# Bus complaint letter and response



## jefmcg (12 Mar 2017)

I wrote:
Subject: Complaint of a dangerous close pass of a cyclist, Route 81 towards Slough
Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 
To: CONTACTUS@TFL.GOV.UK
<bus company is United, but their website directs complaints to TFL>
On Tuesday 7 March at 4.34 pm, I was cycling west along Bath Rd heading into the village of Poyle. As I was heading up the incline of the bridge that crosses over the M25 (just after the Moor Bridge bus stop), a double decker passed me at such speed and closeness that I was buffeted by the air turbulence and literally frightened to tears by the danger I was put in.

As you can see from this Google Maps link, the bridge is fairly narrow and is topped a blind crest. There is not room for a bus to safely pass a cyclist without crossing the double lines, which could put both of us as well as an oncoming vehicle in danger. I can’t tell you if the bus crossed the centre line as I was too focussed on my own danger.

Despite his/her apparent hurry to pass me, I kept pace with the bus for the following 3.5 km until our routes diverged. I was able to get the licence place, YX12 FOA (though it may be YX12 FAO). It was 81 bus heading west, and would have arrived in Slough around 4.55-5.00pm on Tuesday the 7 March, 2017. 

I’ve extracted the part of my GPS record of the trip to show the section where I was keeping pace with the bus, which you can see here, if that is useful in identifying the vehicle and hence the driver.

Can you please contact the driver and remind him or her that cyclists need 1.5m of space when passing at speed, and that they shouldn’t overtake any vehicle approaching a blind crest?

Please reply to let me know what action you have taken.

Thank you

They replied:

Subject: (Route 81) Poor driving
Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017 

Dear <me>

Thank you for your feedback form of 10 March about the poor driving from a bus driver on route 81, traveling towards Slough.

I’m sorry to hear that you experienced the hazardous situation that you described and can understand the frustration this caused you, especially as you were adhering to the correct cycling procedures.

Poor driving or driving without due care is simply unacceptable. I’ve made London United, the company that runs this route for us, aware of the speeding issues you described. With the information you’ve provided, the bus company will be able to identify the driver and will be able to take appropriate action to address the driver’s performance.

The safety of our customers and road users is our highest priority. We go to great lengths to train our bus drivers to very high standards. They’re trained to obtain the Category D entitlement on their driving licence. This is required to operate passenger carrying vehicles. Also, whilst receiving vocational training, drivers must then qualify for the Certificate of Professional Competence.

We continue to monitor driving performance, to ensure that high standards are followed and maintained. Every month we carry out over 600 Driver Quality Monitoring surveys. This provides us with technical assessments of their driving skills. Drivers are assessed on acceleration and braking, as well as the use of mirrors and road positioning.

Once again, I can assure you that this matter will be dealt with.

Thanks again for contacting us. If there is anything else we can help you with, please reply to this email. Alternatively, you can call us on 0343 222 1234 and we’ll be happy to help you.

Kind regards

Craig <Surname>

Really just shared this on an FYI basis, but if you have any comments or suggestion that would be welcome.

I am going to write back and make clear that the real problem wasn't the speed but the closeness, as I am sure the bus wasn't breaking the speed limit. Beyond that, I don't think there is any further I should or even could take this.

(yes, and obviously I should have been in primary, so you don't need to lecture me on road positioning)


----------



## classic33 (12 Mar 2017)

Seems to be the standard reply letter, to me. 

If they have the route, they'll know who was driving before they pass it back to London United to deal with.


----------



## raleighnut (13 Mar 2017)

Got to agree Classic, seems a standard 'fob off' letter to me too in that it doesn't address the fault issue.


----------



## Bazzer (13 Mar 2017)

May be I am I am still sleepy, but my interpretation of the response was that they were commenting about generally unacceptable driving standards. Not sure what else they are likely to do at this stage, without some other evidence. I think even if you had a helmet cam and had sent the recording with your letter, the response is likely to be only a little less neutral until they looked into the matter.


