Consultation outcome

Mandating vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval: government response

Updated 16 July 2026

Why we held this consultation

Road traffic collisions remain a major cause of death and serious injury on roads in Great Britain (GB). While GB has a strong road safety record, progress in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured has slowed. Vulnerable road users, including pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists and e-scooter users, are disproportionately affected.

Collision data show that human factors, including distraction and excessive speed, remain major contributors to road casualties. Evidence also suggests that advanced vehicle safety technologies can help prevent collisions, reduce their severity and better protect vulnerable road users. These technologies include:

• advanced distraction warning
• blind spot information system
• drowsiness and attention warning
• direct vision
• emergency braking for cyclists, pedestrians and vehicles
• event data recorder
• emergency lane keeping system
• emergency stop signal
• frontal full-width impact
• frontal offset impact
• intelligent speed assistance
• moving off information system
• pole side impact
• pedestrian windscreen impact
• reversing motion awareness
• tyre pressure monitoring system  

On 7 January 2026, the government launched a consultation seeking views on whether manufacturers applying for GB type approval for mass-produced vehicles should be required to equip them with a package of safety technologies.

These changes are necessary to:

• enhance vehicle safety, reduce the number of vehicle collisions and improve casualty outcomes on GB roads
• bring closer alignment of safety standards across the UK between GB and Northern Ireland (NI), avoiding differing vehicle specifications and their associated cost implications for UK consumers
• decrease trade burdens by harmonising technical requirements for safety measures with those of the European Union (EU) and broader international market
• contribute to UK economic growth by supporting the automotive sector, reducing the economic costs of road collisions and supporting innovation

Summary of consultation outcomes

The consultation, which closed on 11 May 2026, sought views on:

• mandating 18 vehicle safety technologies
• alcohol interlock interface facilitation technology
• scope of application
• technical requirements for vehicle safety technologies
• vehicles built in multiple stages and special purpose vehicles
• the impact of vehicle safety technologies on casualty reduction
• amending other domestic regulations
• implementation timings
• end-of-series derogation
• retaining and maintaining safety technologies

Most respondents supported mandating the 18 vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval. Support was strongest for technologies seen to offer clear safety benefits, including:

• blind spot information system (BSIS)
• tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS)
• reversing motion awareness (RMA)
• direct vision (DIV)
• pedestrian windscreen impact (PWI) requirements.

Views were more mixed on intelligent speed assistance (ISA) and emergency lane keeping system (ELKS) but support still outweighed opposition.

More respondents agreed than disagreed with the proposal not to mandate alcohol interlock interface facilitation (AIIF) at this stage. Some considered this proportionate for now, while others argued that deferring AIIF could create unnecessary regulatory differences and delay future safety benefits.

Respondents also supported limiting the initial mandate to mass-produced vehicles under GB type approval. Many saw this as a proportionate starting point that would cover most of the market while avoiding disproportionate burdens on lower-volume manufacturers, converters and businesses using other approval routes.

Most respondents also supported the proposed technical requirements. Views were more mixed on some driver-assistance systems, particularly ISA and ELKS. Concerns focused on real-world performance, usability and suitability for GB road conditions. Some respondents also raised concerns about privacy and monitoring, particularly in relation to event data recorder (EDR).

Most respondents favoured retaining the current requirements for vehicles built in multiple stages and for special purpose vehicles. This reflected concerns about:

• proportionality
• the practicalities of fitting some technologies
• the risk of disproportionate costs for specialist and lower-volume manufacturers

Most respondents believed the proposed technologies would help reduce casualties, particularly those that:

• improve visibility
• detect vulnerable road users
• support emergency braking
• improve protection for vehicle occupants and pedestrians

Views were more cautious on technologies seen as having a less direct or less certain effect, including EDR and some driver-assistance systems.

Respondents also raised wider regulatory issues. Some called for a wider review of domestic regulations, including the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989, beyond the immediate scope of the consultation.

Others said the MOT, together with other guidance and advice such as the Highway Code may need updating to help ensure that mandated systems continue to function correctly and are used properly.

Views on implementation timings were mixed. While many respondents supported the proposed approach, manufacturers and trade bodies said some of the lead times were too short and that longer periods would be more realistic.

There was also support for allowing a limited end-of-series derogation for the sale of remaining non-compliant vehicle stock after implementation, provided this was tightly controlled and time-limited.

Responses to the call for evidence on retention and maintenance of safety features supported ensuring that mandated safety technologies continue to meet safety and performance standards after type approval and registration.

Many respondents favoured building on existing compliance processes rather than creating a separate enforcement system, with the MOT seen as the most suitable way to check that these systems continue to work properly.

The government will proceed with the package of 18 proven vehicle safety technologies set out in the consultation, with revised implementation dates to allow more time for compliance.

Introduction

Background

Great Britain has one of the strongest road safety records in the world, supported by legislation, enforcement and education. However, progress in reducing the number of people killed or seriously injured on the roads has slowed in recent years. In 2024, total road casualties of all severities fell by 4% compared with 2023, while the number of people killed or seriously injured was broadly unchanged. Car occupants accounted for 43% of road deaths and 55% of all casualties.

Road traffic collisions continue to impose high economic and social costs, estimated at more than £40 billion each year. Analysis of collision data shows that human factors, such as distraction and excessive speed, remain major contributors to road casualties in GB.

Evidence suggests that advanced vehicle safety technologies can help address common collision risks by:

• preventing collisions
• reducing their severity
• improving protection for vulnerable road users.

A study commissioned by the Department for Transport (DfT) estimated that mandating a package of proven safety technologies could deliver safety, social and economic benefits over time, including fewer collisions and casualties.

In 2019, the European Union (EU) adopted amendments to the General Safety Regulation (GSR2), introducing additional safety technology requirements for new vehicles sold in the EU. Although the UK helped develop the regulation, these requirements came into force after the UK left the EU and are therefore not mandated in GB. They do, however, apply in Northern Ireland (NI) under the Windsor Framework.

Against this background, the government consulted on whether 18 proven vehicle safety technologies should be mandated for new mass-produced vehicles under the GB type approval framework. The proposals aim to:

• improve road safety
• strengthen protection for vehicle occupants and vulnerable road users
• consider how GB requirements should align with those applying in NI and the EU

Alignment with these requirements in the GB scheme supports the government’s broader:

• commitment to a presumption of alignment with EU type approval requirements
• ambitions to reduce administrative burdens on business

This will be further supported by efforts to remove duplicative requirements wherever possible, including through greater acceptance of EU system and component approvals as part of the GB type approval process.

This report summarises the consultation outcome and the measures the government intends to take forward. It sets out the main themes raised by respondents and how the government will use this evidence to finalise the policy and legislative approach.

The consultation

The consultation on mandating vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval which ran from 7 January to 11 May 2026, set out proposals to require manufacturers of mass-produced vehicles seeking GB type approval to fit specific safety technologies.

It invited views from individuals, industry representatives and other stakeholders on the:

• proposed approach
• vehicles in scope
• technical requirements for each technology
• implementation dates for new vehicle types and registrations

The proposals focused on vehicles approved under the unlimited series route of the GB type approval scheme. They were not intended to apply to vehicles approved under the GB medium-series, small-series or individual approval schemes, to avoid disproportionate costs and burdens on lower-volume manufacturers, converters and businesses using those routes.

