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

[polgara]

I would agree with that, I hate when they ride on the street when there is a sidewalk they could be using.

Greetings, blaxshep. :2wave:

:lamo: :thumbs:

 

[PirateMk1]

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.

I don't care one way or another, I was just correcting some misinformation.

 

[PirateMk1]

Probably not necessary where there are automatic crossing guards, but believe it or not there are quite a few rural routes where such things don't exist. I suppose they should just put up a stop sign at such intersections.

To be honest that's probably the way it ought to be done.

 

[Hawkeye10]

I don't care one way or another, I was just correcting some misinformation.

I was just using your point as a step stool to get to my point, not disputing your point.

 

[CanadaJohn]

I would agree with that, I hate when they ride on the street when there is a sidewalk they could be using.

Actually, they're very dangerous on sidewalks too - pedestrians getting bowled over - some killed.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

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.

However, I have never personally heard of an accident where a school bus decelerated so rapidly that people were thrown out of the vehicle. the reason seatbelts were required in cars was because they save people from the type of car deaths where people are thrown from the vehicle due to rapid stopping.

I don't think I've ever heard of a seated child in a school bus being tossed. school busses normally operate on local roads and not freeways, the vast majority of school bus miles driven will be under 50 mph, and in urban and suburban areas we're talking maybe 35 is the highest speed they will reach on a route.

I didn't say it was physically impossible, it is certainly possible, but it's rare and is impossible in practical terms due to low speeds of driving and the physical inability that a vehicle that heavy can stop fast enough.

 

[natsb]

How do you not see a train from a very long ways away?

Trees, curves, hills, and buildings block the view all up and down the East coast. At many intersections, you can't see more than a few hundred yards down the track.

Which brings up an interesting question. If a bus driver has limited visibility down the track, what hope do they have of clearing the track when a train appears from around a corner?

 

[PirateMk1]

he should never have allowed the vehicle to stop on the tracks in the first place.

Bingo. The driver for all intents and purposes is the PIC, Pilot In Command.

 

[mak2]

It is a side walk, not a side ride. In most states bicycle riders have exactly the same rights and responsibilities vehicles do.

I would agree with that, I hate when they ride on the street when there is a sidewalk they could be using.

 

[PirateMk1]

However, I have never personally heard of an accident where a school bus decelerated so rapidly that people were thrown out of the vehicle. the reason seatbelts were required in cars was because they save people from the type of car deaths where people are thrown from the vehicle due to rapid stopping.

I don't think I've ever heard of a seated child in a school bus being tossed. school busses normally operate on local roads and not freeways, the vast majority of school bus miles driven will be under 50 mph, and in urban and suburban areas we're talking maybe 35 is the highest speed they will reach on a route.

I didn't say it was physically impossible, it is certainly possible, but it's rare and is impossible in practical terms due to low speeds of driving and the physical inability that a vehicle that heavy can stop fast enough.

Car brakes don't throw people out of cars. Neither do bus brakes. What throws people out of vehicles is a very sudden deceleration or stop caused by colliding either with something stopped or moving in the opposite direction, or being collided with.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Just as an aside, here in Ontario, it's the law that all vehicles must slow to 20km on approach to unmonitored railroad crossings, although it's seldom enforced except during driver's license exams.

 

[natsb]

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

I was driving behind a bus through a small town in Western Maryland. At two "intersections", the bus stopped, the driver opened the door for a better view, then proceeded. Here was my problem with it. There were no tracks on either side of the road. There were a few wood beams were a track may have been many years ago, and you could see where the tracks on the road were paved over. But alas, the RR Crossing signs were still up. I imagine the only trains that cross there would have to have all terrain wheels, or fly like the one in Back to the Future.

It seemed to me that a lot of time, fuel, and aggravation could be saved in about five minutes by a State worker with a screwdriver taking the silly signs down.

 

[coyotedelmar]

Eh, I don't really have a problem with it. Considering length and such, probably a good practice for school buses, transit busses, and trucks. Short buses, like vans, shouldn't have to though and yeah it's dumb when they have to stop at a crossing that everyone and their mother knows isn't used anymore.

 

[Absentglare]

Perhaps it's a function of age, but I have no problem waiting for a school bus to load/unload or to stop at railroad crossings or not race yellow lights or left turns.

Though i agree with you, it doesn't disprove the point that it does cause other drivers to become annoyed and annoyed drivers are more likely to get into an accident.

Further, if it's a safety consideration for children, why don't all motor vehicles have to do it ?

 

[Absentglare]

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)?

I see public transportation buses stopping at railroad crossings also, not just school buses. That might vary.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Though i agree with you, it doesn't disprove the point that it does cause other drivers to become annoyed and annoyed drivers are more likely to get into an accident.

Further, if it's a safety consideration for children, why don't all motor vehicles have to do it ?

As far as I know, in jurisdictions where this is the law, all vehicles that transport passengers as a business also have to exercise the same caution.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Car brakes don't throw people out of cars. Neither do bus brakes. What throws people out of vehicles is a very sudden deceleration or stop caused by colliding either with something stopped or moving in the opposite direction, or being collided with.

correct. but if you can't go from 55 to a dead stop super fast it reduces ejection. a school bus hitting another school bus or a passenger car or what have you will not stop instantly, like a car does.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I see public transportation buses stopping at railroad crossings also, not just school buses. That might vary.

