Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.

) Action Group
Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

Submission to NATIONAL TRANSPORT COMMISSION re: June 2008 Discussion Document [Donna Soo]

Improving Safety Management In Australias Bus Industry

Objectives: To examine current safety arrangements for the bus industry to establish whether a
national, risk-based approach could improve safety outcomes.
We commend the NTC for providing an opportunity to raise concerns about the lack of safety, on school
buses which travel on high speed roads in rural Australia. There are too many children travelling on
unsafe rural school buses buses with no rollover protection or lap/sash seat belts, when they need both.
Please Note: Throughout this submission, all reference to seat belts refers to LAP/SASH SEAT BELTS.
National approach
A national approach is definitely the fairest and easiest way forward, as every bus passenger in Australia
will then be treated equally and buses can be sold interstate with no requirement for extra safety standards
[or removal of existing safety instalments, which may occur]. National safety regulations give consistency.
As some state governments have not acted responsibly with regard to non urban school bus safety,
adequate national standards will ensure the safest buses are used throughout Australia. This will prevent
many unnecessary deaths and injuries.
Federal Government responsibility
The Federal Government is responsible for new vehicle safety standards and therefore all buses
throughout Australia should have to meet the same safety requirements. At present, states and territories,
except Victoria and New South Wales, are phasing in seat belts on non urban school buses. Why should
children in Western Australia be afforded the protection of a seat belt, yet children in eastern Australia
made to face the high risk of death or serious injury, if involved in an accident or sudden braking incident?
All Australian children travelling on school buses in rural, non urban areas need a seat belt and therefore
its the responsibility of our Federal and State Governments to ensure the highest level of safety for these
innocent children. Its not the childrens fault their parents live in the country or a particular state. They are
required to attend school by law, so providing safe transport to and from school and on school
excursions [as coach passengers have had for over a decade] is essential.
Risk based approach
We agree with a risk based approach in principle, but using real evidence and common sense. Presently,
the Queensland Government* are aiding bus companies to provide seat belted school buses in the highest
risk category i.e. steep and mountainous terrain. As per the Kempsey and Grafton bus accidents in 1989,
disasters also occur on high speed straight roads. This proves the terrain does not necessarily determine
where an accident will occur.
As speed often determines the severity of an accident or sudden braking incident, all buses travelling on
high speed roads should be included with other dangerous routes, such as steep and mountainous terrain.
* We applaud the Queensland Government for being the first state to begin the process of installing seat belts
for school children in rural areas, in Feb 2005, after a truly independent inquiry.

Page 1

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

A risk based approach was used when mandating Australian Design Rule [ADR] 68/00 safety
requirements for all coach travel in Australia [effective from July 1995]. Rural school buses travel on the same high
risk routes as coaches, therefore children need and deserve the same safety protection provided to coach
passengers by mandating ADR 68/00 for all buses travelling in rural areas.