The consultation also asked for views on what would be needed to ensure that the safety technologies remain effective throughout a vehicle’s life after approval and registration.

Data source

This document is based on responses to the consultation on mandating vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval. Responses were submitted through the online consultation platform and by email during the consultation period. Respondents provided both closed-question answers and open-text comments, representing views from individuals and organisations.

The government is grateful to everyone who responded to the consultation.

Breakdown of respondents

The consultation received 231 responses. Of these, 139 (60.2%) came from individuals and 92 (39.8%) from organisations. Organisational respondents included:

• vehicle manufacturers
• automotive suppliers
• road safety and advocacy groups
• insurance organisations
• motoring associations
• consumer organisations
• government departments
• public bodies
• other groups

Table 1 shows the breakdown of respondents by stakeholder group.

Table 1: respondents by stakeholder group

Stakeholder Group	Percentage of respondents
Individual respondents	60.2%
Vehicle manufacturers	5.2%
Automotive suppliers	1.7%
Road safety and advocacy groups	6.9%
Insurance organisations	1.3%
Motoring organisations	2.2%
Consumer organisations	0.4%
Government departments	3.0%
Public bodies	4.8%
Other organisations	14.3%

Most responses came from individuals, with smaller numbers from organisations in the automotive, motoring, insurance and road safety sectors, as well as consumer organisations, government departments and public bodies.

Of the organisational respondents, 73 gave details about the size of their organisation.

The largest group consisted of organisations with more than 1,000 employees, accounting for 27 responses (37.0%).

Smaller organisations were also represented, including 19 responses (26.0%) from organisations with 1 to 49 employees and 16 responses (21.9%) from organisations with 50 to 249 employees.

Table 2 shows the breakdown of respondents from organisations by organisation size.

Table 2: organisational respondents by organisation size

Organisation size	Percentage of respondents
1 to 49 employees	26.0%
50 to 249 employees	21.9%
250 to 449 employees	6.9%
450 to 1,000 employees	8.2%
More than 1,000 employees	37.0%

Analysis methodology

The consultation included both closed and open-text questions. Closed questions asked respondents to choose from set response options. Open-text questions allowed them to explain their views in their own words.

Responses were received through the online consultation platform and by email. Of the 231 responses, 187 were submitted through the online survey and 44 by email. The analysis in this document is based on responses to each question, so totals may vary because not every respondent answered every question.

Some email submissions did not follow the same structure as the online survey. Where needed, officials reviewed these responses and mapped the content to the relevant questions. Because participation was voluntary and responses were self-selected, the findings should not be treated as representative of the wider population.

DfT officials analysed all responses. Analysis of the closed questions focused on summarising the available response options. Open-text responses were analysed using a human-led thematic approach, supported by the department’s artificial intelligence (AI) consultation analysis tool (CAT), which helped identify recurring themes. Officials reviewed the tool’s outputs and used them to support, not replace, manual analysis.

Consultation feedback: summary of responses

Mandating 18 vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval

Question:

Do you support or oppose mandating the vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval?

Provide further information to support your answer. 

Tables 3a to 3r summarise how people responded overall. They show that most respondents supported mandating 18 vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval, with approval ratings ranging from 66.1% to 82.4%.

Support was highest for:

• tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS)
• blind spot information system (BSIS)
• reversing motion awareness (RMA)
• direct vision (DIV)
• pedestrian windscreen impact (PWI) requirements

Views were more mixed on intelligent speed assistance (ISA) and emergency lane keeping system (ELKS), which received the lowest levels of support and the highest levels of opposition. Even so, support for these technologies still outweighed opposition.

Overall, relatively few respondents neither supported nor opposed the proposals or said they did not know.

Table 3a: responses – advanced distraction warning (ADW), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	74.7%
Oppose	20.2%
Neither support nor oppose	3.7%
Do not know	1.4%

Table 3b: responses – blind spot information system (BSIS), 218 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	81.7%
Oppose	11.9%
Neither support nor oppose	5.0%
Do not know	1.4%

Table 3c: responses – drowsiness and attention warning (DAW), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	76.0%
Oppose	18.4%
Neither support nor oppose	4.6%
Do not know	1.0%

Table 3d: responses – direct vision (DIV), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	78.0%
Oppose	13.8%
Neither support nor oppose	4.1%
Do not know	4.1%

Table 3e: responses – emergency braking for cyclists (EBC), 216 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	70.4%
Oppose	22.7%
Neither support nor oppose	5.1%
Do not know	1.8%

Table 3f: responses – emergency braking for pedestrians (EBP), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	73.7%
Oppose	21.2%
Neither support nor oppose	3.7%
Do not know	1.4%

Table 3g: responses – emergency braking for vehicles (EBV), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	74.2%
Oppose	19.3%
Neither support nor oppose	5.1%
Do not know	1.4%

Table 3h: responses – event data recorder (EDR), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	70.5%
Oppose	20.3%
Neither support nor oppose	6.0%
Do not know	3.2%

Table 3i: responses – emergency lane keeping system (ELKS), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	66.8%
Oppose	24.9%
Neither support nor oppose	7.4%
Do not know	0.9%

Table 3j: responses – emergency stop signal (ESS), 218 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	76.6%
Oppose	17.0%
Neither support nor oppose	4.6%
Do not know	1.8%

Table 3k: responses – frontal full-width impact (FFWI), 218 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	72.5%
Oppose	12.8%
Neither support nor oppose	11.0%
Do not know	3.7%

Table 3l: responses – frontal offset impact (FOI), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	72.4%
Oppose	12.9%
Neither support nor oppose	10.1%
Do not know	4.6%

Table 3m: responses – intelligent speed assistance (ISA), 218 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	66.1%
Oppose	25.2%
Neither support nor oppose	7.8%
Do not know	0.9%

Table 3n: responses – moving off information system (MOIS), 216 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	69.0%
Oppose	15.7%
Neither support nor oppose	10.7%
Do not know	4.6%

Table 3o: responses – pole side impact (PSI), 216 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	71.8%
Oppose	13.4%
Neither support nor oppose	10.2%
Do not know	4.6%

Table 3p: responses – pedestrian windscreen impact (PWI), 216 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	75.9%
Oppose	13.0%
Neither support nor oppose	8.3%
Do not know	2.8%

Table 3q: responses – reversing motion awareness (RMA), 217 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	79.2%
Oppose	11.1%
Neither support nor oppose	6.9%
Do not know	2.8%

Table 3r: responses – tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS), 216 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	82.4%
Oppose	10.7%
Neither support nor oppose	6.0%
Do not know	0.9%

Respondents were invited to explain why they supported or opposed mandating vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval.

Support

Those who supported mandating the technologies mainly referred to their potential to prevent collisions and reduce injury severity. Many said the technologies would improve safety for drivers, passengers and pedestrians and saw them as part of a wider effort to make vehicles safer.

A recurring theme was better protection for vulnerable road users, particularly pedestrians and cyclists, through technologies that improve driver awareness, visibility and detection.

Some respondents also said that mandating these technologies would bring GB closer to the requirements already applying in the EU and NI, helping to maintain consistency for manufacturers, operators and consumers.

