Seat belts and buses: A comment on the issues.

Abstract

This paper has been written as a commentary or footnote to a perennial issue in road safety—the debate over the need for seat belts to be fitted to buses. It identifies and reviews issues that are commonly raised in community discussions regarding bus occupant safety, and provides a snapshot of the history of high level policy review in this area. The paper refers to the early substantive work of Professor Peter Joubert, and draws attention to his later plaintive comment that this early work on improving bus occupant safety had been substantially ignored. In general, the injuries to bus passengers in crashes are associated with the penetration (if any) of another vehicle or roadside object directly, or with impact with bus fixtures. In particular, impact of the face and upper body with the seat back in front of their seating position is a major mechanism of injury resulting in lacerations, fractures and bruising. Other bus injuries associated with falls also result in lacerations, fractures and bruising. The major features that cause concern and which need to be improved are found on those buses without seat belts, and with unpadded low-backed seats bolted to the floor and often with a stainless steel handrail fitted to the top of the seats to provide a handhold for standing passengers. It is noted that while the arguments against the fitting of seat belts on buses are identified very clearly, in general there is little attention or consideration of why it might be a good idea to fit seat belts on buses. This bias is quite common in reports and discussions of the issue of seat belts on buses. The legal liabilities of bus operators and safety regulators of the bus industry are discussed briefly, with particular reference to the recent civil case of Scrase -v- Jarvis & Others.

Full text

SEAT BELTS AND BUSES:
A COMMENT ON THE ISSUES
Julia D. Irwin
Department of Psychology, Macquarie University
Ian J. Faulks
Injuries Australia
PUBLISHED AS:
Irwin, J.D. & Faulks, I.J. (2000). Seat belts and buses: A comment on the issues.
Roadwise, 12(2), 11-18.
Author’s Note
Mr Michael Paine, of Vehicle Design and Research Pty Limited, kindly provided critical
comments regarding an earlier draft of the manuscript. The assistance of Mr Bill Weston and Mr
Rob Davis in developing several of the ideas expressed in this paper is gratefully acknowledged.
Corresponding author: Ian Faulks, Injuries Australia, PO Box Q595, QVB Post Office NSW
1230, email: mail@injuriesaustralia.com.au

SEAT BELTS AND BUSES:
A COMMENT ON THE ISSUES
Abstract
This paper has been written as a commentary or footnote to a perennial issue in road safety—the
debate over the need for seat belts to be fitted to buses. It identifies and reviews issues that are
commonly raised in community discussions regarding bus occupant safety, and provides a
snapshot of the history of high level policy review in this area. The paper refers to the early
substantive work of Professor Peter Joubert, and draws attention to his later plaintive comment
that this early work on improving bus occupant safety had been substantially ignored. In
general, the injuries to bus passengers in crashes are associated with the penetration (if any) of
another vehicle or roadside object directly, or with impact with bus fixtures. In particular,
impact of the face and upper body with the seat back in front of their seating position is a major
mechanism of injury resulting in lacerations, fractures and bruising. Other bus injuries
associated with falls also result in lacerations, fractures and bruising. The major features that
cause concern and which need to be improved are found on those buses without seat belts, and
with unpadded low-backed seats bolted to the floor and often with a stainless steel handrail fitted
to the top of the seats to provide a handhold for standing passengers. It is noted that while the
arguments against the fitting of seat belts on buses are identified very clearly, in general there is
little attention or consideration of why it might be a good idea to fit seat belts on buses. This
bias is quite common in reports and discussions of the issue of seat belts on buses. The legal
liabilities of bus operators and safety regulators of the bus industry are discussed briefly, with
particular reference to the recent civil case of Scrase -v- Jarvis & Others.
Introduction
The large mass of buses, and the consequent inertia of buses relative to the majority of other
motor vehicles, means that buses are not subjected to high levels of deceleration following
collisions with other vehicles (Dixon, Williams & Joubert, 1981; Insurance Institute for Highway
Safety, 1985). However, in a seemingly contradictory finding, in the event of bus crashes
involving other motor vehicles the occupants of the other vehicle are more likely to be killed but
the bus passengers are more likely to be injured. In the main, this peculiar outcome arises
because the interior of a bus lacks appropriate and proper fittings that provide energy absorption
in the event of a crash (e.g., seat belts, padding, structurally strong seat backs and points of
attachment). In the event of a bus crash involving a motor vehicle of equivalent mass—such as
another bus or a truck—or a fixed roadside object, the protective interaction of larger vehicle
mass and inertia is not available, and the risk of injury and fatality to bus passengers becomes
extreme.
The risk of injury to passengers in bus crashes is associated with the accelerations to which
unrestrained bus passengers are subjected, intrusion into the bus interior (the survival space) by
another vehicle or object, or some combination of acceleration forces and intrusion.

