• Reference: 2018/2662
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Thank you for your response to Question 2018/2362. Further to your response and the charts provided on page 58 of your Vision Zero Action Plan http://content.tfl.gov.uk/vision-zero-action-plan.pdf, please provide me with the following detailed information regarding the data and charts you have provided. For Bus/Coach The date and borough in which KSI incident occurred, name of Bus or Coach Operator, age and sex of victim, severity of injury and, if a TfL Bus Operator was involved, the name of the TfL Bus Operator's overall owner and bus garage and, if a Coach was involved, whether it was operating under a TfL-issued...

• Reference: 2018/2661
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Will you consider creating a Safety Panel from the existing Safety, Sustainability and Human Resources Panel that will, inter alia, only address Safety matters including the number of serious failings in TfL Surface Transport operations raised by Michael Liebreich in his email of 3 January 2018 which you released to me in your response to Question 2018/2367?

• Reference: 2018/2660
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Why didn't you extend Michael Liebreich's term on the TfL Board and Chair of the Safety, Sustainability and Human Resources Committee?

• Reference: 2018/2659
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

In response to Question 2018/2016 you stated "TfL Bus Safety Programme, which is launched in 2016 is delivering real improvements" yet a well-evidenced report from TfL Board Member Michael Liebreich from January 2018 states "while TfL launched a Bus Safety Programme in 2016 and a lot of initiatives are under way, there has not yet been any significant improvement in outcomes on any metric." How should I reconcile these two diametrically opposed assessments of TfL's Bus Safety Programme?

• Reference: 2018/2658
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

The 24 July Board Briefing Note found on the TfL website (http://content.tfl.gov.uk/24-july-2018-board-briefing-note%20-on-fatigu…) that you confirmed in Question 2018/2368 as TfL's definitive explanation as to why it did not forward Internal Audit IA 17 780 to the RAIB, ORR, British Transport Police, SNC-Lavalin and the Coroner raises more questions than answers. Accordingly, could you please provide me with: 1. a copy of the RAIB Press Statement mentioned in paragraph 2.4 2. a full explanation why the Briefing Note ignored the minuted statement by the MD for Surface Transport to the 26 June 2017 SSHR Meeting that "An audit of FirstGroup's fatigue...

• Reference: 2018/2657
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

In your response to Question 2018/2363 you assert that since "Bus operators are delivering services on behalf of TfL" "it is right that TfL should have oversight, and overall accountability, for safety-related incidents involving buses." While this appears honourable, your bold statement directly contradicts existing UK Law (the Bus Operators hold the Operator Licence, not TfL, and are legally responsible for their Bus Drivers' safety performance http://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/questions/qu…) and is also undermined by TfL's own policy on CCTV Retention (the Bus Operators own and retain this critical safety data for a short time period as stipulated by TfL http://questions.london.gov.uk/QuestionSearch/searchclient/questions/qu…) and the...

• Reference: 2018/2656
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Since, under GDPR, Subject Access Requests can only be honoured by the owner of the CCTV evidence and must be received directly from the person requesting, will you update the ‘Who Runs Your Bus?’ page to include contact full contact details (name, telephone, mailing address and street address) of the individual at each Bus Operator who is responsible for dealing with Subject Access Requests?

• Reference: 2018/2655
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

Your responses to Questions 2017/2019 and 2018/2365 indicate that TfL only requires its Contractors to retain CCTV evidence recorded on buses for about 10 days. Do you agree that the new rights given to individuals under GDPR which stipulate that the owner of CCTV evidence must provide it within 30 days of receiving a Subject Access Request (https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/encryptio…) compel TfL to extend the length of time TfL requires its Bus Operators to retain this information? What plans have you made to comply with this new GDPR requirement, especially regarding the storage of CCTV evidence showing Bus Safety incidents (https://www.weareastrid.co.uk/cctv-gdpr/)?

• Reference: 2018/2654
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

It is my understanding that under the new GDPR rules, Bus Operators are obligated to provide, free-of-charge, CCTV evidence to anyone who files a Subject Access Request (by email, letter or over the phone) for CCTV evidence which contains their image. Will you now: Ensure that Bus Operators are informed of their new obligations under the GDPR? Update the TfL Website to reflect this new information and inform the public of their rights under GDPR?

• Reference: 2018/2653
• Question by: Keith Prince
• Meeting date: 19 October 2018

What is the recognised union of the Croydon Tram Drivers?