Many added that the benefits would depend on effective implementation, including:

• clear communication about what the systems can and cannot do
• driver education
• public information
• suitable arrangements for maintenance, calibration, repair and monitoring

Oppose

Those who opposed mandating some or all the technologies raised several concerns, primarily about cost, including potential impacts on vehicle prices, repair bills and long-term maintenance expenses.

Many respondents questioned the reliability of the technologies in real-world conditions, especially on rural roads and in poor weather, where road markings may be unclear or systems might generate false alerts or unintended interventions.

Opposition was most pronounced regarding ISA and ELKS, compared to the other technologies listed in Tables 3a to 3r.

Concerns about driver interaction with certain systems were also raised. Some respondents expressed worries that these technologies could:

• distract drivers
• reduce engagement
• encourage over-reliance on automation

Others highlighted the potential loss of driver control, particularly when systems intervene in steering, braking or speed control and questioned whether all proposed measures were sufficiently mature to be mandated at this time.

Some respondents expressed concerns about privacy and monitoring, particularly regarding event data recorder (EDR). Others questioned whether specific systems had been adequately designed or assessed to protect all vulnerable road users, including motorcyclists and horse riders. Some indicated that while they support certain technologies in principle, they do not advocate mandating them until performance and reliability improve.

Conclusion

Overall, the responses supported the policy direction while emphasising the importance of how the technologies are introduced and maintained in practice.

The government notes that most respondents supported mandating vehicle safety technologies in GB type approval. The responses also highlighted important considerations for implementation, including:

• driver interaction
• cost
• system performance
• ongoing maintenance

After reviewing the feedback, the government believes that mandating the 18 proven vehicle safety technologies can improve road safety and reduce deaths and serious injuries, especially among vulnerable road users. It also recognises the concerns regarding:

• false alerts
• driver distraction
• real-world performance
• repair and calibration
• data privacy

These concerns will be considered in the implementation approach along with seeking any necessary changes to the technical requirements for these technologies  through the relevant international regulatory bodies such as the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE).

We will ensure that the systems deployed will have an acceptable level of performance with UK road signs and markings. EDR data generally remains the property of the vehicle owner and will be subject to the same data protection rules that apply to all personal data. UN Regulation No.155 on cybersecurity is already mandated for all vehicle types and will ensure there is no unauthorised access or manipulation of sensitive logs.

Alcohol interlock interface facilitation (AIIF)

Question:

Do you agree or disagree with our proposal not to mandate AIIF technology at this time?

Provide further information to support your answer.

Of the 220 responses received, 55.5% agreed with the proposal. Table 4 summarises how respondents answered the question overall.

Table 4: responses to the question on not mandating AIIF at this time

Response	Percentage of responses
Agree	55.5%
Disagree	24.0%
Neither agree nor disagree	15.5%
Do not know	5.0%

Respondents expressed mixed views on the timing and value of introducing AIIF.

Agree

Those who agreed with not mandating AIIF at this stage often referred to proportionality and timing. Many saw AIIF as a lower priority than the wider package of vehicle safety technologies and said it should not delay implementation of those technologies. Some also noted that the safety benefits of AIIF would depend on a future alcohol interlock programme, so requiring the interface now was unnecessary.

Respondents also raised concerns about costs and implementation burdens, particularly as some felt AIIF would be unnecessary for most vehicles. Others referred to:

• technology readiness
• the current evidence base
• the need for further policy and legislative development before a mandate could be justified

Some suggested manufacturers could provide voluntary compatibility or technical information to support aftermarket installation if needed, while keeping AIIF under review.

Disagree 

Those who disagreed with the proposal saw AIIF as a crucial component that could support the future use of alcohol interlocks, particularly in rehabilitation or offender programmes.

Many argued that including AIIF now would streamline any future rollout, making it easier, quicker and less costly. Conversely, delaying it could complicate matters and increase retrofit costs later. Several respondents viewed this as a missed opportunity to prepare the vehicle fleet and maintain flexibility for future policy initiatives.

Some respondents linked AIIF to broader efforts to combat drink driving and reduce reoffending. They believed that introducing the interface would facilitate the future adoption of alcohol interlocks as part of comprehensive road safety measures, particularly for repeat offenders, professional drivers, or specific vehicle types. Others cited:

• evidence from other authorities
• public support for stronger action against drink driving
• the need to align more closely with EU requirements

Some argued that a standardised interface could reduce installation burdens and improve access if alcohol interlocks were used more widely in the future.

Conclusion

When taken together, the responses indicated that more respondents agreed than disagreed with the view that AIIF should not be mandated at this time. However, opinions were mixed: some regarded AIIF as a lower-priority measure that should not delay the broader package.

Others viewed it as an enabling technology that could support future policies on alcohol interlocks. Overall, the responses favoured not mandating AIIF for now, while keeping this issue under review as wider policy develops.

The government has considered the responses to its proposal not to mandate AIIF at this stage, taking into account the points raised regarding:

• proportionality
• future flexibility
• alignment with EU requirements.

As a result, the government will not mandate AIIF as part of this package of GB type approval changes. It believes it is proportionate to proceed with the broader package without delay, given that the benefits of the measure would depend on a more comprehensive policy framework for alcohol interlocks in GB.

The government also recognises the possibility of future use. It will keep AIIF under review as broader policies regarding alcohol interlocks develop, including:

• the evidence base
• implementation arrangements
• relevant technical standards

It is worth noting that many vehicles registered in this country are and will be fitted with AIIF because even if we do not require it, most manufacturers will wish to maintain commonality with vehicles sold in NI and the EU.

Mandating safety technologies only for mass-produced vehicles

Question:

Do you agree or disagree with mandating these technologies at this time solely for mass-produced vehicles under the GB type approval?

If you disagree, how would you like to change it?

Of the 215 responses received, 57.2% agreed with the proposal. Table 5 summarises how respondents answered the question overall.

Table 5: responses to the question on mandating vehicle safety technologies solely for mass-produced vehicles under GB type approval

Response	Percentage of responses
Agree	57.2%
Disagree	27.5%
Do not know	16.3%

A number of respondents provided comments explaining their answer.

Agree

Those who agreed with limiting the mandate to mass-produced vehicles often referred to proportionality and practicality as key reasons. Many respondents noted that mass-produced vehicles account for the majority of new registrations and are best placed to adopt the necessary technologies at scale.

A common view was that focusing the requirements on higher-volume vehicles would address the largest part of the market while avoiding excessive burdens on lower-volume manufacturers, converters and businesses using other approval routes.

Some respondents saw the proposed scope as a pragmatic starting point that would allow the broader package to be introduced without delay. There was also support for maintaining existing approval routes for lower-volume and specialist vehicles to preserve flexibility where needed.

Industry bodies raised concerns that applying the full requirements to low-volume manufacturers, multi-stage vehicles and specialist vehicles could create disproportionate technical and financial challenges. Some suggested that the position of other vehicle categories should be kept under review as implementation progresses.

Disagree

Those who disagreed said limiting the mandate to mass-produced vehicles was too narrow. Many argued that the requirements should apply more widely, including to:

• medium- and small-series vehicles
• individual approval routes
• all new vehicles used on public roads

They often referred to the need for consistent safety standards across the fleet and warned that exemptions could lead to uneven levels of protection.