Typically, about half of all bus crashes involve a frontal impact (a head-on crash) with average
accelerations of around 12 G for 85 ms (see, e.g., Dixon et al., 1981). The severe injuries
received in such crashes are usually to the head, and result from the unrestrained catapulting of
passengers into the seat backs and more forward-seated passengers or even the ejection of
passengers from the bus interior through the windows or windscreen. A bus crash involving
rear-end impacts also gives rise to an increased specific risk of head injury, where whiplash
injuries and rebound head contacts onto the back of the seat in front are common for unrestrained
passengers even though the typical accelerations are somewhat less, around 10 G for 40 ms. In
side impact bus crashes passengers are often subjected to relatively high lateral accelerations and
a corresponding increased risk of injury. Bus seats are usually located transversely across the
bus interior, and window seated passengers are likely to strike the window or wall structure or
slide across the seat into the adjacent passenger, while aisle side passengers are likely to strike
their neighbouring seat occupant or they may be thrown into the aisle or across the aisle into the
adjacent seat and its occupants. Again, head injuries are common, as well as chest injuries and
limb fractures. In roll over bus crashes, the protection of passengers from injury is extremely
difficult if not impossible if the passengers are unrestrained. Unrestrained passengers in a roll
over bus crash are likely to strike virtually any surfaces within the interior of the bus, and these
uncontrolled impacts have a considerable amount of energy and can deliver severe injuries across
all regions of the body.
A related feature of bus crashes involving unrestrained passengers is that there is a tendency for
the passengers, at the conclusion of the crash sequence, to be congregated at the front of the bus,
in the aisles, and in the stairwells of the exits. The presence of injured passengers in these
locations makes access to the interior of the bus and evacuation of the passengers, both uninjured
and injured, very difficult.
Obviously, the goal of improving the safety of bus passengers in crashes should be to reduce the
likelihood that the passengers will be catapulted from their seats into the interior surfaces of the
bus or each other, and to spread the crash forces more evenly through the use of seat belts,
padding and improved structural design.
Injuries in bus crashes
The lessons of major bus crashes
Much has been learned from the major bus crashes in Australia since the late 1980's, including
Grafton, Kempsey, Talbingo, Mount Tambourine, Gateway). These bus crashes were either
frontal or partially offset frontal crashes (Grafton, Kempsey) or bus ‘run-off-road and roll-over’
crashes (Talbingo, Mount Tambourine, Gateway). These crashes, and the intense in-depth
examinations associated with the coronial and other investigations following the crashes, led to
new, tougher rules regarding bus design and construction, and the requirement for seat belts to be
fitted in buses used for long distance coach travel. Curiously, it seemed that it was the close
temporal juxtaposition of several bus crashes, together with the significance of the Grafton and
Kempsey bus crashes as Australia’s worst fatal road crashes, that seemed to provide an
incentives for action. But in the decades preceding these crashes there were a significant number
of fatal bus crashes across Australia, which collectively demonstrated the same safety design
deficiencies as were identified in the Grafton, Kempsey, Talbingo, and Mount Tambourine bus
crashes (see, e.g., Dixon et al., 1981). But what other sorts of injuries occur in bus crashes? The
situation regarding non-fatal injuries in bus crashes is less clear.

