DRIVING - 07.03.2019

£2.3 million fine for bus company

The accident

On 3 October 2015 a bus driver for Midland Red (South) Ltd (M) lost control and ploughed into a Sainsbury’s supermarket. One pedestrian and a child passenger died, and two other passengers were seriously injured. The driver of the bus, 77-year-old Kailash Chander (C), had mistaken the accelerator pedal for the brake. At the trial in September 2018 he was found to have been driving dangerously. However, the hearing took place without C because he was unfit to plead or stand trial. Since the accident he has been diagnosed with dementia and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Preceding events

In addition to the police prosecution against the driver, the HSE investigated his employer’s involvement. C was a relief driver who volunteered himself for all available shifts. He had a history of working excessive hours, working 72 hours on average for each of the three weeks prior to the accident. His hours were known to be causing a deterioration in his driving. C had received eight warning letters generated by the telematics devices which monitored the fleet of buses. He had also been involved in four collisions in three years and been the subject of several passenger complaints relating to his driving.

Although M took notice, it had not gone far enough in its response. For example, it referred C for extra training at its driving school, during which the instructor advised him to curb his hours. His managers at Leamington Spa were aware of this, but when he was seconded to the Rugby depot in September 2015 his new manager wasn’t briefed.

In court

M, a subsidiary of Stagecoach, pleaded guilty to two offences under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 . It was fined £2.33 million plus £7,204 in costs. Although M met all the regulations surrounding driver working hours and medical checks and went beyond this with its driver monitoring, it was still found to have failed in its duty of care.

Tip. Allowing the driver to continue in his job without modifying his hours was a major mistake, given that its own expert had advised on that course of action. Unlike M, ensure that you respond effectively to indications that a driver is putting themselves or others at risk.

Reluctance to act

It appears that M’s fear of contravening the Equality Act 2010 had played a part in its decision making. Given the heavy penalties for discriminatory behaviour, M felt unable to set a maximum age limit for drivers or restrict the working hours of its older employees. After the case, a spokesperson for the company said that it was working with industry partners to influence the government over the application of age discrimination law in the sector.

Tip. A maximum age limit for drivers of public service vehicles may not ever be imposed. Therefore, to avoid a similar situation you’ll need to rely on robustly evaluating your drivers’ safety on an ongoing basis.

As well as the continued use of driver monitoring software, M has increased the frequency of medical checks and introduced an additional review process for older drivers.