A related concern was that exemptions for lower-volume routes should be clearly defined and subject to ongoing review. Some respondents warned that a broad exemption might create opportunities for non-compliance or weaken the policy’s overall effectiveness.

Others argued that vehicle type and associated risks should also be considered, rather than relying solely on the approval category. They called for a clear review point to assess whether the scope should be expanded over time.

Several respondents also raised concerns about how the proposed scope would affect multi-stage and specialist vehicles, including wheelchair-accessible vehicles and other conversions. They advocated ensuring that safety systems installed in a base vehicle remain operational and compliant after conversion, without imposing disproportionate burdens on body manufacturers or final-stage manufacturers.

A smaller number of respondents suggested that certain technologies should remain optional, be introduced gradually, or not be mandated at all.

Conclusion

Overall, the responses indicated more support than opposition for initially applying the mandate only to mass-produced vehicles under GB type approval. Support was often rooted in principles of proportionality and deliverability, while disagreement focused on concerns that the scope might be too narrow and on how exemptions should be structured. In general, there was agreement on the proposed starting point, with a strong emphasis on the need to review the scope and exemptions regularly.

The government notes the support for initially limiting the mandate to mass-produced vehicles under GB type approval, while recognising concerns about the scope of exemptions and the treatment of specialist and multi-stage vehicles. The government will proceed on this basis and keep the scope under review as implementation progresses.

These points will also be kept under consideration as part of future work to review and update other routes to approval and related requirements.

Technical requirements for vehicle safety technologies

Question:

Do you support or oppose the proposed technical requirements for each vehicle safety technology? Why?

Tables 6a to 6r summarise how people responded overall. They show that most technologies received strong support, with approval ratings ranging from 60% to 76%.

The highest levels of support were for TPMS, BSIS, RMA and DIV requirements. ISA and ELKS received the lowest levels of support and the highest levels of opposition.

Table 6a: responses – advanced distraction warning (ADW), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	68.6%
Oppose	19.7%
Neither support nor oppose	4.2%
Do not know	7.5%

Table 6b: responses – blind spot information system (BSIS), 212 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	75.5%
Oppose	12.2%
Neither support nor oppose	5.7%
Do not know	6.6%

Table 6c: responses – drowsiness and attention warning (DAW), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	70.3%
Oppose	17.0%
Neither support nor oppose	6.1%
Do not know	6.6%

Table 6d: responses – direct vision (DIV), 211 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	73.8%
Oppose	13.4%
Neither support nor oppose	5.2%
Do not know	8.1%

Table 6e: responses – emergency braking for cyclists (EBC), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	64.8%
Oppose	22.5%
Neither support nor oppose	6.1%
Do not know	6.6%

Table 6f: responses – emergency braking for pedestrians (EBP), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	66.7%
Oppose	21.6%
Neither support nor oppose	5.1%
Do not know	6.6%

Table 6g: responses – emergency braking for vehicles (EBV), 211 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	67.8%
Oppose	19.9%
Neither support nor oppose	4.7%
Do not know	7.6%

Table 6h: responses – event data recorder (EDR), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	64.8%
Oppose	19.7%
Neither support nor oppose	7.0%
Do not know	8.5%

Table 6i: responses – emergency lane keeping system (ELKS), 212 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	63.2%
Oppose	22.2%
Neither support nor oppose	7.5%
Do not know	7.1%

Table 6j: responses – emergency stop signal (ESS), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	69.5%
Oppose	16.9%
Neither support nor oppose	5.6%
Do not know	8.0%

Table 6k: responses – frontal full-width impact (FFWI), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	66.7%
Oppose	13.6%
Neither support nor oppose	10.8%
Do not know	8.9%

Table 6l: responses – frontal offset impact (FOI), 212 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	67.0%
Oppose	13.2%
Neither support nor oppose	10.8%
Do not know	9.0%

Table 6m: responses – intelligent speed assistance (ISA), 212 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	60.3%
Oppose	24.1%
Neither support nor oppose	7.1%
Do not know	8.5%

Table 6n: responses – moving off information system (MOIS), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	67.6%
Oppose	16.4%
Neither support nor oppose	7.5%
Do not know	8.5%

Table 6o: responses – pole side impact (PSI), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	67.1%
Oppose	13.2%
Neither support nor oppose	10.3%
Do not know	9.4%

Table 6p: responses – pedestrian windscreen impact (PWI), 211 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	71.1%
Oppose	12.8%
Neither support nor oppose	8.5%
Do not know	7.6%

Table 6q: responses – reversing motion awareness (RMA), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	72.8%
Oppose	13.6%
Neither support nor oppose	6.1%
Do not know	7.5%

Table 6r: responses – tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS), 213 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Support	74.2%
Oppose	11.7%
Neither support nor oppose	6.6%
Do not know	7.5%

Responses showed overall support for the proposed technical requirements for all vehicle safety technologies. Responses were higher for technologies that are:

• well established
• aligned with international standards
• clearly linked to safety benefits

Views were more mixed on some driver-assistance technologies, especially ISA and ELKS. Respondents also raised concerns about real-world performance, usability and suitability for GB road conditions.

Many respondents supported aligning the proposed technical requirements with established international standards, particularly those of UNECE and the EU.

They said that this alignment would:

• promote consistency
• reduce duplication
• lower compliance costs

Some believed that standardising requirements would provide greater certainty for the industry and help maintain a consistent technical baseline across GB, NI and other authorities.

Respondents raised concerns about how several technologies would perform in real-world conditions in GB, taking account of:

• road markings
• signage
• potholes
• narrow lanes
• weather
• sensor limitations

Many said false activations or intrusive warnings could undermine driver confidence and lead some drivers to switch systems off, especially ISA, where respondents questioned:

• the choice of system variants
• the balance between intervention and warning functions
• whether the proposed requirements should allow greater flexibility in achieving equivalent safety outcomes

Questions were also raised about how drivers interact with specific systems. Some respondents emphasised the importance of retaining driver control, particularly in situations where a system might behave unexpectedly or be unsuitable. Others argued that easy-override (switching off safety features) could weaken the intended safety benefits.

Related concerns included distractions, over-reliance on automated systems and the possibility that increased dependence on technology could reduce driver attention or impair core driving skills.

Some respondents felt the proposed requirements did not adequately cover all vulnerable road users, particularly motorcyclists, suggesting that the scope of the technical requirements should better reflect the variety of users encountered on public roads.

Respondents from the repair, insurance and related sectors stated that the requirements should consider the entire vehicle lifecycle, including:

• maintenance
• repair
• recalibration
• access to technical information

Many emphasised the importance of ensuring that systems continue to function correctly after approval and repair. They also noted that:

• access to tools, diagnostics and calibration procedures should not be restricted to franchised networks
• obtaining relevant data (including EDR information) is necessary for collision investigations and broader safety analyses

Others raised concerns about the cost of implementing the proposed technologies, particularly where costs might be passed on to consumers, passengers, or commercial operators and questioned whether the costs would be proportional to the expected benefits.

The government notes that most respondents supported the proposed technical requirements for vehicle safety technologies, while expressing more mixed views regarding some driver assistance systems.