Federal law requires all passenger carrying commercial vehicles to stop at railroad crossings.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the driver of a commercial motor vehicle specified in paragraphs (a) (1) through (6) of this section shall not cross a railroad track or tracks at grade unless he/she first: Stops the commercial motor vehicle within 50 feet of, and not closer than 15 feet to, the tracks; thereafter listens and looks in each direction along the tracks for an approaching train; and ascertains that no train is approaching. When it is safe to do so, the driver may drive the commercial motor vehicle across the tracks in a gear that permits the commercial motor vehicle to complete the crossing without a change of gears. The driver must not shift gears while crossing the tracks.

(1) Every bus transporting passengers,
.................................................................
(b) A stop need not be made at:

(1) A streetcar crossing, or railroad tracks used exclusively for industrial switching purposes, within a business district, as defined in § 390.5 of this chapter.

(2) A railroad grade crossing when a police officer or crossing flagman directs traffic to proceed,

(3) A railroad grade crossing controlled by a functioning highway traffic signal transmitting a green indication which, under local law, permits the commercial motor vehicle to proceed across the railroad tracks without slowing or stopping.

(4) An abandoned railroad grade crossing which is marked with a sign indicating that the rail line is abandoned,

(5) An industrial or spur line railroad grade crossing marked with a sign reading “Exempt.” Such “Exempt” signs shall be erected only by or with the consent of the appropriate State or local authority.

 

[PirateMk1]

correct. but if you can't go from 55 to a dead stop super fast it reduces ejection. a school bus hitting another school bus or a passenger car or what have you will not stop instantly, like a car does.

Again I beg to differ, especially if the bus hits a wall or pole or something stationary and anchored. If a bus hits a suv or large truck again same thing. Ejections happened from sudden decelerations and or tumbling.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Again I beg to differ, especially if the bus hits a wall or pole or something stationary and anchored. If a bus hits a suv or large truck again same thing. Ejections happened from sudden decelerations and or tumbling.

striking fixed objects head-on at speed is not a normal traffic accident. it's either hitting stationary objects at an angle or striking other vehicles.

 

[PirateMk1]

striking fixed objects head-on at speed is not a normal traffic accident. it's either hitting stationary objects at an angle or striking other vehicles.

Your likely correct in the instance that hitting stationary object and head on collisions are not common. But they do occur. My point was that your supposition that a bus or large vehicle cannot stop fast enough to eject a passenger is incorrect. It happens routinely unfortunately.

 

[Absentglare]

correct. but if you can't go from 55 to a dead stop super fast it reduces ejection. a school bus hitting another school bus or a passenger car or what have you will not stop instantly, like a car does.

The physics does not entirely agree with you there.

The bus will have more momentum than your average car due to having more mass. That simply means it requires a higher energy transaction to come to a stop. Note that a 2-ton vehicle traveling at 60mph has the same momentum as a 4-ton vehicle at 30mph.

In practice, having higher mass means reduced likelihood of severe jerk (rate of change of acceleration).

striking fixed objects head-on at speed is not a normal traffic accident. it's either hitting stationary objects at an angle or striking other vehicles.

When this was analyzed, they found that it didn't make sense to add seatbelts for a simple reason. It turns out that adding seatbelts would reduce the number of seats available. That means more kids driven to school by mom and dad. Turns out, kids are much more likely to die being driven by mom and dad than by the school bus, so much so that it dwarfs any safety gains from seatbelts.

Edit:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-25/pdf/2011-21596.pdf

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The physics does not entirely agree with you there.

The bus will have more momentum than your average car due to having more mass. That simply means it requires a higher energy transaction to come to a stop. Note that a 2-ton vehicle traveling at 60mph has the same momentum as a 4-ton vehicle at 30mph.

In practice, having higher mass means reduced likelihood of severe jerk (rate of change of acceleration).

exactly what I am saying.

When this was analyzed, they found that it didn't make sense to add seatbelts for a simple reason. It turns out that adding seatbelts would reduce the number of seats available. That means more kids driven to school by mom and dad. Turns out, kids are much more likely to die being driven by mom and dad than by the school bus, so much so that it dwarfs any safety gains from seatbelts.

Edit:

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-08-25/pdf/2011-21596.pdf

There is numerous reasons not to add seatbelts, it would make the school bus driver liable to ensure that 25 to 40 kids are buckled in at all times, a practical impossibility, to increased costs for school districts, and private contractors who do school buses.

and fewer kids per bus means that whoever is running the school buses has to buy more buses, meaning more drivers, more fuel, more insurance, etc.

and school buses are statistically already such a safe means of transport that it is not imperative to add seatbelts.

 

[Hawkeye10]

exactly what I am saying.





There is numerous reasons not to add seatbelts, it would make the school bus driver liable to ensure that 25 to 40 kids are buckled in at all times, a practical impossibility, to increased costs for school districts, and private contractors who do school buses.

and fewer kids per bus means that whoever is running the school buses has to buy more buses, meaning more drivers, more fuel, more insurance, etc.

and school buses are statistically already such a safe means of transport that it is not imperative to add seatbelts.

It is, we would need to also have a minder onboard, doubling the labor costs, and for the we would get a negative return on child safety. That this idea of seatbelts on school busses refuses to die is an indictment on the intelligence of my fellow citizens.

 

[Absentglare]

exactly what I am saying.





There is numerous reasons not to add seatbelts, it would make the school bus driver liable to ensure that 25 to 40 kids are buckled in at all times, a practical impossibility, to increased costs for school districts, and private contractors who do school buses.

and fewer kids per bus means that whoever is running the school buses has to buy more buses, meaning more drivers, more fuel, more insurance, etc.

and school buses are statistically already such a safe means of transport that it is not imperative to add seatbelts.

Yup, i agree entirely.