Giuseppina Incisivo · Prevention of Future Deaths report

On 10 July 2014 the West Sussex Coroner commenced an investigation into the death of Giuseppina Incisivo, aged 79. The investigation concluded at the end of the inquest on 28 July 2015. The conclusion of the inquest was Road Traffic Collision.

Ms Incisivo was crossing North Street in the centre of Midhurst whilst the traffic was stop/start. She moved in front of a medium sized (27 gross tonnes) lorry, very close to the front, when the traffic suddenly moved off. She was run over and suffered catastrophic, traumatic injuries, dying at the scene within minutes. The driver's evidence was simply that he did not see her. Other witnesses suggested he could not have done so directly, and a reconstruction by the Sussex Police Forensic Collision Investigation Unit showed that Ms Incisivo would have come well under the height of the bottom of the windscreen. The vehicle had a front ‘blind spot’ mirror fitted and in good working order, but the evidence was that either

a. The driver had visually swept the mirror (his evidence) but in the time delay before moving off Ms Incisivo had then moved in front of the vehicle, unobserved, or
b. The size and shape of her image in the convex mirror, and lack of visual contrast between Ms Incisivo, a dark-haired, greying, lady around 5 feet tall, in light clothing, and the road surface, meant that she was insufficiently conspicuous (the Investigating Officer’s expert opinion).

In short, the driver, even using the mirror when she was in its reflection, would have found it very hard to distinguish Ms Incisivo.

(1) That whilst the relevant EU Directives (2003/97/EC and 2005/27/EC) and associated legal requirements for some high-fronted goods vehicles require the fitting of a ‘front blind spot mirror’ (Class VI) of a certain size, shape and resulting view, the actual shape (convex) and size of such mirrors does not provide sufficient visibility of slow moving pedestrians (especially the elderly), or those not wearing highly visible clothing, especially when very close to the front of the vehicle.

(2) That the lack of secondary ‘front obstruction’ warning systems, such as sensors which sound an audible alarm (similar to front parking sensors), or show a red/amber/green ‘safe to move’ light in the cab, or a forward facing camera with a screen in the cab, which would supplement the mirror means that over-reliance is placed on the mirror when, patently, it may not always serve its purpose.

(3) That pedestrians, especially the elderly and children, whose height makes them difficult for drivers of such vehicles to observe may assume (wrongly) that a vehicle with a front ‘blind spot’ mirror ‘must’ see them when the reality is the opposite.

(4) That, it seems, a general lack of awareness may persist of the risk posed when passing in front of such vehicles, and an assumption persist that because someone may be able to see the windscreen of the vehicle, that the driver ‘must’ be able to see them directly or indirectly.

I am aware that other Coroners have reported similar concerns as regards older or other high fronted vehicles which need not have such mirrors. This is the second inquest I have heard into the death of an elderly person who, it seems, ‘assumed’ the driver would or must see them, directly or indirectly.