Responses also highlighted concerns related to:

• real-world performance
• driver interaction
• testing coverage
• lifecycle maintenance

Existing regulations safeguard access to repair and maintenance information, and the government will ensure these requirements continue to evolve to reflect changing technologies. The government will also consider the broader views expressed as it finalises the policy and legislative approach, including how technologies will be specified and implemented to ensure effective functionality in practice.

Vehicles built in multiple stages

Question:

Do you agree or disagree with retaining existing provisions for vehicles built in multiple stages?

Provide reasons if you disagree.

Of the 210 responses received, 65.2% agreed with retaining the current requirements for vehicles built in multiple stages. Table 7 summarises how respondents answered the question overall.

Table 7: responses on retaining existing requirements for vehicles built in multiple stages

Response	Percentage of responses
Agree	65.2%
Disagree	10.5%
Do not know	24.3%

The responses highlighted the complexities involved in building vehicles in stages and opinions varied on whether the existing approach should continue. Those in favour of retaining the current requirements often cited:

• proportionality
• the specialised nature of multi-stage builds
• the importance of small and medium-sized manufacturers in this market

They expressed concerns that applying the full set of new requirements without adjustments could lead to high costs and administrative burdens, especially given the limited number of vehicles involved or the specific type of conversion.

Respondents who disagreed argued that safety requirements should be applied more consistently across all vehicle types, including multi-stage builds, since safety technologies can be installed or left unchanged. They argued that road users should receive a similar level of protection regardless of how a vehicle is manufactured or modified.

Another significant issue raised was the question of responsibility for compliance when a vehicle is built in stages. Respondents suggested that the roles of the base manufacturer, converter and final-stage approval holder should be more clearly defined, particularly when subsequent changes could affect the installation, setup, or functionality of safety systems.

Some also pointed out that later-stage modifications should not deactivate or diminish the effectiveness of systems installed in the base vehicle. A smaller number of respondents expressed concerns about consistency across approval processes, including small-series and individual-vehicle approvals, warning that similar vehicles could be treated differently.

The government notes the overall support for not exempting vehicles built in multiple stages from the proposed technologies. As set out in the consultation proposals, the government still expects multi-stage vehicles approved to the unlimited series to comply with the relevant technical requirements, where applicable.

Special purpose vehicles

Question:

Do you agree or disagree with retaining current technical requirements for special purpose vehicles (SPVs)?

If you disagree, why?

Of the 211 responses received, 72.5% agreed with the proposal. Table 8 summarises how respondents answered the question overall.

Table 8: responses on retaining current technical requirements for special purpose vehicles

Response	Percentage of responses
Agree	72.5%
Disagree	6.2%
Do not know	21.3%

Respondents who supported maintaining the current technical requirements for special purpose vehicles most frequently cited factors such as:

• proportionality
• practical challenges in implementing certain technologies
• the specialised nature of these vehicles

They noted that many special-purpose vehicles have custom designs, low production volumes, or unique operating requirements that can make it difficult, expensive, or impractical to fit some technologies without significant redesign.

Some respondents also advocated for continued flexibility for specialist and emergency-use vehicles, emphasising the need to avoid disproportionate costs and administrative burdens on smaller manufacturers. A smaller group suggested that the situation should be reviewed regularly as technologies evolve and become easier to integrate.

Some respondents disagreed, stating that safety requirements should be applied more consistently across all vehicle types. They contended that road users should not receive less protection simply because a vehicle is classified as a special-purpose vehicle.

Some also argued that vehicles built on mass-produced platforms should not enjoy the same exemptions as more specialised vehicles. There were calls for clearer regulations to prevent unintended exemptions, and to encourage a closer alignment with international standards and regular reviews, as vehicle types and technologies change.

The government notes the general support for retaining the current technical requirements for special purpose vehicles. As set out in the consultation document, the government does not intend to change any technical requirements that currently apply to special purpose vehicles.

Perceived effect of vehicle safety technologies on casualty reduction

Question:

If the safety technologies were mandated for GB type approval, what effect, if any, do you believe each technology would have on casualty reduction on GB roads?

Explain why?

Respondents were asked to assess the potential impact of various technologies on reducing casualties using a 5-point scale ranging from ‘very positive’ to ‘very negative’. Tables 9a to 9r summarise the results.

Overall, respondents viewed all the proposed technologies as likely to reduce casualties. Support was strongest for technologies that:

• improve visibility
• detect vulnerable road users
• support emergency braking
• alert drivers to distraction, drowsiness or hazards

Views were more mixed on technologies that intervene more directly in the driving task, such as ISA and ELKS. EDR received more neutral responses, with greater uncertainty about its likely effect on casualty reduction.

Table 9a: responses – advanced distraction warning (ADW), 209 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Very positive	44.0%
Positive	26.8%
Neither positive nor negative	10.5%
Negative	9.1%
Very negative	4.3%
Do not know	5.3%

Table 9b: responses – blind spot information system (BSIS), 208 responses received

Response	Percentage of responses
Very positive	51.0%
Positive	27.4%
Neither positive nor negative	7.2%
Negative	4.3%
Very negative	3.9%
Do not know	6.2%

Table 9c: responses – drowsiness and attention warning (DAW), 209 responses received

Response: drowsiness and attention warning (DAW)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	47.8%
Positive	23.0%
Neither positive nor negative	11.5%
Negative	7.6%
Very negative	4.9%
Do not know	5.2%

Table 9d: responses – direct vision (DIV), 208 responses received

Response: direct vision (DIV)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	51.0%
Positive	23.1%
Neither positive nor negative	9.1%
Negative	5.3%
Very negative	2.4%
Do not know	9.1%

Table 9e: responses – emergency braking for cyclists (EBC), 209 responses received

Response: emergency braking for cyclists (EBC)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	49.3%
Positive	19.1%
Neither positive nor negative	12.5%
Negative	7.2%
Very negative	6.2%
Do not know	5.7%

Table 9f: responses – emergency braking for pedestrians (EBP), 208 responses received

Response: emergency braking for pedestrians (EBP)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	50.0%
Positive	20.7%
Neither positive nor negative	9.6%
Negative	7.7%
Very negative	6.2%
Do not know	5.8%

Table 9g: responses – emergency braking for vehicles (EBV), 209 responses received

Response: emergency braking for vehicles (EBV)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	49.8%
Positive	22.0%
Neither positive nor negative	8.1%
Negative	7.7%
Very negative	6.7%
Do not know	5.7%

Table 9h: responses – event data recorder (EDR), 209 responses received

Response: event data recorder (EDR)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	38.3%
Positive	20.6%
Neither positive nor negative	18.2%
Negative	5.7%
Very negative	6.7%
Do not know	10.5%

Table 9i: responses – emergency lane keeping system (ELKS), 209 responses received

Response: emergency lane keeping system (ELKS)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	36.3%
Positive	25.4%
Neither positive nor negative	11.0%
Negative	11.0%
Very negative	9.1%
Do not know	7.2%

Table 9j: responses – emergency stop signal (ESS), 209 responses received

Response: emergency stop signal (ESS)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	45.7%
Positive	27.9%
Neither positive nor negative	7.2%
Negative	7.7%
Very negative	4.8%
Do not know	6.7%

Table 9k: responses – frontal full-width impact (FFWI), 208 responses received

Response: frontal full-width impact (FFWI)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	45.6%
Positive	25.0%
Neither positive nor negative	11.1%
Negative	4.3%
Very negative	2.9%
Do not know	11.1%

