Norah Fairhurst
18 Jan 2016 · Coroner Rachael Griffin · Manchester (West)
This report repeats 1 earlier warning. See the linked reports.
The coroner's concerns
1. lack of Class VI front mirrors on large goods vehicles registered before 26 January 2008
“During the inquest evidence was heard that: i. The heavy goods vehicle involved in the collision was in good working condition and had visibility mirrors in accordance with legislation. [I diving was in accordance with that of a reasonable and competent driver. At the time of the collision Mrs [name redacted] had crossed the road in such a manner that she would not have been visible tol prior to the collision, either in any of the mirrors of the vehicle, or from his direct line of vision from the vehicle”
2. lack of mandatory Class VI front mirrors on pre-2008 large goods vehicles
“I therefore request that a review be conducted of the regulations regarding the use of Class VI mirrors, designed for pedestrian and cyclist activity at the front of large goods vehicles, in order to consider the requirement to use such mirrors on large goods vehicles registered prior to the 26" January 2008”
Linked reports
Identical hazardConfidence 0.90 · high
Earlier report
“I am concerned that the regulations that have been introduced requiring lorries to have forward facing mirrors are not retrospective, hence there are a large number of lorries on the road which do not have this facility.”
This report
“Due to the lack of Class VI front mirrors on large goods vehicles registered before the 26”
Responses
Norah-Mary-Fairhurst-Response.pdf ↗· Department for Transport
Stated action
“The Department is also working with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), Transport for London (TfL) and other stakeholders on HGV safety. This activity includes the development and promotion of safer lorry designs.”