----------



## Welsh wheels (13 Mar 2017)

I had a very close pass from a bus the other day and considering reporting it but didn't get round to it. I overtook him later at a bus stop and pulled off waiting until he had passed me again as I didn't want to subject myself to him again. As others have said, it looks like a very scripted letter. From my experience of replies to letters of complaint, it seems that most companies are very careful to not admit fault of any kind on their part. Notice how here most of the letter is spent telling you how amazing their driver training is instead of really addressing the fact that one of their drivers put you in a dangerous situation.


----------



## Drago (13 Mar 2017)

On a related note I recently witnessed an Eddie Stobart 40 or 44 tonne class truck (I don't know which, didn't count the axles) contravene a 7.5 tonne weight limit.

I duly grassed up the driver to his employers and received a vanilla pretty much standard reply, much like then one above.

I therefore passed my dash cam footage to the police, and we'll see if they make a more meaningful response when the prosecution of their driver reaches the local press.


----------



## raleighnut (13 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> On a related note I recently witnessed an Eddie Stobart 40 or 44 tonne class truck (I don't know which, didn't count the axles) contravene a 7.5 tonne weight limit.
> 
> I duly grassed up the driver to his employers and received a vanilla pretty much standard reply, much like then one above.
> 
> I therefore passed my dash cam footage to the police, and we'll see if they make a more meaningful response when the prosecution of their driver reaches the local press.


10-1 he'll play the 'access' card.


----------



## Drago (13 Mar 2017)

He can't, fortunately, it's a 1/4 miles stretch, a link road, with no properties coming off it, common land one side, farm land on the other. There are no properties within the restricted zone for him to access.

He would have been heading to Stobarts warehouse on a nearby industrial estate, and his shortcut saved him about 10 minutes.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Mar 2017)

This sis the reason I never mention head cam footage in the first complaint

Let them write the letter fobbing you off, denying it happened or where the driver states it was all your fault......

Then send in the camera footage and ask them to explain their response


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (13 Mar 2017)

Sounds like a standard proforma reply.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> Seems to be the standard reply letter, to me.



What's worrying is that a bus service has a "standard" letter for atrocious driving.


----------



## classic33 (13 Mar 2017)

Bazzer said:


> May be I am I am still sleepy, but my interpretation of the response was that they were commenting about generally unacceptable driving standards. Not sure what else they are likely to do at this stage, without some other evidence. I think even if you had a helmet cam and had sent the recording with your letter, the response is likely to be only a little less neutral until they looked into the matter.


The bus/vehicle in question is fitted with front, rear and side mounted cameras.

Calibrated as collision cameras, making distance easy to work out.


----------



## classic33 (13 Mar 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> What's worrying is that a bus service has a "standard" letter for atrocious driving.


Most do. As do some local councils, for their mini-bus services.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> Most do. As do some local councils, for their mini-bus services.


The point I was making, was that this must be a standard enough incident for them to have a standard response.

Yet still they do nothing to sort it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Mar 2017)

jefmcg said:


> They replied:
> 
> Subject: (Route 81) Poor driving
> Date: Sun, 12 Mar 2017
> ...



That's a bog standard waffle response that concedes nothing and tells you nothing. Since a very near collision with a local bus (and the company's similar response, with some lies thrown in), my approach with incidents like this is to copy my complaint to the police and the area Traffic Commissioner. The bus company is likely to be more worried about possible action from the TC than the police.


----------



## classic33 (13 Mar 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> The point I was making, was that this must be a standard enough incident for them to have a standard response.
> *
> Yet still they do nothing to sort it.*


They seem to hope that the letter will make everything better. Local bus company has at least three such letters, depending on how you were travelling at the time of the incident.