Bus crashes in New South Wales in 1995
As part of the STAYSAFE Committee’s review of the road safety situation in New South Wales
in 1995, a number of questions regarding bus safety were put to the Hon. Carl Scully MP,
Minister for Roads, and the Hon. Brian Langton MP, then Minister for Transport. The Ministers
replied that there were 677 buses involved in recorded crashes in 1995 (the information is
derived from the 1995 database year and contains some late reports which actually occurred in
1994). This equates to between 1-2 recorded bus crashes each day.
As would be expected from a consideration of the mass differentials between a bus and another
vehicle or person, persons struck by buses are much more likely to die or be seriously injured
than bus occupants. Of the non-bus occupants (i.e., cyclists, pedestrians, or other vehicle
occupants), 9 were killed, 77 were seriously injured, and there were 197 minor injuries. Of the
bus occupants, on the other hand, none were killed, 15 were seriously injured, and there were
233 minor injuries (it must be noted that buses routinely have a large number of passengers,
particularly school buses which may carry over 100 passengers under the ‘3-for-2’ seating rule
applicable to children under 12 years of age).
In depth crash studies of bus crashes
Studies of bus crashes can provide some further detail of the kinds of injuries that can be
expected, and of the mechanisms of injury. One of the few available studies is that of Herbert
and Corben (1976), who reported a number of in depth studies of bus crashes, including a school
bus crash and a coach crash. The practice of conducting in depth crash studies lapsed for more
than decade in New South Wales, but the Roads and Traffic Authority has been involved in a
fairly extensive in depth crash study during the 1990's which might result in more current injury
data becoming available. Herbert and Corben (1976) reported a school bus crash involving a
sideswipe between the bus and an approaching semitrailer on a rural road. The speed at time of
impact was not specified. The impact resulted in the intrusion of the truck cab into the passenger
space of the bus, resulting in several deaths and many injured passengers. The main types of
injuries of hospitalised bus passengers were facial lacerations and abrasions. Other injuries
tended to be associated with the side of the body exposed to the truck intrusion. The injuries to
non-hospitalised bus passengers were not recorded. Herbert and Corben (1976) also reported a
coach crash involving a head on impact between the bus and a semitrailer on a rural highway.
There was extensive damage to the passenger space of the bus, with the rear half of the right side
of the bus being torn out including detachment of the roof, and the collapse of all bus seats. The
truck driver was killed, as were two bus passengers. The main types of injuries of hospitalised
bus passengers were facial and upper limb lacerations and fractures of the upper limbs. The
injuries to non-hospitalised bus passengers were bruising to the chest, shoulder and limbs, and
general bruising.
It is important to recognise that an important mechanism of injury on buses is falls associated
with entry and egress (particularly, in moving down the aisle or into the stairwells) or with
sudden accelerations and decelerations. Again, lacerations, fractures and bruising are common
outcomes.
In general, the injuries to bus passengers in crashes are associated with the penetration (if any) of
another vehicle or roadside object directly, or with impact with bus fixtures. In particular,
impact of the face and upper body with the seat back in front of their seating position is a major
mechanism of injury resulting in lacerations, fractures and bruising. Other bus injuries
associated with falls when moving about the bus or exiting from the bus also result in lacerations,

fractures and bruising.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety (1977) on
heavy vehicle safety
A good snap shot of the general issues associated with the provision of seat belts on buses is
provided in the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety
(1977) on heavy vehicle safety. This report is quite useful, not only because it provides a good
encapsulation of the issues, but also because the report itself is just over 20 years old, which is
about the limit of the working life of a bus. If the general findings and conclusions had been
implemented at the time of the release of the Committee’s report, there would be a very different,
much safer bus fleet in the late 1990's. In particular, if the decision had been made in 1977 to
require the installation of seat belts in all new buses through the introduction of a new stringent
Australian Design Rule (ADR) or a design and construction requirement under the Consolidated
Draft Regulations in force at that time, then virtually the entire fleet would have been fitted out
by 1997-98, purely through the process of the natural turnover in purchasing new buses and
junking older buses. As it was, it was left to ADR 68, introduced some 15 years later, to provide
for integral seat belts built into the bus seat itself, and even this ADR allows for significant
exemptions, including but not limited to route service buses involved in urban mass transit
operations.
The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety reported that:
“A requirement that seat belts be fitted in buses for passengers has been the
subject of considerable research and discussion and the general conclusion that
emerges is that in many instances it is not practicable. The practical difficulties
of fitting seat belts are numerous and apply in different ways to urban buses,
school buses and inter-urban buses. The installation of any kind of seat belt in
urban buses is questionable, largely on the grounds of inconvenience and
cost/benefit. These passengers are not seated for long and indeed may have to
stand in the aisle is seats are not available. They may also be encumbered by
parcels, bags and prams, and need to disembark as easily as possible.
For school buses the problems are similar to those of urban buses with the
complication that the passengers carried are smaller and more numerous. For
passengers on long distance inter-urban coaches the above problems are not so
relevant, and given the higher speed of coaches and the more severe results of
crashes a better case exists for the provision of safety belts in these vehicles.
There would be problems however in determining those buses required to have
seat belts fitted. Many urban buses are occasionally used for long distance trips
however the Committee considers that there would be a clearly defined group of
buses used only for long distance travelling.
There are also other problems that needs to be considered. Because of the long
life of buses, retrofitting of seat belts would be necessary. Only lap belts could
be used in many buses due to the lack of suitable side wall anchorages. The cost
of providing suitably strong anchorage points for seat belts and the implications
of the extra weight involved suggests that the costs involved could be significant.
As well as the structural problems, bus proprietors also face difficulties of a
practical nature for unless the seat belts are of a retracting type, they could

