• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should school buses be required to stop at all railroad crossings?

Ok, I thought it was a goofy law, but I am coming around to seeing why we have and keep it. I have changed my mind.
It is required for all hazardous cargo transporters. Passengers are hazardous cargo. Personally I think the rule makes sense, because the driver needs to check for train traffic before crossing.
 
It is required for all hazardous cargo transporters. Passengers are hazardous cargo. Personally I think the rule makes sense, because the driver needs to check for train traffic before crossing.

How do you not see a train from a very long ways away?
 
This is the law here where I live and I never thought much about it.

What's the downside?

Waste of time.

Americans suck at prioritizing.

We are rarely reasonable when it comes to our fetish for our precious bundles but not having seatbelts on school busses has been a hard fought rare instance of sanity, they would be a troublesome solution to a nonexistent problem.
 
Should school buses be required to stop at all railroad crossings?

Many, if not all, states have laws that require school buses to stop at all railroad crossing. For example, in my state, it doesn't matter if the gates are down or up, the lights are on or off, or even if the bus has kids in it or is empty (except the driver, of course).

Is this a reasonable requirement?

If kids are so precious, why don't we require that cars with kids in them stop at all crossings? If it's the number of kids, we could require that SUVs with 3 or more kids stop, and everyone else go. And why make an empty bus with no kids stop?

If kids are so precious, why do we require ever increasing restraints such as car seats and/or seat belts up to the almost teen years (in some states), but not require at least seat belts on school buses (again, in some states)?

School Busses are often not subject to the same rapid changes in speed as personal automobiles, it is practically impossible to stop a bus with airbrakes fast enough to eject a passenger from the vehicle. this is why transit buses along with school buses do not require seatbelts. likewise they cannot accerelate or reverse quickly enough to avoid a collision with a train if the vehicle enters the RR crossing without enough observation and is in front of a train. the rule ensures the driver always stops and looks for a train then proceeds knowing the tracks are clear.

I have been a passenger on a transit bus (not subject to this rule) in Reno, Nev in which there were railroad tracks right before a road intersection, the driver proceeded to the red light at the road intersection, leaving the middle of the bus over the tracks.

School buses are required to stop at railroad crossings (except at crossings marked EXEMPT) because of high profile accidents in which many people were killed during collisions.

also any commercial vehicle placarded for hazardous materials is required to stop at RR crossings.
 
I think a school bus full of kids getting hit by a train is about as bad of a tragedy as anyone could imagine. The law probably exists because making all buses stop and look before proceeding is the closest thing to a guarantee that it will NEVER happen as is possible to achieve.

I can live with it.
 
I added another picture after you quoted me, from the Chicago area that was very recently (1995), where a school bus driver failed to clear the crossing due to a stop light on the other side of the tracks, and seven kids were killed, with 24 injured.

I found that one with just a very simple and quick Google search. There was one long ago near where I live, although thank God, no kids were killed.
Our nation's highways need work ! Should be a national priority ! Had I been the school bus driver , I would have rammed and pushed aside the vehicles in front of me in order to clear the tracks .. ..
 
How do you not see a train from a very long ways away?

It depends on the crossing. If it has a auto gate then I could see an exception, however if it is an uncontrolled intersection then the busses should stop and check for train traffic before continuing on.
 
This is the law here where I live and I never thought much about it.

What's the downside?

People behind the bus have to stop momentarily.
 
This is the law here where I live and I never thought much about it.

What's the downside?

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Some years ago, all the trains started to use the tracks South of the town where I live, and we had no more trains going through our city - the City turned the strip of land into bike trails, which is nice - but the school buses still stop at the tracks like they always used to do! I don't know if they're expecting a phantom rogue to suddenly appear one day or something, but they must think "better safe than sorry" I guess! :lamo
 
Ok, I thought it was a goofy law, but I am coming around to seeing why we have and keep it. I have changed my mind.

I am a professional driver by trade though I don't do it near as much as I used to. IMO its good practice to check for train traffic regardless what vehicle you are driving or what cargo you may be hauling. I have been high centered on a train tracks before, it was a nerve racking experience. I had a RGN with about 4 inches of clearance on the flat and I was forced to stop on the tracks. Not fun at all.
 
