Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Omaha Steve

(99,064 posts)
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:38 AM Nov 2013

Gov't to require seat belts on large buses

Source: By JOAN LOWY

WASHINGTON (AP) - New tour buses and buses that provide service between cities must be equipped with seat belts starting in late 2016 under a federal rule issued Wednesday, a safety measure sought by accident investigators for nearly a half century.

Beginning in November 2016, all new motorcoaches and some other large buses must be equipped by manufacturers with three-point lap-shoulder belts, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said. The rule doesn't apply to school buses or city transit buses.

An average of 21 people in large buses are killed each year in crashes, and nearly 8,000 others are injured annually, the safety administration said. Seat belts could reduce fatalities and moderate-to-severe injuries by nearly half. About half of all motorcoach fatalities are the result of rollovers, and about 70 percent of those killed in rollover accidents were ejected from the bus.

"Adding seat belts to motorcoaches increases safety for all passengers and drivers, especially in the event of a rollover crash," said David Strickland, head of the safety administration.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20131120/DAA6JLGO0.html





This March 2, 2007 file photo shows a charter bus carrying the Bluffton University baseball team from Ohio after it plunged off a highway ramp in Atlanta and slammed into the I-75 pavement below. Federal regulators say they will require that new tour buses and buses that carry passengers on scheduled routes between cities be equipped with seat belts. It’s a safety measure sought by accident investigators for nearly a half century. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said Wednesday that beginning in November 2016 all new motorcoaches and other large buses must be equipped by manufacturers with three-point lap-shoulder belts. (AP Photo/Gene Blythe, File)

14 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

muriel_volestrangler

(101,150 posts)
4. Probably because people are getting up and down all the time in them
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 09:49 AM
Nov 2013

If the person by the window has to get the person next to them to undo their belt before getting up so that they can get past, it slows things down more. And that's happening at every stop.

And, of course, you're allowed to stand in mass transit buses.

 

KamaAina

(78,249 posts)
13. Not in London
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:41 PM
Nov 2013
And, of course, you're allowed to stand in mass transit buses.


Buses in London will just pass you by if they're full.

muriel_volestrangler

(101,150 posts)
14. No, you can stand in them, but they do have a limit on the number allowed to stand
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 07:49 PM
Nov 2013

for safety reasons. For instance:

Passengers per bus

New Bus 81 eventually rising to 87 (19 rising to 25 standing)

Hybrid 84 (23 standing)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/19/new-bus-london-boris-johnson

canoeist52

(2,282 posts)
2. If they are required in all cars on all roads, they should be required in ALL vehicles on all roads.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 09:12 AM
Nov 2013

I remember Phil Donahue doing a show dedicated to the school bus seat belt issue. I believe the argument against them was "The seats are padded". Unconscionable. When I was a kid, the seats had metal bars across the top and we used to slam our heads into them if the bus stopped fast.
If they could afford to pad the seats, they could have afforded to install the seat belts.

Guilded Lilly

(5,591 posts)
11. Impossible, perhaps...
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 02:16 PM
Nov 2013

but those who wish to be more protected will now have that opportunity.

There are those who will be adverse to being told what they must do, and I would sometimes put myself in that group, but
I know I would buckle my grandchild up in an INSTANT, and willingly, thankfully, so.

former9thward

(31,802 posts)
12. School districts have successfully fought seat belts because of liability concerns.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 05:39 PM
Nov 2013

If a school bus had seat belts and there was an accident and some child not wearing belt was injured the parents would sue. Of course there is no way a driver would ever be able to know if all the children were wearing the belts. And most kids, being kids, would take them off.

Myrina

(12,296 posts)
6. And what happens when a bus catches fire or goes into water?
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 10:53 AM
Nov 2013

A bus full of panicking people who's hands aren't going to be able to UNBUCKLE the belts - especially if it were a schoolbus full of children?

How would they get out?
Who will take the blame/be sued when they die?


