Bus Industry Insights – Analysis and Commentary on Bus Safety, Transport Policy and Governance

A recent Freedom of Information response regarding bus safety governance and transparency arrangements suggests key elements of safety oversight are not yet in place. The request asked for information on: • governance arrangements for bus safety oversight • roles and responsibilities for safety performance • safety transparency and publication frameworks • Enhanced Partnership safety monitoring • benchmarking with other authorities The response indicates that much of this information is not currently held, reflecting that formal safety governance arrangements are still being developed. This raises an important question about timing. EMCCA formally took on transport responsibilities in early 2026. However, the authority itself was established earlier, with staff in post and transition planning underway ahead of the transfer of powers. That raises a reasonable question about whether safety governance arrangements could have been developed in advance, rather than after responsib...

Guidance from the British Safety Council has for years highlighted that driving for work should be treated in the same way as operating potentially dangerous machinery. That means fatigue, stress, health and working conditions should all form part of structured risk management. Yet across the bus sector, the focus still tends to sit elsewhere. Vehicles are inspected. Infrastructure is assessed. Performance is measured. But the condition of the person actually driving the vehicle is often treated as secondary. The British Safety Council’s guidance on work-related driving places clear emphasis on managing driver fatigue, wellbeing and human factors as part of safety management. That includes recognising that long hours, pressure, poor facilities and fatigue can all influence concentration, decision-making and risk. For bus workers, these factors are familiar. Long duties. Tight running times. Limited access to facilities. Sedentary working. Operational pressure. All of thes...

At a time when Government funding is being provided to improve local bus services, serious questions are being raised about how that money is actually being used. In Thurrock, passengers are facing reduced evening services, longer waits, and earlier last buses — despite funding being allocated through the Bus Service Improvement Plan (BSIP). For shift workers and those reliant on public transport outside peak hours, the changes represent not an improvement, but a clear deterioration. One passenger, writing to their MP, highlighted that the new timetable means if a bus is just missed, they now face a wait of up to 59 minutes. The same letter also points out that the last evening bus has been brought forward, further reducing accessibility for those travelling home late. These changes have been described locally as a “slightly reduced frequency”, yet the reality for users is a substantial reduction in evening provision. This raises an important and legitimate question: how can servic...

The East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) is beginning work to define a regional Key Route Network (KRN). These networks are typically intended to identify the most important strategic corridors, supporting movement, reliability and economic activity. They can play a significant role in shaping transport priorities. However, a recent Freedom of Information response suggests the Key Route Network for the East Midlands is still at a very early stage of development. The response confirms that criteria for identifying routes, methodology for selection and supporting documentation have not yet been developed. Similarly, no timeline, governance paper or project plan is currently held. This is not necessarily a problem. Early-stage development presents an opportunity. It provides a chance to think carefully about what a Key Route Network should achieve and how it should be structured. Traditionally, Key Route Networks focus on general traffic movement, congestion management an...

A Freedom of Information response from the National Police Chiefs’ Council has revealed a significant gap in the way bus collisions are investigated and safety lessons are identified. I asked whether any national guidance exists covering: • investigation of bus and coach collisions • reporting of safety lessons following incidents • sharing findings with regulators or government The response was clear. No information is held. This means there is currently no national guidance for police forces specifically covering the investigation of bus collisions, no structured approach to identifying systemic safety issues, and no defined process for sharing lessons learned with transport regulators or government. That raises serious questions. Bus services carry large numbers of passengers, operate in complex urban environments and interact constantly with vulnerable road users. When serious incidents occur, understanding the underlying causes and identifying lessons is critical. Yet th...

