To: Lorna Murphy, Director of Buses, TfL
From: Kevin Mustafa
RE: Bus Driver Safety, Fatigue and Accountability on London’s Bus Network
Sent: Thursday, 5 March 2026 14:05:05 GMT
RE: Bus Driver Safety, Fatigue and Accountability on London’s Bus Network
Sent: Thursday, 5 March 2026 14:05:05 GMT
cc: Transport Commissioner; Deputy Mayor for Transport; Deputy Mayor for Social Justice and Communities, London Victims' Commissioner; TfL Walking and Cycling Commissioner; TfL Board Secretariat; TfL SSHR Panel Secretariat; TfL Chief Safety Officer; TfL Director of Bus; TfL Head of Insights and Direction; TfL Chief Operations Officer; London Assembly Transport Committee Members; CEO, London TravelWatch; Dan Tomlinson MP; Ben Coleman MP; Katie Lam MP; Olly Glover MP; Ruth Cadbury MP; Catherine Atkinson MP; Workplace Colleague Network - London Bus Forums; Sharon Graham - Unite the Union; Journalists; Bus Drivers; Campaigners
Dear Ms Murphy,
Thank you for your reply.
I have forwarded on your reply (below) to my previous email to those copied into my original correspondence.
I must say that your response raises serious concerns. While it outlines Transport for London’s stated commitments regarding bus driver welfare and safety, it does not address the fundamental issue that has been raised repeatedly over many years: the persistent and systemic problem of driver fatigue across the London bus network.
The issue of fatigue is not new, nor is it lacking evidence. The London Assembly Transport Committee first raised the issue in its Bus Safety Investigation commonly referred to as “Driven to Distraction”, published in July 2017. That research clearly highlighted the risks associated with fatigue, distraction and demanding duty schedules faced by London bus drivers.
In addition to the London Assembly’s good work, independent research on London Bus Driver Fatigue conducted by Loughborough University that was commissioned by TfL examined fatigue, working patterns and operational pressures affecting drivers on the London bus network. The findings reinforced concerns that long shifts, irregular scheduling and insufficient recovery time can significantly increase fatigue levels, with clear implications for safety.
Taken together, these reports demonstrate that the evidence base has existed for many years. It is therefore difficult to understand why TfL continues to suggest that it is still “building the evidence base”. The evidence has already been gathered and has been available for a considerable period of time.
This issue was also clearly recognised by drivers themselves. On 7 February 2020, a ballot of London bus drivers organised through Unite the Union returned a 98% vote in favour of industrial action over fatigue and working conditions. This overwhelming result reflected the level of concern within the workforce at the time. That ballot took place more than six years ago, yet the underlying issues that led to it remain unresolved.
Fatigue is not simply a matter of driver comfort. It is a serious safety risk that affects drivers, passengers and other road users. Bus drivers operate large public service vehicles for extended periods in one of the busiest and most demanding urban environments in the world. Ensuring that those drivers are properly protected from fatigue is therefore essential to maintaining safe operations across the network.
There is also growing concern regarding the number of incidents and collisions involving buses across London in recent years. While each incident has its own circumstances, it would be irresponsible not to consider whether operational pressures, fatigue and driver welfare conditions are contributing factors within the wider safety environment of the network.
Bus drivers operate under intense conditions: long duties, congested urban roads, tight schedules and frequent exposure to conflict situations. These pressures accumulate over time. When fatigue is added to this environment, the potential impact on safety — for drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road users — becomes a matter that must be taken extremely seriously.
Your email also states that scheduling arrangements are agreed between operators and local trade unions. While that may be the case, it does not remove the responsibility of Transport for London as the contracting authority responsible for the overall operation of the London bus network. TfL ultimately sets the framework within which operators deliver services and therefore has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that driver welfare standards are properly embedded within those contracts.
For that reason, I believe a more robust and transparent approach is required. One potential solution would be the introduction of a formal Bus Driver Bill of Rights embedded within TfL bus operating contracts. Such a framework could establish clear, enforceable standards designed to protect driver welfare and reduce fatigue-related risks.
These protections could include measures such as:
You also referred to Transport for London’s commitment to eliminating violence and aggression against transport workers. That commitment is welcome and important. However, driver safety must be viewed holistically. Fatigue, operational pressures, welfare facilities and exposure to violence all contribute to the overall safety environment experienced by drivers.
London bus drivers are at the front line of the capital’s transport system. They are responsible for safely transporting millions of passengers every day under challenging conditions. It is therefore essential that their working environment reflects the importance of the role they perform.
At present, there remains a significant gap between the commitments outlined in policy statements and the lived experience reported by many drivers across the network.
I would therefore ask that Transport for London provide clarity on the following points:
Dear Ms Murphy,
Thank you for your reply.
I have forwarded on your reply (below) to my previous email to those copied into my original correspondence.
I must say that your response raises serious concerns. While it outlines Transport for London’s stated commitments regarding bus driver welfare and safety, it does not address the fundamental issue that has been raised repeatedly over many years: the persistent and systemic problem of driver fatigue across the London bus network.
The issue of fatigue is not new, nor is it lacking evidence. The London Assembly Transport Committee first raised the issue in its Bus Safety Investigation commonly referred to as “Driven to Distraction”, published in July 2017. That research clearly highlighted the risks associated with fatigue, distraction and demanding duty schedules faced by London bus drivers.
In addition to the London Assembly’s good work, independent research on London Bus Driver Fatigue conducted by Loughborough University that was commissioned by TfL examined fatigue, working patterns and operational pressures affecting drivers on the London bus network. The findings reinforced concerns that long shifts, irregular scheduling and insufficient recovery time can significantly increase fatigue levels, with clear implications for safety.
