I’m grateful to a reader from Wales who sent this picture of a sign above inward facing seats on a step Dennis Dart operated by South Wales Transport. The sign reads:
“These seats are not to be use on local authority contracted school journeys (they are not fitted with seat belts)”.The local transport authority in question insists that belts are available for all its qualifying pupils. That’s fair comment and within the LTA’s rights to do so. Normally, this would apply to coaches, where seat belts might these days be expected as the norm.
But, what about retrofitting on an M-reg Dennis Dart? Are the flooring and seat frames strong enough to withstand the pressures in the event of a crash? As far as I’m aware, VOSA makes no assessment but at test will tug at the belts and check for belt damage.
And what about at other times? Weekends, for example, when pupils become young people travelling into town. Or when the bus is on service carrying fare-paying pupils travelling to school who aren’t the responsibility of the LTA.
It highlights the point that there’s potentially a two-tier system. If you live in a large city, likelihood is you’ll travel to school on a commercial bus service as part of the network and may even need to stand, whether you qualify for free transport or not. On a closed school contract, you have your seat and your belt.
Wonder whether the pupils actually wear the belts...
20 comments:
I have seen similar (albeit properly produced) signs on Optare Solos of a small subsidiary of one of the big groups, although those stated that primary school pupils couldn't use the tip-up seats (no mention of the lack of belts).
As for whether pupils wear the belts, I fear we know the answer in the majority of cases! Many of the school coaches under contract to this LTA have CCTV fitted for behaviour monitoring. A quick glance at this footage proves that belts are ignored.
We have had instances of Police officers stopping buses mid-route to check belts. But of course as soon as the uniform is spotted belts are rapidly clicked in place, or, as has happened on a number of occasions card is jammed in the mechanism so the pupil can say "my belt doesn't work". This is a real problem for the operator who faces a PG9, yet started the run with a fully functional vehicle.
Last week I was at a large school in the area (800 pupils, 20 vehicles, a mix of closed door contract, pass holders on local buses and fare payers on buses). The members of staff on duty boarded every vehicle to check belts. They didn't just stand at the front and shout; they walked the length of the coach checking, row by row. On non-belted service buses, even those which were mid-route the school staff boarded and checked pupils were sitting down before letting the driver depart. Of course, once the vehicle had left the bus park who knows what was happening on board!
The day after my visit a vehicle arriving at the school had to make an emergency stop (from about 5 mph) when a pupil stepped out in front of it. A passenger was thrown forward and sustained a minor injury. On arrival at school the pupil and driver reported the incident to the staff member on duty who first told the pupil off for not wearing his seatbelt, and then added "we'd better find the nurse".
You can lead a horse to water...
In this case the floor and frames pobably can't support the application of seat belts but even so most raod safety people think it's better to have belts than none at all.
Is the insistence by the local authority really for road safety, given the type of vehicles used and,as pointed out, the same people can use the same bus under different circumstances, or is it more to do with the size of insurance premiums and the shifting of responsibilies?
More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services.
Many school journeys in Brighton are on normal commercial bus services. About 10 of them...
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
At the school I used to go to (in Neath) nobody, absolutely nobody wore their seatbelts. Unless of course, like someone said above, the driver or a teacher checks. But even then they just go straight off afterwards. CCTV: I've only ever seen one bus of about 15 used everyday there have CCTV, and that bus is no longer with the operator or even in Wales. Regarding the LTA requiring seatbelts: not the case. In the school I went to, all but two routes were closed contracts, my route being closed contracted. For quite some time I had a Veolia non-seatbelted service bus. However, what I know they ARE picky about is the use of double deckers on them (regularly at least); they are completely against this. I believe Veolia actually lost a contract because they started using a decker every day on the route.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
This is the archetypal buck passing. Some schools take responsibility for their pupils, others just want them out of the door. By specifying belts, they absolve themselves of blame. This leads to increased costs of operations and some PG9s, leading to fewer operators wanting the work.
Safety is important to most of us (I would say all, but experience suggests otherwise), but this requires parties taking responsibility for their actions. That is not the way society seems to operate now.
A concern that I have is that low floors may lead to increased injuries in accidents as passengers will be nearer to the point of impact. However, this is just my concern and I have not seen anything to back it up, but that would not stop me starting a campaign if I was so minded. Why let statistics inform a debate.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but lacks the common sense to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that where seat belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even only specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be 'honoured more in the breach than the observance'. Many bus passengers make journeys of only 5 or 10 minutes, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
RC169 (experiencing difficulties posting when logged in!)
David said...
"More to do with pressure from the community for greater safety features when carrying school children.
Odd that this additional safety feature is not required for bus services."
I suspect that you are right on both counts, though, in the case of your second point, probably not for the same reasons.
The post, and the comments above, demonstrate two specific factors - one is that there are some situations where a seat belt can be an aid to safety; and the second is that, where belts are provided, the passengers in question largely choose to ignore them.
Any requirement for passengers (or even just specific groups of passengers) to use seat belts on normal services would be sure to be "honoured more in the breach than the observance". Many bus passengers' journeys are only 5 or 10 minutes duration, and it is highly unlikely that adults would use belts for such journeys. Schoolchildren, seeing adults ignoring the belts, will undoubtedly do the same (assuming that they hadn't already come to that same decision). Rules that are widely ignored, and cannot practically be enforced, fall into disrepute - and they also encourage a culture of disobedience, and a more general lack of respect for authority. Therefore such rules should be avoided.
A similar situation applies to the use of cycle helmets. Cycling is probably more popular here in Germany than in the UK, and I frequently see whole families cycling together. Often the children are wearing helmets, but the parents not. The community demands safety measures to protect them, but is then too stupid to use them.
Rules and regulations do actually need to be pragmatic - even though they are often not. That is what is odd about the absence of any requirement for seat belts on normal bus services - in this case, the regulatory regime has taken a pragmatic view.
David (14 Sept, 12:45) - don't forget that most buses operating on 'normal' services are licensed to carry standing passengers, so a rule requiring the use of seat belts would clearly make no sense at all.
Post a Comment