The draft Greater Manchester Transport Strategy 2050 sets out an ambitious vision for the future of transport through the Bee Network. It focuses on integration, reliability, accessibility, sustainability and improving safety across the transport system. These are important objectives. A safer, more reliable and integrated public transport network is something the industry should support. But reading through the strategy raises an important question. Where does driver safety fit? Transport strategies often focus on infrastructure, services, passengers and performance. Safety is usually framed in terms of reducing collisions, improving network reliability and creating safer environments for passengers and road users. These are all important. However, the condition of the driver — the person ultimately responsible for operating vehicles safely — is rarely addressed in a structured way. This creates a potential gap. Driver fatigue, stress, long hours, sedentary working and long-ter...

Something I’ve been looking at alongside the wider bus safety work is driver health and wellbeing, particularly the long-term occupational risks that can build up over years in the job. Across road transport there is increasing discussion around fatigue, stress, mental health and long-term driver wellbeing. Yet while vehicles are subject to strict maintenance, inspection and safety oversight, structured attention to driver health is far less consistent. That raises a serious question for the bus sector. Should driver wellbeing and occupational health form part of a wider bus safety framework? If driver condition affects concentration, alertness and decision-making, then workforce health is not just a welfare issue. It is a safety issue. Bus workers deal with long hours, fatigue, stress, sedentary working, difficult operating conditions and, at times, challenging incidents and confrontations. All of that can carry safety implications, both in the short term and over the long term....

A newly published study analysing more than 50 years of data from Transport for London workers has revealed something that should stop the industry in its tracks: bus workers face significantly higher risks of death from respiratory disease, cardiovascular illness and lung cancer compared with office-based staff. This is not about isolated incidents. This is long-term occupational risk. The study examined a cohort of more than 117,000 transport workers and found that bus and London Underground employees experienced higher all-cause mortality as well as increased respiratory, cardiovascular and cancer deaths when compared with office workers. The findings cover workers employed between 1960 and 2010, with follow-up through to 2021, making it one of the most comprehensive long-term studies of transport workers ever conducted. The headline figures are stark. Bus workers were found to have: 44% higher respiratory mortality risk 30% higher cardiovascular mortality risk 2.48 times ...

The Department for Transport’s new Transport Data Action Plan says many of the right things. It describes transport data as central to building a modern, efficient, safe and inclusive transport system and says better use of data should support improved planning, better services, and more informed decision-making. It also says data should be better shared , better understood , and more effectively used across the sector and with the public. In principle, that is difficult to disagree with. The problem is that, in the bus sector, the reality still falls well short of that ambition. The Action Plan itself acknowledges that transport data is not yet being used to its full potential, and that barriers remain around availability, compatibility, prioritisation and investment . It also recognises that progress is often held back by limited access to good quality data. That description is not abstract. It is exactly what repeated Freedom of Information work has been revealing across bus...

A recently circulated toolkit designed to help local transport authorities decide the future structure of bus services raises a fundamental concern: safety appears to be missing. The document — Models for delivery of local bus networks: Handbook for Local Transport Authorities — has been produced by Frontier Economics for the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) and promoted via the Bus Centre of Excellence. It is intended to support authorities in choosing between regulatory approaches including franchising, enhanced partnerships and hybrid delivery models. These are not minor technical decisions. The framework is intended to guide authorities on how to redesign bus networks, structure contracts, allocate risk and determine governance arrangements. In practice, this influences: Network design and service levels Contract incentives and performance measures Governance and oversight arrangements Allocation of operational and financial risk Operator responsibilities Monit...

A recently circulated toolkit produced by the Confederation of Passenger Transport (CPT) and Frontier Economics — and promoted via the Bus Centre of Excellence — raises an important and troubling question: Where is bus safety? The document, Models for delivery of local bus networks: Handbook for Local Transport Authorities , is designed to help authorities choose between delivery models including franchising, partnerships, and other regulatory approaches. It is intended to guide decision-making on how bus services should be structured, governed and delivered. However, a review of the document reveals something striking. The words “safety” and “collision” do not appear. This is not a minor omission. These frameworks influence decisions on: Network structure Service design Contracting models Operator incentives Performance monitoring Governance arrangements Delivery risk All of these directly impact operational safety outcomes. Yet safety appears to be absent from the ...