Table 9l: responses – frontal offset impact (FOI), 209 responses received

Response: frontal offset impact (FOI)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	44.0%
Positive	27.6%
Neither positive nor negative	10.1%
Negative	4.3%
Very negative	2.9%
Do not know	11.1%

Table 9m: responses – intelligent speed assistance (ISA), 209 responses received

Response: intelligent speed assistance (ISA)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	43.4%
Positive	19.6%
Neither positive nor negative	10.1%
Negative	10.1%
Very negative	10.1%
Do not know	6.7%

Table 9n: responses – moving off information system (MOIS), 208 responses received

Response: moving off information system (MOIS)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	40.9%
Positive	28.9%
Neither positive nor negative	11.1%
Negative	6.7%
Very negative	3.8%
Do not know	8.6%

Table 9o: responses – pole side impact (PSI), 208 responses received

Response: pole side impact (PSI)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	40.4%
Positive	30.7%
Neither positive nor negative	10.6%
Negative	4.3%
Very negative	3.4%
Do not know	10.6%

Table 9p: responses – pedestrian windscreen impact (PWI), 208 responses received

Response: pedestrian windscreen impact (PWI)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	46.6%
Positive	27.4%
Neither positive nor negative	10.1%
Negative	4.3%
Very negative	2.9%
Do not know	8.7%

Table 9q: responses – reversing motion awareness (RMA), 209 responses received

Response: reversing motion awareness (RMA)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	44.0%
Positive	32.6%
Neither positive nor negative	6.2%
Negative	5.7%
Very negative	3.8%
Do not know	7.7%

Table 9r: responses – tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS), 209 responses received

Response: tyre pressure monitoring system (TPMS)	Percentage of responses
Very positive	41.6%
Positive	31.1%
Neither positive nor negative	11.0%
Negative	4.3%
Very negative	3.8%
Do not know	8.2%

Respondents were invited to explain their answers and their comments largely reflected the patterns observed in the quantitative responses.

Many respondents expressed positive views regarding the technologies, highlighting their potential to:

• prevent collisions
• reduce injury severity
• enhance protection for vulnerable road users

This positive sentiment was particularly evident for technologies such as BSIS, DIV, EBP, EBC and EBV and RMA. ADW and DAW were also seen by some respondents as tools to improve driver awareness and promote safer behaviours. EDRs were more frequently viewed as having indirect value, especially for post-collision analysis and evidence gathering.

Some respondents questioned whether these benefits would be realised in practice, especially for technologies that directly intervene in the driving task, such as ISA and ELKS. Concerns were raised about potential issues like:

• inaccurate detection
• unnecessary interventions
• warnings that could erode driver trust, cause distraction, or lead drivers to ignore or deactivate these systems

Some respondents noted that casualty reduction would hinge on drivers’ understanding how the technologies function, as well as on the systems being maintained, calibrated and repaired throughout the vehicle’s lifespan. They emphasised the need for education and ongoing maintenance.

A smaller number of respondents also questioned whether current requirements and testing methods sufficiently protect all vulnerable road users, particularly motorcyclists and suggested that the real-world effects of these technologies should continue to be monitored.

The government notes that respondents generally viewed all the proposed technologies as likely to reduce casualties but expressed more mixed feelings about certain systems that directly intervene in the driving task. The government will consider these perspectives as it finalises its policy and legislative approach, ensuring that the technologies are specified and implemented effectively in practice.

Other regulations

Question:

What, if any, other domestic regulations, beyond those already specified, do you believe will require amendment to align with these proposals?

Respondents identified several domestic regulations and related issues that may need review or updating to align with the proposals. The main themes were:

• vehicle regulations
• roadworthiness
• driver understanding
• repair and maintenance
• legal, insurance and data issues

Some respondents said that specific vehicle regulations should be reviewed, particularly the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989. They described these regulations as outdated and raised issues such as:

• glare
• spray suppression
• positioning of lighting components

Many also said the MOT and other roadworthiness checks may need updating so mandated safety systems continue to work properly in use. A common point was that type approval only confirms compliance when a vehicle enters the market and that systems could later fail or be disabled without adequate in-use checks.

Some respondents argued that driver training, testing standards and the Highway Code should be updated to ensure that drivers understand how advanced driver-assistance systems work, when they operate and their limitations. They contended that these technologies are less likely to deliver the expected benefits if drivers do not understand them or choose to disable them.

Some respondents also noted that public information and guidance may require updates and that clearer, more consistent terminology for safety features could help drivers compare and understand them. A smaller group raised concerns about visibility issues, including spray from large vehicles in wet conditions.

Respondents also called for independent repairers to have fair access to the technical information, software, diagnostics and calibration procedures necessary to maintain and repair mandated safety systems. They argued that without this access, repairs could become:

• more costly
• increasingly reliant on manufacturer-approved repair networks
• less likely to be performed correctly

This lack of access could potentially diminish the effectiveness of these technologies over time.

Some respondents highlighted the need for clarification in the legal and insurance framework to reflect the growing role of advanced driver assistance systems in preventing or contributing to collisions. They raised questions about:

• legal responsibility when these systems are active
• how data from these systems, as well as EDR information, should be used in insurance claims, legal proceedings and post-collision investigations

Respondents suggested that a clearer legal framework for EDR data may be needed to address issues such as:

• access
• ownership
• retention
• use
• privacy

The government recognises that respondents raised a range of wider regulatory and related concerns. These included:

• roadworthiness in use
• driver understanding
• repair and maintenance
• insurance and liability
• data and privacy
• wider vehicle regulations

Existing regulations safeguard access to repair and maintenance information. The government will ensure these requirements continue to evolve to reflect changing technologies. We will ensure that the systems deployed will have an acceptable level of performance with UK road signs and markings.

EDR data generally remains the property of the vehicle owner and will be subject to the same data protection rules that apply to all personal data. UN Regulation No. 155 on cybersecurity is already mandated for all vehicle types and will ensure there is no unauthorised access or manipulation of sensitive logs.

The government will consider the views expressed in finalising the legislative approach, including whether any wider regulations or guidance need reviewing.

Implementation timings

Question:

Do you agree or disagree with the proposed timings for implementing these safety technologies?

If you disagree, what alternative timing would you like to propose for new vehicle types and new vehicle registration after amendments take effect?

Of the 211 responses received, 58.7% agreed with the proposal. Table 10 summarises how respondents answered the question overall.

Table 10: responses to proposed implementation timings for the safety technologies

Response	Percentage of responses
Agree	58.7%
Disagree	26.1%
Do not know	15.2%

Respondents expressed mixed views on the proposed timings. Many supported the phased approach for new vehicle types and new registrations, stating it struck a reasonable balance between enhancing safety and allowing sufficient preparation time. They noted that many vehicles sold in GB already align with EU and NI requirements, making the proposed timings manageable.

Some respondents preferred different timings. A few suggested that implementation should be expedited to realise safety benefits sooner, particularly since the technologies are already available or required in other markets.

Others, particularly vehicle manufacturers and trade bodies, felt that the proposed timings were too short, especially for:

• more complex technologies
• vehicles built in multiple stages
• manufacturers needing additional time for design, testing and certification

They argued that longer timelines were necessary for compliance with both new vehicle types and registrations. 

