Near Miss of the Day 179: Bus company failed to provide police with driver’s name

pockstone wrote:

No way does a bus company not know who was driving a particular service on a particular route.

Driver rotas and timetables are carefully managed and coordinated.

The cashing in process alone would require a driver to sign off on a particular route.

It took about two minutes from arriving at the depot, to being hauled in front of the chief inspector when I was accused of a minor misdemeanour. He knew exactly who the conductor (Me) and the driver were, and that was in the days long before Microsoft Excel etc.

Everything is managed, but if drivers or vehicles are swapped just before they're due to start for any reason, it'll often just be done by a manual change on a printed rota, which isn't always fed back into the system.

And very few companies rely on drivers to cash up anymore. Generally drivers have no access to the money, with the locked drop boxes emptied at base periodically.

There's a bit of a difference between finding out who is driving a bus at this moment, and who was driving that same bus a week ago. One relies on looking at a roster and finding out if they actually took that bus (i.e. ask the marshall/controller who's likely still in the depot with that days rota in front of them), the other relies on the roster being accurate and having been updated before being filed.

Ultimately the company should know, but as I said in my last post, they may know, but just don't have the proof.
It's a bit like knowing your partner borrowed your car, but can you prove they drove it?

mc wrote:

And very few companies rely on drivers to cash up anymore. Generally drivers have no access to the money, with the locked drop boxes emptied at base periodically.

Is there any cashing up on TfL buses?   Are they not all Oyster-or-credit-card-only now?

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

mc wrote:

And very few companies rely on drivers to cash up anymore. Generally drivers have no access to the money, with the locked drop boxes emptied at base periodically.

 

Is there any cashing up on TfL buses?   Are they not all Oyster-or-credit-card-only now?

How times have changed.

With so little else to think about, you'd imagine they could bloody well drive properly.

mc wrote:

For a large company, they'll typically just get the maximum fine, after spending some time explaining to a judge as to why they can't provide the required evidence.
You'll most likely find that although the company knows who was supposed to be driving, they don't have proof they were driving. Drivers could of been swapped last minute, and as buses are exempt from using tachos, there is no proof of who was driving.

The only time I've heard of points being given, are smaller companies and private individuals, where there is suspicion of the truth not being told.

Slightly ironic that they have CCTV that can identify passengers, but they can't identify the driver.

mc wrote:

For a large company, they'll typically just get the maximum fine, after spending some time explaining to a judge as to why they can't provide the required evidence.
You'll most likely find that although the company knows who was supposed to be driving, they don't have proof they were driving. Drivers could of been swapped last minute, and as buses are exempt from using tachos, there is no proof of who was driving.

The only time I've heard of points being given, are smaller companies and private individuals, where there is suspicion of the truth not being told.

Any company which has public safety in its hands is surely obliged to keep proper records, and any swapping of drivers would have to be recorded.  If not, they are not a fit company to be running a public service.

zero_trooper wrote:

ktache wrote:

Just wondering, who gets the points and the fine for failing to provide the details?

The company Secretary is liable for points and also/or the company, the fine. Obviously the Transport Manager should be able to say that driver A, was driving bus B, on Route C at that time etc. Maybe the company just haven't gotten round to answering the request. 

As pointed out above, the Traffic Commissioners, who oversee the granting of operating licences to bus and haulage companies, won't be too happy with the lack of response.

No should about it. It’s part of the operators licence that you have to know who is driving what vehicle when. They have tachometers and bus drivers can only drive a limited number of hours, so they have to know. Almost certainly either they have not got round to replying in the time limit or the letter has gone missing in internal post. I very much doubt TFL would withhold the drivers name. They must get speeding fines on a regular basis.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Not naming the driver is perverting the course of justice. The CEO should be threatened with prison on account that those whom he has control of are absolutely his responsibility, that would see the twat behind the wheel named sharpish!

You don’t half come out with some psudo legal nonsense. It’s not perverting the course of justice. It’s failing to provide driver information, a specific legal offence. It would only be perverting to course of justice if someone lied. You can’t convict someone of perverting the course of justice for not saying anything. That would undermine the right to not incriminate yourself. 

John Smith wrote:

zero_trooper wrote:

ktache wrote:

Just wondering, who gets the points and the fine for failing to provide the details?

The company Secretary is liable for points and also/or the company, the fine. Obviously the Transport Manager should be able to say that driver A, was driving bus B, on Route C at that time etc. Maybe the company just haven't gotten round to answering the request. 

As pointed out above, the Traffic Commissioners, who oversee the granting of operating licences to bus and haulage companies, won't be too happy with the lack of response.

No should about it. It’s part of the operators licence that you have to know who is driving what vehicle when. They have tachometers and bus drivers can only drive a limited number of hours, so they have to know. Almost certainly either they have not got round to replying in the time limit or the letter has gone missing in internal post. I very much doubt TFL would withhold the drivers name. They must get speeding fines on a regular basis.

