Bus Cab Heat: The Government Recognises the Risk — But the FOI Trail Shows No One Owns It

There is a difference between a campaign based on opinion and a campaign backed by evidence.

For months, bus drivers have been saying the same thing.

Cabs are getting dangerously hot.

Cooling systems are failing.

Fans are ineffective.

Ventilation is not enough.

Drivers are becoming dizzy, sick, exhausted, short of breath and unable to concentrate.

Passengers are sitting on buses that feel like mobile greenhouses.

And yet, when you start asking the public bodies responsible for transport, safety, regulation and public health who actually owns the risk, the answers become deeply concerning.

This is no longer simply about drivers saying “we are too hot”.

This is about what the paper trail now shows.

And what it shows should worry anyone who cares about public transport safety.

The Minister Recognises the Safety Issue

A recent letter from Simon Lightwood MP, Minister for Roads and Buses, sent in response to concerns raised about air conditioning on public buses, contains an important acknowledgement.

The Minister recognises that high temperatures in buses, including driver cabs, can have safety and welfare implications during hot weather.

He also recognises the vital role bus drivers play in supporting local communities, and says driver welfare matters not only for the health and wellbeing of drivers themselves, but also for the safety of passengers and other road users.

That matters.

Because that is exactly what many of us have been saying.

Bus driver heat safety is not just about comfort.

It is not about wanting luxury.

It is not about drivers being awkward.

It is about whether a safety-critical worker can remain alert, healthy, focused and fit to drive a large passenger vehicle in live traffic.

A bus driver who is dizzy, nauseous, exhausted, sweating heavily, struggling to breathe, zoning out or finding it difficult to concentrate is not just experiencing discomfort.

That is a safety warning sign.

So the Minister’s acknowledgement is significant.

But acknowledgement is only the first step.

Once Government accepts there are safety and welfare implications, the next question becomes unavoidable:

What national policy work has been done to address it?

That is where the Freedom of Information trail becomes uncomfortable.

DfT Says It Does Not Hold the Information Requested

I submitted a Freedom of Information request to the Department for Transport.

The request covered the period from 1 August 2024 to 18 June 2026 and asked for information relating to excessive heat exposure, vehicle cab temperatures, defective or ineffective cooling systems, and heat-related safety risks affecting bus drivers or PSV drivers.

More specifically, I asked for final briefing notes, submissions or advice for ministers or senior officials, correspondence between DfT and HSE, correspondence between DfT and DVSA, and final policy papers or formal recorded assessments concerning whether current guidance or regulation addresses heat-related risks affecting bus or PSV drivers.

The Department for Transport confirmed that, following a thorough search of its paper and electronic records, the information requested is not held.

That is a major finding.

Because it means that, for the period requested, DfT appears to hold no final briefing notes, no final submissions, no final ministerial advice, no final policy papers, no formal recorded assessments, and no DfT correspondence with HSE or DVSA on the specific issue of heat-related risks affecting bus or PSV drivers.

Read that again.

Drivers are reporting cab temperatures around 40°C and above.

London is now moving towards a bus driver heat task force.

The London Assembly has backed stronger protections for bus drivers.

Passengers are travelling in overheated vehicles.

Drivers are reporting symptoms that could affect safe driving.

The Minister has acknowledged the safety and welfare implications.

But the Department for Transport says it does not hold the requested policy material.

That is not a small gap.

That is the gap.

The Responsibility Is Pushed Back to Operators

The DfT response also states that most bus services in England outside London are operated on a commercial basis by private companies, and that operators are expected to ensure their employees have access to healthy and safe working conditions.

It also refers to the Public Service Vehicles regulations, which set out requirements for vehicle equipment and specification, and says operators are responsible for managing and maintaining their fleets.

On one level, this is true.

Operators do have duties.

Operators do control vehicles.

Operators do employ drivers.

Operators do decide how heat-related concerns are handled at depot level.

But if the national answer is simply “operators are expected to deal with it”, then the country has a problem.

Because this is a fragmented industry.

Some operators may take the issue seriously.

Some may not.

Some depots may act sensibly.

Some may not.

Some vehicles may have proper cab cooling.

Some may have weak vents, broken fans or systems that blow warm air around.

Some drivers may feel able to report concerns.

Others may fear losing pay, being blamed, being marked as not completing a duty, or being treated as difficult.

That is not a national safety framework.

That is a postcode lottery.

And safety-critical work should not be governed by postcode lottery.

“Adequate Ventilation” Is Not the Same as Safe Cab Cooling

The Ministerial response refers to the Public Service Vehicles regulations and the requirement for “adequate ventilation”.

This phrase needs proper scrutiny.

Because ventilation is not the same as cooling.

A bus cab can have ventilation and still be dangerously hot.

A vent can blow warm air.

A fan can simply move hot air around.

A window can let in hot traffic fumes and still do little to reduce heat stress.

A vehicle can be technically compliant on paper and still expose a driver to cab temperatures that affect concentration, fatigue, alertness and health.

That is the central weakness.