A common theme among respondents was that implementation should not commence until clear legal and technical requirements are in place, including finalised legal texts and all necessary compliance information.

Some expressed concerns about technology readiness – the reliability of certain technologies. Others cited concerns such as:

• unnecessary interventions
• potential distractions
• costs

A small minority opposed mandatory implementation outright, arguing that decisions about which technologies to adopt should be left to consumers or end users.

The government notes that respondents expressed a range of opinions regarding the proposed timelines. Some individuals supported the phased approach, while others requested earlier implementation or more time to prepare.

After reviewing the feedback, the government plans to adjust some of the implementation dates. This decision recognises:

• the need for manufacturers to have additional time
• the increased complexity associated with completed vehicles and multi-stage builds.

That said, it should be recognised that large quantities of vehicles already comply ahead of these deadlines, so the delay will have limited impact upon safety benefits. The updated implementation periods are detailed in next steps. 

End-of-series derogation: sale of remaining non-compliant vehicle stock

Question:

Should, in your view, manufacturers be allowed to sell their remaining stocks of non-compliant vehicles for a specified period after introduction of these proposals?

If not, why?

Of the 215 responses received, 73% agreed with the proposal. Table 11 summarises how respondents answered the question overall.

Table 11: responses on allowing the sale of remaining non-compliant vehicle stock after implementation

Response	Percentage of responses
Agree	73.0%
Disagree	13.5%
Do not know	13.5%

Responses indicated strong support for a limited end-of-series derogation, although views varied on its necessity and the safeguards that should be applied.

Those who supported such an arrangement generally mentioned proportionality, cost and practical delivery. Many suggested manufacturers and dealers could hold onto vehicles that had already been built or ordered, or were in transit, before the new requirements took effect.

They argued that a limited sell-through period would help avoid unnecessary commercial losses and mitigate broader impacts on jobs, supply chains and vehicle prices. This point was particularly emphasised for lower-volume manufacturers and for vehicles that are built in multiple stages, where compliant base vehicles might not be available immediately.

Many respondents also said that any arrangement should be:

• tightly controlled
• time-limited
• designed not to undermine the policy’s safety objectives

Suggested safeguards included:

• restricting eligibility to vehicles already built or ordered
• limiting the duration and volume of the derogation

Those who disagreed referred to road safety, consistency and the purpose of the new requirements. Many argued that permitting further sales of non-compliant vehicles after implementation would delay the safety benefits of the new technologies and weaken the new baseline.

Some also said manufacturers would have sufficient notice to manage production and stock without a further derogation. Others were concerned that any exemption could:

• create loopholes
• encourage overproduction before the deadline
• reduce clarity about when the new requirements apply

Some respondents suggested that, where feasible, retrofitting the relevant technology, or activating systems already fitted, would be preferable to allowing further sales of non-compliant vehicles. A smaller number said that, if any transitional arrangement were introduced, it should be narrowly defined and subject to clear accountability.

The government notes that most respondents supported a limited end-of-series derogation, while others raised concerns about road safety, consistency and the risk of creating loopholes. The responses also highlighted the importance of clear safeguards, including limits on duration, scope and transparency for buyers.

The government will consider these views in finalising the policy approach, including whether any end-of-series derogation is to be granted and, if so, what conditions should apply, noting that any derogation would need to comply with the framework set by Article 49 of assimilated regulation 2018/858.

Call for evidence: retain and maintain safety technologies

The consultation asked for views on whether vehicle safety technologies should continue to be retained and maintained in a functional condition after type approval and registration, so that they continue to meet safety and performance standards throughout a vehicle’s life.

Question:

After implementation if evidence showed that these vehicle safety technologies are not consistently maintained, should we make it mandatory for operators to maintain these technologies? Why?

Of the 213 responses received, 51.7% agreed with the proposal. Table 12 summarises how respondents answered the question overall.

Table 12: Summary of responses on retaining and maintaining safety technologies after implementation

Response	Percentage
Yes	51.7%
It should be implemented immediately, regardless of future evidence	17.8%
No	19.7%
Do not know	10.8%

Responses showed broad support for ensuring that mandated safety technologies continue to function properly in use, although views differed on when any requirement should apply.

Many respondents favoured an evidence-led approach, under which further action would be considered only if poor maintenance or deliberate removal were shown to reduce the safety benefits of the technologies. Others argued that retention and maintenance should be required from the outset.

Many respondents also identified the MOT as the most suitable mechanism for verifying that systems are still functioning correctly, suggesting that any future approach should build on existing compliance processes rather than create a separate enforcement system.

Responses also highlighted the importance of clear responsibility for compliance, particularly in leasing, fleet and multi-party maintenance arrangements. Some respondents said manufacturers should retain an ongoing role in helping systems continue to function properly. Many also emphasised that the safety benefits of mandated technologies would depend on effective maintenance, calibration and repair throughout a vehicle’s life.

A further theme was practical delivery. Respondents raised concerns about repair costs, especially where specialist calibration, software support or manufacturer-controlled parts are involved.

Many said successful implementation would depend on:

• clear repair and testing standards
• sufficient technical skills in the repair sector
• fair access to tools, data and technical information – including for independent garages

Some also argued for flexibility in the use of suitable aftermarket parts where these provide equivalent function. A small number highlighted the need to consider impacts on disabled drivers and the importance of testing technologies across a broader range of users and situations.

The government notes that many respondents supported an evidence-led approach to any future requirement to retain and maintain mandated safety technologies, while others argued for action from the outset.

Responses also highlighted practical issues relating to:

• enforcement
• responsibility for compliance
• repair-sector readiness
• access to technical information
• impact on different users

The government will continue to monitor how these technologies perform in use and will consider whether further action is needed in light of the evidence, noting that any expansion of the annual MOT test and the annual roadworthiness test for heavier vehicles would lead to additional cost for the vehicle user.

Other considerations

Question:

What, if any, other further measures exist that you wish to highlight regarding these proposals?

Respondents used this section to raise additional points not covered elsewhere in the consultation. However, many of the themes raised had already appeared in earlier responses, particularly regarding:

• implementation
• maintenance
• driver understanding
• wider regulatory issues

A clear theme in responses was that the effectiveness of mandated safety technologies would depend on both the systems themselves and how well drivers understand and use them in practice.

Many respondents said that clearer public information, better driver guidance and changes to training and testing would be needed to reduce confusion about how systems work and their limits. Some also suggested that more consistent terminology and interface design across manufacturers would support better understanding.

Others argued that driver behaviour should remain a central focus of road safety policy and warned that a poor understanding of, or misplaced trust, in advanced driver-assistance systems, could encourage over-reliance and weaken core driving skills.

Another strong theme was implementation and the need to ensure that mandated systems remain effective in use. Respondents said this would depend on vehicles being maintained, repaired and calibrated throughout their life, including by independent repairers with access to manufacturer data, diagnostic tools, software updates, parts and training.

