PFD report

Donald Frederick HOOKER · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 21 Dec 2022•East Riding and Hull

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
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
3

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
6

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 raised4

  1. Failure to ensure correct motorcycle helmet sizing and fitting
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate crash-helmet safety controls for road users
  2. Motorcycle helmets coming off or rotating during collisions
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate crash-helmet safety controls for road users
  3. Lack of appropriate education for motorcycle riders
    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.3

  1. Action

    Produce and publish SHARP guidance on motorcycle helmet selection and fitting.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 January 2023.
  2. Action

    Continue promoting and raising awareness through SHARP of correct motorcycle helmet fitting and usage.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 January 2023.
  3. Action

    Conduct research into motorcycle-helmet loss, including retention testing, helmet design compliance and loss mechanisms.

    Stated by TRL LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 January 2023.

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 ensure correct motorcycle helmet sizing and fitting

Wider context from the report

“(1) This is the second matter that has been referred to my jurisdiction in recent months where a motorcyclist has lost his helmet during a collision. During evidence it was adduced that, although it is not a common occurrence, it is certainly not unusual for a motorcyclist’s helmet to come off or to rotate during a collision. (2) The Forensic Collision Investigator was unable to explain the reason for Dr Hooker’s crash helmet coming off. The chin strap was in place. (3) The Forensic Collision Investigator indicated that she had been unable to find any research or scientific data on why such incidents occur. (4) It was adduced in evidence that a kit safety mark may be checked by an instructor during motor cycle courses/tests but there did not appear to be a known check for ensuring a person has the correct size motorcycle helmet. (5) It was acknowledged that many people may now purchase motorcycle helmets over the internet and the sizing and fitting may not be appropriate. (6) I am concerned that without knowledge of why such incidents are occurring, or appropriate education of the riders, that more deaths may occur. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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

Motorcycle helmets coming off or rotating during collisions

Wider context from the report

“(1) This is the second matter that has been referred to my jurisdiction in recent months where a motorcyclist has lost his helmet during a collision. During evidence it was adduced that, although it is not a common occurrence, it is certainly not unusual for a motorcyclist’s helmet to come off or to rotate during a collision. (2) The Forensic Collision Investigator was unable to explain the reason for Dr Hooker’s crash helmet coming off. The chin strap was in place. (3) The Forensic Collision Investigator indicated that she had been unable to find any research or scientific data on why such incidents occur. (4) It was adduced in evidence that a kit safety mark may be checked by an instructor during motor cycle courses/tests but there did not appear to be a known check for ensuring a person has the correct size motorcycle helmet. (5) It was acknowledged that many people may now purchase motorcycle helmets over the internet and the sizing and fitting may not be appropriate. (6) I am concerned that without knowledge of why such incidents are occurring, or appropriate education of the riders, that more deaths may occur. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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 appropriate education for motorcycle riders

Wider context from the report

“(1) This is the second matter that has been referred to my jurisdiction in recent months where a motorcyclist has lost his helmet during a collision. During evidence it was adduced that, although it is not a common occurrence, it is certainly not unusual for a motorcyclist’s helmet to come off or to rotate during a collision. (2) The Forensic Collision Investigator was unable to explain the reason for Dr Hooker’s crash helmet coming off. The chin strap was in place. (3) The Forensic Collision Investigator indicated that she had been unable to find any research or scientific data on why such incidents occur. (4) It was adduced in evidence that a kit safety mark may be checked by an instructor during motor cycle courses/tests but there did not appear to be a known check for ensuring a person has the correct size motorcycle helmet. (5) It was acknowledged that many people may now purchase motorcycle helmets over the internet and the sizing and fitting may not be appropriate. (6) I am concerned that without knowledge of why such incidents are occurring, or appropriate education of the riders, that more deaths may occur. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

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

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 research and knowledge about motorcycle helmet displacement during collisions

