, and the Department does not think it would be appropriate to mandate ongoing, regular IVA-standard testing for specific types of vehicles in the way suggested. This is because IVA looks at the vehicle for its projected life and ensures that it can meet specified safety, security and environmental standards before it is used on the road. IVA only applies to unregistered vehicles; IT is a one off test that takes into account its design and construction, and takes no account of wear and tear (it’s treated as a new vehicle).”

Source location

2017-0323-Response
Page 2 · response
Published 3 December 2017

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