It is required for all hazardous cargo transporters. Passengers are hazardous cargo. Personally I think the rule makes sense, because the driver needs to check for train traffic before crossing.

If there were no crossing guards maybe that would make sense, but when the state makes these kinds of laws where they pretend that adequate tech solutions have not been deployed they betray a lack of confidence in technology which has earned their confidence, and they betray a lack of confidence in the intelligence of bus drivers. Laws like this are corrosive. Idiotic lawmaking such as this is a major part of the reason why the EU is going down in flames, we might consider doing something different.
 
I am a professional driver by trade though I don't do it near as much as I used to. IMO its good practice to check for train traffic regardless what vehicle you are driving or what cargo you may be hauling. I have been high centered on a train tracks before, it was a nerve racking experience. I had a RGN with about 4 inches of clearance on the flat and I was forced to stop on the tracks. Not fun at all.

So what is your theory here, that the main reason for the law is to keep idiot bus drivers from starting across the tracks without room to clear? That if they have to stop before the tracks to do some idiotic procedure this will not happen?
 
Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Some years ago, all the trains started to use the tracks South of the town where I live, and we had no more trains going through our city - the City turned the strip of land into bike trails, which is nice - but the school buses still stop at the tracks like they always used to do! I don't know if they're expecting a phantom rogue to suddenly appear one day or something, but they must think "better safe than sorry" I guess! :lamo

Good afternoon Lady P,

Many of us think cyclists are the most dangerous users of the roads.
 
Our nation's highways need work ! Should be a national priority ! Had I been the school bus driver , I would have rammed and pushed aside the vehicles in front of me in order to clear the tracks .. ..

he should never have allowed the vehicle to stop on the tracks in the first place.
 
School Busses are often not subject to the same rapid changes in speed as personal automobiles, it is practically impossible to stop a bus with airbrakes fast enough to eject a passenger from the vehicle. this is why transit buses along with school buses do not require seatbelts. likewise they cannot accerelate or reverse quickly enough to avoid a collision with a train if the vehicle enters the RR crossing without enough observation and is in front of a train. the rule ensures the driver always stops and looks for a train then proceeds knowing the tracks are clear.

I have been a passenger on a transit bus (not subject to this rule) in Reno, Nev in which there were railroad tracks right before a road intersection, the driver proceeded to the red light at the road intersection, leaving the middle of the bus over the tracks.

School buses are required to stop at railroad crossings (except at crossings marked EXEMPT) because of high profile accidents in which many people were killed during collisions.

also any commercial vehicle placarded for hazardous materials is required to stop at RR crossings.

I beg to differ on some of your details especially about busses not able to rapidly decelerate. They most certainly can. Just not like a sports car. Their brakes are typically more robust than standard commercial vehicle brakes. So yes they can decelerate rapidly if need be.
 
Good afternoon Lady P,

Many of us think cyclists are the most dangerous users of the roads.

I would agree with that, I hate when they ride on the street when there is a sidewalk they could be using.
 
I beg to differ on some of your details especially about busses not able to rapidly decelerate. They most certainly can. Just not like a sports car. Their brakes are typically more robust than standard commercial vehicle brakes. So yes they can decelerate rapidly if need be.

And if the precious bundles decelerate at a lesser rate they hit a well padded barrier. THey suffer little to no harm, less than they would with seatbelts. This is very well proven by science. But still we get calls for seatbelts, because people who refuse to listen to science, people who refuse to deploy reason, want to see them.
 
If there were no crossing guards maybe that would make sense, but when the state makes these kinds of laws where they pretend that adequate tech solutions have not been deployed they betray a lack of confidence in technology which has earned their confidence, and they betray a lack of confidence in the intelligence of bus drivers. Laws like this are corrosive. Idiotic lawmaking such as this is a major part of the reason why the EU is going down in flames, we might consider doing something different.

I be professional driver, well not as much now more like professional paper pusher now. Anyhow while it probably shouldn't be law it is a practice that should be encouraged. If it was law then so be it, the law actually does make a bit of sense unlike most.
 
Back
Top Bottom