CIRAS to be extended to London Buses

[snoggle]

Surprised this one hasn't been picked up. The Confidential Reporting system for safety concerns by staff (CIRAS) is to be extended to London Buses from early 2016. CIRAS is commonplace in the rail industry and provides an alternative reporting channel for staff who might be worried about losing their jobs if they express safety concerns.

www.mayorwatch.co.uk/campaigners-claim-victory-as-confidential-whistleblowing-scheme-is-expanded-to-londons-bus-network/

It will be interesting to see quite what emerges once this reporting facility is in place. There has been a lot of political grumbling and questioning that the pressures of the performance regime and avoiding penalties is causing bus companies to pressurise drivers to drive too quickly and that bus schedules are founded on unrealistic timings. In short there is not a coherence between schedules, actual performance and statements around safety - that's what's being argued. I've no idea one way or the other so PLEASE NOTE I AM NOT MAKING ALLEGATIONS - just in case someone decides to "have a go" at what I've written.

[6HP502C]

I've driven for several operators and never felt pressured to drive quickly, even when schedules are inadequate. If anything, safe driving is emphasised, with common use of telematics systems, incentives for good performers and development for poor performers.

How fast an individual chooses to drive is entirely down to their own mindset. With relaxed schedules, I'd sooner drive properly and sit at bus stops than creating a hazard and annoyance by scratching. Many drivers think this way and it will never change.

What is more pressing is the mechanical condition the buses run in. London United and Metroline have a culture whereby defects are reported and taken seriously. Certain operators who shall remain nameless don't. Drivers hand over unservicable heaps of crap without having declared any of the blatant faults. Common phrased to be heard are "Drive the f****** bus" and being told to drive defective buses until they stop moving if reporting to a controller! Reporting a defect wodthy of a PG9 is unlikely to result in being told to stop the bus. Drivers fear upsetting those above them by reporting defects and losing mileage is perceived to be a cardinal sin.

So what will CIRAS actually do?

[daveb0789]

It's works on the railway as a way to Whistle blow anonymously unsafe practices and the company concerned respond in writing - at least they do on the railway. Whether bus companies will is another matter. Maybe unrealistic scheduling could be one of those reports.

As for driving too quickly I would have thought green road (and similar systems) put paid to speeding.

[snoggle]

Jul 21, 2015 16:47:57 GMT 6HP502C said:

I've driven for several operators and never felt pressured to drive quickly, even when schedules are inadequate. If anything, safe driving is emphasised, with common use of telematics systems, incentives for good performers and development for poor performers.

How fast an individual chooses to drive is entirely down to their own mindset. With relaxed schedules, I'd sooner drive properly and sit at bus stops than creating a hazard and annoyance by scratching. Many drivers think this way and it will never change.

What is more pressing is the mechanical condition the buses run in. London United and Metroline have a culture whereby defects are reported and taken seriously. Certain operators who shall remain nameless don't. Drivers hand over unservicable heaps of crap without having declared any of the blatant faults. Common phrased to be heard are "Drive the f****** bus" and being told to drive defective buses until they stop moving if reporting to a controller! Reporting a defect wodthy of a PG9 is unlikely to result in being told to stop the bus. Drivers fear upsetting those above them by reporting defects and losing mileage is perceived to be a cardinal sin.

So what will CIRAS actually do?

As already said it provides a confidential channel for bus staff to report their concerns.

I think the issue here is initially one of perception. As I have said before there is a growing and loud campaign about road safety, road speeds and the number of accidents involving buses and pedestrians. This has been picked up by a number of London politicians who have then asked a lot of Mayoral questions on different aspects of the issue. This is undoubtedly to try to spot inconsistencies in TfL's answers on this issues so the politicians can go "aha - that bit conflicts with this other bit and that's unsafe". One of the main issues is that there is little transparency about incidents, who investigates and where any resultant info goes. I am sure that Assembly Members will have had detailed info from bus drivers, fitters and their TU reps about all sorts of dodgy practices. The fact that Surface Transport have said they do not receive copies of every investigation (only "serious" ones) immediately raised concerns with the AMs and the next question was "how do you know things are not being hidden from you?" and then it goes on from there in a predictable manner.

It's been said many times on here that no one is trained to drive fast nor is any driver reprimanded for driving safely. Nonetheless there is the tyranny of the I-Bus display which may affect some people in how they drive. The AMs know that operators only win contracts by putting in cheap bids and cheap bids usually mean minimal numbers of vehicles, reduced turnround times etc. All of these aspects have been under pressure as TfL have sought to reduce costs. It does not take much imagination to construct a scenario where you consider a range of factors coupled with inconsistent human responses to perceived pressure results in accidents. Of course the scenario assumes pedestrians are blameless in all accidents which is, of course, a nonsense given how distracted so many people are when wandering round London's streets.

I've read a load of the Mayor's Questions on bus topics and it is clear to me that some AMs know there are "different" maintenance practices, they asked about vehicle / component recalls, VOSA warnings etc etc. The Mayor has progressively ceded more and more ground and more information has been released. CIRAS is just another step along the road towards ever more scrutiny and investigation of every single bus related incident in London. Every scrape, bang, thummp as well as more serious accidents will all end up being externally scrutinised. We also got the trials of "detection" technology and "speed limit" control technology and I'm sure something else will be demanded in due course.

I am actually surprised Surface Transport haven't been a bit more progressive in how they handle oversight of all accidents. I understand the philosophical point about "we're not an operator" and that direct operational responsibility sits elsewhere but that logic doesn't really apply for rail transport where there is more oversight of all sub contractors and suppliers. I think that is what the politicians are expecting TfL to do in respect of buses. Every time there is a crash or an accident involving a bus the pressure will pile on again.