Comments on the NTC Discussion Document June 2008

Transport consistency
The Waterfall rail disaster and subsequent coroners report highlighted the urgent need for rail safety
reform. Bus safety reform is urgently required also, as many school buses being used in Australia today,
do not meet ADR 66 rollover standards and have similar poor construction of seating mounts, as the buses
in the 1989 Kempsey and Grafton bus accidents had. We cannot continue to rely on luck to bring our
children home safely each school day. Presently, we provide safety for tourists and neglect children.
High levels of safety should be legislated federally, and urgently applied to all modes of transport
especially passenger transport, as passengers lives depend on the actions of government. Safety must be
given a higher priority. We have met several Federal Ministers and Senators since 2001 and none acted
to mandate ADR 68/00 safety requirements, as asked, for all new and replacement buses travelling in rural
Australia. The simple move to add the word urban to the present exemption within ADR 68/00, would
ensure safer bus travel and not place undue hardship on the bus industry, provided it was phased in.
A not so obvious flaw exists with coach travel today. If an bus operator wishes to use an urban route
service bus or school bus [no seat belts and low backed seats] for a coach trip, this is legal. This doesnt
generally occur for timetabled coach trips, but smaller country operators often use a school bus for charter
work on weekends or for school excursions. Again, national safety consistency is needed to protect these
passengers ADR 68/00 is required for all non urban travel.
Rob Davis, Lawyer B.Soc.Sc., LL.M., LL.M (Corp & Com)
ADR 68/00 does not prevent accidents occurring. What it does do is dramatically improve the
chances of survival, and reduce the risk of injury to occupants when an accident occurs.
Accidents are not confined to interstate and long haul buses. There is nothing about that
category of bus that makes them more likely to have an accident than any ordinary school bus
on a highway.
High consequence / low probability events [2.2]
The fact that most school buses carry many more passengers than a coach, and the children do not have
seat belts, creates a very high possibility of a greater tragedy than any coach accident. Some buses in
New South Wales carry in excess of 100 students, including up to 27 standing in the aisle. They share the
roads with an increasing number of heavy vehicles [including log trucks and B-doubles] travelling at 100
kph. Unpredictable wildlife in rural areas is another hazard, with a high potential for causing a bus tragedy.
Bus involvement in crashes [2.3.1]
NTC have quoted the Australian Transport Safety Bureau study in 2001 found that bus occupants
accounted for only a very small proportion of all road fatalities (0.6%) for the period of the report (19901998), and that bus travel is clearly the safest road transport mode per 100 million passenger kilometres.
Even if this conclusion was correct, this does not mean we should not improve bus passenger safety
further. Most of the passenger kilometres included in this study would be low speed urban bus travel,
which obviously has lower risk than high speed non urban bus travel.

Page 2

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

We also note this statement uses passenger kilometres, which clearly increases the apparent safety,
instead of reducing the percentage of safety per bus trip. This is another manipulation of data to reduce
the need for safety improvements for buses.
This study also states that "Most bus crashes occurred on urban buses travelling short distances and in
speed zones of 60km per hour or less." Analysis of accidents involving buses from 2000 2008 by the
research officer for BUS Action Group, Janice Shalhoub, shows that accidents with injuries or fatalities are
more likely to occur on rural roads in speed zones of 80km/h or more.
We note this study is from 1990, excluding the Kempsey and Grafton bus tragedies where 55 people died.
If the study had included 1989, bus travel may not have been found to be the safest mode of road
transport. Data is often manipulated to produce a desired perception of safety.
Another NTC quote: Statistics show that, whilst the number of deaths from crashes involving buses and
fatal bus crashes fluctuates each year, since 1982 there has been a general decline.
In part, ADR 68/00 seat belt legislation [in force since 1995] contributes significantly to this decline, as not
one seat belted coach passenger has died since 1995. This is an enviable record. Mandating seat belts
for all non urban school buses would ensure this decline continues.
May, 2001 Australian Transport Council (ATC) School Bus Safety in Australia, Executive Summary.
..about 9 children are seriously injured each month,
The key objective of the National School Bus Safety Action Plan is to build on the gains made
by jurisdictions across Australia and reduce the total annual number of child fatalities associated
with school bus travel to zero by the year 2005.

We ask, how can this key objective be achieved without rural students having access to a seat belt? We
need government and industry action, not just words.
Contributing factors to bus crashes [2.3.2]
There are many factors which could contribute to a bus crash, but whatever the crash scenario, the
occupants/passengers on the bus will have a much better chance of survival if wearing a seat belt.
Government and industry must adopt a safety culture to provide the safest bus possible [ADR 68/00
compliant], to benefit occupants/passengers in all types of crashes, especially on non urban roads.
Bus drivers have perhaps the highest risk of death in a bus accident. Many reports have stated the
benefits of having children restrained on a school bus less rowdy, unable to lean over the back of the
seat to talk, no swapping seats in transit and improved behaviour. This enables the driver to focus on
driving the bus, which is desirable and highly beneficial for all road users [especially those in a car a
vehicle of lesser mass than the bus and likely to fare badly in any accident with a bus].
From 1990 to 1997, 208 people died and 1,495 people were hospitalised as a result of bus crashes. This
does not include deaths and hospitalisations of bus drivers or bus passengers, nor the tally of injuries for
those treated at the accident scene. These statistics may have been reduced, if the bus driver was able to
focus entirely on driving the bus.
Small bus safety [2.4.1]
The South Australian study [referred to] concluded that bus drivers were responsible for 42.3% of casualty
bus accidents. Accreditation of inexperienced bus drivers of small buses, would no doubt reduce the high
number of bus accidents in all small bus categories. Some bus drivers have passed the necessary tests
to drive a small bus, but do not drive small buses regularly, so have little experience.

