PFD report

Muriel Naylor · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 8 Jul 2014•Manchester North

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
4

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 4 recipients

Stated actions
3

Described in 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.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised1

  1. Lack of restraint in priority seating
    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

    Bring the seating-safety issue to bus manufacturers and industry representatives.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 8 July 2014.
  2. Action

    Raise the seating-safety issue with the international technical group to explore amending minimum specifications and assess international support.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2014.
  3. Action

    Encourage manufacturers and operators to adopt additional safety features for the affected seating positions where feasible.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 8 July 2014.

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 restraint in priority seating

Wider context from the report

“IV. As standing passengers are carried on this vehicle, seat belts are not mandatory although this would not preclude the fitment of a seat belt as an option. However, a seat belt could only be fitted if there was sufficient anchorage and the seat itself would have to undergo a ‘pull’ test. The priority seat in question would not, it is believed, comply with the ‘pull’ test. V. Notwithstanding the fact that Mrs Naylor was a very fit and active 79 year old. She was propelled across a void of a 184cm before sustaining injuries which crushed her upper spinal cord causing immediate unconsciousness and paralysis. VI. Given that priority seating is intended to protect the most vulnerable users of the service, it is of significant concern that the risk is accentuated by the lack of any restraint. ”

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

Bring the seating-safety issue to bus manufacturers and industry representatives.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have already brought this issue to the attention of the bus manufacturers through the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), and the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) who represent the bus & coach operating industry. We have a tripartite meeting scheduled this month, at which we will be encouraging them to adopt additional safety features for these seating positions where it is possible.”

Source location

2014-0329-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2014

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 the seating-safety issue with the international technical group to explore amending minimum specifications and assess international support.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I also intend to raise this issue within the international technical group responsible for the pan-European construction requirements to explore whether it is appropriate to amend the minimum specification for new vehicles to reduce the risk of similar incidents in future, and to determine whether there is international support for such a move.”

Source location

2014-0329-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 2014

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

Encourage manufacturers and operators to adopt additional safety features for the affected seating positions where feasible.

Verbatim wording from the response

“I have already brought this issue to the attention of the bus manufacturers through the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), and the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) who represent the bus & coach operating industry. We have a tripartite meeting scheduled this month, at which we will be encouraging them to adopt additional safety features for these seating positions where it is possible.”

Source location

2014-0329-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 8 July 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

Official responses located
1/4

Data last updated 7 September 2026