Tube driver filming himself whilst driving

[Crithylum]

He's definitely moved the camera around at stations a number of times. There is also a video where he is dealing with a minor emergency and is still talking to the camera and at some point turns the camera off - so his focus is at least partially on filming rather than entirely on what he is dealing with. Is it significant? I don't know - we'd have to see the risk assessments (that surely exist?) to know. My view would be that any level of unnecessary additional risk is unacceptable unless it has an operational need.

So is it a problem that he is not filming when most attention is needed? I appreciate that it could be a distraction turning the camera on and off, however, my GoPro only requires 1 button click to stop recording, and another click of the same button to start. Personally, I think there are many things more distracting than clicking a button twice.

As stated earlier, another angle is that the guy is making money off these videos, through YouTube advertisements and memberships. Is it right that he should be allowed to make additional income from his job which ultimately the taxpayer facilitates? Surely any income gained whilst filming as an employee of TfL should be fed back into TfL. What happens when other drivers realise they can make a bit of extra money by making YouTube videos and then everyone wants to do it?

If this is the case, then it should be expected that he is compensated for costs incurred as a result of making these videos, such as cameras, computers, as well as time. Also I would like to counter your point about taxpayers facilitating this job, given that LU is revenue positive (https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-ar...ons-mayor/find-an-answer/tfl-recovery-ratio-0)

 

[bengley]

He's definitely moved the camera around at stations a number of times. There is also a video where he is dealing with a minor emergency and is still talking to the camera and at some point turns the camera off - so his focus is at least partially on filming rather than entirely on what he is dealing with. Is it significant? I don't know - we'd have to see the risk assessments (that surely exist?) to know. My view would be that any level of unnecessary additional risk is unacceptable unless it has an operational need.

As stated earlier, another angle is that the guy is making money off these videos, through YouTube advertisements and memberships. Is it right that he should be allowed to make additional income from his job which ultimately the taxpayer facilitates? Surely any income gained whilst filming as an employee of TfL should be fed back into TfL. What happens when other drivers realise they can make a bit of extra money by making YouTube videos and then everyone wants to do it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==


I think we should take the chance on the status quo with decades of research and experience behind it rather than making (questionable) hypothesis about making YouTube videos enhancing someone's ability to drive trains.

Regarding making money off the videos... Null point I'm afraid. He's not doing the majority of the hard work which is the editing of the videos while he's on company time, he's doing that in his own time. Plus then he'll also be paying additional tax on any money he earns from YouTube anyway.

As someone mentioned above in this thread by @43066 I think I'm qualified to comment here.

Having a camera in the cab isn't distracting. Part of the job is managing distractions and if you are distracted by simply having a camera in the cab then you're probably not cut out to drive trains.

Equally, many drivers talk to themselves in the cab as a way of managing distractions and keeping themselves alert - are we suggesting that's a problem? This guy is clearly driving his train competently and professionally. Perhaps his talking to the camera about the route helps him as a sort of personal protection strategy? After all, commentary driving is a well known method for drivers being assessed or when they feel the need to use it to help them!

 

[357]

One thing I've noted from this thread is that the majority of people who are outraged have never driven a train.

 

[Intermodal]

Having a camera in the cab isn't distracting. Part of the job is managing distractions and if you are distracted by simply having a camera in the cab then you're probably not cut out to drive trains.

He's not simply having a camera in the cab though, is he? He's talking to the camera in a "radio show" style - responding to viewer questions/queries/comments - which (assuming I got the reference correctly), you do not do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

One thing I've noted from this thread is that the majority of people who are outraged have never driven a train.

I'm not sure who you are talking about, but this certainly does not apply to me. I have driven trains significantly more than I would've liked.

 

[dosxuk]

There is also a video where he is dealing with a minor emergency and is still talking to the camera and at some point turns the camera off - so his focus is at least partially on filming rather than entirely on what he is dealing with.

