Recurring concern

Unreliable emergency-response arrangements for bus and coach drivers

First to latest report 25 May 2016 — 2 Aug 2022

Reports that mention this concern: 2
Times this concern has been raised: 2
Stated actions linked to this concern: 3

What this concern includes

Includes failures in dedicated bus or coach emergency-response arrangements, including emergency-braking procedures, driver training, operational protocols, contacting emergency services and other controls governing the immediate response to emergencies affecting the vehicle or its passengers.

What is not included

Excludes general driver training, road driving competence or passenger-safety concerns that are not specifically part of responding to an emergency while driving a bus or coach.
Excludes vehicle braking-system, maintenance or design failures where the driver emergency-response arrangement is not deficient.
Excludes ambulance, police or other emergency-service response failures after the bus or coach driver has appropriately initiated the emergency response.
Excludes routine passenger assistance or ordinary driving procedures unrelated to an emergency situation.

Trends

Reports over time

Reports mentioning this concern, over time

Reports about this concern issued each year.

* 2026 is projected from reports observed to 7 Sep 2026.

Most frequent recipients

Reports about this concern sent to each recipient.

Department for Transport2

Department for Education1

George Abbot School1

Greenshades Coach Travel Limited1

Surrey County Council1

Reports and published responses 2 reports

See individual reports that have raised this concern, and the actions taken in response

2 Aug2022
Newcastle and North Tyneside
Concerns raised1
1. Failure to provide bus and coach drivers with safe emergency braking training
Linked response

Department for Transport
Stated actions 1
1. Department for Transport
  Review all learning materials covering emergency braking and consider whether they need additional or stronger information.
Respondent positions 1
1. Department for Transport
  Existing driver training standards and learning materials are considered sufficient, so the framework will not be amended.
  Existing arrangements considered sufficient
AI-generated summary

Stanley HARDY · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

On 16 June 2019, Stanley HARDY, a pedestrian, was struck by a coach after crossing Peel Street against a red light and died the following day from serious head injuries. Concerns included the coach driver not applying emergency braking despite seeing him in the carriageway, and emergency braking procedures not forming part of required training for new bus and coach drivers.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Failure to provide bus and coach drivers with safe emergency braking training
Wider context from the report
“(1) The coach driver’s evidence was that although he saw the pedestrian in the carriageway he did not forcefully apply his brakes as he had been trained not to do so to protect the welfare of the passengers traveling in his vehicle. (2) Evidence from the Forensic Collision Investigator was that: i. If emergency braking had been applied the coach could have stopped prior to hitting the pedestrian or the collision would have occurred at a significantly reduced speed; and ii. Emergency braking procedures do not form part of the required training for new bus and coach drivers. ”
Source location
Stanley HARDY · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Review all learning materials covering emergency braking and consider whether they need additional or stronger information.

Verbatim wording from the response
“We therefore do not propose to amend that framework, but given the importance of this matter, the DVSA will ensure that all learning materials where emergency braking skills are covered are reviewed at the next opportunity; and consider whether these sections could benefit from additional or stronger information.”

Source location
Response from Department for Transport
Page 3 · response
Published 29 September 2022
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Existing driver training standards and learning materials are considered sufficient, so the framework will not be amended.

Verbatim wording from the response
“You are correct that there is, in a strict reading of the terms, no “required training” for a bus or coach driver (that is, there is no legally mandated training course). I am however satisfied that there is an appropriate framework in place to promote and support safe braking skills; DVSA’s National Standards set out what is expected of bus and coach drivers and the official learning materials support the knowledge and skills that drivers are expected to understand and demonstrate.”

Source location
Response from Department for Transport
Page 2 · response
Published 29 September 2022
Open published response
25 May2016
Surrey
Concerns raised1
1. Absence of emergency-response protocols for drivers driving buses
This report raised 5 other concerns. They are not shown here because they do not form part of this recurring concern.
Linked response

Department for Education
Stated actions 2
1. Department for Education
  Consult on a revised version of the guidance on school transport.
2. Department for Education
  Consider clarifying training expectations for school bus drivers and escorts, including basic life support and emergency healthcare protocols.
AI-generated summary

Christopher James B Sears · Prevention of Future Deaths report

This summary was generated using AI from the published report. Please read the original report for the complete account.

Report summary

Christopher James B Sears, a 13-year-old boy, died on 13 November 2014 after a seizure-like episode on a school bus; resuscitation attempts were unsuccessful. The report raised concerns about the absence of Basic Life Support training and emergency protocols for school-bus drivers, delays in calling emergency services, and difficulties alerting the bus company where there was no formal diagnosis.

Read the report on judiciary.uk
Source evidence
How this individual concern was interpreted
PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below.
PFD Monitor interpretation
Absence of emergency-response protocols for drivers driving buses
Wider context from the report
“3. No protocols were in place to assist a driver as to what to do in an emergency situation whilst driving a bus including the need to call the emergency services at the earliest opportunity. ”
Source location
Christopher James B Sears · Prevention of Future Deaths report
Page 2 · concerns
Open source report
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Consult on a revised version of the guidance on school transport.

Verbatim wording from the response
“It is our intention that LAs should ensure that school bus drivers and escorts have training in basic life support skills and in the implementation of emergency protocols (your third ‘Matter of Concern’). We intend to consult on a revised version of the guidance on school transport in the autumn. Subject to any responses received in response to this consultation, we will consider whether we should further clarify both the description of the training that drivers should undertake and our expectation that training for bus drivers and escorts should include basic life support training alongside the implementation of healthcare protocols, including emergency protocols.”

Source location
2016-0212-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 25 May 2016
Open published response
Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation
Consider clarifying training expectations for school bus drivers and escorts, including basic life support and emergency healthcare protocols.

Verbatim wording from the response
“It is our intention that LAs should ensure that school bus drivers and escorts have training in basic life support skills and in the implementation of emergency protocols (your third ‘Matter of Concern’). We intend to consult on a revised version of the guidance on school transport in the autumn. Subject to any responses received in response to this consultation, we will consider whether we should further clarify both the description of the training that drivers should undertake and our expectation that training for bus drivers and escorts should include basic life support training alongside the implementation of healthcare protocols, including emergency protocols.”

Source location
2016-0212-Response-by-Department-for-Education
Page 1 · response
Published 25 May 2016
Open published response