Wider context from the report

“(1) This is the second matter that has been referred to my jurisdiction in recent months where a motorcyclist has lost his helmet during a collision. During evidence it was adduced that, although it is not a common occurrence, it is certainly not unusual for a motorcyclist’s helmet to come off or to rotate during a collision. (2) The Forensic Collision Investigator was unable to explain the reason for Dr Hooker’s crash helmet coming off. The chin strap was in place. (3) The Forensic Collision Investigator indicated that she had been unable to find any research or scientific data on why such incidents occur. (4) It was adduced in evidence that a kit safety mark may be checked by an instructor during motor cycle courses/tests but there did not appear to be a known check for ensuring a person has the correct size motorcycle helmet. (5) It was acknowledged that many people may now purchase motorcycle helmets over the internet and the sizing and fitting may not be appropriate. (6) I am concerned that without knowledge of why such incidents are occurring, or appropriate education of the riders, that more deaths may occur. ”

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

Produce and publish SHARP guidance on motorcycle helmet selection and fitting.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department recognises the importance of a good fitting and performing helmet and has for many years been providing advice and guidance to motorcyclists through its Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme (SHARP). Working with the motorcycle helmet supply industry, SHARP has established the best practice and produced a guidance that offers advice on helmet selection and appropriate fitting. This is available on the SHARP website at the following link: https://sharp.dft.gov.uk/get-the-right-fit/.”

Source location

Response from the Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

Continue promoting and raising awareness through SHARP of correct motorcycle helmet fitting and usage.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department is committed to improving safety for all motorcyclists and will continue to review the technical standards for new helmets under the UNECE to ensure they reflect new and emerging technology and offer increasing levels of safety, while at the same time promoting and raising awareness of”

Source location

Response from the Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

Conduct research into motorcycle-helmet loss, including retention testing, helmet design compliance and loss mechanisms.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In 2018, TRL has conducted our own research into helmet loss, or more specifically our “Helmet Retention Report” (https://www.trl.co.uk/publications/helmet-retention-report). This self-funded study had two specific aims. The first”

Source location

Response from the Future of Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2023

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Continue reviewing UNECE technical standards for new motorcycle helmets to reflect emerging technology and improve safety.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 4 January 2023.
  2. 2

    Support the Department for Transport in establishing SHARP, the government motorcycle-helmet safety-rating scheme.

    Stated by TRL LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 January 2023.
  3. 3

    Research motorcyclists’ attitudes and motivations concerning helmets, protective equipment and safety interventions.

    Stated by TRL LimitedStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 4 January 2023.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.1

  1. 1

    SCU should investigate the helmet’s age and purchase location.

    Stated by Yorkshire and The Humber Scientific Support ServicesRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

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

Continue reviewing UNECE technical standards for new motorcycle helmets to reflect emerging technology and improve safety.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department is committed to improving safety for all motorcyclists and will continue to review the technical standards for new helmets under the UNECE to ensure they reflect new and emerging technology and offer increasing levels of safety, while at the same time promoting and raising awareness of”

Source location

Response from the Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

Support the Department for Transport in establishing SHARP, the government motorcycle-helmet safety-rating scheme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“TRL has been instrumental in supporting the Department for Transport to establish SHARP (https://sharp.dft.gov.uk/). SHARP is the UK government’s ratings scheme for motorcycle helmets and provides consumers with objective information on their safety performance.”

Source location

Response from the Future of Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

Research motorcyclists’ attitudes and motivations concerning helmets, protective equipment and safety interventions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“TRL has undertaken research on attitudes and motivations of motorcyclists towards helmets and protective equipment (https://www.trl.co.uk/publications/ppr442). In summary, “Passion, performance, practicality: motorcyclists’ motivations and attitudes to safety - motorcycle safety research project”, found that based on self-reported decisions, with respect to choice of bike, helmet, safety gear and avoiding fatigue, there was a wide variety of risk perception. Motorcyclists are not a homogeneous group and different safety interventions are required to influence their behaviour.”

Source location

Response from the Future of Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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

SCU should investigate the helmet’s age and purchase location.

Verbatim wording from the response

“1 – The helmet was an ‘Uber’ flip front motorcycle helmet with a clear visor. It was ECE marked 22.05 and therefore meets basic UK standards. 2 – The helmet was fitted with a D-Ring fastener that appeared to be in order and fastened on inspection, however, I am unable to comment on how tightly this was fastened when worn. 3 – This is an enquiry that should be completed by SCU. 4 – Again, another SCU enquiry. 5 – The chin strap appeared to be in order. To identify whether the material has stretched or suffered any deformation the helmet would need to be sent to the appropriate third party for testing.”

Source location

Response from Forensic Collision Investigator
Page 1 · response
Published 4 January 2023

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