Why do public busses have no seat belts?
In: 621
You don’t really need them in a bus because of how big slow and heavy they are, the bus is the one that’s gonna be doing the damage to the other vehicle
If the bus allows people to stand, then it isn’t logical to enforce a seatbelt policy since it simply wouldn’t apply to those standing. It would be an unreasonable policy to enforce.
This is why long distance coaches which do not allow standing typically do have to have seat belts.
Because city Buses are really big and heavy, and they also rarely get going that fast, since they are stopping at least every few blocks to pick people up and at red lights.
These things combine to create a really really low chance anyone is going to get seriously hurt on an accident using a bus.
The weight of the bus means it has a lot of momentum, so if it is going 20 miles an hour and a car pulls out infront of it, that car is only going to slow the bus down a little bit, the buses momentum will keep the bus moving forward, which means no one on the bus is going to experience a super sudden stop or g-force.
Or alternatively, if the bus is stationary and a car hits it going 20 miles an hour, that car is going to stop very fast very suddenly, while the bus might just start to lurch and roll and little bit.
Also, you have to consider the User.
Why spend money putting seat belts on busses that next to no one will ever use? Many people riding public buses are riding them for a short distance where even if they were offered a seatbelt, they wouldn’t plug it in. Some people don’t even bother sitting down at all.
City buses (at least in europe) have roughly the same amount of standing vs. sitting people. If they have to use seatbelt, they could not allow standing passengers, reducing capacity and flexibility of use, thus making it less attractive and less financially viable. It would also be impossible to enforce the rule!
Intercity buses, where there is no space (nor is allowed) to stand, seatbelts are in fact provided and, in theory, compulsory. But in reality I never saw many people wear them.
A number of reasons:
1. Physics. Most vehicular collisions isn’t really going to transfer a lot of inertia to the bus. A fully loaded bus is between 20,000 and 30,000 pounds. A SUV, comparatively, is maybe 4 to 5,000 pounds. Unless that SUV is traveling at *grossly* excessive speeds, a collision isn’t going to cause the bus to do anything much more than jolt a bit.
2. Bus speed. Related to the above, most city buses don’t go on highways, so speeds are generally confined to 45 MPH or lower.
3. Ease of evacuation. If something does go wrong, then it’s easier for everyone to get out quickly.
4. Passenger arrangement. Non-school public buses aren’t just sitting only, many have both seats and poles/handstraps for standing passengers. So you’re already not securing every passenger.
If you have noticed, long distance busses tend to have seatbelts.
But the reason is simple: Busses are heavy and big, they tend to be the victors in a collision.
Busses never really get to accelerate to significant speeds where belts would actually bring much use, on the account them usually stopping every few minutes and being in traffic.
Busses need to by design vehicles that are easy to get in and out of, the time fiddling with belts brings would decrease efficiency. In reality the best bus would be one without seats at all.
The kind of emergencies that an average city bus would get in to are the kind where seatbelts being more danger than benefit. There aren’t really many vehicles heavier than a bus that could collide to a bus in normal operation. However in a fire, which is a more likely and deadly emergency for a bus you need to evacuate the bus quickly; and having belts makes this harder.
Some newer Academy commuter busses in NJ have them. I’m guessing they are for liability purposes. If you get hurt in a crash, then they can say you should have been wearing the seat belt.
Cost really. While it’s true risk is less, there are standing passengers etc, if not for extra cost the belts would be there an option to choose if a passenger wants it.
Btw, for anyone claiming they would be useless, you probably haven’t seen passengers fly when a bus slams the breaks. Keeping at least some people in their seats would be an improvement in safety and reduction in injuries.
Busses are big, but fat lot of good it will do them if they strike an immovable barrier like a wall or rock. If they roll, or hit an equally large vehicle such as another bus or semi.
You can rationalize that reduced risk as an explanation of sorts… but reduced risk isn’t really enough reason to not do it.
Back in the 70s or 80s, there was a study that determined seat belts were unnecessary, and that precedent has largely remained in tact for 50 years.
Even now nhtsa says busses mitigate risk by compartimenatilization, basically saying the soft seat in front of you is an effective restraint.
It’s debatable if that’s a valid assumption, or if it’s influenced by the fact that altering that position would cost a lot of money where none is available.
Some busses do have seat belts now. Take that how you want.
A seatbelt is very useful! If you have someplace stable for it. In your normal car, it’s built into a steel frame. A bus tho? They don’t really have that solid of a frame, so there isn’t really anywhere to put one.
On top of that, buses are really heavy. Unless your bus is slamming into a wrecking ball, or your bus driver thinks he’s playing GTA, chances are that bus passengers aren’t going get too jostled if a car crashes into them.
Plus, is anyone really gonna put on a seatbelt for their 10 minute commute on the bus?
Latest Answers