At some stage they might do something. A freedom of information request for the camera footage may have them thinking twice. Or a call to the company Chief Executive, at home, to explain may have things moving quicker. Did for me.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> A freedom of information request for the camera footage may have them thinking twice



In my incident the bus company claimed that the footage was already deleted by the time I made my request for it to be reviewed (less than an hour from the near collision, and from the bus following too!)


----------



## classic33 (13 Mar 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> In my incident the bus company claimed that the footage was already deleted by the time I made my request for it to be reviewed (less than an hour from the near collision, and from the bus following too!)


Both vehicles pulled off the road for the afternoon. Seems odd.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> Both vehicles pulled off the road for the afternoon. Seems odd.



I take it by 'odd' you mean 'a pack of lies'...?


----------



## Bazzer (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> The bus/vehicle in question is fitted with front, rear and side mounted cameras.
> 
> Calibrated as collision cameras, making distance easy to work out.



I don't doubt that there isn't at least one camera on the bus, but I'd have doubted the bus company would act in the first instance in any way other than sending a bog standard reply. Pardon my cynicism, but how many times do we hear on the forum about drivers who have been captured on cams doing misdemeanours and then their employers, insurance companies, or whoever, have to be faced down. Certainly from what I recall reading, it is a rare business which is proactive in the event of a complaint from a cyclist.


----------



## ufkacbln (13 Mar 2017)

Bazzer said:


> I don't doubt that there isn't at least one camera on the bus, but I'd have doubted the bus company would act in the first instance in any way other than sending a bog standard reply. Pardon my cynicism, but how many times do we hear on the forum about drivers who have been captured on cams doing misdemeanours and then their employers, insurance companies, or whoever, have to be faced down. Certainly from what I recall reading, it is a rare business which is proactive in the event of a complaint from a cyclist.



Another reason for keeeping camera footage quiet

Managers hate being put on the spot

"Please find enclosed a video of the event that I reported, it unfortunate that your Company's version varies so differently from what actually happened

I would look forward to an explanation of this discrepancy"

...and most will not accept that the employee lied to them as appropriate behaviour


----------



## classic33 (13 Mar 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I take it by 'odd' you mean 'a pack of lies'...?


Yep


----------



## jefmcg (13 Mar 2017)

Thanks for the feed back everyone.

I'm feeling a little less sorry for myself after reading this
_A bus driver has killed 38 people after ploughing into pedestrians while trying to speed away from a fatal accident in Haiti._


----------



## spen666 (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> They seem to hope that the letter will make everything better. Local bus company has at least three such letters, depending on how you were travelling at the time of the incident.
> 
> At some stage they might do something. A freedom of information request for the camera footage may have them thinking twice. Or a call to the company Chief Executive, at home, to explain may have things moving quicker. Did for me.




Why would a local bus company respond to an FOI request?


----------



## classic33 (13 Mar 2017)

spen666 said:


> Why would a local bus company respond to an FOI request?


How'd you suggest getting the onboard camera footage?

TFL had FOI has requests for fleet/registration numbers, which they supply.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> How'd you suggest getting the onboard camera footage?



I think the proper avenue is a data subject access request.


----------



## Welsh wheels (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> How'd you suggest getting the onboard camera footage?


Midnight break-in at the bus company's offices. Black clothes, black gloves, black hat all the get-up. Search for the files by torchlight in a dark office. Just like in the films. Then sprint away on a fast bike.


----------



## mjr (13 Mar 2017)

spen666 said:


> Why would a local bus company respond to an FOI request?


TFL should if it's under contract to TFL. https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/detailed_data_regarding_fataliti which also shows it's not cyclists they usually collide with


----------



## spen666 (13 Mar 2017)

classic33 said:


> How'd you suggest getting the onboard camera footage?
> 
> TFL had FOI has requests for fleet/registration numbers, which they supply.


I would suggest making a request using the correct legislation.

A local bus company is not subject to FOI legislation. Even if it were, an FOI request would not get the video evidence.

