Tube driver filming himself whilst driving

[renegademaster]

Its very common to see bus drivers having conversations with other bus drivers while driving, wether this is officially allowed or not, i don't know but it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

 

[skyhigh]

Its very common to see bus drivers having conversations with other bus drivers while driving, wether this is officially allowed or not, i don't know but it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

Surely you can see how it's completely different?

 

[Intermodal]

A lot of people replying here seem to not wish to acknowledge the fact that completing any secondary task increases risk. This is not some fringe view - it’s absolutely well studied and well known stuff across all safety critical industries. Why do you think that pilots aren’t allowed to have a natter during critical phases of flight? If it didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be any such rule about it.

Just because it feels relatable, like driving your car and talking to a passenger (which by the way also increases risk, whether you feel like it does for you personally or not), the fact is that it seems absolutely bizarre to me that *any* increased risk for no operational benefit should be allowed.

And this isn’t a negligible increase in risk either. There is significant evidence within the rail industry that conversation makes one less focused on the task at hand. I can’t give you the data on it, but I know it to be true from internal briefings, incident reports and also my own intuition when driving myself. I think any driver can recognise that it is easier to lose focus when talking or thinking about something else.

Usually, a professional driver will pull this back and nothing will come of it. Until they don’t, which often is not something within their control. I don’t see how this extra risk can be tolerable at all when the risk is both well known and also completely unnecessary.

 

[Starmill]

Its very common to see bus drivers having conversations with other bus drivers while driving, wether this is officially allowed or not, i don't know but it doesn't seem to bother anyone.

It's an offence to interact with the buttons on a handheld device such as a phone while driving on a public road, even if just for a second, your vehicle wasn't moving, or a whole host of other excuses. Conversing with someone who's next to you is not, as long as you can still drive to a good standard.

 

[bramling]

A lot of people replying here seem to not wish to acknowledge the fact that completing any secondary task increases risk. This is not some fringe view - it’s absolutely well studied and well known stuff across all safety critical industries. Why do you think that pilots aren’t allowed to have a natter during critical phases of flight? If it didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be any such rule about it.

Just because it feels relatable, like driving your car and talking to a passenger (which by the way also increases risk, whether you feel like it does for you personally or not), the fact is that it seems absolutely bizarre to me that *any* increased risk for no operational benefit should be allowed.

And this isn’t a negligible increase in risk either. There is significant evidence within the rail industry that conversation makes one less focused on the task at hand. I can’t give you the data on it, but I know it to be true from internal briefings, incident reports and also my own intuition when driving myself. I think any driver can recognise that it is easier to lose focus when talking or thinking about something else.

Usually, a professional driver will pull this back and nothing will come of it. Until they don’t, which often is not something within their control. I don’t see how this extra risk can be tolerable at all when the risk is both well known and also completely unnecessary.

I can understand the point about it introducing a small element of additional risk. However it is very common for train drivers to engage in conversations when in the cab - indeed on LU every driver is going to find themselves in the situation from time to time when they have a cab full of staff dealing with a failure or incident. Part of the driver’s responsibility is managing all this. In the grand scheme of things talking to a camera about work-related tasks just isn’t something that should be much of a distraction at all, and something that can be easily managed.

That said, I am surprised LU have agreed to it, but am I bothered by it - no. The guy is clearly sensible and well focussed. What it does do is set a precedent, which could end up becoming problematic.

 

[renegademaster]

It's an offence to interact with the buttons on a handheld

Does that law exist for trains? And moving a camera is different from interacting with the buttons

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

Why do you think that pilots aren’t allowed to have a natter during critical phases of flight? If it didn’t matter, there wouldn’t be any such rule about it.

They arent absolutely banned from ever having a chat, which would would be equivlant to banning him from taking his videos , even though ive never seen him fiddle with his camera at a safety critical time

 

[Starmill]

Does that law exist for trains?