What you don't know is a) if he actually turned the camera off; b) if he did, when he actually stopped and restarted the recording; or c) whether he concentrated on the camera instead of dealing with the incident.

You're only seeing an edited version of what he recorded at the time, accompanied by the simplest explanation needed to explain the obvious edit.

 

[Intermodal]

What you don't know is a) if he actually turned the camera off; b) if he did, when he actually stopped and restarted the recording; or c) whether he concentrated on the camera instead of dealing with the incident.

Sorry, you've clearly not watched the clip concerned as it is obvious that he did turn the camera off, and therefore B and C are also obvious.

 

[contrex]

One thing I've noted from this thread is that the majority of people who are outraged have never driven a train.

I have noted that it seems that way. I have never driven a train either. I've been watching this bloke's very interesting and informative videos for a few weeks now, and I don't, as a layman admittedly, seen anything that strikes me as out of order safety wise. One thing that definitely puzzles me is that I've always prided myself on knowing accents, and I can't place where this chap comes from!

 

[dosxuk]

Sorry, you've clearly not watched the clip concerned as it is obvious that he did turn the camera off, and therefore B and C are also obvious.

In the clip I've seen there is no evidence of him physically turning the camera off.

And it is impossible to categorically state that someone has turned a camera off without seeing the actual raw recordings.

 

[bengley]

He's not simply having a camera in the cab though, is he? He's talking to the camera in a "radio show" style - responding to viewer questions/queries/comments - which (assuming I got the reference correctly), you do not do.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==


I'm not sure who you are talking about, but this certainly does not apply to me. I have driven trains significantly more than I would've liked.

I only talk to myself when I'm not recording because the crap I say wouldn't be conducive to a good video

 

[Intermodal]

In the clip I've seen there is no evidence of him physically turning the camera off.

And it is impossible to categorically state that someone has turned a camera off without seeing the actual raw recordings.

At 47:54 he states "I am going to turn the camera off", and then the camera tips forward ever so slightly in the frame before the footage ends, which would be consistent with someone pressing the recording stop button on the type of camera he uses (GoPro) - which is on top of the camera. So yes, there is no conclusive evidence that he turns it off physically, but it seems overwhelmingly likely, considering he literally says that he is doing it and then the camera moves...

I've absolutely no idea how you can even begin to claim that fiddling about with a camera whilst operating in a circumstance that needs his full attention is professional driving behaviour. Instead of thinking about how he will manage the situation ahead, he's immediately focusing on his filming activities whilst the train is still rolling towards a (potentially) dangerous situation. Not to mention the internal communications via the train radio which are also shared on YouTube (did the person in control/the signaller consent to this? Are they aware of it?).

It really seems quite strange to me, to be honest.

 

[Purple Train]

What’s perhaps more surprising is that from a security point of view it is quite clearly showing people how to drive a train, not sure how wise that is nowadays - though I don’t think he has shown stuff like where to put keys or how to open up the cab.

Slightly playing devil's advocate - but that kind of thing can also be found in, for instance, train simulation games and the like. I would agree with you that maybe they shouldn't go into that much detail, but I don't think that these videos are any more "harmful" than such games.

I find the videos really interesting, and, as long as TfL have allowed them, which they have, I have no issue with them. Lots of it is basically commentary (which is a fairly normal concentration technique, right?) - the only difference is that there is a camera there, and, in the videos I've watched, he doesn't move it in any instance where it would interfere with his concentration. In the video linked to in post #40, the train is travelling at 5mph and he has just made a PA announcement - is pressing one button on a camera mounted in a position where you can turn it on or off while still looking ahead any different from picking up/putting down a PA handset?

I am very surprised that it's allowed, but clearly TfL have set boundaries that he is respecting, so I have no issue with it.

He's not simply having a camera in the cab though, is he? He's talking to the camera in a "radio show" style - responding to viewer questions/queries/comments - which (assuming I got the reference correctly), you do not do.

