Muriel Naylor
PFD Report
Partially Responded
Ref: 2014-0329
Coroner's Concerns (AI summary)
Despite priority seating, the lack of a mandatory screen barrier in front of the seat in the Alexander Dennis Enviro 400 bus design may have contributed to passenger injury.
View full coroner's concerns
In the circumstances it is my opinion report to you: to The vehicle in question is double deck Alexander Dennis Enviro 400 owned by least 900 are still in use within the UK. of at The vehicle is required to have a minimum of 4 priority seats to allow access for that can be accessed from the flat area of the vehicle, thus avoiding the negotiate unnecessary steps. A priority seat has to be as close as practical to the to and such seats must have a clear area in front of the seat to allow passengers least 23mm_before_the_start of @ minimum_clear space of 1300mm_to_facilitatt to be the at of and regula tions for being the cervical cause vertebrae Jury, following trave Iling on caused had from Naylor bay: The traumatic prevented injury Mrs some Naylor' death my there statutory duty Stagecoach which disabled people floor passenger and 'having priority entrance feet placed carriage wheelchair users (Public Service Vehicles Accessibility Regulations 2000). Il;. Regulations make no mandate for a screen barrier to be present in front of such a priority seat;
Responses
Action Planned
The Department for Transport has raised the issue of bus seat design with bus manufacturers and plans to encourage them to adopt additional safety features. They also intend to raise the issue within the international technical group responsible for pan-European construction requirements. (AI summary)
The Department for Transport has raised the issue of bus seat design with bus manufacturers and plans to encourage them to adopt additional safety features. They also intend to raise the issue within the international technical group responsible for pan-European construction requirements. (AI summary)
View full response
Dear Mr Nelson Thank you for your letter dated 11 November, which referred to your inquest into the death of Mrs Muriel Naylor. On conclusion of the inquest you made a finding that the design and location of the seat on which Mrs Naylor was sitting on the bus contributed to her fall and ultimately to her death. I am replying as head of the Crash Injury Mitigation branch within International Vehicle Standards division, which has policy responsibility for road vehicle safety standards. I was grateful for the information provided in your Regulation 28 Report and I have made further enquiries with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which is an Executive Agency of the Department for Transport with responsibility for bus certification and roadworthiness in Great Britain. The subject vehicle (Registration number MXO9 AUK) was first registered in May 2009 and is certified to carry a maximum of 33 seated passengers, 14 standees and 1 wheelchair user on the lower deck, although these capacities would not apply simultaneously. In common with most buses operating in the UK, the vehicle on which Mrs Naylor was travelling when she received her fatal injuries was approved to national regulations. These regulations specify general safety items of the vehicles, and include for example, emergency exits, lighting, and additional features to make it easier for disabled people, including wheelchair users, to gain access. Amongst other provisions, they set requirements for additional hand holds, a minimum of 1 wheelchair space, together with a minimum of 4 priority seats for disabled and elderly passengers. These priority seats have extra legroom and can be easily reached from the entrance of the vehicle. It is also important to recognise that incidents involving buses and coaches are rare. Travel by bus and coach is one of the safest modes of road transport in Great Britain, with the rate of killed and seriously injured passengers per mile travelled being approximately one third that of passenger cars. The Department is committed to improving safety for all bus passengers through the use of appropriate vehicle construction standards and ensuring the safe operation of vehicles. Vehicle manufacturers have some flexibility to install additional design features that benefit passengers providing they do not compromise the existing construction requirements.
Our national regulations setting the minimum standards for new vehicles utilise a numb r of specifications that are harmonised with the European Union and wider international ‘ requirements. These standards are reviewed regularly by an international group of experts under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The Department for Transport is an active participant in this group. I have already brought this issue to the attention of the bus manufacturers through the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), and the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) who represent the bus & coach operating industry. We have a tripartite meeting scheduled this month, at which we will be encouraging them to adopt additional safety features for these seating positions where it is possible. I also intend to raise this issue within the International technical group responsible for the pan-European construction requirements to explore whether it is appropriate to amend the minimum specification for new vehicles to reduce the risk of similar incidents in future, and to determine whether there is international support for such a move. I hope you find this information helpful and are assured that the Department is taking appropriate action to respond to your concerns.
Our national regulations setting the minimum standards for new vehicles utilise a numb r of specifications that are harmonised with the European Union and wider international ‘ requirements. These standards are reviewed regularly by an international group of experts under the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The Department for Transport is an active participant in this group. I have already brought this issue to the attention of the bus manufacturers through the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT), and the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) who represent the bus & coach operating industry. We have a tripartite meeting scheduled this month, at which we will be encouraging them to adopt additional safety features for these seating positions where it is possible. I also intend to raise this issue within the International technical group responsible for the pan-European construction requirements to explore whether it is appropriate to amend the minimum specification for new vehicles to reduce the risk of similar incidents in future, and to determine whether there is international support for such a move. I hope you find this information helpful and are assured that the Department is taking appropriate action to respond to your concerns.
Sent To
- Department for Transport
- Vehicle and Operator Services Agency
Response Status
Linked responses
1 of 4
56-Day Deadline
2 Sep 2014
About PFD responses
Organisations named in PFD reports must respond within 56 days explaining what actions they are taking.
Source: Courts and Tribunals Judiciary
Report Sections
Investigation and Inquest
On the 6th December 2011 commenced an investigation into the death of Muriel Naylor of death had been given as that of 1a) Fracture and Dislocation of first and second whom and at an Inquest hearing at the Oldham Magistrates Court on the 17th June 2014, with a conclusion was made 'on the 1gth November 2011, the bus on which Mrs Naylor was the action an emergency stop to avoid a collision with another vehicle. This sudden braking be projected forward designated priority seat into the wheelchair tip-up Mrs to she sustained a5 a result of the impact caused her death which could have possibly been to other safety measure had been fitted which may have restricted Mrs Naylor' $ movement; if was confirmed at The Royal Oldham Hospital on the 19th November 2011 at 5-45pm.
Circumstances of the Death
As above
Action Should Be Taken
Action should be taken to consider legislation that would_prevent fatalities occurring_in similar_circumstances_
Copies Sent To
1.Department of Transport
2.Fentons
3.Backhouse Jones
Similar PFD Reports
Reports sharing organisations, categories, or themes
Related Inquiry Recommendations
Public inquiry recommendations addressing similar themes
Remove all spikes and inward-facing constructions from perimeter and radial fences
Taylor Inquiry
Public Infrastructure Physical Hazards
Limit perimeter fencing height to a maximum of 2.2 metres
Taylor Inquiry
Public Infrastructure Physical Hazards
Provide sufficient 1.1-metre wide gates in perimeter fences for emergency evacuation
Taylor Inquiry
Public Infrastructure Physical Hazards
Paint and mark all emergency gates in fences with "Emergency Exit
Taylor Inquiry
Public Infrastructure Physical Hazards
Keep all perimeter fence gates to pitch unlocked and open during matches
Taylor Inquiry
Public Infrastructure Physical Hazards
Annually inspect all crush barriers for corrosion; repair or replace as needed
Taylor Inquiry
Public Infrastructure Physical Hazards
Data sourced from Courts and Tribunals Judiciary under the Open Government Licence.