No. Which is why I was talking about a bus driver.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

And moving a camera is different from interacting with the buttons

If the device is handheld simply touching it can count.

 

[renegademaster]

No. Which is why I was talking about a bus driver.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==


If the device is handheld simply touching it can count.

If its handheld , would that mean picking up a note card while stopped can count as an offence or does it state it has to be electronic?

 

[Lockwood]

Before anyone else says it, I know they are different.

Any of you seen the fly on the wall documentaries where you have someone driving a road vehicle at speed in traffic with a camera crew present and they are discussing what they are doing, planning to do, how things work?

Or video of them driving with static cameras and discussing things? Ashley Neal (driving instructor), Chris Martin (paramedic - granted more often using captions in editing than live commentary)? Unaffected by having the camera, know when to stop talking.


Concerns about the radio show style answering viewer questions? There is a difference between reading off a script, saying something like "Feed Smith asks .......", and "A lot of you keep asking ......". As a professional person, it should not be too much effort to be able to store a few frequently asked questions in the back of your mind and retrieve them when appropriate

 

[Edsmith]

Great! What factors did you consider when making this conclusion? What sort of risk assessments (if any) did you carry out? What experience or past incidents did you draw upon?

As I said, he's not fiddling with the camera whilst driving and it's no different to chatting to a colleague? Perhaps I'm missing something, if so perhaps you could enlighten me?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Just a quick point on the "security risk" issue of someone showing how to drive a tube train... I can learn how to operate a tube train on Train Sim World in a couple of hours. It's clearly not "secret" information.

 

[Starmill]

If its handheld , would that mean picking up a note card while stopped can count as an offence or does it state it has to be electronic?

It's about electronic devices yes. There are even some restrictions on interacting with them without any physical touch.

 

[Vespa]

I can see this thread going down the classic forum rabbit hole of what ifs etc.

He drove competently and safely, no one died and train stabled in depot at the end of duty.

What is there to worry about ?

 

[Edsmith]

I can see this thread going down the classic forum rabbit hole of what ifs etc.

He drove competently and safely, no one died and train stabled in depot at the end of duty.

What is there to worry about ?

Exactly, not really any different to me driving my car with the dashcam on and chatting to the wife, well if I can get a word in lol

 

[Intermodal]

Exactly, not really any different to me driving my car with the dashcam on and chatting to the wife, well if I can get a word in lol

A lot of people would argue that they can drive safely whilst using their phone. Or that they can drive safely whilst listening to a podcast. Or that music helps them concentrate on driving.

Why can’t train drivers do these things? If they say that they can do them safely, what is there to worry about?

I’ve already covered the fact that talking about things not operationally necessary increases risk. This is not your car. This is a regulated industry with huge liability. It’s not the same.

 

[renegademaster]

A lot of people would argue that they can drive safely whilst using their phone. Or that they can drive safely whilst listening to a podcast. Or that music helps them concentrate on driving

Some people claim they can safely climb stairs, some people claim they can balance an elephant on a tightrope, some things are more likely than others even some people think they are better at it.

 

[Flange Squeal]

Before anyone else says it, I know they are different.

Any of you seen the fly on the wall documentaries where you have someone driving a road vehicle at speed in traffic with a camera crew present and they are discussing what they are doing, planning to do, how things work?

Or video of them driving with static cameras and discussing things? Ashley Neal (driving instructor), Chris Martin (paramedic - granted more often using captions in editing than live commentary)? Unaffected by having the camera, know when to stop talking.