 

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Not naming the driver is perverting the course of justice. The CEO should be threatened with prison on account that those whom he has control of are absolutely his responsibility, that would see the twat behind the wheel named sharpish!

 

You don’t half come out with some psudo legal nonsense. It’s not perverting the course of justice. It’s failing to provide driver information, a specific legal offence. It would only be perverting to course of justice if someone lied. You can’t convict someone of perverting the course of justice for not saying anything. That would undermine the right to not incriminate yourself. 

Just because there is anther piss weak get out clause or act of parliament for them to use that avoids the reality and seriousness of what they are doing does not mean that it is not the more serious matter of PtCoJ.

Or do you deny that their actions are not trying to avoid justice being meted out, at all and/or to the correct person? Of course it is perverting justice, by definition it cannot be enything else.

Lesser charges put in pla e simply because weak minded motorcentric government put it there does not fool those of us that know what it is, just like assault with a deadly weapon or death by same is not careless driving or death by careless driving.

Wake the fuck up to why 'failing to provide' is used and why it has such a piss weak slap on the wrist such that people will rather go that route than out drivers.

inicholson wrote:

Glad the Met Police take close passes seriously.

When I sent a video to Police Scotland in Glasgow (if a driver passing within 10cm of my left foot while I waited to turn right - there were 2 lanes) the reply was "On this occasion no harm was done..." so no action taken.

I take this to mean that I have Police Scotland's blessing to run red lights, cycle in pavements, with no lights, etc. , etc. And it will only be a problem if somebody gets hurt. Nice to know.

I would respond them saying exactly what you are thinking

cyclisto wrote:

inicholson wrote:

Glad the Met Police take close passes seriously. When I sent a video to Police Scotland in Glasgow (if a driver passing within 10cm of my left foot while I waited to turn right - there were 2 lanes) the reply was "On this occasion no harm was done..." so no action taken. I take this to mean that I have Police Scotland's blessing to run red lights, cycle in pavements, with no lights, etc. , etc. And it will only be a problem if somebody gets hurt. Nice to know.

I would respond them saying exactly what you are thinking

The Fiscal has issued a strict directive that unless you (the complainant)were seriously injured or property damaged that Police Scotland are not to pursue a charge on the motorist. This sucks. I recently had an experience where I was nearly hit. I had footage and the constable on the desk considered it as careless driving at the minimum and issued a crime report. The investigating constable also agreed but because I wasn’t a KSI she told me that she could do nothing and explained why. I voiced my frustration and displeasure about the whole mess and the constable was in agreement but everyone’s hands are tied by the Fiscal and justice dept. All the police can do is issue a warning based on the footage which will flag if the motorist commits another motoring offence.   Otherwise feck all will be done. You can only hope that the constable dealing with your complaint will actually give the driver a bollicking about their lack of road craft. 

The only way it looks like someone would get charged is if  the police actually witnessed the offence but reading between the lines it looks like even they would be forced to issue a warning.

Meanwhile Police Scotland continue to be the Luddites they are by having no means of electronically submitting evidence. 

giff77 wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

inicholson wrote:

Glad the Met Police take close passes seriously. When I sent a video to Police Scotland in Glasgow (if a driver passing within 10cm of my left foot while I waited to turn right - there were 2 lanes) the reply was "On this occasion no harm was done..." so no action taken. I take this to mean that I have Police Scotland's blessing to run red lights, cycle in pavements, with no lights, etc. , etc. And it will only be a problem if somebody gets hurt. Nice to know.

I would respond them saying exactly what you are thinking

 

The Fiscal has issued a strict directive that unless you (the complainant)were seriously injured or property damaged that Police Scotland are not to pursue a charge on the motorist. This sucks. I recently had an experience where I was nearly hit. I had footage and the constable on the desk considered it as careless driving at the minimum and issued a crime report. The investigating constable also agreed but because I wasn’t a KSI she told me that she could do nothing and explained why. I voiced my frustration and displeasure about the whole mess and the constable was in agreement but everyone’s hands are tied by the Fiscal and justice dept. All the police can do is issue a warning based on the footage which will flag if the motorist commits another motoring offence.   Otherwise feck all will be done. You can only hope that the constable dealing with your complaint will actually give the driver a bollicking about their lack of road craft. 

The only way it looks like someone would get charged is if  the police actually witnessed the offence but reading between the lines it looks like even they would be forced to issue a warning.

Meanwhile Police Scotland continue to be the Luddites they are by having no means of electronically submitting evidence. 

I take it the Fiscal is Scotland's version of England and Wales'  'Director of Public Prosecutions'.