become tangled and make cleaning of buses more difficult. They would be an
item subject to vandalism and would require constant service and cleaning.
There would also be difficulties for any driver trying to ensure that all passengers
had their seat belts fastened.
As mentioned above, the difficulties with lap sash belts are the availability of
strong anchorage points and the requirement that belts should fit passengers of all
sizes. The wearing of a sash belt by children, of course, could be quite harmful if
the sash passed across a child’s throat. Lap belts also have disadvantages in that
they allow the upper torso to move freely, especially in moments of sudden
deceleration when passengers can be flung forward into the seat in front. This
can be particularly harmful if the seats are not of the high backed type and the
tops are of an unyielding nature.
The provision of passenger restraints to buses has been extensively reviewed by
Professor Joubert (1973) and while he saw seat belts as being important, he saw
the seats themselves and the passenger compartment being even more so. He
stressed the importance of buses being fitted with high backed seats of a padded
nature and foresaw their possible combination with the seat belts of either type.
The Committee has considered Professor Joubert’s findings and together with the
evidence it has taken, has concluded that while bus seats should definitely be
padded and that fixtures of the bus should not be injurious, high-backed seats
would only be practicable for inter-urban coaches. In addition to this the
Committee considers that the accident rate amongst bus passengers is insufficient
in urban or school buses to warrant provision of seat belts at this stage. The
Committee does believe however, that seat belts in newly built inter-urban
coaches should be compulsorily fitted in conjunction with well padded, high
backed seats. (pp.87-89)
To reprise the arguments against seat belts on buses, the following general comments can be
expected:
• practicality (it’s a good idea but impracticable; to require the installation of seat belts on
route service buses used in urban mass transit operations would be an onerous
imposition; some people have to stand in the aisles, so seated passengers do not need seat
belts; if a passenger is carrying parcels or bags, they will find it difficult to use a seat
belt; under the “3-for-2 rule”, more children under the age of 12 years can be carried on
school buses and there won’t be enough seat belts; seat belts will get tangled up and
won’t be used; seat belts will get in the way of cleaning and servicing of the bus; seat
belts will be vandalised; the bus driver will not be able to ensure that the passengers are
using the seat belts).
• cost (the benefits of installing bus seat belts do not outweigh the costs involved in their
installation; the expenditure involved in installing seat belts in buses would be better
spent on other injury-reducing measures).
• exposure and risk (the crash rate of buses and the injury rates for bus passengers when
crashes occur don’t indicate a need for seat belts; urban bus travel and school bus travel
is only for short distances, so there’s no need for seat belts; seat belts hamper the
evacuation of bus passengers in the event of a crash; lap belts are harmful and can cause
injuries to passengers in the event of a crash).

