PFD report

Percy William Gurton · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 22 Dec 2014•Essex

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
1

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
1

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 raised1

  1. Absence of a barrier in front of the right-hand front seat of the bus
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.1

  1. Action

    Investigate with Optare the feasibility and safety of retrofitting containment to relevant buses.

    Stated by First Essex Buses LimitedStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 22 December 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.2

  1. Position

    Unilateral containment modifications cannot presently be undertaken because they may increase passenger injuries or cause regulatory non-compliance.

    Stated by First Essex Buses LimitedUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Absence of a barrier in front of the right-hand front seat of the bus

Wider context from the report

“(1) The bus is so designed that there is no barrier at least in front of the front seat on the right hand side where Mr Gurton was sitting at the 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

Investigate with Optare the feasibility and safety of retrofitting containment to relevant buses.

Verbatim wording from the response

“First is investigating with Optare the feasibility of retro-fitting some form of containment onto this type of bus which may help to prevent future deaths in circumstances such as those which occurred involving Mr Gurton. In principle, a technical solution may include not only a barrier but other possibilities such as handpoles. However, the risks associated with such a solution need to be carefully evaluated, as there is a possibility that an unintended consequence of any adaptation may be to actually increase the incidence and severity of passenger injuries overall in the event of a collision or emergency braking. Adding such fixtures to the interior therefore has to be considered carefully as it may introduce additional risk of harm to passengers rather than reduce it.”

Source location

2014-0546-Response-by-First-Essex-Buses
Page 2 · response
Published 22 December 2014

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

Unilateral containment modifications cannot presently be undertaken because they may increase passenger injuries or cause regulatory non-compliance.

Verbatim wording from the response

“First is investigating with Optare the feasibility of retro-fitting some form of containment onto this type of bus which may help to prevent future deaths in circumstances such as those which occurred involving Mr Gurton. In principle, a technical solution may include not only a barrier but other possibilities such as handpoles. However, the risks associated with such a solution need to be carefully evaluated, as there is a possibility that an unintended consequence of any adaptation may be to actually increase the incidence and severity of passenger injuries overall in the event of a collision or emergency braking. Adding such fixtures to the interior therefore has to be considered carefully as it may introduce additional risk of harm to passengers rather than reduce it.”

Source location

2014-0546-Response-by-First-Essex-Buses
Page 2 · response
Published 22 December 2014

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

Technical bus modifications should initially be referred to the manufacturer rather than undertaken solely by the operator.

Verbatim wording from the response

“first instance, issues of technical modification to buses should be referred to the relevant manufacturer by the bus operator and this is what First Essex has done.”

Source location

2014-0546-Response-by-First-Essex-Buses
Page 3 · response
Published 22 December 2014

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