What utter bollocks! Any more directives of interest North of the Border? Do not pursue a charge for assault unless a limb has been broken? How can areas within Police Scotland run closs pass initiatives, when the only sanction is a warning? 

zero_trooper wrote:

giff77 wrote:

cyclisto wrote:

inicholson wrote:

Glad the Met Police take close passes seriously. When I sent a video to Police Scotland in Glasgow (if a driver passing within 10cm of my left foot while I waited to turn right - there were 2 lanes) the reply was "On this occasion no harm was done..." so no action taken. I take this to mean that I have Police Scotland's blessing to run red lights, cycle in pavements, with no lights, etc. , etc. And it will only be a problem if somebody gets hurt. Nice to know.

I would respond them saying exactly what you are thinking

 

The Fiscal has issued a strict directive that unless you (the complainant)were seriously injured or property damaged that Police Scotland are not to pursue a charge on the motorist. This sucks. I recently had an experience where I was nearly hit. I had footage and the constable on the desk considered it as careless driving at the minimum and issued a crime report. The investigating constable also agreed but because I wasn’t a KSI she told me that she could do nothing and explained why. I voiced my frustration and displeasure about the whole mess and the constable was in agreement but everyone’s hands are tied by the Fiscal and justice dept. All the police can do is issue a warning based on the footage which will flag if the motorist commits another motoring offence.   Otherwise feck all will be done. You can only hope that the constable dealing with your complaint will actually give the driver a bollicking about their lack of road craft. 

The only way it looks like someone would get charged is if  the police actually witnessed the offence but reading between the lines it looks like even they would be forced to issue a warning.

Meanwhile Police Scotland continue to be the Luddites they are by having no means of electronically submitting evidence. 

I take it the Fiscal is Scotland's version of England and Wales'  'Director of Public Prosecutions'.

What utter bollocks!. Any more directives of interest North of the Border? Do not pursue a charge for assault unless a limb has been broken? How can areas within Police Scotland run closs pass initiatives, when the only sanction is a warning? 

Yeah Fiscal is the Scottish version of CPS. My understanding of close pass initiatives was that they were mainly for education purposes with the possibility of a caution/warning or actual charge of careless driving being thrown in for good measure. 

giff77 wrote:

The Fiscal has issued a strict directive that unless you (the complainant)were seriously injured or property damaged that Police Scotland are not to pursue a charge on the motorist. This sucks. I recently had an experience where I was nearly hit. I had footage and the constable on the desk considered it as careless driving at the minimum and issued a crime report. The investigating constable also agreed but because I wasn’t a KSI she told me that she could do nothing and explained why. I voiced my frustration and displeasure about the whole mess and the constable was in agreement but everyone’s hands are tied by the Fiscal and justice dept. All the police can do is issue a warning based on the footage which will flag if the motorist commits another motoring offence.   Otherwise feck all will be done. You can only hope that the constable dealing with your complaint will actually give the driver a bollicking about their lack of road craft. 

The only way it looks like someone would get charged is if  the police actually witnessed the offence but reading between the lines it looks like even they would be forced to issue a warning.

Meanwhile Police Scotland continue to be the Luddites they are by having no means of electronically submitting evidence. 

Does the Fiscal's proclamation also apply to pedestrians, motorcyclists and drivers, or only cyclists?  If a driver has vidcam evidence of dangerous driving, would the police take action, and similarly with a ped using a mobile phone?

burtthebike wrote:

giff77 wrote:

The Fiscal has issued a strict directive that unless you (the complainant)were seriously injured or property damaged that Police Scotland are not to pursue a charge on the motorist. This sucks. I recently had an experience where I was nearly hit. I had footage and the constable on the desk considered it as careless driving at the minimum and issued a crime report. The investigating constable also agreed but because I wasn’t a KSI she told me that she could do nothing and explained why. I voiced my frustration and displeasure about the whole mess and the constable was in agreement but everyone’s hands are tied by the Fiscal and justice dept. All the police can do is issue a warning based on the footage which will flag if the motorist commits another motoring offence.   Otherwise feck all will be done. You can only hope that the constable dealing with your complaint will actually give the driver a bollicking about their lack of road craft. 

The only way it looks like someone would get charged is if  the police actually witnessed the offence but reading between the lines it looks like even they would be forced to issue a warning.

Meanwhile Police Scotland continue to be the Luddites they are by having no means of electronically submitting evidence. 

Does the Fiscal's proclamation also apply to pedestrians, motorcyclists and drivers, or only cyclists?  If a driver has vidcam evidence of dangerous driving, would the police take action, and similarly with a ped using a mobile phone?

I'm sure it covers everything.  The only exception will be if a police officer is directly involved and is in a possition to make an arrest or charge.  If you roll up to the station uninjured to make a complaint then the constable dealing with you will decide to whether or not 'warn' the culprit based on the evidence you have.  if you have no colloberating media you may as well forget it as it is a case of your word vs their word.  it's an absolute bollix.