Concerns about the radio show style answering viewer questions? There is a difference between reading off a script, saying something like "Feed Smith asks .......", and "A lot of you keep asking ......". As a professional person, it should not be too much effort to be able to store a few frequently asked questions in the back of your mind and retrieve them when appropriate

In terms of explaining what you are doing, elements of that are already encouraged in the use of Risk Triggered Commentary Driving (e.g. saying aloud "Double Yellow" when passing a double yellow signal aspect). Obviously these videos go further than just saying what he's seeing, but then that is comparable to a Driver Trainer or Driving Instructor (DI) with a trainee. Where I am we are not permitted to have anyone in the cab unless it's for a specific reason (e.g. a route learner with valid documentation is fine, but a driver travelling passenger from their signing on point to another station where the first train of their shift is leaving from is not allowed), however I do actually find this to be quite refreshing sometimes. The job of a driver can sometimes be quite monotonous, hence I guess things like Risk Triggered Commentary Driving were introduced and the likes of AWS (Automatic Warning System) give that additional alert, and having someone else in the cab therefore can give something else to keep your mind stimulated. It can also act as a second pair of eyes. Managers performing periodical assessments will often be asking me questions as we go along, for example "Did you read the latest revision to xxx policy, what would you do if....?".

That said, I guess it does depend on the individual(s) - if the conversation goes off wildly to in-depth football analysis then the mind is obviously not fully on the job, but if it is about the job in hand then one would like to think awareness would remain. But I guess as everyone is different, and no one from outside can control what is going on in the cab once a second person has entered, the only solution is to put as many restrictions on it as realistically possible.

I think 'Cognitive Underload' is a phrase used as part of Non-Technical Skills to describe monotonous tasks and is recognised as something drivers need to try and combat. It could well be that by making these videos, the author is finding this to be a helpful way to combat that by keeping his brain active in a role where he must be doing around a couple of hundred stops per shift up and down the same tracks day in day out. I will confess that I haven't watched even nearly all of his videos, but those I have had a look at seem to primarily focus on the subject in hand, even talking about what is coming up ahead, however there is some 'off-topic' stuff like having been stopped at Knightsbridge and talking about Harrods (I think I'd certainly put my narrating to one side when focusing on the screens preparing for dispatch if it was me, but again in some of the commentary even at those times he'll say something like "We'll just wait for this one lady board" so is clearly still aware). Ultimately though, Transport for London are aware it's happening, as mentioned within the videos, and I presume if the author began having a series of incidents as a result then it would soon stop immediately. But with over 30 videos over the last six months, one can only presume it hasn't negatively affected his performance in the eyes of his employer. It's not something I'd personally be interested in doing myself, but on the face of it if it's all been approved and he doesn't let it start deviating too far from the job in hand then I'm not too worried about it myself.

 

[66701GBRF]

Haven't seen many of his videos, but what I have seen he doesn't appear to be messing with the camera while the train is moving or while he's meant to be doing something else. A lot of his conversations he seems to wait untill he gets to or passes certain points of the route indicating his priority is safe operation of the train. I think this is being blown out of proportion personally.

 

[Edsmith]

A lot of people would argue that they can drive safely whilst using their phone. Or that they can drive safely whilst listening to a podcast. Or that music helps them concentrate on driving.

Why can’t train drivers do these things? If they say that they can do them safely, what is there to worry about?

I’ve already covered the fact that talking about things not operationally necessary increases risk. This is not your car. This is a regulated industry with huge liability. It’s not the same.

Using a phone when driving is illegal.

Perhaps you could explain what your objection is because you're not making much sense so far.

 

[InkyScrolls]

The railway as an industry is known to be highly risk averse, and rightly so. So what surprises me, and many other posters, is that any unnecessary addition to a driver's mental load, no matter how minor, has been permitted. (I don't doubt that the driver has permission, for the record.)

 

[renegademaster]

It seems like according to the law for road vehicles , its a requirement for the device being held to be able to send or recieve data for it to be an offence , so a gopro not connected to anything is not illegal to adjust

 

[Starmill]

I can see this thread going down the classic forum rabbit hole of what ifs etc.

He drove competently and safely, no one died and train stabled in depot at the end of duty.

What is there to worry about ?

Most of the time when a train is involved in a Spad or very large overspeed incident, it won't actually involve someone dying or even a collision occurring. Does that mean there was never any extra risk?