• engineering ( the existing bus seats can’t incorporate seat belts, particularly lap-sash seat
belts; there are not strong enough anchorage points for seat belts within the bus structure;
revising the design of the bus to allow for seat belts would add too much weight; school
children are smaller than other passengers and the seat belts won’t fit).
The curious aspect of the findings of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road
Safety is that the arguments against the fitting of seat belts on buses are identified very clearly.
Missing, however, is the consideration of why it might be a good idea to fit seat belts on buses.
This biased view is quite common in any report or discussion of the issue of seat belts on buses.
A notable exception is a report by Henderson and Paine (1994) into the fitment, effectiveness
and cost of seat belts in school buses, prepared for an advisory committee to the New South
Wales Minister for Transport—the Bus and Coach Safety Standing Committee. This report
provides a balanced and comprehensive review, but is limited to the consideration of issues
associated with seat belts in school buses, rather than a broad consideration of the issue of seat
belt fitment within the general bus fleet. Henderson and Paine noted that parent and community
advocacy groups called for enhanced protection of school children during bus travel to and from
school on a regular basis, citing as an example, the New South Wales Federation of Parents and
Citizens Associations which has argued that it should be mandatory that seat belts or safer forms
of seating should be provided on all buses involved in conveying school children. But at the
same time, Henderson and Paine (1994) commented:
“While medical groups might support belt fitment in the American-style school
bus, with special padding and other necessary safety features, none do so in the
Australian situation, where existing buses used for school transport are not,
without extensive modification, suitable for lap belt fitment, let alone the far
more effective lap/sash seat belt. All expert groups that have reviewed the matter
agree that seat belts and existing seats in large buses are incompatible.” (pp.73-
74)
Henderson and Paine (1994) argued that the fitting of seat belts in buses currently used for the
transport of school children was not justified. However, they proposed that the existing bus seats
should be redesigned to provide for enhanced protection from facial and head injuries, that
improved specifications should be drawn up for padding for bus seats and other internal fittings,
and that a program of retrofitment be required.
Improving bus occupant protection
In the preceding section, the work of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road
Safety regarding heavy vehicles was quoted extensively with respect to its findings and
conclusions about seat belts in buses. Reference was made to earlier work by Joubert (1973),
who had reviewed road safety aspects of truck and bus design. Joubert (1990) later summarised
this work in a compelling critique of motor vehicle design, and it is relevant to repeat his
remarks:
“I have been looking for an opportunity to say what’s been swelling up inside me
for a number of years, because I’m not entirely happy with what’s been
happening in the vehicle design area ... in this talk I am going to concentrate on
five points connected with vehicle design rules.

The first point involves the recent horrific bus crashes. In the Kempsey crash,
two buses impacted on the Pacific Highway. This crash was not quite as horrific
as the one where the semi-trailer ran into the bus [the Grafton bus crash], which
split open the side of the bus, and there was little that could be done in that
situation.
But in the Kempsey crash the penetration only occurred over the front of the
buses, in fact not far into the buses at all, and the rest of the structure remained
intact. Inside you could find what is typical of behaviour in bus crashes - failure
of the seats. The metal failed, leaving jagged edges for people to injure
themselves on. Also the backs of the seats lost structural integrity, and all I can
say is - I told you so. And when did I tell you?
Well, back in the year 1973 I prepared a report on behalf of the Federal Office of
Road Safety (then simply part of the Department of Transport). I reviewed truck
and bus design in relation to road safety. I won’t bore you with all the details,
but I will go straight to my conclusions, which were that crashworthy seats
(unlike those in the crashed buses) with back heights of 28 inches should be
provided in buses. And this includes arm rests to stop people moving sideways
out of their seats. The bus driver should have a lap belt and sit in a crashworthy
chair, much as anything in order to maintain his position for proper control.
All bus seats should be stressed to 30g forwards and 20g backwards. That
conclusion was based on a lot of research and actual crashing of buses in the
United States. Designing the seats to this level means that in a forward impact
they should be able to withstand on the back of each seat a load of 30 times a
person’s weight. In the Kempsey bus crash it has been estimated that the level of
deceleration was about 20g. But not only did the seats fail, some of them pulled
out and were thrown towards the front of the bus. If they had been designed to
the criterion proposed to the Federal Government in 1973 at their request, then a
lot of those people would not have been so seriously injured in that particular
crash. And of course the front passengers in the bus should have seat belts,
because they have no seat back in front of them.
Some people say, and perhaps rightly, why aren’t all people provided with seat
belts? Well, the answer to that is that bus crashes are very, very rare things, and
it was found from the tests in the US that they are mainly frontal impacts into
solid objects, or in this case another bus. In such cases the strong seat back is a
very significant safety feature.
However, there is a bus rule on the way, based on the ECE rule 8 (We now tend
to be copying what the Europeans are doing). The level of stressing of the seats
that is going to be available in 1994, which is 21 years after I first proposed a
criterion to them, is only 12g. Well, it’s not quite good enough. It should be
double that at least.” (Joubert, 1990, pp.35-36)
The sense of frustration apparent in Joubert’s remarks was also reflected in the coronial report
into the Kempsey dual coach crash that occurred on 22 December 1989. The then State Coroner,
Mr Kevin Waller found:

