PFD report

Tyrone Declan EVANS · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 16 Jul 2018•Coventry

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
1

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. Absence of a legal requirement for road-using quad bike drivers to wear crash 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 compulsory helmet requirements for quad-bike riders under review, considering usage, collision safety and seat-belt availability.

    Stated by Jesse Norman MPStated in progressThe respondent said that this action was in progress when they made their response on 23 September 2018.

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

  1. Position

    Quad-bike users likely represent a very low number of road deaths and serious injuries within the broader “other vehicle” casualty category.

    Stated by Jesse Norman MPDisputes 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

Absence of a legal requirement for road-using quad bike drivers to wear crash helmets

Wider context from the report

“(1) The medical cause of death was 1a Blunt Head Injury and the conclusion of the pathologist included the following: "I note the suggestion that he was not wearing a helmet and in my opinion the head injury pattern would support this. As a pathologist I am not in a position to provide expert evidence on the issue of whether or not a helmet would have prevented the death but clearly when a death is caused by an isolated head injury, one has to suggest that wearing a helmet may well have altered the injury pattern and potentially severity, at least from basic principles". (2) I was informed at the inquest that the quad bike the deceased was driving was an off-road vehicle that had been adapted to use on the road. Yamaha UK confirmed to police that the vehicle had undertaken an Individual Vehicle Approval test by the Vehicle Operator Services Agency (VOSA) and had been issued with a registration number. (3) I was also informed at the inquest by the Collision Investigator that quad bike riders or passengers in England, Scotland and Wales are not required to wear crash helmets. (4) In light of the pathologist’s comments and I am concerned that the absence of any legal requirement for quad bike drivers to wear crash helmets even where such bikes have been legally adapted for road use presents a continuing and potentially avoidable risk of deaths on our roads. ”

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 compulsory helmet requirements for quad-bike riders under review, considering usage, collision safety and seat-belt availability.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There are no immediate plans to make the wearing of helmets compulsory,- such a change would require primary legislation. However, the Department is 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

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 23 September 2018

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

Quad-bike users likely represent a very low number of road deaths and serious injuries within the broader “other vehicle” casualty category.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Currently quad bikes are not recorded separately in reported road casualties’ data but within the category "other vehicle". “Other vehicle” includes, for example, quad bikes, ambulances, fire engines, motor caravans, pedestrian controlled vehicles with a motor, refuse vehicles, road rollers, mobile cranes, army vehicles and street barrows. In 2016, 15 people were killed and 107 seriously injured while using a vehicle in the "other" category. This equates to approximately 0.5 per cent of all the Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) casualties in Great Britain during 2016. It is likely, therefore, that the number of quad bike users killed or seriously injured is very low.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 23 September 2018

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 quad-bike helmet use cannot be introduced immediately because it requires primary legislation; the position remains under review.

Verbatim wording from the response

“There are no immediate plans to make the wearing of helmets compulsory,- such a change would require primary legislation. However, the Department is 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

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 23 September 2018

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

  1. 1

    Quad-bike casualty coding cannot change outside quinquennial Stats 19 reviews because police retraining and recording-system costs would be prohibitive.

    Stated by Jesse Norman MPUnable to actThe respondent said that a constraint prevented them from taking the relevant action.

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

Quad-bike casualty coding cannot change outside quinquennial Stats 19 reviews because police retraining and recording-system costs would be prohibitive.

Verbatim wording from the response

“To gain a better understanding, quad bike casualties on public roads could be 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

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 23 September 2018

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