To put it another way, simply getting away with it isn't really that relevant to the question of distracted driving, if it's still distracted, is it? The question is over whether that's what this is or not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

It seems like according to the law for road vehicles , its a requirement for the device being held to be able to send or recieve data for it to be an offence , so a gopro not connected to anything is not illegal to adjust

If it can't send or receive data (not if it's temporarily offline) then it wouldn't come up under the most common offence, no. However it's still an offence to drive while you're distracted, such as if you're not looking at the road ahead for a few seconds, or if your vision is obscured.

 

[renegademaster]

Most of the time when a train is involved in a Spad or very large overspeed incident, it won't actually involve someone dying or even a collision occurring. Does that mean there was never any extra risk?

To put it another way, simply getting away with it isn't really that relevant to the question of distracted driving, if it's still distracted, is it? The question is over whether that's what this is or not.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==


If it can't send or receive data (not if it's temporarily offline) then it wouldn't come up under the most common offence, no. However it's still an offence to drive while you're distracted, such as if you're not looking at the road ahead for a few seconds, or if your vision is obscured.

Is he not looking still ahead while he moves the camera? And i dont think someones going to go to prison over getting a pack of mints from the glovebox while at a red.

 

[skyhigh]

It seems like according to the law for road vehicles

So nothing at all relevant to the topic then....?

 

[Starmill]

Is he not looking still ahead while he moves the camera? And i dont think someones going to go to prison over getting a pack of mints from the glovebox while at a red.

This has all been addressed in the comments above so I'm not going to repeat it again if you'd rather not read it.

 

[renegademaster]

So nothing at all relevant to the topic then....?

I wasnt the person who initially brought up the law regarding road vehicles

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

that any unnecessary addition

But the thing is, first of all, that logic would ban drivers from being able to drink water in the cab, but may also not be true it's an addition of risk , per post #107.

 

[Vespa]

Most of the time when a train is involved in a Spad or very large overspeed incident, it won't actually involve someone dying or even a collision occurring. Does that mean there was never any extra risk?

To put it another way, simply getting away with it isn't really that relevant to the question of distracted driving, if it's still distracted, is it? The question is over whether that's what this is or not.

I've already said my bit.

As far as I'm concerned he has driven safely, was not distracted and there's no SPADs or over speed in any of the clips he has uploaded which kind of defeats your point.

I've driven trains and had instructors in them and a second man on board and ..,......nothing happened.

You're still going down the proverbial rabbit hole chasing tangents where none exists.

 

[Starmill]

As far as I'm concerned he has driven safely, was not distracted and there's no SPADs or over speed in any of the clips he has uploaded which kind of defeats your point.

So you're saying he would upload a clip if he recorded one with those in it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 9 Oct 2024 ==

You're still going down the proverbial rabbit hole chasing tangents where none exists.

I'm doing no such thing.

I'm pointing out that you're not right, that's all. I think the fact that you're struggling with that is somewhat revealing.

 

[renegademaster]

So you're saying he would upload a clip if he recorded one with those in it?

TFL would probally tell him to stop filming if it did actually cause an incident, that they continue to allow him shows me something.

 

[bramling]

Most of the time when a train is involved in a Spad or very large overspeed incident, it won't actually involve someone dying or even a collision occurring. Does that mean there was never any extra risk?

To put it another way, simply getting away with it isn't really that relevant to the question of distracted driving, if it's still distracted, is it? The question is over whether that's what this is or not.

Anything to do with moving a train involves an element of risk, this whole thread boils down to whether the small element of risk associated with the filming can be considered significant enough to merit banning the activity. The thread is becoming very circular because there isn’t a right or wrong answer, just opinions - some more qualified to comment than others.

I can see both sides of it, and to be honest I am a little surprised LU have permitted this. But by the same token it doesn’t bother me, and I just don’t see the filming having a negative effect on his concentration. Just being in that seat means his aptitude will be way ahead of your typical car driver, for starters.