“It is notorious that when the impact occurred, all persons and seats in each bus
were hurled forward to the front. The seat anchorages gave way completely
under the considerable forces applied. It is common ground that research must
be done and improvements made in an attempt to keep the seats in place when a
collision occurs, and also to keep in place so far as is possible the occupants of
those seats.” (p.16)
The State Coroner continued:
“It is obvious from the literature that surveys on this and other subjects have been
made and rejected. It is regrettably true that it often takes a major catastrophe to
precipitate Government and Government authorities into action. Matters of cost
and inconvenience often have been allowed to take precedence over matters of
personal safety. Promising suggestions are deflected for investigation elsewhere
and largely forgotten.” (p.17)
Following the major multiple fatal bus crashes in the late 1980's and early 1990's several
improved design rules for the construction of buses were introduced through the Australian
Design Rule process. ADR 66 requires improved seat design and seat belts on the forward row
of seats. ADR 68 requires improved seat design with integral lap-sash seat belts on all seats
(integral seat belts). ADR 59 requires the bus structure to withstand the forces of a roll-over.
These Australian Design Rules apply only to certain new buses: buses intended for route service,
in other words, for urban mass transit, are specifically exempt from ADR 66 and ADR 68 even
though it is known that route service buses can be used, and are used, for charter and long
distance work. As well, the existing bus fleet (i.e., buses constructed prior to the early to mid-
1990's) was not affected by the changes. However, some sections of the existing bus fleet did
already have some safety features such as padded high-backed seats (e.g., tourist coaches).
The bus fleet is changing over to compliance with the new Australian Design Rules through the
purchase of new buses and the disposal of older buses. But the process is slow, and it is
estimated that at the current rate of replacement of buses it could take more than ten years before
half the bus fleet has any given new safety feature (Henderson & Paine, 1994)—not withstanding
the anomalous exclusion of route service buses. It is noted that the impact of the Sydney 2000
Olympics, which has a transport plan that is heavily reliant on buses for the mass transport of
spectators, has not been assessed in relation to the turnover of the New South Wales bus fleet in
particular, and the national bus fleet generally.
The major features that cause concern and which need to be improved are found on those buses
with unpadded low-backed seats bolted to the floor and without seat belts. Often a stainless steel
handrail is fitted to the top of the seats to provide a handhold for standing passengers. Many
urban buses and school buses have this configuration. The concerns are:
• passengers are unstrained by seat belts;
• the low-backed seats are unpadded and do not provide any protection;
• passengers may pitch over the seat in a crash and impact with more forward seated
passengers;
• the steel handrail can be struck with the face or upper body; and
• the seats may tear from the bus floor in a severe crash.
There are possible upgrades for such buses, including either the replacement of the existing seats
with seats that comply with ADR 68 or ADR 66 (including fitting seat belts to the exposed front
seats if the structure permits) or the fitting of padding to the seat backs and to the top of the seats.

