PFD report

Colin George Wellings · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 5 Oct 2016•South Wales Central

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
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
3

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 3 recipients

Stated actions
3

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 raised2

  1. Lack of a legal requirement for riders of this class of vehicle to wear seatbelts
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems
  2. Lack of a legal requirement for riders of this class of vehicle to wear protective helmets
    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.1

  1. Action

    Keep the position on compulsory tricycle helmet use under review, considering usage, collision safety and seat-belt availability.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 5 October 2016.

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

  1. Position

    Seat belts are expected to offer few benefits for motor tricycles and may exacerbate injuries by closely coupling riders to vehicles in collisions.

    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 a legal requirement for riders of this class of vehicle to wear seatbelts

Wider context from the report

“(1) The machine that the deceased was riding was a domestically manufactured machine with a 3.5 litre engine registered in 1973 and as such was exempt from the requirement for the driver/rider to wear either a seatbelt or a protective helmet. (2) Given the inherent risk that this vehicle, and others like it, pose, not only to their riders, but to other road users, consideration should be given to legislation to ensure that this class of vehicle is brought in line with other mainstream mechanically propelled vehicles by amendment to the Road Traffic Act and the Construction and Use Regulations. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate vehicle occupant restraint systems.

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 a legal requirement for riders of this class of vehicle to wear protective helmets

Wider context from the report

“(1) The machine that the deceased was riding was a domestically manufactured machine with a 3.5 litre engine registered in 1973 and as such was exempt from the requirement for the driver/rider to wear either a seatbelt or a protective helmet. (2) Given the inherent risk that this vehicle, and others like it, pose, not only to their riders, but to other road users, consideration should be given to legislation to ensure that this class of vehicle is brought in line with other mainstream mechanically propelled vehicles by amendment to the Road Traffic Act and the Construction and Use Regulations. ”

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

Keep the position on compulsory tricycle helmet use under review, considering usage, collision safety and seat-belt availability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the Highway Code advises that riders and passengers of tricycles should wear a protective helmet (rule 83 - as mentioned above), there are no immediate plans to make the wearing of helmets compulsory; such a change would require primary legislation. However, we are keeping the position under review; there are a number of factors that will need to be taken into consideration such as, the level of use, the safety of riders in a collision and the availability or otherwise of seat belts.”

Source location

2016-0348-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2016

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

Seat belts are expected to offer few benefits for motor tricycles and may exacerbate injuries by closely coupling riders to vehicles in collisions.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Seat belts are very effective at reducing injury when used with vehicles which have a structure around the occupant area – this is able to offer direct protection and to absorb some of the energy of the impact as it deforms. For motorcycles and motor tricycles, the use of seat belts is expected to offer very few benefits and in most cases, closely coupling the rider to the vehicle in a collision is anticipated to exacerbate the injuries.”

Source location

2016-0348-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 5 October 2016

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

Compulsory tricycle helmet use is not immediately planned because introducing it would require primary legislation.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Although the Highway Code advises that riders and passengers of tricycles should wear a protective helmet (rule 83 - as mentioned above), there are no immediate plans to make the wearing of helmets compulsory; such a change would require primary legislation. However, we are keeping the position under review; there are a number of factors that will need to be taken into consideration such as, the level of use, the safety of riders in a collision and the availability or otherwise of seat belts.”

Source location

2016-0348-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2016

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

    Ask for tricycle casualties on public roads to be recorded separately in police-reported road casualty statistics.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated plannedThe respondent said that this action was planned when they made their response on 5 October 2016.
  2. 2

    Publish a Road Safety Statement setting out Government priorities for improving road safety during the Parliament.

    Stated by Department for TransportStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 5 October 2016.

Recipient positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when they do not describe a specific action.2

  1. 1

    Separate tricycle casualty recording cannot be introduced outside quinquennial reviews because police retraining and recording-system costs would be prohibitive.

    Stated by Department for TransportUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.
  2. 2

    Additional tricycle driving qualifications are not considered necessary because existing licensing requires theory, hazard-perception and practical tests.

    Stated by Department for TransportExisting arrangements considered sufficientThe respondent said that existing arrangements were sufficient, so no further action was needed.

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

Ask for tricycle casualties on public roads to be recorded separately in police-reported road casualty statistics.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To gain a better understanding, we are proposing to ask that tricycle casualties on public roads are recorded separately in the police reported road casualty statistics (commonly called Stats 19). Any changes to the Stats 19 requirements has significant implications for police forces, both in terms of the burden of data collection and in terms of IT systems. For this reason changes to the requirements are only made as part of the quinquennial reviews.”

Source location

2016-0348-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2016

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

Publish a Road Safety Statement setting out Government priorities for improving road safety during the Parliament.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The Department has recently published a Road Safety Statement which sets out the Government’s priorities for improving road safety over the course of this Parliament. We must give priority to those actions to which we are already committed and which concern road users who are over-represented in road casualty collisions.”

Source location

2016-0348-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2016

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

Separate tricycle casualty recording cannot be introduced outside quinquennial reviews because police retraining and recording-system costs would be prohibitive.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To gain a better understanding, we are proposing to ask that tricycle casualties on public roads are recorded separately in the police reported road casualty statistics (commonly called Stats 19). Any changes to the Stats 19 requirements has significant implications for police forces, both in terms of the burden of data collection and in terms of IT systems. For this reason changes to the requirements are only made as part of the quinquennial reviews.”

Source location

2016-0348-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2016

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

Additional tricycle driving qualifications are not considered necessary because existing licensing requires theory, hazard-perception and practical tests.

Verbatim wording from the response

“We are not proposing to mandate additional driving qualifications for motorists who wish to drive a tricycle on the road, as anyone who does so must hold a licence and will therefore have already passed a theory, hazard perception and practical driving test, which we believe provides a robust regime for road users.”

Source location

2016-0348-Response-by-Department-for-Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 5 October 2016

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