The regulations may talk about ventilation.

Drivers are talking about heat stress.

Those are not the same thing.

If a cab is reaching 40°C, 42°C, 43°C or more, the question should not be whether there is some form of ventilation.

The question should be whether the cab is safe for a driver to work in.

A safety-critical workplace needs more than vague wording.

It needs standards.

It needs thresholds.

It needs action points.

It needs clear instructions.

It needs protection for the worker.

It needs accountability.

UKHSA: No Specific Information Held

The Department for Transport is not the only body where the paper trail raises concerns.

A previous Freedom of Information response from UKHSA confirmed that it held no recorded information on the specific heat exposure risks affecting bus drivers and professional transport workers operating vehicles during extreme heat.

That is concerning because UKHSA is central to public health messaging during heat events.

Public health warnings are issued.

Heat alerts are discussed.

Vulnerable groups are rightly considered.

But where are the safety-critical transport workers sitting in enclosed vehicle cabs for hours?

Where are the bus drivers?

Where are the coach drivers?

Where are the professional drivers whose working environment may be hotter than the outside temperature?

If public health advice recognises that heat affects vulnerable people, older people, disabled people and those with respiratory or heart conditions, then it should also recognise that some of those people are not only passengers.

Some are workers.

Some are bus drivers.

Some are behind the wheel.

Traffic Commissioners: No Intelligence, No Investigation

The Traffic Commissioners’ response adds another piece to the jigsaw.

When asked about excessive heat, vehicle cab temperatures, defective cooling systems, failed air conditioning, driver heat exposure and heat-related welfare concerns, the response confirmed that Traffic Commissioners do not collect, hold or act on intelligence in the way many people might assume.

They also confirmed they have no powers of investigation and pointed towards DVSA as the enforcement body.

They also held no formal correspondence with DVSA, DfT or HSE about whether heat-related driver welfare issues may be relevant to PSV operator fitness, road safety or compliance.

That is remarkable.

Because if drivers are being exposed to excessive cab heat, if operators are repeatedly sending vehicles out with defective cooling or poor ventilation, and if drivers are being left to make safety decisions without protection, surely that should at least raise questions about management systems, operator culture and safety compliance.

But again, the trail appears to move elsewhere.

Not here.

Try there.

Not our remit.

Ask someone else.

This is how risk disappears in plain sight.

The Emerging Pattern

Look at the pattern.

The Minister recognises that bus cab heat has safety and welfare implications.

DfT says it does not hold the requested policy assessments, final briefings or correspondence with HSE/DVSA on the issue.

DfT points back to operators and existing vehicle regulations.

UKHSA says it does not hold specific recorded information on bus driver or professional driver heat exposure.

Traffic Commissioners say they do not collect or act on intelligence and have no investigative powers.

Operators are expected to provide safe working conditions, but standards appear inconsistent.

Drivers report heat-related symptoms and fear consequences if they stop.

Passengers are also experiencing excessive heat on buses.

So who owns the risk?

That is not a rhetorical question.

It is the central question.

Because if everyone has a piece of responsibility, but no one owns the whole risk, then drivers and passengers are left exposed.

Operators Must Not Be Allowed to Hide Behind Minimum Compliance

This is where operators also need to be put under the microscope.

It is not good enough for operators to say a vehicle is legal if the cab is becoming unsafe in real-world heat.

It is not good enough to rely on minimum compliance if drivers are reporting cab temperatures above 40°C.

It is not good enough to tell drivers to drink water while fans fail, cooling systems underperform, or hot air is pushed into the cab.

It is not good enough to mark duties as not completed and remove pay where drivers have reported genuine heat-related safety concerns.

It is not good enough for managers, control rooms or lead drivers to put the decision back onto the driver without clear instruction, support and protection.

If a driver says they feel sick, dizzy, short of breath, faint, unable to concentrate or unsafe to continue, that should trigger a safety process.

Not a shrug.

Not a pay deduction.

Not a “what do you want me to do?”

Not a quiet expectation to carry on.

Operators cannot claim to care about safety while treating heat-related concerns as individual inconvenience.

And public authorities cannot keep funding, tendering or supporting services without asking what standards are being applied to the workforce delivering them.

Local Transport Authorities and Combined Authorities Must Step Up

This cannot be left solely to operators.

Local transport authorities and combined authorities increasingly shape local bus networks through funding, enhanced partnerships, tendered services, bus service improvement plans and, in some areas, future franchising.

If public money is involved, public standards should follow.

Authorities should be asking operators:

What are your cab temperature thresholds?

How do you monitor bus cab heat?

What happens when a driver reports excessive cab temperature?

What happens when cooling systems fail?

Do drivers lose pay if they cannot safely continue?

Are heat-related incidents recorded?

Are vulnerable drivers considered?

Are passengers protected from excessive saloon temperatures?

Are old vehicles being used in conditions they were never designed for?

Are heat risks built into contracts, enhanced partnerships and performance management?

If authorities do not ask these questions, then they become part of the silence.

And silence is no longer acceptable.