Taken together, these reports demonstrate that the evidence base has existed for many years. It is therefore difficult to understand why TfL continues to suggest that it is still “building the evidence base”. The evidence has already been gathered and has been available for a considerable period of time.
This issue was also clearly recognised by drivers themselves. On 7 February 2020, a ballot of London bus drivers organised through Unite the Union returned a 98% vote in favour of industrial action over fatigue and working conditions. This overwhelming result reflected the level of concern within the workforce at the time. That ballot took place more than six years ago, yet the underlying issues that led to it remain unresolved.
Fatigue is not simply a matter of driver comfort. It is a serious safety risk that affects drivers, passengers and other road users. Bus drivers operate large public service vehicles for extended periods in one of the busiest and most demanding urban environments in the world. Ensuring that those drivers are properly protected from fatigue is therefore essential to maintaining safe operations across the network.
There is also growing concern regarding the number of incidents and collisions involving buses across London in recent years. While each incident has its own circumstances, it would be irresponsible not to consider whether operational pressures, fatigue and driver welfare conditions are contributing factors within the wider safety environment of the network.
Bus drivers operate under intense conditions: long duties, congested urban roads, tight schedules and frequent exposure to conflict situations. These pressures accumulate over time. When fatigue is added to this environment, the potential impact on safety — for drivers, passengers, pedestrians and other road users — becomes a matter that must be taken extremely seriously.
Your email also states that scheduling arrangements are agreed between operators and local trade unions. While that may be the case, it does not remove the responsibility of Transport for London as the contracting authority responsible for the overall operation of the London bus network. TfL ultimately sets the framework within which operators deliver services and therefore has both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that driver welfare standards are properly embedded within those contracts.
For that reason, I believe a more robust and transparent approach is required. One potential solution would be the introduction of a formal Bus Driver Bill of Rights embedded within TfL bus operating contracts. Such a framework could establish clear, enforceable standards designed to protect driver welfare and reduce fatigue-related risks.
These protections could include measures such as:
- Minimum guaranteed rest periods between duties
- Limits on excessively long or irregular duty schedules
- Guaranteed access to proper toilet and welfare facilities at route termini
- Fatigue risk assessments applied consistently across all operators
- Clear reporting and monitoring mechanisms for fatigue-related concerns
- Independent oversight to ensure compliance with driver welfare standards
You also referred to Transport for London’s commitment to eliminating violence and aggression against transport workers. That commitment is welcome and important. However, driver safety must be viewed holistically. Fatigue, operational pressures, welfare facilities and exposure to violence all contribute to the overall safety environment experienced by drivers.
London bus drivers are at the front line of the capital’s transport system. They are responsible for safely transporting millions of passengers every day under challenging conditions. It is therefore essential that their working environment reflects the importance of the role they perform.
At present, there remains a significant gap between the commitments outlined in policy statements and the lived experience reported by many drivers across the network.
I would therefore ask that Transport for London provide clarity on the following points:
- What specific actions have been taken since the publication of the earlier fatigue research to address the risks identified?
- Why TfL continues to describe the issue as requiring further evidence when extensive research has already been carried out over a number of years.
- Whether TfL would consider incorporating a formal driver welfare framework, such as a Bus Driver Bill of Rights, within future bus operating contracts.
The concerns being raised are not theoretical. They are based on years of operational experience and on evidence that the London Assembly has published and TfL itself has commissioned.
I hope that TfL will treat these concerns with the seriousness they deserve and move beyond further study towards meaningful action that genuinely protects the safety and wellbeing of London’s bus drivers.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Mustafa
I hope that TfL will treat these concerns with the seriousness they deserve and move beyond further study towards meaningful action that genuinely protects the safety and wellbeing of London’s bus drivers.
I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
Kevin Mustafa
Sent: 05 March 2026 12:59
To: Kevin Mustafa
Subject: RE: Why do the Mayor and TfL refuse to protect London's Bus Drivers from Institutionally Unsafe Working Conditions
To: Kevin Mustafa
Subject: RE: Why do the Mayor and TfL refuse to protect London's Bus Drivers from Institutionally Unsafe Working Conditions
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your email. Please see a response below from Lorna Murphy.
Dear Kevin,
Thank you for your email.
As I have set out to you in previous correspondence, London bus drivers are at the heart of our network and their safety and welfare is of the highest importance. TfL is committed to improving bus driver welfare within the areas under its control and influence. This includes investing in additional toilets across the network and continually improving our Bus Vehicle Specification to ensure all buses across the fleet support bus driver welfare and safety. While the specifics of scheduling are agreed between operators and local trade unions according to the agreements within each company, TfL continues to build the evidence base around fatigue and the impact of scheduling on this, including through our ongoing trial of Fatigue Detection Technology. TfL has also commissioned expert guidance on the use of fatigue risk assessment tools (FRATs) and has shared this with operating companies.
Regarding violence against transport workers, this is unacceptable in all forms. TfL’s 2026 Business Plan has reiterated our vision to eradicate work-related violence and aggression, in line with our Vision Zero commitments to eliminate harm for all those that work or travel on our network. This includes bus drivers and other colleagues working for contracted services just as much as TfL’s directly employed colleagues. Our strategy focuses on preventing incidents before they occur and supporting anyone who needs it. You can read more about TfL’s work to address workplace violence and aggression here.
Regarding the London Assembly motion concerning Mark Hehir, the Mayor and TfL will be responding directly to the Assembly’s motion.
Yours sincerely,
Lorna Murphy
Source: https://saferoxfordstreet.blogspot.com/2026/03/bus-driver-safety-fatigue-and.html
Auto-imported from Tom Kearney’s blog.