A recent Freedom of Information response from Strathclyde Partnership for Transport provides a useful insight into how bus passenger safety is currently overseen — and where the limitations sit. This blog sets out what that response shows. Access to Safety Data The response confirms that bus incident data is not absent from the system. Strathclyde Partnership for Transport state that they can access safety data held by operators, including information relating to incidents and events occurring on bus services. This indicates that: Safety-related information is being generated by operators That information can be accessed by a public transport authority There is a contractual basis for reporting and data sharing Responsibility for Incidents The same response makes clear that responsibility for responding to incidents sits with the operator. In practice, this means that when an incident occurs: The operator is expected to manage and respond Reporting obligations sit with...

Over the past few weeks I have been submitting Freedom of Information requests to understand how bus safety is governed within current and proposed reform models across the UK. What I have found raises serious and important questions. The FOI Response A Combined Authority has confirmed the following: It does not have any powers or responsibility over bus safety There are no safety governance arrangements or assurance processes in place Safety risks do not form part of Enhanced Partnership discussions No safety reporting is provided to the Partnership Board This is not a minor omission. It is a clear statement that safety is not embedded within the governance structure overseeing bus reform. The Governance Structure Does Exist At the same time, formal governance arrangements are clearly in place. The North East Bus Partnership Board: Provides governance to the Enhanced Partnership Reviews performance against Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Oversees delivery of the Bu...

Over the past few weeks, I’ve been submitting Freedom of Information requests across a number of transport authorities, regulators and organisations as part of ongoing work to better understand bus safety governance in the UK. What’s becoming clear is not just what is missing — but what already exists. The data is there. The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) records enforcement activity, fleet compliance, roadside checks and operator risk through systems such as OCRS. The Department for Transport publishes national road casualty statistics. Operators themselves hold detailed operational data. And yet, when engaging with local transport authorities, a consistent picture is emerging: • “We do not hold this information” • “This is held by operators or regulators” • “This is still under development” At the same time, other authorities have indicated that information is being collected — but not published. So we have a situation where: Data is collected ✔ Data exists ✔ But it is no...

I have received a Freedom of Information response from the Department for Transport which raises serious questions about how violence against bus drivers is understood and monitored at a national level. I asked the Department for Transport for annual figures covering reported assaults on bus staff over the last ten years. I also requested any available statistics relating to incidents of violence or crime occurring on local bus services, along with any analysis or research the Department holds on trends affecting bus workers. The response confirmed that the Department for Transport does not hold this information. The Department advised that some information may be available within broader “Personal Safety on Transport” publications, but confirmed that specific data on assaults against bus workers and any analysis of trends affecting bus staff is not held. This is significant. Bus drivers are responsible for passenger safety, road safety, and the safe operation of large public serv...

A look at how bus safety oversight is structured across the UK and what recent Freedom of Information responses suggest about how the system currently operates. Britain has some of the most widely used bus networks in Europe, carrying millions of passengers every day. Yet a simple question is surprisingly difficult to answer: Who actually investigates bus safety incidents and learns lessons from them? Over the past few months I have been submitting a series of Freedom of Information requests to better understand how bus safety is monitored, analysed and governed across the United Kingdom. These requests have been sent to a range of organisations involved in the bus industry, including regulators, transport authorities and government departments. The responses received so far are beginning to reveal something quite interesting about how bus safety oversight actually works in Britain. What emerges is not a single organisation responsible for investigating and learning from bus accidents....

Over the past year, I’ve been submitting Freedom of Information requests to Combined Authorities across England in relation to bus safety governance, reporting frameworks, and transparency arrangements. The aim has been simple: to understand how safety data is collected, monitored, published and governed as franchising and reform expand nationally. Recently, the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) confirmed that my complaint regarding Greater Manchester Combined Authority’s handling of one such request has been accepted as eligible for investigation (ICO reference: IC-472801-Z4Y8). This does not mean wrongdoing has been found. It means the regulator will now examine whether the request was handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act. That matters. Because transparency only works if it is consistent. If safety data is published, it needs to be usable and capable of meaningful scrutiny. If governance structures are cited, they need to be evidenced. If exemptions are rel...

