PFD report

Donald Spooner · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 May 2014•West Sussex

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
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
2

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. Lack of compulsory suitable protective helmet use on motorised bicycles capable of exceeding 15 MPH
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate crash-helmet safety controls for road users
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.2

  1. Action

    Expand RoSPA’s website cycle-safety advice to include motorised bicycles.

    Stated by The Royal Society For The Prevention Of AccidentsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2014.
  2. Action

    Suggest including specific motorised-bicycle safety advice when the Highway Code is next reviewed.

    Stated by The Royal Society For The Prevention Of AccidentsStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 May 2014.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.4

  1. Position

    RoSPA cannot campaign for mandatory requirements because necessary data about motorised bicycles, usage and injuries is unavailable.

    Stated by The Royal Society For The Prevention Of AccidentsUnable 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

Lack of compulsory suitable protective helmet use on motorised bicycles capable of exceeding 15 MPH

Wider context from the report

“1. That it is not compulsory to wear a suitable protective helmet whilst travelling on a motorised bicycle which can reach speeds in excess of 15 MPH ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate crash-helmet safety controls for road users.

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

Expand RoSPA’s website cycle-safety advice to include motorised bicycles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a charity with limited resources, we have to prioritise the campaigns we conduct. Therefore, RoSPA’s approach as far as cycle helmets are concerned is to raise awareness about them and to promote their use through our wide range of communication methods. We publish a range of cycle safety advice on our website, and we will expand this to include motorised bicycles. We will also, when appropriate, include these messages in our safety journals and in our communications on social media networks such as twitter. The Highway Code provides cycle safety advice, and the next time it is being reviewed we will suggest it includes specific advice about motorised bicycles.”

Source location

2014-0208-Response-by-the-ROSPA
Page 2 · response
Published 5 May 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

Suggest including specific motorised-bicycle safety advice when the Highway Code is next reviewed.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a charity with limited resources, we have to prioritise the campaigns we conduct. Therefore, RoSPA’s approach as far as cycle helmets are concerned is to raise awareness about them and to promote their use through our wide range of communication methods. We publish a range of cycle safety advice on our website, and we will expand this to include motorised bicycles. We will also, when appropriate, include these messages in our safety journals and in our communications on social media networks such as twitter. The Highway Code provides cycle safety advice, and the next time it is being reviewed we will suggest it includes specific advice about motorised bicycles.”

Source location

2014-0208-Response-by-the-ROSPA
Page 2 · response
Published 5 May 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

RoSPA cannot campaign for mandatory requirements because necessary data about motorised bicycles, usage and injuries is unavailable.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We know from our experience of many years of campaigning for legal changes just how difficult it can be to persuade government and Parliament to act, even when we have clear data on the potential casualty savings. I do not believe the necessary data (i.e. the exact type of bicycle that would be captured by such a law and how easy it would be for the police to identify it from normal bicycles, the numbers being used and the number and type of injuries suffered by their users) exists in relation to motorised bicycles. It is highly unlikely that the government would be prepared to introduce a mandatory cycle helmet law covering a specific type of bicycle.”

Source location

2014-0208-Response-by-the-ROSPA
Page 2 · response
Published 5 May 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

RoSPA does not support mandatory helmet laws because enforcement would require significant police resources and could discourage cycling.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, RoSPA has not called for a compulsory cycle helmet law because voluntary wearing rates are still too low and it would require a significant enforcement effort by the police. Also, it is not clear whether such a law would discourage people from cycling, thereby losing the significant health and environmental benefits from cycling. These benefits are why promoting cycling has become an important public health policy, with significant investment, in recent years.”

Source location

2014-0208-Response-by-the-ROSPA
Page 1 · response
Published 5 May 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

RoSPA prioritises campaigns due to limited resources and therefore will promote helmet use rather than conduct legislative campaigning.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a charity with limited resources, we have to prioritise the campaigns we conduct. Therefore, RoSPA’s approach as far as cycle helmets are concerned is to raise awareness about them and to promote their use through our wide range of communication methods. We publish a range of cycle safety advice on our website, and we will expand this to include motorised bicycles. We will also, when appropriate, include these messages in our safety journals and in our communications on social media networks such as twitter. The Highway Code provides cycle safety advice, and the next time it is being reviewed we will suggest it includes specific advice about motorised bicycles.”

Source location

2014-0208-Response-by-the-ROSPA
Page 2 · response
Published 5 May 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

RoSPA lacks authority to introduce legislation, although it can campaign for legislative change.

Verbatim wording from the response

“As a charity, RoSPA has no power to introduce legislation of any kind, but we can, of course, campaign for changes to legislation, as we have done on many occasions. However, we always consider the evidence for the need, costs and likely effectiveness of a new safety law before campaigning for it to be introduced.”

Source location

2014-0208-Response-by-the-ROSPA
Page 1 · response
Published 5 May 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