As well, seats can be more securely attached to underfloor structural components of the bus.
Summary
While the arguments against the fitting of seat belts on buses are identified very clearly, the
consideration of why it might be a good idea to fit seat belts on buses is usually missing in any
report or discussion of the issue of seat belts on buses. In general, the injuries to bus passengers
in crashes are associated with the penetration (if any) of another vehicle or roadside object
directly, or with impact with bus fixtures. In particular, impact of the face and upper body with
the seat back in front of their seating position is a major mechanism of injury resulting in
lacerations, fractures and bruising. Other bus injuries associated with falls also result in
lacerations, fractures and bruising. The bus fleet is changing over to compliance with the new
Australian Design Rules through the purchase of new buses and the disposal of older buses. But
the process is slow. The major features that cause concern and which need to be improved are
found on those buses without seat belts, and with unpadded low-backed seats bolted to the floor
and often with a stainless steel handrail fitted to the top of the seats to provide a handhold for
standing passengers. Many urban buses and school buses have this configuration. There are
possible upgrades for such buses, including either the replacement of the existing seats with seats
that comply with ADR 68 or ADR 66 (including fitting seat belts to the exposed front seats if the
structure permits) or the fitting of padding to the seat backs and to the top of the seats. While
such upgrades may address some of the safety issues associated with urban and school buses, the
question of the safety of passengers standing in the aisles of the bus remains unresolved. This is
a critical issue for both service routes and school routes. There also remain concerns with the
ability of bus passengers to exit the vehicle in the event of a crash—this is a particular issue for
school buses operating with standees in the aisles and under the “3-for-2 rule” for seat
occupancy.
Simply put, the good reasons for fitting a seat belt into bus seats include:
• restrained occupants are better protected in a crash.
• public passengers have a right to expect a high level of protection from the risk of
injury.
• regardless of the crash rates of buses, and the injury rates for bus passengers
when crashes occur, passengers should expect to have access to suitable and
effective restraints.
• passengers should have access to suitable and effective restraints on all bus travel
(including urban buses and school buses) even if the travel is only for short
distances.
• even if some people have to stand in the aisles, seated passengers should still
have access to seat belts.
• the community demands that children travelling to and from school should not be
exposed to the risk of injury in their journeys, and the provision of seat belts
reduces these risks.
• existing buses can be modified to incorporate seats which comply with ADR 68
(i.e., incorporate seat belts into the seat itself).
• in existing buses it is possible that the bus floor and subfloor construction can be
modified to provide strong anchorage points for seat belts within the bus structure
without major reconstruction.
• modern designs and construction methods mean that allowing for seat belts does

not add weight to the bus.
• it is possible to design bus seats that provide sufficient seat belts to satisfy the “3-
for-2 rule” for children under the age of 12 years.
• there is no evidence that seat belts will get tangled up and won’t be used.
• there is no evidence that seat belts get in the way of cleaning and servicing of the
bus.
• there is no evidence that seat belts will be vandalised.
• the provision of seat belts should not be dependent upon the bus driver being able
to ensure that the passengers are using the seat belts.
Some final notes are required. Two further major bus crashes at Tenterfield and at
Cunningham’s Gap provide a telling indication of the success in injury reduction that is
associated with the proper restraint of bus passengers. In January 1997 a fatal ‘run-off-the-road’
bus crash at Tenterfield led to the deaths of two passengers: the co-driver who was in the
sleeping compartment of the vehicle and a young boy who was returning to his seat from the
lavatory; and injuries to a number of other passengers who were not wearing seat belts. In
November 1998, a fatal bus crash at Cunningham’s Gap resulted in the deaths of two people: a
bus passenger and the driver of a truck which had overturned and slid into the path of the bus.
The wearing of seat belts by the bus passengers was held to be a major contributing factor to the
low levels of injury amongst the bus occupants.
It is a chilling and horrible thought that on Australian roads today there are buses operating in the
carriage of dozens of passengers—even with more than 100 passengers—who are unrestrained.
That many of those buses are school buses, filled with children under ‘3-for-2' seating rules
without seat belts, and with a proportion standing in the aisles and not even able to benefit from
the limited safety of a seated position, is from any objective perspective a national disgrace. In
the event of a major crash involving a packed school bus, there will be public opprobrium and
outrage and a lasting ignominy to the bus operators and safety regulators of the bus industry who
have known for at least 25 years of the risks to the safety of bus passengers and the simple
remedies that have ever been available.
The legal liabilities of bus operators and safety regulators of the bus industry are under scrutiny
increasingly (see, e.g., Davis 1995, 1998). Recent court decisions are sheeting home the liability
of these parties for inappropriate actions and unreasonable failure to take adequate precautions to
reduce or eliminate unnecessary risks.
A particular example that has attracted a great deal of interest and publicity is Scrase -v- Jarvis
& Others (1998) Australian Torts Reporter 81-471. On Friday 3 April 1998, Justice Ambrose of
the Queensland Supreme Court awarded more than $570,000 in damages to the parents of Kerryn
Scrase, a 10 year old school girl killed on 17 November 1993. Kerryn was struck and killed by a
passing car as she was attempting to cross a busy street after leaving a Surfside Buslines school
bus. At the time of the crash Kerryn was on an errand to fetch her younger sister (age 8 years at
the time). The younger sister had earlier been denied access to the school bus because she had
forgotten her school bus pass, and had returned home to obtain the bus pass. Both sisters were
known to the bus driver by name and had travelled on the same bus for over a year. The bus
driver was also aware that both children possessed current school bus passes. Despite this
knowledge, the bus driver acted in accordance with the 'company policy' of the bus operator to
refuse to permit school children who did not produce a current school bus pass to board the bus.
In awarding damages against the bus operator Mr Justice Ambrose described the bus company's

