Fatal bus crash sparks calls for tougher laws on driving PCVs

[KendalKing]

Lets not forget the unions have sold out drivers.If the effort that they put in with the Labour muppets was the same for drivers we would be a happy lot. They have more voice when its political.I have had arguments with our Union leaders over their behaviour.

Totally agree about the unions.

If bus drivers complained about something, the unions would say don't be so soft!
If train drivers complained about the same thing, the unions would bring them out on strike!

It about time that the unions STOP sucking up to politicians, and started sticking-up for their members.

 

[richw]

FWIW, I'm not even convinced that planned overtime[1] and rest-day working should be permitted on work of that nature (or traincrew work, for that matter). You simply do not want tired people behind the wheel. There are enough of those in cars.

I’ve now got 5 consecutive rest days, I won’t be tired after 1 or 2 of them. Next week I only have 4 duties. There is no safety reason for me not to work a couple of those rest days.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve now got 5 consecutive rest days, I won’t be tired after 1 or 2 of them. Next week I only have 4 duties. There is no safety reason for me not to work a couple of those rest days.

Is that the norm? I thought it was more usual to have 2 or 3 in a row.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Is that the norm? I thought it was more usual to have 2 or 3 in a row.

no, it's quite common on 4 day rota's to have 5 day "long weekends" usually Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon, Tue. If Sundays are rota'd some companies give a 6 day weekend {Thu-Tue}

 

[Robertj21a]

no, it's quite common on 4 day rota's to have 5 day "long weekends" usually Fri, Sat, Sun, Mon, Tue. If Sundays are rota'd some companies give a 6 day weekend {Thu-Tue}

Whatever system exists, whether it allows 5-6 days off or not, revised regulations need to reduce instances of tiredness, undue pressure, too-short breaks and the ability for staff to work more than, say, 7 days without a minimum of a full clear day off.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whatever system exists, whether it allows 5-6 days off or not, revised regulations need to reduce instances of tiredness, undue pressure, too-short breaks and the ability for staff to work more than, say, 7 days without a minimum of a full clear day off.

With that level of responsibility a minimum of 2 consecutive days off out of 7, as is conventional for office work, is about right to me.

Really, there's no excuse to be treating bus drivers worse in terms of hours than desk jockeys (i.e. 7.5 hours with an hour's lunch break 5 days out of 7 and occasional overtime when the proverbial hits the fan). If I fall asleep at my desk, some non-time-critical work doesn't get done and I get disciplined (not that it's ever actually happened). If a bus driver does, people die.

 

[RT4038]

I think you will find that the usual journalistic licence applies in the reporting on this case, and I would use a similar pinch of salt to that used with rail related newspaper articles often quoted in the forum. (possibly the 70 hrs per week refers to 'out of the house' rather than 'work' as defined in the working time directive, which I think is much closer to a 'normal' sort of working week). I understand that Drivers Hours rules were not broken or anywhere close, so the hysteria in earlier posts is a little misplaced.
The real issue is how to deal (or not in this case) with deteriorating capability with age (in this profession or any other). Not many companies (bus or otherwise) are really set up to objectively deal with this problem, and this case serves as a wake up call. Arbitrary bans based on age rather than capability are not fair, esp. in this age of age discrimination rules.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I think you will find that the usual journalistic licence applies in the reporting on this case, and I would use a similar pinch of salt to that used with rail related newspaper articles often quoted in the forum. (possibly the 70 hrs per week refers to 'out of the house' rather than 'work' as defined in the working time directive, which I think is much closer to a 'normal' sort of working week).

Sorry but you're wrong. As a bus driver I am speaking from experience... as are many others here... bus driving is now so poorly paid that many drivers have to work their rest day just to make ends meet... now even accounting for a 4 day week with an average paid shift of 10 hrs in those 4 days you have already worked a full week... and in many cases the companies don't pay breaks anymore, so you can add an hr each day on top.. we're now up to 44 hrs... now work 1 rest day... that's 55 hrs add a 2nd and now we're up to 66 hrs... and that's not including any time commuting to/ from work {usually driving!} There are many drivers who work to the legal maximum of 13 out of 14 days just to have a half decent standard of living.. meaning they are "on duty" for up to 143 hrs a fortnight {or average 72.5 hrs/week} it soon mounts up!

I understand that Drivers Hours rules were not broken or anywhere close, so the hysteria in earlier posts is a little misplaced.

so the Drivers Hours rules weren't broken... that's ok then is it? just because a rule isn't broken does not make it fit for purpose... Bus drivers have to do a very stressful job, dealing with the traffic, the tight schedules, stroppy passengers etc.. all for what amounts to a pitiful wage for their efforts.... is it really acceptable for it to be perfectly legal for their employers to be able to literally work them to exhaustion as well?

 

[philthetube]

I understand that Drivers Hours rules were not broken or anywhere close, so the hysteria in earlier posts is a little misplaced.

I have not seen any suggestions that drivers hours were broken, just loads of suggestions that drivers hours are much to lax,

 

[richw]

Is that the norm? I thought it was more usual to have 2 or 3 in a row.