I may not have watched the videos in which this is a major part, but, in the ones that I have watched, "radio show" is perhaps slightly hyperbolic.

One thing that definitely puzzles me is that I've always prided myself on knowing accents, and I can't place where this chap comes from!

Me neither!

 

[Deepgreen]

He dubs over doing the voiceover at home i reckon

Not unless he also plays loud and accurate train sound effects at that time too!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

I have noted that it seems that way. I have never driven a train either. I've been watching this bloke's very interesting and informative videos for a few weeks now, and I don't, as a layman admittedly, seen anything that strikes me as out of order safety wise. One thing that definitely puzzles me is that I've always prided myself on knowing accents, and I can't place where this chap comes from!

Sounds like West Midlands to me.

 

[43066]

He's definitely moved the camera around at stations a number of times. There is also a video where he is dealing with a minor emergency and is still talking to the camera and at some point turns the camera off - so his focus is at least partially on filming rather than entirely on what he is dealing with. Is it significant? I don't know - we'd have to see the risk assessments (that surely exist?) to know. My view would be that any level of unnecessary additional risk is unacceptable unless it has an operational need.

I don’t know if there’s a risk assessment for this? As I say, “we” (as in the railway) are happy to accept people being allowed into the cab, not strictly for operational reasons, eg a driver travelling with his mate for a chat rather than sitting in the saloon. I’m just not sure this is that different.

As stated earlier, another angle is that the guy is making money off these videos, through YouTube advertisements and memberships. Is it right that he should be allowed to make additional income from his job which ultimately the taxpayer facilitates? Surely any income gained whilst filming as an employee of TfL should be fed back into TfL. What happens when other drivers realise they can make a bit of extra money by making YouTube videos and then everyone wants to do it?

I don’t think this really follows. Any money he’s making is purely from content that he has filmed at work but edited in his own time, on his own equipment - as @bengley notes (and if anyone should know about these matters, it’s him!). It isn’t revenue that he’s somehow depriving his employer of. He will of course be bound by TfL/LU’s social media policy, and will need to be compliant with his employment contract in terms of making them aware of other work he’s doing.

I think we should take the chance on the status quo with decades of research and experience behind it rather than making (questionable) hypothesis about making YouTube videos enhancing someone's ability to drive trains.

To be honest I’m not sure the current rules are that well thought out, and they can be quite inconsistent. I can read a paperback if sitting at a red, but couldn’t read the same book on the Kindle app on my iPhone. We are told phones are too distracting to use, yet are required to make/receive calls via the GSMR, even where these are calls to maintenance and control rather than the signaller.

 

[contrex]

Not unless he also plays loud and accurate train sound effects at that time too!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==


Sounds like West Midlands to me.

I thought that too, but there's a bit of something more West Country, too. Hereford?

 

[Intermodal]

As I say, “we” (as in the railway) are happy to accept people being allowed into the cab, not strictly for operational reasons, eg a driver travelling with his mate for a chat rather than sitting in the saloon.

But we aren’t, though. At least on National Rail, G1 1.4 clearly prohibits this, and as stated I saw someone disciplined for it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

Any money he’s making is purely from content that he has filmed at work but edited in his own time, on his own equipment - as @bengley notes (and if anyone should know about these matters, it’s him!). It isn’t revenue that he’s somehow depriving his employer of.

But the legal position this just isn’t what you state. Any intellectual property created during the course of employment (whilst “at work”) is, by default, the property of the employer unless there is an agreement to state otherwise. This is what UK law states.

To take this to the extreme, unless there has been an agreement, the video content belongs to TfL and he has no entitlement to “sell” it.

 

[contrex]

To be honest I’m not sure the current rules are that well thought out, and they can be quite inconsistent. I can read a paperback if sitting at a red, but couldn’t read the same book on the Kindle app on my iPhone.

I'm old enough to recall Tooting Broadway in 1971.