bus pass policy ‘on its face ... was a grossly unreasonable one which put school children of
tender years at unnecessary risk’. The implementation of such a policy was, of itself, negligent.
Scrase -v- Jarvis & Others is the first time that an Australian court has held a school bus operator
vicariously liable for the design and implementation of an administrative policy which placed
children at risk unnecessarily. Because vicarious liability had been established, Mr Justice
Ambrose did not consider the question as to whether the bus operator was in any event
responsible for that negligence on the basis discussed in The Commonwealth -v- Introvigne
(1982) 150 CLR 258 at 271.
In the same action damages were also awarded against each of the school bus driver (Henry
Jarvis) and the driver of the car that struck and killed Kerryn (Kevin Lynch). The court found
that the school bus driver was negligent for having failed to warn Kerryn of the risks of passing
traffic. The court determined that the bus driver knew school children regularly ran across from
in front of school buses; knew that this propensity exposed them to serious risks of death or
injury; knew that Kerryn was likely to be in a hurry to fetch her sister; and ought to have known
that Lynch’s vehicle (which would have been clearly visible in Jarvis’ rear view mirror) was
rapidly approaching the stationary school bus from behind. The car driver was held to be
negligent for passing a stationary school bus at between 60-65 km/h, which was exacerbated by
his failure to give any warning of his approach by sounding the vehicle’s horn. The court found
this conduct to have been a serious breach of the driver's duty of care, given that a stationary
school bus should act as a warning beacon to road users and that the driver had seen the bus for
at least 11-12 seconds during his approach prior to colliding with Kerryn.
The case raises at least two important points. First, when governments refuse to act to protect
the safety of the public then the courts remain the only option. Scrase -v- Jarvis & Others
underscores the important role played by the common law in exposing and condemning conduct
that exposes the public to avoidable risks of death and injury. Second, operators and regulators
may now not be immune from successful litigation. Given the plethora of information about the
need for seat belts on buses, and the now well known identification of the steps required to
ensure that buses are fitted with seat belts, it is likely that future claims under the common law
tort of negligence may be brought in the event of injury or death in a bus crash involving a bus
not fitted with seat belts.
The case of Scrase -v- Jarvis & Others should serve as an object lesson to bus operators, bus
industry regulators, bus drivers and ordinary road users. It demonstrates that the courts will
require rigorous safety standards, even in the absence of specific government legislation.
References
Davis, R. (1995). Surveys into issues relating to the safety of school bus travel for school
children. Unpublished paper. Coolangatta, Qld.: Attwood Marshall Lawyers.
Davis, R. (1998). The legal liability of schools and bus operators for school bus related injury to
children. Paper presented to the 3rd annual conference of the Australian Plaintiff Lawyers
Association, Hamilton Island, Queensland, 16-18 October 1998.
Dixon, A.H., Williams, J.F., Joubert, P.N. (1981). Safety requirements of bus seats & seat

anchorages. Report CR 25. Canberra, ACT: Office of Road Safety, Department of Transport.
Henderson, J.M. & Paine, M. (1994) School bus seat belts - their fitment, effectiveness and cost.
Final report prepared for the Bus and Coach Safety Standing Committee. Sydney, NSW:
Department of Transport.
House of Representatives Standing Committee on Road Safety (1977). Heavy vehicle safety.
Canberra, ACT: Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (1985). School buses and seat belts. Status Report, 20,
11 May 1985, 1-12.
Joubert, P.N. (1973). Review of truck and bus design in relation to road safety. Canberra, ACT:
Department of Transport.
Joubert, P.N. (1990). Safety in motor vehicle design. In: J.M. Henderson (Ed.). Public health
and road safety: Why can't we live with our roads? Proceedings of a summit conference, Hilton
Hotel, Sydney NSW, 29-30 March 1990. Sydney NSW: Australian Doctors Fund Limited &
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons.
Waller, K.M. (1990). Finding Kempsey dual coach crash on 22nd December 1989. Glebe,
NSW: Glebe Coroners Court.