PFD report

ANDREW JAMES PEACOCK · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Mar 2015•County Durham and Darlington

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
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 requirements for flashing warning beacons on such vehicles travelling on roads outside the 1989 Regulations
    Part of recurring concern: Unsafe vehicle lighting and signalling controls
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Available collision statistics do not suggest that mandatory amber beacon requirements would reduce casualties, making such a requirement unlikely to be supported.

    Stated by Department for TransportDisputes the concernThe respondent disagreed with part of the concern or the basis for it.

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 requirements for flashing warning beacons on such vehicles travelling on roads outside the 1989 Regulations

Wider context from the report

“(1) The tractor did not have and was not illuminating an amber warning beacon. It is possible that had the tractor been fitted with and was displaying such a flashing amber beacon the tractor and trailer might have been more readily visible to the motorcyclist who thus may have had greater opportunity to take evasive action and avoid the collision. Police collision investigators have advised that it was not necessary for the tractor to have fitted or indeed to have illuminated a flashing warning beacon because such regulations only apply to vehicles being driven on an unrestricted dual carriageway. I would draw your attention to Part 3, Regulation 26 of The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 and, Part 2, Regulation 17, the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. Consideration could be given as to whether the use of such flashing warning beacons should apply to such vehicles travelling on all roads not just those falling with the ambit of the aforementioned 1989 Regulations. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Unsafe vehicle lighting and signalling controls.

Open source report

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

Available collision statistics do not suggest that mandatory amber beacon requirements would reduce casualties, making such a requirement unlikely to be supported.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Overall the statistics do not suggest that a mandatory requirement for agricultural vehicles to be fitted with, and use, warning beacons on all roads would deliver road casualty reductions. It appears unlikely that an impact assessment would support introducing such a requirement.”

Source location

2015-0086-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 9 March 2015

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.2

  1. 1

    Provide objective comparative safety information through the SHARP motorcycle helmet assessment and rating programme.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 March 2015.
  2. 2

    Target motorcyclists and other drivers with Think! Bike road-safety messages encouraging greater awareness and longer observation for motorcycles.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 9 March 2015.

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

Provide objective comparative safety information through the SHARP motorcycle helmet assessment and rating programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In addition, the award winning Safety Helmet Assessment and Rating Programme (SHARP) provides objective safety information about the relative performance of differing safety helmets to help riders make an informed purchasing decision. (website link http://sharp.direct.gov.uk/)”

Source location

2015-0086-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 9 March 2015

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

Target motorcyclists and other drivers with Think! Bike road-safety messages encouraging greater awareness and longer observation for motorcycles.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Initiatives such as the Think! Bike road safety campaign (website link http://think.direct.gov.uk/motorcycles.html) has targeted messages for both motorcyclists and other drivers. The campaign aims to encourage motorists to consider all the too often tragic consequences of a collision with a motorcyclist and encourage them to take longer to look for bikes.”

Source location

2015-0086-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 9 March 2015

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