On our rosters it happens about every 5-6 weeks

 

[Robertj21a]

I think you will find that the usual journalistic licence applies in the reporting on this case, and I would use a similar pinch of salt to that used with rail related newspaper articles often quoted in the forum. (possibly the 70 hrs per week refers to 'out of the house' rather than 'work' as defined in the working time directive, which I think is much closer to a 'normal' sort of working week). I understand that Drivers Hours rules were not broken or anywhere close, so the hysteria in earlier posts is a little misplaced.
The real issue is how to deal (or not in this case) with deteriorating capability with age (in this profession or any other). Not many companies (bus or otherwise) are really set up to objectively deal with this problem, and this case serves as a wake up call. Arbitrary bans based on age rather than capability are not fair, esp. in this age of age discrimination rules.

Can't really agree with you on that one. The age is certainly, to me, a worry - but it's in danger of masking a more important issue. Anyone working 70 hours over 7 days must be a concern when most of that time is spent driving a bus. The fact that it was a double decker, in a busy city street, also mustn't be allowed to fudge the issue. That the operator was well aware of poor driving being recorded, for some time, also needs careful attention (as I know will be the case).

 

[RT4038]

Sorry but you're wrong. As a bus driver I am speaking from experience... as are many others here... bus driving is now so poorly paid that many drivers have to work their rest day just to make ends meet... now even accounting for a 4 day week with an average paid shift of 10 hrs in those 4 days you have already worked a full week... and in many cases the companies don't pay breaks anymore, so you can add an hr each day on top.. we're now up to 44 hrs... now work 1 rest day... that's 55 hrs add a 2nd and now we're up to 66 hrs... and that's not including any time commuting to/ from work {usually driving!} There are many drivers who work to the legal maximum of 13 out of 14 days just to have a half decent standard of living.. meaning they are "on duty" for up to 143 hrs a fortnight {or average 72.5 hrs/week} it soon mounts up!



so the Drivers Hours rules weren't broken... that's ok then is it? just because a rule isn't broken does not make it fit for purpose... Bus drivers have to do a very stressful job, dealing with the traffic, the tight schedules, stroppy passengers etc.. all for what amounts to a pitiful wage for their efforts.... is it really acceptable for it to be perfectly legal for their employers to be able to literally work them to exhaustion as well?

I never made comment about the Drivers Hours Rules - your opinion is as valid as anyone else's - and tiredness thresholds will depend on individuals and lifestyle.

 

[RT4038]

Can't really agree with you on that one. The age is certainly, to me, a worry - but it's in danger of masking a more important issue. Anyone working 70 hours over 7 days must be a concern when most of that time is spent driving a bus. The fact that it was a double decker, in a busy city street, also mustn't be allowed to fudge the issue. That the operator was well aware of poor driving being recorded, for some time, also needs careful attention (as I know will be the case).

Quite. Particularly with the abolition of compulsory retirement age, employers need to put into place objective means of assessing capability (particularly with drivers, but applies to any job). I suspect that this case will serve as a wake up call.

 

[Robertj21a]

Quite. Particularly with the abolition of compulsory retirement age, employers need to put into place objective means of assessing capability (particularly with drivers, but applies to any job). I suspect that this case will serve as a wake up call.

It seems that a number of measures were put in place, but not acted upon in due time. I'm expecting driver shortages played a key role (but no excuse).

 

[Busaholic]

The real issue is how to deal (or not in this case) with deteriorating capability with age (in this profession or any other). Not many companies (bus or otherwise) are really set up to objectively deal with this problem, and this case serves as a wake up call. Arbitrary bans based on age rather than capability are not fair, esp. in this age of age discrimination rules.

While I agree wholeheartedly with the first part, I can't agree with you on your last sentence. Bans based on age may be considered unfair e.g. now I'm past 70 I shall never be able to serve on a jury, which I regret, but I don't dispute the reasoning behind it. The airline pilot who managed to land his plane on the Hudson River in N.Y. was only a year or eighteen months away from compulsory retirement, which might be considered rough treatment in his case, but you have to take the rough with the smooth. I love cricket, but every summer cases arise where (sometimes great) players have played on too long and their reactions/ eyesight in the case of batsmen, or speed in the case of fast bowlers, have been found out. The retirement often comes not far into the season to save everyone embarrassment. Their shortcomings don't have any repercussions on the general public, but waiting for a bus driver to start exhibiting signs of impairment, physical or mental, before preventing them from driving is madness, possibly lethal madness at that. Bus drivers these days don't just climb into a cab and set off, knowing they have a conductor to deal with passengers, fares, queries, unpleasantness, timekeeping, etc. There has to be a cutoff - I suggest 75 absolute maximum. If I'm being illiberal, I'd agree: there's no room for liberality here. The parents of the 7 year old boy killed in the front seat upstairs just enjoying the ride, as many of us remember doing and, perhaps, still do, have been gracious in their expressing the wish that lessons be learned so that the mistakes that led to this tragedy aren't repeated. As the younger brother of a beloved boy of much the same age who also died in stupidly unnecessary circumstances, decades ago now but it never leaves you, I would endorse that.

 

[edwin_m]

There are also cases of dementia or other impairment at a younger age, such as the Glasgow dustcart driver. So it needs to be a regime of monitoring for everyone, not just an assumption that they are OK until a cutoff date and can't drive the day after.