This 'directive' came into being a number of years ago as the court system was so overloaded with what the judicial system here in Scotland perceived as minor offences and it needed freed up to focus on more serious offences. T

The only plus is that the warning is live for a period of time which means it is flagged if the individual is stopped for any subsequent traffic offences. 

inicholson wrote:

...Police Scotland in Glasgow...

which does make this kind of stuff all the more ironic:http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news/2018/april/operation-close-pass-north-east

dodpeters wrote:

inicholson wrote:

...Police Scotland in Glasgow...

which does make this kind of stuff all the more ironic:http://www.scotland.police.uk/whats-happening/news/2018/april/operation-close-pass-north-east

while certain authorities would like to have you believe that Police Scotland is one homogeneous body. In many ways it retains the identities of the original divisions across Scotland. Shortly after Lothian and Borders initiated the ‘close pass’ operation I asked a Traffic Branch officer from the old Strathclyde region if the West of Scotland would be folllwing suit to be told that they would be monitoring how their colleagues got on before contemplating the operation in the west. 

inicholson wrote:

Glad the Met Police take close passes seriously. When I sent a video to Police Scotland in Glasgow (if a driver passing within 10cm of my left foot while I waited to turn right - there were 2 lanes) the reply was "On this occasion no harm was done..." so no action taken. I take this to mean that I have Police Scotland's blessing to run red lights, cycle in pavements, with no lights, etc. , etc. And it will only be a problem if somebody gets hurt. Nice to know.

Here's the response from TVP when I was left-hooked by a Tesco delivery van:

"The footage shows you riding along and a Tesco delivery van passing you on the offside before moving back to the nearside under braking before it turns left at the traffic lights.

I appreciate it looks a little untidy and you may have had to adjust your speed a little but the video footage doesn’t show any road users needing to take action in order to avoid a collision. The footage doesn’t contain sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation because there is no prospect of bringing a prosecution.

In my opinion you did the right thing by anticipating and adjusting your riding but you didn’t need to take action in order to avoid a collision."

Nicely contradicting himself there - I may have had to adjust my speed a little (i.e. brake heavily), but I didn't need to take any action to avoid a collision.

Basically, as I mananged not to get hit by the van, that's ok.

LastBoyScout wrote:

inicholson wrote:

Glad the Met Police take close passes seriously. When I sent a video to Police Scotland in Glasgow (if a driver passing within 10cm of my left foot while I waited to turn right - there were 2 lanes) the reply was "On this occasion no harm was done..." so no action taken. I take this to mean that I have Police Scotland's blessing to run red lights, cycle in pavements, with no lights, etc. , etc. And it will only be a problem if somebody gets hurt. Nice to know.

Here's the response from TVP when I was left-hooked by a Tesco delivery van:

"The footage shows you riding along and a Tesco delivery van passing you on the offside before moving back to the nearside under braking before it turns left at the traffic lights.

I appreciate it looks a little untidy and you may have had to adjust your speed a little but the video footage doesn’t show any road users needing to take action in order to avoid a collision. The footage doesn’t contain sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation because there is no prospect of bringing a prosecution.

In my opinion you did the right thing by anticipating and adjusting your riding but you didn’t need to take action in order to avoid a collision."

Nicely contradicting himself there - I may have had to adjust my speed a little (i.e. brake heavily), but I didn't need to take any action to avoid a collision.

Basically, as I mananged not to get hit by the van, that's ok.

Any link to the footage ?

fenix wrote:

Any link to the footage ?

Oh, go on, then: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQieWNUeQ08&feature=youtu.be

ktache wrote:

Just wondering, who gets the points and the fine for failing to provide the details?

The bus company could presumably be fined.  Not sure how you apply points to the entire company though.  Maybe just add it to the licence of every driver they employ?  That might concentrate minds.

ktache wrote:

Just wondering, who gets the points and the fine for failing to provide the details?

The company Secretary is liable for points and also/or the company, the fine. Obviously the Transport Manager should be able to say that driver A, was driving bus B, on Route C at that time etc. Maybe the company just haven't gotten round to answering the request. 

As pointed out above, the Traffic Commissioners, who oversee the granting of operating licences to bus and haulage companies, won't be too happy with the lack of response.

zero_trooper wrote:

ktache wrote:

Just wondering, who gets the points and the fine for failing to provide the details?

The company Secretary is liable for points and also/or the company, the fine. Obviously the Transport Manager should be able to say that driver A, was driving bus B, on Route C at that time etc. Maybe the company just haven't gotten round to answering the request. 

As pointed out above, the Traffic Commissioners, who oversee the granting of operating licences to bus and haulage companies, won't be too happy with the lack of response.

THe company secretary wouldn’t be held liable for that, surely: any penalties are issued on the company itself as a corporate entity or on the directors (who are responsible for the day to day management of the company).