Try making a subject access request under the Data Protection legislation


----------



## Dec66 (13 Mar 2017)

Many moons ago, I was riding past a bus which was stopped in the bus lane on Lewisham High Street, just past the Ladywell Road junction; he was signalling to pull out but couldn't because of traffic, so I just went rather than hang about.

As I was about to reach the pinch point further up the road, where it goes under the railway bridge, said bus passed me and cut me up to the degree that I had to mount the pavement to avoid being hit.

He then stopped halfway up Molesworth Street; I pulled up and asked him what all that was about, and why did he try to do something so stupid; he refused to acknowledge me. As I was doing this, another cyclist told me he'd seen what had happened, and made sure the driver heard him say it.

We rode off together, discussing it, two abreast. It's a dual carriageway on that stretch. Next thing we know, the bus comes flying past us on the outside lane, honking his horn and trying to intimidate us. He then cut across us, and got stuck in the middle lane of three before the roundabout.

The other cyclist pointed at the bus's number plate, then at the driver, and told the driver he was going to report him, before heading up Loampit Vale. I picked my way through the traffic, and was waiting to go straight on, when the bus came past me, the driver calling me a "f**king w*nk*r", and pulled out onto the roundabout right in the path of traffic coming from the right; those drivers had to slam on hard to avoid t-boning the bus.

Now, I could take the cut-up, and the intimidation, and the abuse... But threatening the safety of his passengers and those other drivers was a step too far. So I wrote a letter to the bus company, outlining everything in detail, with the time, service number, reg. no., everything. I even said that it was such a shame, as I usually find bus drivers to be courteous and professional, and I was sorry that I felt I had to report this as it was so extreme.

The result? A letter, just like the OP's.

I honestly don't think I they give a flying one, so long as no-one gets killed or seriously injured.


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Mar 2017)

spen666 said:


> I would suggest making a request using the correct legislation.
> 
> A local bus company is not subject to FOI legislation. Even if it were, an FOI request would not get the video evidence.
> 
> Try making a subject access request under the Data Protection legislation



They would only need to supply information stored about an individual. So wouldn't have to provide the video then either.


----------



## Drago (14 Mar 2017)

Which one of our esteemed members is it that uses this tactic?

They contact the company to complain. The driver then fibs and tells his bosses he did nothing wrong. When the company contacts them back our hero then triumphantly produces the video to show the driver is a bulls*****r, and which then puts the company in an embarrassing position.

More than one driver lost his job that way. Cracking tactic.


----------



## LCpl Boiled Egg (14 Mar 2017)

Drago said:


> Which one of our esteemed members is it that uses this tactic?
> 
> They contact the company to complain. The driver then fibs and tells his bosses he did nothing wrong. When the company contacts them back our hero then triumphantly produces the video to show the driver is a bulls*****r, and which then puts the company in an embarrassing position.
> 
> More than one driver lost his job that way. Cracking tactic.



That'll be @Cunobelin , post #22. Great stuff.


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Mar 2017)

ABikeCam said:


> That'll be @Cunobelin , post #22. Great stuff.



My colleague had an even more interesting one.

Similar situation, then had a phone call at work.

When challenged with the video the driver had simply walked out of the interview......which the Company took as a formal resignation


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Mar 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> They would only need to supply information stored about an individual. So wouldn't have to provide the video then either.




That's not right, information about an individual includes that person's image. See https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

_"You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system."_​


----------



## Drago (14 Mar 2017)

Cuno win's todays Chuckle of the Day award...


----------



## spen666 (14 Mar 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> They would only need to supply information stored about an individual. So wouldn't have to provide the video then either.


Think you are mistaken about what data is and what is covered by Data Protection Act.

Requests under the Data Protection Act are how people get hold of for example CCTV footage of incidents from police or councils where they are the person on the footage

You could do worse than read what the Information Commissioner's Office have to say on the matter.