Over recent weeks, I have been submitting Freedom of Information requests to local transport authorities, combined authorities, and national bodies to understand a simple question: Who is responsible for bus safety — and how is it being governed as reforms progress? The responses I’ve received are now starting to paint a consistent — and deeply concerning — national picture. 🚨 A System Moving Ahead Without Safety Foundations From one authority, I was told: “We do not hold bus safety data.” From another: “This work is still in development and nothing has been formalised.” Now, further evidence obtained from a local authority involved in the Department for Transport’s franchising pilot programme shows: Risk registers are still being developed Safety and workforce impacts remain “in progress” No trade unions were consulted during the application stage This is not speculation — this is recorded, official information. 📊 Reform First — Safety Later? At the same time as thi...

Devolution, Governance Gaps, and the Missing Safety Framework By Lee Odams Branch Secretary – RMT Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch 🔎 Summary New evidence obtained through Freedom of Information requests confirms that no formal bus safety governance framework currently exists within the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) — despite the authority now holding operational control of bus services. This raises urgent questions about accountability, oversight, and driver safety across the region. A System That Doesn’t Yet Exist Over the past few months, I have been submitting a series of FOI requests to EMCCA. The aim was simple: To understand who is responsible for bus safety now that powers have been devolved. What I have uncovered raises serious and urgent questions. In response to multiple FOI requests, EMCCA has consistently confirmed that key information is “not held” . In their latest correspondence, they go further: “This information is simply ...

A recent exchange between London bus safety campaigner Kevin Mustafa and Transport for London raises an important and uncomfortable question for the bus industry: if the risks associated with bus driver fatigue are already well understood, why does the sector still appear to treat the issue primarily as something that requires further study rather than meaningful reform? The issue itself is not new. The issue of bus driver fatigue and distraction was highlighted in the London Assembly Transport Committee’s bus safety investigation, commonly referred to as Driven to Distraction, published in July 2017. Following that investigation, Transport for London later commissioned further research, including work carried out by Loughborough University examining driver fatigue and working patterns on the London bus network. Independent academic research has reinforced those concerns. Studies undertaken by Loughborough University examined the working patterns and operational pressures experience...

📋 COPY The governance of bus services in England is changing rapidly. As Combined Authorities take on greater responsibility for planning, funding and managing bus networks, a new layer of public transport governance is emerging. Documents recently released through Freedom of Information requests to the East Midlands Combined County Authority (EMCCA) provide an interesting glimpse into how these changes are unfolding. While the focus of these documents is primarily on franchising policy and governance arrangements, they also highlight a broader issue that is increasingly relevant to the future of bus services: how safety oversight and learning will function within these evolving structures. Understanding this wider context matters. The Scale of Modern Bus Networks Bus services remain the most widely used form of public transport in Britain. Across the East Midlands Combined County Authority area alone, documentation suggests the network includes: • approximately 97 million passenger j...

Buses are the most widely used form of public transport in Britain. Every day, millions of passengers rely on bus services to get to work, school, hospital appointments and essential services. For many communities — particularly outside major cities — buses are the only form of public transport available. Successive governments have recognised the importance of buses to the national transport system. Policies such as the National Bus Strategy, Bus Service Improvement Plans (BSIPs), franchising powers under the Bus Services Act, and ongoing bus reform programmes all emphasise the role buses must play in reducing congestion, supporting economic growth and delivering more sustainable travel. But there is a fundamental question that receives far less attention. Where is the national safety data for the bus industry? How Other Transport Modes Handle Safety Data In other parts of the transport system, safety data and safety investigation are treated as central pillars of governance. In aviat...