Page 3

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

This is another good reason to have seat belts for all passengers on buses travelling in non urban areas,
on high speed roads and highways.
Incident and crash data gaps across the Jurisdictions [2.4.2]
Consistency in data recording,
collation and reporting requirements would give a true picture of problems relating to bus safety and
should be implemented nationally. The more information gathered, will allow better and more relevant
safety improvements to be made. We agree that the development of a national risk management
approach to bus safety would provide an opportunity to introduce some commonality to data gathering,
collation, analysis and interpretation, particularly in relation to bus accidents. This would help to create a
consistent and meaningful picture of safety levels and the variables involved in accident circumstances.
Age of buses and vehicle design [2.4.3]
We support the South Australian policy to limit the age of large buses to 25 years, for passenger transport,
but any buses not complying with ADR 66 or 68, should only be used on low speed urban routes, as they
are not designed to withstand a high speed accident.
Where a bus does not meet safety standards introduced over 16 years ago, [as presently occurs on many
school buses in rural Australia] this would definitely impact on the level of passenger injuries and/or deaths
resulting from a crash. This reflects badly on the reluctance of Federal and State Governments to act
decisively on rural bus safety.
The high death rate of the Kempsey and Grafton bus tragedies in 1989, are directly attributed to the
outdated, poor safety standards of these buses. They should never have been travelling at high speed.
Similar buses are still travelling at high speed on rural school bus routes in Australia, which is alarming.

Mandatory seatbelts [2.4.5]

We object strongly to the NTC statement To date, there is little evidence to show that bus
seatbelts would contribute to making any significant gains in bus safety.
There is a plethora of evidence to support the safety benefits of seat belts on buses in non urban areas.
1.

In January 1995 the Federal Office of Road Safety [FORS] issued a final report Cost Benefit
Analysis of Retrofitting Occupant Protection Measures to Existing Buses Analysis of Bus
Crashes 1987 1994 and Estimates of Injury Reduction.
This report examined 19 bus accidents in rural areas over 7 years (1987 1994) and
concluded that 109 deaths would have reduced to 60 deaths, and 438 injuries reduced to
approximately 90 if the bus passengers had been wearing a lap/sash seat belt. This is
conclusive evidence of the safety benefits of seat belts on buses in non urban areas.

2.

If there is little evidence, why are coach passengers provided with a seat belt?
Children travel on the same roads and highways, so should be treated as equal citizens with
regard to safety requirements for rural school buses. Every road user, except bus passengers, is
required to wear a seat belt. Students need protection in the event of an accident, also.

3.

See attached comments on School Bus Seat Belts report [1993, Henderson/Paine], confirming the
benefits of lap/sash seat belts.

4.

The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority NO BELT, NO BRAINS brochure states:
Even in minor accidents, not wearing a seat belt can have a major impact.

Page 4

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

5.