 

[eldomtom2]

But the legal position this just isn’t what you state. Any intellectual property created during the course of employment (whilst “at work”) is, by default, the property of the employer unless there is an agreement to state otherwise. This is what UK law states.

Not so fast. "In the course of employment" does not mean "while at work". The courts usually interpret it to include more factors than just that. MEI Fields Designs Ltd v Saffron Cards And Gifts Ltd's list of factors to consider seems to be commonly cited, though it warns it is not definitive:

I accept, as put to me by both counsel, that there is no single test to be applied. Rather, it seems to me that the question of whether or not given acts were carried out in the course of employment for the purposes of Section 11 of the CPDA is a multifactorial assessment, to be based on all the circumstances of the case. In most situations where an employment relationship has been conceded, there will be some factors which point to the copyright work being created in the course of that employment and some factors which point otherwise. The relevant factors may include:

(a) The terms of the contract of employment;

(b) Where the work was created;

(c) Whether the work was created during normal office hours;

(d) Who provided the materials for the work to be created;

(e) The level of direction provided to the author;

(f) Whether the author can refuse to create the work/s; and

(g) Whether the work is “integral” to the business.

No single factor is likely to be determinative and this list is not closed. It is a matter for the tribunal to assess the relevant factors, and determine, having balanced any competing factors, whether the work was created in the course of employment. In doing so, the tribunal should be mindful of the purpose of section 11 of the CPDA – that is, that copyright should vest in the entity for whom the work was created and who paid for it.

With this in light, if TfL did want to make an argument that they owned the copyright to Chapman's videos it would be very easy for his lawyers to claim otherwise.

 

[RacsoMoquette]

Interesting, this practice seems to be beginning to become a trend, as the is another YouTuber on the Metropoliton Line does very similar content. Does anybody know if the are other YouTubers on different lines who do similar? As I find it rather interesting to hear and see the nature of the role via YouTube! Though it does seem questionable, that they may be not paying full attention to driving the train, if they talk to a camera or GoPro!

 

[Intermodal]

Not so fast. "In the course of employment" does not mean "while at work". The courts usually interpret it to include more factors than just that. MEI Fields Designs Ltd v Saffron Cards And Gifts Ltd's list of factors to consider seems to be commonly cited, though it warns it is not definitive:

With this in light, if TfL did want to make an argument that they owned the copyright to Chapman's videos it would be very easy for his lawyers to claim otherwise.

Thanks, I’m happy to accept the correction there.

 

[contrex]

There's a cab ride from Blackfriars to Crayford and Slade Green Depot on Youtube where the driver of an EPB formation chats to someone in the cab mainly about the route. I think it's so long ago that both are safe from discipline!

 

[Deepgreen]

I don’t know if there’s a risk assessment for this? As I say, “we” (as in the railway) are happy to accept people being allowed into the cab, not strictly for operational reasons, eg a driver travelling with his mate for a chat rather than sitting in the saloon. I’m just not sure this is that different.

Well, you are much closer to the 'sharp end' than I, but this is not my understanding of the rules. Perhaps I am wrong.

 

[43066]

But we aren’t, though. At least on National Rail, G1 1.4 clearly prohibits this, and as stated I saw someone disciplined for it.

Someone with a valid train driving license doesn’t require a cab pass at their own operator, so it’s your own understanding that is lacking here.

But the legal position this just isn’t what you state. Any intellectual property created during the course of employment (whilst “at work”) is, by default, the property of the employer unless there is an agreement to state otherwise. This is what UK law states.

To take this to the extreme, unless there has been an agreement, the video content belongs to TfL and he has no entitlement to “sell” it.

This reads like something you’ve just googled to try and find the answer to? That’s always a risky strategy when it comes to complex legal points! A. I’m not convinced you are an authority on IP law and B., even assuming what you’ve said above is remotely correct, how do you know there isn’t such an agreement in place in this case?