> ...The Data Protection Act gives you the right to see information held about you, including CCTV images of you...



https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/

Still nice try at giving legal advice Phil. Don't let the fact that you haven't got a clue about the law and are 100% wrong put you off


----------



## ufkacbln (14 Mar 2017)

spen666 said:


> Think you are mistaken about what data is and what is covered by Data Protection Act.
> 
> Requests under the Data Protection Act are how people get hold of for example CCTV footage of incidents from police or councils where they are the person on the footage
> 
> ...



I thought that there was a "get out clause"

If there are others on the video than you could refuse onto grounds that you were breaching the confidentiality of others....


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Mar 2017)

spen666 said:


> Think you are mistaken about what data is and what is covered by Data Protection Act.
> 
> Requests under the Data Protection Act are how people get hold of for example CCTV footage of incidents from police or councils where they are the person on the footage
> 
> ...



https://www.out-law.com/en/topics/t...ivacy/how-to-satisfy-subject-access-requests/

See section about manual files. 
If it's not stored in a structured set it's not covered by the act. 

I may have misinterpreted that but I'd consider rolling CCTV footage that is not stored in any particular manner with reference to any person that it is not covered by act. 

Btw, whether I am right or wrong I am happy to be corrected, but there's no need to be so aggressive just to try and prove a point. I have linked to the information that forms my opinion of CCTV footage when not stored in relation to the individual. If that's wrong, please do correct me so that I know where my interpretation is incorrect. But the last paragraph of your post is quite unnecessary, the rest of it is civil I don't understand the purpose of the attack?


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Mar 2017)

glasgowcyclist said:


> That's not right, information about an individual includes that person's image. See https://ico.org.uk/for-the-public/cctv/
> 
> _"You have the right to see CCTV images of you and to ask for a copy of them. The organisation must provide them within 40 calendar days of your request, and you may be asked to pay a fee of up to £10 (this is the maximum charge, set by Parliament). This is called a Subject Access Request. You will need to provide details to help the operator to establish your identity as the person in the pictures, and to help them find the images on their system."_​


See my other post. I thought this only applied if it was stored in an organised manner, as non organised information wasn't covered by the act. But I may have mis understood the wording.


----------



## spen666 (14 Mar 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> https://www.out-law.com/en/topics/t...ivacy/how-to-satisfy-subject-access-requests/
> 
> See section about manual files.
> If it's not stored in a structured set it's not covered by the act.
> ...




A video or CCTV is not a manual file


----------



## PhilDawson8270 (14 Mar 2017)

spen666 said:


> A video or CCTV is not a manual file



Thanks.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Mar 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> See my other post. I thought this only applied if it was stored in an organised manner, as non organised information wasn't covered by the act. But I may have mis understood the wording.



I think you've focussed on a piece of the article which is concerned with how manual files are to be handled:

_"The manual files which are caught by the Act are those which pass the two tests set out in the definition of a relevant filing system."_​
and extended this, mistakenly, to cover all files such as CCTV footage (non-manual).


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Mar 2017)

PhilDawson8270 said:


> Btw, whether I am right or wrong I am happy to be corrected, but there's no need to be so aggressive just to try and prove a point. I have linked to the information that forms my opinion of CCTV footage when not stored in relation to the individual. If that's wrong, please do correct me so that I know where my interpretation is incorrect. But the last paragraph of your post is quite unnecessary, the rest of it is civil I don't understand the purpose of the attack?



I agree wholeheartedly with your view here.


----------



## Treewisemonkey (28 May 2017)

From what I've seen over the past 20 years is a steady decline in the standard of London bus drivers. That's very polite isn't it.
The near misses, speeding, poor lane discipline, and as for signaling, ha, don't make me laugh.
I do believe that they are trained but as soon as they've passed their test it all goes out of the window.
Cycling in London, you see it every single day.
Rant over, happy cycling.


----------