Bad, Bad Idea IMHO.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
7. Contrary to TV and the movies such accidents are RARE.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 01:08 PM
Nov 2013

And when buses do fall into water, most of the time the water is NOT a problem, except as to how to get the kids out of the bus, i.e the bus is in the water but the part of the bus where the students are is while above water:

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/us/kansas-bus-crash/

Much more typical is the bus is hit or hits another vehicle:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/10/03/church-bus-crash-tennessee-victims-interstate-40/2914465/

For example between 2001 and 2004 twelve children were killed in bus accidents in the state of Michigan (one of the twelve was a passenger in a car that hit a bus, another killed by a bus as the student walked on a crosswalk). Thus 10 dead students, none of whom drowned or burned.

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/SCHOOL_BUS_CRASHES_IN_MICHIGAN_final_forpub_156865_7.pdf


As to fire, it is much harder for a bus to catch on fire then an automobile, and automobile fires are low.
The main reason for this is buses tend to be Diesel and Diesel is NOT as flammable as Gasoline. Since at least the 1970s, most gas tanks have been in the rear of most vehicles so unless the Vehicle is rear ended, most gas tanks will stay intact. Gas tanks since the 1960s are double lined, i.e. can take a good bit of dents and dumps before breaking and spilling fuel to burn. In buses, do to their larger size, the gas tanks tend to be further up front then in Passenger cars, and thus even less likely to rupture.

In short, buses catching on fire or falling into deep water are almost impossible to occur (in theory they can, but it is so rare I could not find one in a quick google search.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/facts-research/LTBCF2009/LargeTruckandBusCrashFacts2009.aspx

Now such accidents have been known to happen but the last time a bus fell into a river in the USA and passenger DROWNED was in 1958 what is called the Kentucky Bus Disaster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prestonsburg,_Kentucky_bus_disaster

The last time fire caused massive deaths on a bus was in 1988 (about the time buses were converting to diesel, in fact this accident accelerated that change):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrollton,_Kentucky_bus_collision

Please note, in the fire collision, the people had time to get out of their seats, but 60 adults and teenagers all rushing to the only door working (which was partially blocked by a ice cooler) was to many.

After that accident Kentucky adopted a policy that ALL buses (including school buses) must have six emergency exits, One door in the rear, one door on the side, four windows that can be removed and used as exits (two on each side) AND two roof exits. Other states have also expanded the number of emergency exits but Kentucky exceeds all other states.

While the fire was horrible, I bring it up for it was a fire BEFORE seat belts AND seat beats would NOT have been a factor in that fire. The people had more then enough time to undo a seat belt, the problem was the limited number of exits, a problem solved at least as far as Kentucky, I do not know about other states (and let me say, the additional cost of those exits are minor. The most expenisve was the second emergency door.

List of major road accidents, it has a number of bus accidents, the vast majority involve on the road accidents no fire nor going off the road. The bus accidents that include a bus going off a cliff or bridge almost never includes fire or drowning. People are killed do to the impact (which would have been lessened if the people had on seat belts) NOT what happened after the impact.

 

happyslug

(14,779 posts)
10. And the come back is simple, 100 a year compared to a dozen every 20 years or so.
Thu Nov 21, 2013, 01:41 PM
Nov 2013

The quote attributed to Stalin sums that attitude up well "One death is a tragedy, a million is merely a statistic" One accident that hits the headline will have people demanding "changes" to prevent such accidents in the future, even through the change will cost more lives. Politicians have to realize this will happen and be prepared to take the heat AND tell people the sad truth that the use of seat belts saves lives and reduces injuries way in excess of the lives lost in a once every 25 year accident. If the Politician is prepared for the onslaught, the Politician may even come out ahead, showing he knows the subject. The Politician has to express sorrow over the lost of life, but point out accidents do happen and what we should do is what reduces such accidents that most AND reduce any loss to such accidents the most. The Safety and Medical communities will support him on that point and thus should be enough to prevent abolishment of seat belts even after such an accident.

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Gov't to require seat bel...