The employer has signed off on it, various experienced train drivers on this thread have said they see no issue with this guy’s activities. You clearly don’t like what he’s doing, for whatever reason, and appear to be plucking reasons out of thin air as to why it’s unacceptable, without any real knowledge of the issues.

 

[whoosh]

I'm old enough to recall Tooting Broadway in 1971.

Oh come on! That wasn't sitting at a red was it?!

 

[Goldfish62]

As stated earlier, another angle is that the guy is making money off these videos, through YouTube advertisements and memberships.

There's no adverts on his videos therefore he's not making any money out of them.

 

[43066]

Well, you are much closer to the 'sharp end' than I, but this is not my understanding of the rules. Perhaps I am wrong.

As above. I’m intrigued to hear how a train driver joining a colleague in the cab, at the same operator, is breaching any rules.

 

[Mawkie]

As above. I’m intrigued to hear how a train driver joining a colleague in the cab, at the same operator, is breaching any rules.

Since you asked...

Rule Book 6, Section 9.3

The following persons are permitted to travel in the train operator’s cab, only in the course of duty, without a cab permit..

(My bold)

And lists:

• LU uniformed operational staff
• LU Senior Operating Officer
• Police in uniform

and many more.

However, as I mentioned before, I've never known an issue with having any staff with me in my cab, for any reason, including going home at the end of their shift - which as we can see, is contrary to the Rules.

[Edit: Rule Books are exempt from FOI disclosure, so I've been discreet with the information above.]

 

[43066]

Since you asked...

Rule Book 6, Section 9.3


(My bold)

And lists:

• LU uniformed operational staff
• LU Senior Operating Officer
• Police in uniform

and many more.

However, as I mentioned before, I've never known an issue with having any staff with me in my cab, for any reason, including going home at the end of their shift - which as we can see, is contrary to the Rules.

The situation posed wasn’t discussing LU rules, though.

Even if it was, based on what you’ve posted above, I doubt it would exclude someone travelling between journeys, or travelling home etc.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Oct 2024 ==

There's a cab ride from Blackfriars to Crayford and Slade Green Depot on Youtube where the driver of an EPB formation chats to someone in the cab mainly about the route. I think it's so long ago that both are safe from discipline!

Blimey. What memories (of the route, I’m too young to remember driving EPBs!)…

 

[Mawkie]

The situation posed wasn’t discussing LU rules.

My apologies, I thought you responded to a comment on Dale moving his camera and a lack of risk assessment and compared that to chatting to colleagues in a train cab. I presumed we would be talking about LU rules. I'm not sure what relevance national rail rules have to this thread.

 

[skyhigh]

As above. I’m intrigued to hear how a train driver joining a colleague in the cab, at the same operator, is breaching any rules.

I'm surprised your TOC allows it. At my current one even fully qualified assessor/instructor drivers are banned from travelling in an active cab without an operational reason.

For 'standard' drivers the only reasons you can be in the cab are front ending, route learning and other situations allowed by the rule book (i.e. degraded working, with control permission).

Joining a colleague for a chat is a massive no-no.

 

[43066]

My apologies, I thought you responded to a comment on Dale moving his camera and a lack of risk assessment and compared that to chatting to colleagues in a train cab. I presumed we would be talking about LU rules. I'm not sure what relevance national rail rules have to this thread.

No worries at all mate - we were talking about rules in general regarding people being in cabs etc. it has all become rather confused!

I don’t think Dale is doing anything wrong, and I’m not sure why people - mostly non LU people at that - are suggesting otherwise.

I'm surprised your TOC allows it. At my current one even fully qualified assessor/instructor drivers are banned from travelling in an active cab without an operational reason.

For 'standard' drivers the only reasons you can be in the cab are front ending, route learning and other situations allowed by the rule book (i.e. degraded working, with control permission).

Joining a colleague for a chat is a massive no-no.

Neither TOC I’ve worked for has an issue with it, all subject to the person not being on a plan, not being first year post qualified etc., of course.