Daniel Isaacs · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 24 Dec 2024•Nottinghamshire

Published report and response evidence

This report’s concerns and statements found in recipients’ published responses. Statements are included even where no link to an individual concern is recorded. A link shows an evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
2

Raised in this report

Recipients
1

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 1 recipient

Stated actions
5

Described in responses

Recipients and published responses

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 requirement for electric scooter riders to wear helmets
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate crash-helmet safety controls for road users
  2. Risk of death to electric scooter and bicycle riders not wearing protective headwear in collisions
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate crash-helmet safety controls for road users

Stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.5

  1. Department for Transport

    Commission a second evaluation of e-scooter trials.

  2. Department for Transport

    Continue holistic road-safety consideration when developing future micromobility regulations.

  3. Department for Transport

    Complete a comprehensive review of cycling and walking safety, including whether cycle helmets should be mandatory.

  4. Department for Transport

    Consider international evidence and public consultation before introducing e-scooter regulations.

  5. Department for Transport

    Evaluate the impact of helmet provision and uptake among e-scooter users.

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

  1. Department for Transport

    Mandatory cycle helmets are not considered necessary because reduced cycling, health and environmental benefits would outweigh their safety benefits.

    No action considered necessaryThe respondent said that no further action was needed.

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 requirement for electric scooter riders to wear helmets

Wider context from the report

“There is no requirement that riders of electric scooters wear helmets. Due to the expectation of their use on the road, and their vulnerability, there is a risk of death to riders of electric scooters and bicycles not wearing protective headwear who are involved in collisions, even at lower speeds. ”

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

Risk of death to electric scooter and bicycle riders not wearing protective headwear in collisions

Wider context from the report

“There is no requirement that riders of electric scooters wear helmets. Due to the expectation of their use on the road, and their vulnerability, there is a risk of death to riders of electric scooters and bicycles not wearing protective headwear who are involved in collisions, even at lower speeds. ”

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

Commission a second evaluation of e-scooter trials.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the purpose of the trials is to inform future regulations on e-scooters and no decisions on this have been made. I have just commissioned a second evaluation of the e-scooter trials, which will look at the impact of helmet provision and uptake amongst e-scooter users and I will ensure we consider a full range of evidence, including international comparisons and a public consultation, before any regulations on the use of e-scooters come into force.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 January 2025

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 holistic road-safety consideration when developing future micromobility regulations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, as I future regulations on micromobility devices including e-scooters, I will continue to ensure we look holistically across the piece as road safety remains at the core of the Department’s work.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 6 January 2025

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

Complete a comprehensive review of cycling and walking safety, including whether cycle helmets should be mandatory.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the matter of helmets for cycles, the question is complex. The Government must carefully balance the safety benefits of mandating helmets against the potential disbenefits. The Department carefully looked at the case for making helmet wearing mandatory in a comprehensive Cycling and Walking Safety Review in 2018 (www.gov.uk/government/speeches/governments-response-to-the-cycling-walking-investment-strategy-safety-review).”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 January 2025

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

Consider international evidence and public consultation before introducing e-scooter regulations.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the purpose of the trials is to inform future regulations on e-scooters and no decisions on this have been made. I have just commissioned a second evaluation of the e-scooter trials, which will look at the impact of helmet provision and uptake amongst e-scooter users and I will ensure we consider a full range of evidence, including international comparisons and a public consultation, before any regulations on the use of e-scooters come into force.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 January 2025

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

Evaluate the impact of helmet provision and uptake among e-scooter users.

Verbatim wording from the response

“However, the purpose of the trials is to inform future regulations on e-scooters and no decisions on this have been made. I have just commissioned a second evaluation of the e-scooter trials, which will look at the impact of helmet provision and uptake amongst e-scooter users and I will ensure we consider a full range of evidence, including international comparisons and a public consultation, before any regulations on the use of e-scooters come into force.”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 January 2025

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

Mandatory cycle helmets are not considered necessary because reduced cycling, health and environmental benefits would outweigh their safety benefits.

Verbatim wording from the response

“On the matter of helmets for cycles, the question is complex. The Government must carefully balance the safety benefits of mandating helmets against the potential disbenefits. The Department carefully looked at the case for making helmet wearing mandatory in a comprehensive Cycling and Walking Safety Review in 2018 (www.gov.uk/government/speeches/governments-response-to-the-cycling-walking-investment-strategy-safety-review).”

Source location

Response from Department for Transport
Page 1 · response
Published 6 January 2025

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