Some also said system performance should be checked through statutory testing, including the MOT and that post-implementation monitoring would be needed to:

• assess the real-world effects of the technologies
• identify any unintended consequences

Several responses also referred to wider implementation issues, including:

• system reliability under real-world conditions
• roadworthiness
• alignment with existing regulations

Responses also highlighted wider legal, regulatory and design issues. These included questions about:

• legal liability where a system fails or contributes to a collision
• the circumstances in which drivers should be able to override or turn off assistance systems
• how data from systems such as the event data recorder (EDR) should be managed and accessed for safety research

Some respondents also argued that the proposed advisory-only intelligent speed assistance (ISA) system should go further and that safety systems should be designed more consistently across manufacturers.

Several respondents also used this question to raise broader vehicle safety concerns, including:

• poor visibility caused by spray from larger vehicles on wet roads
• distraction from in-vehicle touchscreens
• glare from modern headlights
• vehicle size
• visibility and gaps in the protection offered to motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users

Taken together, these responses showed that some stakeholders viewed the proposals as part of a broader vehicle safety agenda, encompassing issues beyond the consultation’s immediate scope.

The government notes the additional issues raised by respondents, many of which reflected themes raised elsewhere in the consultation. These themes included:

• driver understanding
• maintenance
• implementation
• wider regulatory issues
• broader vehicle safety concerns

The government will consider these views alongside the wider consultation evidence in finalising the policy and legislative approach, including where issues raised fall beyond the immediate scope of this consultation but may be relevant to future work on road safety and vehicle standards.

Other comments

Question:

Do you have any other comments?

Many of the themes raised had already appeared in earlier responses, particularly on:

• implementation
• maintenance
• driver understanding
• regulatory alignment
• the wider road safety context

A clear theme in responses was that vehicle safety technologies should be considered as part of a wider safe system approach rather than as a standalone solution. Many respondents said the benefits of the technologies would depend on action in other areas, including:

• driver training and testing
• road infrastructure and maintenance
• traffic law enforcement
• driver understanding of how the systems work

Some also warned that poorly understood systems could be switched off, misused or relied on too heavily, affecting driver behaviour and reducing the expected safety benefits.

Another strong theme was the need to ensure that systems remain effective throughout a vehicle’s life. Respondents said this would depend on appropriate maintenance, repair and calibration arrangements, supported by access to technical data, tools, software updates, parts and training, including for the independent repair sector.

Some also said that system performance should be checked in use through statutory testing, including the MOT. Others highlighted the importance of alignment with EU and international standards to:

• reduce administrative costs and complexity
• avoid market fragmentation
• support continued model availability in GB

Responses also highlighted regulatory, market and implementation issues. These included the need for clear and proportionate rules on data, privacy and cybersecurity, particularly for vehicle-generated data and over-the-air software updates and for clarity on how changes to system performance after approval would be managed.

Some respondents also raised concerns about proportionality, cost and impacts on different parts of the market, including lower-volume, specialist and multi-stage manufacturers and called for flexibilities, exemptions and transition periods. Others said the framework should allow approved aftermarket and multi-stage solutions where these provide the required safety performance.

Fewer respondents raised broader user and design issues. These included the:

• needs of neurodivergent drivers
• potential future role of AIIF
• question of whether detection-based technologies adequately protect motorcyclists and other vulnerable road users

Taken together, these comments showed broader interest in how vehicle safety technologies interact with different users and operating contexts.

The government notes the broader issues raised by respondents, many of which reflected themes raised elsewhere in the consultation. These themes included:

• implementation
• maintenance
• driver understanding
• regulatory alignment
• wider road safety measures

The government will consider these views alongside the wider consultation evidence in finalising the policy and legislative approach, including:

• the needs of different parts of the market
• the importance of systems continuing to work effectively throughout a vehicle’s life

Government response

The government has considered the consultation responses and supporting evidence. Overall, respondents expressed broad support for mandating vehicle safety technologies through the GB type approval framework, particularly where the technologies were seen as established and likely to improve road safety.

The government intends to proceed with the package of 18 proven vehicle safety technologies for mass-produced vehicles under GB type approval. The government notes views on issues relating to:

• real-world performance
• usability and driver interaction for some safety systems, particularly ISA and ELKS

The government will take these points into account in finalising the policy and legislative approach.

The initial scope of the mandate will remain focused on mass-produced vehicles under GB type approval. This reflects support for a proportionate starting point that captures the largest part of the market, where many vehicles already comply, while avoiding disproportionate impacts on lower-volume manufacturers, converters and businesses using other approval routes.

The government will not mandate AIIF technology as part of this package. Responses showed more support than opposition for not mandating AIIF at this stage and many respondents considered that it would be disproportionate to proceed ahead of a wider policy framework for alcohol interlocks in GB. The government will keep this issue under review in light of future evidence, wider policy development and relevant technical standards.

The government intends to proceed broadly on the basis of the proposed technical requirements. As proposed, we intend not to require the 18 technologies on special purpose vehicles, but they will be required on other multi-stage vehicles approved to the unlimited series only.

Responses supported alignment with established international standards, while also highlighting concerns about:

• real-world performance
• driver interaction
• responsibility at different stages of vehicle build
• the need to ensure that systems continue to function properly after conversion

These points will be considered in finalising the detailed requirements and implementation approach.

The government has considered the responses on implementation timings and intends to revise some of the dates to allow more time for compliance for vehicles built in more than 1 stage, which will also apply to DIV and EDR for which later implementation timings were already proposed.

It will also consider whether a limited end-of-series derogation should be made available, in line with Article 49 of assimilated regulation 2018/858 and, if so, what safeguards should apply. The revised timings are set out in next steps.

On retaining and maintaining safety technologies after type approval and registration, many respondents supported an evidence-led approach, while others argued for action from the outset. Responses also highlighted practical issues relating to:

• enforcement
• responsibility for compliance
• repair-sector readiness
• access to technical information supplied by the vehicle manufacturer
• MOT and roadworthiness requirements
• driver understanding
• repair and calibration
• data and privacy and wider regulation

The government will continue to monitor how these technologies perform in use and will consider whether further action or wider policy work is needed.

Next steps

The government will proceed with the package of vehicle safety technologies set out in the consultation, with revised implementation dates to allow more time for compliance. This reflects the responses from manufacturers, trade bodies and other stakeholders, particularly on the practical challenges of delivery for some vehicle categories and technologies.

For new GB vehicle types, the requirements for complete and completed vehicles will apply 12 months after the legislation enters into force (EiF).

For new GB registrations of complete vehicles, the requirements will apply 24 months after entry into force for all technologies except DIV and EDR and 36 months after entry into force for DIV and EDR.

For new GB registrations of completed vehicles, the requirements will apply 36 months after entry into force for all technologies except DIV and EDR and 48 months after entry into force for DIV and EDR. Table 13 summarises the revised timings.

Table 13: revised implementation timings after the proposed legislation enters into force

Vehicle category	Proposed application period	Revised application period
New GB vehicle types (complete and completed vehicles) for all technologies	EiF + 6 months	EiF + 12 months
New GB registrations (complete vehicles) for all technologies except DIV and EDR	EiF + 24 months	EiF + 24 months
New GB registrations (complete vehicles) for DIV and EDR	EiF + 36 months	EiF + 36 months
New GB registrations (completed vehicles) for all technologies except DIV and EDR	EiF + 24 months	EiF + 36 months
New GB registrations (completed vehicles) for DIV and EDR	EiF + 24 months	EiF + 48 months