Bahtatboy

Just repeating the same mistake, then.

mrken30

This is not true, if it was the FAA and CAA would not just require seat belts to be worn on takeoff and landing.

If you think your kid would not be injured in an accident like this, you must think windows are made of jelly and kids are glued to the seats. Just think if this was a large truck hitting the bus. This test is just a small van.

zzrmark

I'm surprised that they need to run tests, there must be a plethora of data out there on real school bus accidents...

mrken30

There are a load of NTSB reports. I posted 2 earlier, but that was not enough to convince some people. The two I posted were comparing 2 similar types of accidents.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0132.htm

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/HAR0002.pdf

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2009/HAB0903.pdf

Despite these limitations, however, the report mentioned two accidents in which the most severe injuries were suffered by those who were not wearing seat belts. In one, inspectors found that 47 of the buses' 52 occupants had worn their seat belts. Two fatalities occurred to people who were not restrained. The other three unrestrained occupants were flung into the seats ahead of them. In another accident the only occupant to receive a serious injury was not wearing a seat belt.

Oakvillian

Huh? It's a frequent occurrence that the seatbelt light is switched on, and an announcement is made, that due to turbulence passengers must return to their seats and fasten their seatbelts. It's precisely because of turbulence and the risk of injury from vertical motion.

That video is interesting but not really very instructive. The passenger compartment of the bus remains upright and largely undamaged. The bus didn't roll or buckle. I would be interested to see the footage of the crash-test dummies inside the vehicle, which would provide a bit more of an insight into likely injuries. The linked video at the end of the one you posted, made by a company who sells seatbelts to bus manufacturers so hardly an unbiased viewpoint, is a bit silly - a bus driving at 50mph head-on into a concrete wall. That is a really vanishingly unlikely accident mechanism in the real world.

The more likely scenario (and there are many incidents of it happening, several times a month across the US and Canada) is that a relatively minor accident or some electromechanical fault causes the bus to catch fire. In that circumstance, especially with small children, the need to evacuate quickly is the more pressing concern, and that would likely be hampered by seat belts.

I remain content that my district's school buses do not have seat belts. YMMV.

uk_grenada

Anian

It's not too different from a head-on collision with another vehicle, which is a much more likely proposition.

Pulaski

But then mass counts, so it would have to be a large box van or 18-wheeler to give anything like the deceleration of hitting an immovable concrete block. Driving head-on into a car or pick -up would cause substantially less deceleration for the occupants of the bus. .... It would be ugly for the driver of the car or pick-up though.

Pulaski

MrKen's post is confusing, but I think you're both saying the same thing, and MrKen's was saying that seatbelts are also required at takeoff and landing, so not only for turbulence.
MrKen specializes in worrying about improbable and vanishingly unlikely accidents, things which are "a bit silly", and in taking risk advice from those who have a vested interest in selling the product that would address the risk, if it was real.

Anian

You have to take into account that the other vehicle is moving in the opposite direction, so the deceleration force on the bus caused by even a standard car is increased, so it could amount to the same as a huge stationary truck dependent on its speed. I don't remember enough of physics to do the equations.

mrken30

I was trying to state that aircraft seats are designed to absorb impacts, however seat belts are still required. The design of the energy absorption seats alone is not enough to mitigate injuries at speed.

(b) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board an airplane operated under this part shall occupy an approved seat or berth with a separate safety belt properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing.

https://www.gleim.com/aviation/farai...eafNum=121.311

Why is it we still need to wear seat belts when almost every car now has airbags? They stop passengers becoming projectiles.

To be fair most school bus journeys are safe
1) Because buses do not move very fast
2) 99% of driver stop for school buses and give them space.

Hence why there is little data, however the data that does exist strogly supports the use of seat belts.

https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/Pages/schoolbuses.aspx

Although school buses are extremely safe, we have investigated school bus crashes in which children were injured and even killed. These were typically side-impact crashes or high-speed rollovers. In these accidents, compartmentalization was not enough to prevent all injuries; for some of the children involved, a seat belt could have lessened their injuries or even saved their lives.

I know some people here do not believe anything the Government says, but that is their choice.

As a result of our school bus crash investigations, we believe—and have recommended—that, when investing in new school buses, the purchased vehicles should provide children with the best protection available, which includes 3-point seat belts

I want the best for my child, but then again I am a safety conscious parent and want to expose my child to unnecessary dangers.

Pulaski

I did. Me neither, but I suspect that you'd be better off in a school bus doing 40mph hitting an average family saloon car coming towards you at 20mph than hitting an immovable concrete block or stationary 18-wheeler. ..... In other words in the resulting sumo battle the bus would continue forwards before coming to rest, thereby experiencing reduced deceleration, compared to hitting the concrete block.

Obviously hitting an 18-wheeler coming towards you at 60mph would be worse than hitting the concrete block.

mrken30

KE=1/2 MV² from memory

The head on collision is probably much less of a problem compared to a side impact by a garbage truck as described in the report.

Pulaski

Are you aware that the airbags required in cars manufactured for the US market differ from the airbags fitted in vehicles manufactured for sale in other countries, often referred to in the US as "Euro bags"?

It is quite interesting, and US airbags are designed in the assumption that the driver/passenger isn't wearing a seatbelt. Given the airbag injuries and fatalities in recent years it's a wonder that no lawyer has tried to sue the manufacturers and/or the federal government for fitting excessively large airbags when people are wearing a seatbelt.

Obviously seat belts make sense, under almost all circumstances, so as to avoid being ejected from a vehicle during the accident, and a seat belt is not a substitute for having an airbag, the two safety systems complement each other, both providing additional but different safety.

mrken30

If you want to rely on seat belts alone, that is up to you. CDC suggests otherwise.

A total of 22,441 passenger vehicle occupants died in motor vehicle traffic crashes in 2015.
More than half (range: 52%-59%) of teens (13-19 years) and adults aged 20-44 years who died in crashes in 2015 were unrestrained at the time of the crash.

The US design obviously does not work.

Using a Pennsylvania trauma database, the researchers identified crashes resulting in injuries to drivers and front-seat passengers from 1990 to 2002. The study included approximately 12,700 patients with spinal injuries--8,500 drivers and 4,200 passengers. Of these, 5,500 patients had fractures of the cervical spine.

The rate of cervical spine fractures was 54 percent in drivers using an airbag only, compared to 42 percent for drivers using both an airbag and seatbelt.