The 1981 Problem

The reference to the Public Service Vehicles Regulations 1981 is revealing.

That was over four decades ago.

The climate has changed.

The fleet has changed.

The operating environment has changed.

Congestion has changed.

Passenger expectations have changed.

Scientific understanding of heat risk has changed.

The frequency and intensity of heat events has changed.

Yet the response still leans on a regulatory framework that talks about “adequate ventilation”.

That should set alarm bells ringing.

A 1981 ventilation concept cannot be the final answer to 2026 heatwaves.

The question should not be whether the law technically mentions ventilation.

The question should be whether the law is fit for the climate reality facing drivers and passengers now.

If it is not, then it needs changing.

Maximum Workplace Temperatures Must Include Mobile Workplaces

The current national debate around maximum workplace temperatures is welcome.

But it must not be framed only around offices, factories or indoor workplaces.

It must include mobile workplaces.

Bus cabs.

Coach cabs.

Train cabs.

Delivery vehicles.

Refuse vehicles.

Emergency service vehicles.

Any enclosed working environment where a worker cannot simply walk away from the heat.

Bus drivers are a clear example.

They are responsible for public safety, but often have limited control over their cab environment.

They cannot abandon passengers.

They cannot choose another room.

They cannot delay every journey without consequence.

They cannot ignore a timetable.

They cannot always rely on control making the safe decision for them.

That is why maximum workplace temperature law must consider safety-critical transport work from the beginning, not as an afterthought.

What Proper National Standards Should Include

This is what a serious national framework should cover:

Clear maximum cab temperature thresholds.

Mandatory cab temperature monitoring.

Working cab cooling, ventilation and solar protection.

Defect procedures for failed fans, failed air conditioning, failed ventilation or heating stuck on.

Vehicle changeover or withdrawal procedures where cab temperatures become unsafe.

Passenger saloon temperature monitoring.

Welfare checks for drivers during heat events.

Access to drinking water.

Access to cool rest areas.

Meaningful paid recovery time where heat affects fitness to continue.

Uniform policies suitable for extreme heat.

Specific consideration for drivers with health conditions such as COPD, heart conditions, high blood pressure or other vulnerabilities.

Protection from loss of pay, blame or detriment where drivers raise genuine heat-related safety concerns.

Clear instructions for control rooms, lead drivers and managers.

Reporting routes drivers can trust.

Trade union and driver representative involvement.

Public accountability through transport authorities and regulators.

This is not radical.

It is basic risk management.

The New Evidence Changes the Question

The question is no longer:

“Are bus drivers too hot?”

That question has already been answered.

The question now is:

Why does the Minister recognise the safety issue while DfT holds no recorded policy assessment on it?

Why does the national response still rely on operators and old ventilation regulations?

Why does UKHSA hold no specific information on professional driver heat exposure?

Why are Traffic Commissioners not collecting or acting on this intelligence?

Why are local transport authorities not requiring heat safety standards through contracts and partnerships?

Why are operators still able to treat dangerous cab heat as a local operational inconvenience?

Why are drivers still worried about losing pay when they report they cannot safely continue?

These are the questions that now need answers.

Conclusion: Recognition Is Not Enough

The Government has now acknowledged that high temperatures in bus cabs have safety and welfare implications.

That is important.

But recognition without ownership is not protection.

A ministerial sentence does not cool a cab.

A reference to “adequate ventilation” does not protect a driver sitting in 43°C heat.

A private operator expectation does not create a national standard.

A fragmented regulatory system does not keep passengers safe.

The FOI trail now shows the problem clearly.

The risk is real.

The ownership is blurred.

The standards are weak.

The regulatory language is outdated.

And drivers are still carrying the risk.

That cannot continue.

If bus drivers are safety-critical workers, then bus cab heat must be treated as a safety-critical issue.

If passenger safety depends on driver welfare, then driver welfare must be regulated, monitored and protected.

And if Government recognises the risk, then Government must now act.

Too hot to travel?

Too hot to drive.

Driver welfare is passenger safety.

About the author

Lee Odams is a bus driver with nearly two decades in the industry. He is Branch Secretary of the RMT Nottinghamshire & Derbyshire Bus Branch and Secretary of the RMT National Industrial Organising Conference of Bus Workers.

He campaigns on bus driver welfare, heat exposure, safety, toilet access, working conditions, public transport policy and stronger national standards for bus workers.

Disclaimer

This article is written in my personal capacity as a bus driver, trade union activist and transport safety campaigner. The views expressed are my own. It is not written as an official statement on behalf of RMT, my employer, or any other organisation unless explicitly stated.

Tags

Bus Driver Heat Safety, DfT FOI, Simon Lightwood, Bus Cab Temperatures, Hot Buses, Driver Welfare, Passenger Safety, Public Transport Safety, Maximum Workplace Temperature, HSE, DVSA, Traffic Commissioners, UKHSA, Bus Drivers, RMT, Heat Stress, Extreme Heat, Cab Cooling, Public Transport, Too Hot To Travel, Too Hot To Drive