A RESOLUTION AHEAD OF ITS TIME?Why Modern Transport Safety Must Look Beyond the Driver.

Note: The views expressed in this article are personal and are intended to contribute to wider discussion around transport safety, governance and public policy.  

In 2023, Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch submitted a resolution to the RMT National Bus Workers Conference calling for greater consideration of employer and contractor responsibility where fatigue, working conditions and safety culture contribute to serious road incidents.

The resolution was ruled not germane to conference business and therefore never reached the conference floor for debate.

Three years later, developments in transport safety, corporate criminal liability and Safe Systems thinking raise an interesting question:

Was the resolution ahead of its time?

For many years, discussions surrounding serious road traffic collisions have understandably focused on the actions of individual drivers. Investigations examine decisions made behind the wheel, levels of concentration, compliance with regulations, fatigue, impairment and driver behaviour.

Personal accountability remains important and should never be dismissed.

However, modern safety thinking increasingly recognises that serious incidents rarely result from a single cause or a single failure.

Across transport, aviation, rail, healthcare and other safety-critical industries, there has been a growing recognition that accidents often emerge from a combination of factors rather than one isolated act.

Infrastructure, vehicle design, maintenance standards, organisational culture, management decisions, fatigue management, scheduling, supervision, training, reporting systems and operational pressures can all influence outcomes.

This is the essence of the Safe Systems approach.

Rather than asking only "Who made the mistake?", Safe Systems thinking asks a broader question:

"What conditions existed that allowed the mistake to result in serious harm?"

This distinction is important because human beings are fallible. Mistakes will occur. Lapses of concentration will occur. Fatigue will occur. The challenge is creating systems that recognise these realities and minimise the consequences when they arise.

This was the central principle behind our branch resolution in 2023.

This was not a vague concern or a general discussion point. The resolution submitted by Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch stated:

RESOLUTION: CHANGES TO SENTENCING GUIDELINES FOR ROAD CRIMES

That this RMT National Bus Workers Industrial Organising Conference calls upon the RMT National Executive Committee to support and campaign for Changes to Sentencing Guidelines for Road Crimes.

This Conference notes that the Ministry of Justice's Sentencing Council is presently considering modifications to Sentencing Guidelines for Road Crimes which infer that harsher penalties will be imposed on drivers convicted for deaths caused by inter alia:

(a) "Lack of attention to driving for a substantial period of time";

(b) "Driving when knowingly deprived of adequate sleep or rest";

(c) "Momentary lapse of concentration";

all of which are fatigue-induced behaviours encouraged by poor working conditions and lax safety cultures evidenced in the May 2019 Loughborough University Bus Driver Fatigue Report and decades of scrutiny by London Assembly Members, independent researchers and London Bus Drivers.

Accordingly, since employers and contractors of professional drivers are responsible for these drivers' working conditions and safety culture, this Conference calls on the RMT National Executive Committee to work with the Sentencing Council to modify its Sentencing Guidelines and extend the consideration of culpability to employers and contractors of drivers convicted of lethal road crimes.

Whether one agrees entirely with the wording or not, the underlying principle was straightforward: where organisational factors contribute to risk, it may be appropriate to examine organisational responsibility alongside individual responsibility.

Recent developments suggest that wider society is beginning to engage with similar questions.

The Crime and Policing Act 2026 expands corporate criminal liability and places greater emphasis on organisational accountability. While not transport-specific, it reflects a broader shift towards examining how decisions are made within organisations and how management structures, governance arrangements and corporate cultures contribute to risk.

This does not mean individual responsibility disappears.

Nor should it.

Rather, it recognises that safety is rarely the product of individual actions alone. It is often the outcome of decisions made throughout an organisation.

In transport, this is particularly relevant.

Bus drivers, coach drivers, HGV drivers, rail staff, engineers and transport managers all operate within complex systems. Decisions regarding staffing levels, scheduling, fatigue management, maintenance resources, welfare provision, training and performance expectations can all influence safety outcomes.

When something goes wrong, it is reasonable to examine not only the final action that immediately preceded an incident but also the wider circumstances that shaped the environment in which that action occurred.

Perhaps the most significant change taking place in modern safety thinking is the gradual move away from a culture of blame towards a culture of learning.

The objective should not be to find new people to punish.

The objective should be to better understand how systems function, where vulnerabilities exist and how risks can be reduced before tragedy occurs.

For those of us involved in public transport, these are not abstract debates. They touch on issues that arise regularly across the industry : fatigue, welfare facilities, operational pressures, reporting cultures, workforce wellbeing and safety management.

The future of transport safety is unlikely to be found in choosing between individual accountability and organisational accountability.

The challenge is understanding how both interact.

Looking back at that 2023 resolution, I remain convinced that it was asking an important question.

Three years later, the wider conversation appears to be moving in the same direction.

Perhaps the most important question in transport safety is no longer simply who made the final mistake.

Perhaps it is what allowed the circumstances for that mistake to occur in the first place.

TAGS

Road Safety, Transport Safety, Safe Systems, Bus Industry, Public Transport, Driver Fatigue, Bus Driver Fatigue, Corporate Accountability, Corporate Criminal Liability, Crime and Policing Act 2026, Safety Culture, Transport Policy, Bus Drivers, Professional Drivers, Risk Management, Governance, Occupational Safety, Workplace Fatigue, Road Transport, Passenger Transport, Transport Leadership, Organisational Learning, Human Factors, Sentencing Guidelines, Health and Safety, Transport Governance, Driver Welfare, Fatigue Management, Corporate Governance, Public Safety, Loughborough University, Bus Driver Fatigue Report, Safety Management, Professional Driving, Road Crime, Transport Regulation, Public Policy, Transport Reform

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Lee Odams is Branch Secretary of the Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch of the RMT and Secretary of the RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers.

He has worked in the bus industry for almost two decades as a professional bus driver and is an active campaigner on transport safety, public transport accessibility, passenger rights, workforce wellbeing and transport policy.

Through his writing, Lee explores the relationship between transport policy, operational reality, safety culture, governance and the wider role public transport plays in connecting communities and supporting economic and social inclusion.

He writes regularly on issues affecting bus workers, passengers, transport policy, transport safety and the future of public transport in the United Kingdom.