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

ADR 68/00 [gazetted November 1992] specifies requirements for seat belts, seat strength and
anchorages to seats, seatbelts and child restraints together with provisions for protecting
occupants from impact with the back of the seats. Occupants on buses also need protection from
impact with the back of seats.
Excerpts from the March 1992 Regulatory Impact Statement by Federal Office of Road Safety Re:
Proposed ADR SBASS To Introduce The Fitting Of Three Point Seat Belts To All Passenger Seats
In Coaches (now ADR 68/00) [our highlights and underling]
. The proposed regulation is to provide improved occupant protection in buses and coaches
other than city route buses by the fitting of three point seat belts to all passenger seats.
. The objective of this proposal is to reduce the number of deaths and the severity of injuries
resulting from bus crashes.
. The proposed regulation is designed to provide occupant protection benefits equivalent to those
given by seat belts in passenger cars. Complying systems will withstand the forces generated in
bus crashes at highway speeds.
. The Federal Government is responsible for new vehicle safety standards
. Consideration of these statistics has to be tempered by recognition of the high level of
potential loss of life in individual bus crashes.
. Much higher figures can of course occur as a result of only one or two major crashes
such as in 1989 when 59 fatalities resulted from two crashes in New South Wales.
. Any benefits from a belt-equipped bus fleet will accrue over the working life of the fleet
. road safety experts, the medical profession and considerable representations from the
general public are supportive of the proposals.
. Consequently other factors will be relevant such as the potential for a high level of road
trauma in individual bus crashes due to the high passenger numbers in each vehicle (of the
order of 50-60).
. In 5 years, 1986 to 1990, there were 303 fatalities from 200 bus crashes, with 177 seriously
injured bus passengers in 1989 alone. serious injuries are defined as all injuries resulting in
admission to hospital for at least one night.
. Minor Injuries injuries requiring medical treatment but not hospitalisation form a significant
part of the total cost to society of road crashes.
. estimates as high as 50% reduction in trauma cost, could be considered broadly
plausible
. Non-fatal injuries account for almost two-thirds of total road trauma costs and
substantial economic savings can be expected from reductions in injury severity..

6.

An Australian Bus Safety Report shows that from 1990 to 1997, there were 300 fatalities and
2,479 hospitalisations resulting from bus crashes. These statistics would be reduced if buses had
seat belts. Many families would still have their loved ones and suffer less trauma, and hospitals
and emergency services and would also have benefited.
This report also states that Most school-aged children (5 to 16 years) fatally injured or
hospitalised in bus crashes were bus passengers.

The above six points demonstrate compelling evidence to show that bus seat belts would contribute to
making significant gains in bus safety particularly on non urban high speed routes.
The NTC statement: Making seatbelts mandatory for school buses has also been debated at length.
hopefully does not mean we should stop debating it especially for non urban bus travel. Perhaps the
reason this safety topic has had lengthy debate for nearly two decades, is because we need to be

Page 5

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

addressing the problem and stop debating it. The reason could also be that installing seat belts will cost
the government money, whereas mandating seat belts for cars, trucks and coaches places the extra cost
elsewhere. It is time to mandate seat belts for all non urban bus use in Australia as a matter of urgency,
with a compliance date, as per ADR 68/00.
We do not propose mandating seat belts on all buses. We recommend that the NTC should examine
safety measures required for urban and non urban bus travel separately, as the requirements are clearly
different for each. While the safety benefits of fitting seat belts to urban buses may be debatable, this is
not so for non urban bus travel as per the evidence listed above.
The NTC states It is NTCs view that seatbelts should be viewed in the context of how they can
demonstrably improve a specific safety outcome. The preferred approach would be to describe safety
outcomes, but not prescribe specific measures to meet those outcomes.
We do not support the second sentence. How can anyone expect the outcomes to be achieved, if there is
no strategy to meet them? Where there are proven specific safety measures available, which will improve
a specific safety outcome, they should be prescribed. Seat belts have already been proven an effective
safety measure for coaches and therefore should be mandated for all buses travelling on the same high
speed roads.
A non prescriptive approach was adopted by the Australian Transport Council in November 2005, when
voluntary national guidelines were endorsed to assess risk management of school bus routes. To date,
New South Wales and Victoria have implemented no improvements in school bus safety, proving the
voluntary approach does not improve specific safety outcomes. Western and South Australian
governments only acted to install seat belts after tragic bus accidents, proving that Federal government
intervention is required to protect all students and bus passengers in Australia voluntary safety initiatives
have failed the public.
Support for a safety focus for bus accreditation [2.4.6]
We agree with the Bus Industry Confederation to support a national strategy to upgrade the entire
Australian bus fleet to a modern standard, but also see the need for reasonable compliance dates to be
set for all safety improvements. Any upgrade should be monitored at a national level by the Federal
government to ensure uniform adoption by state governments.
How safety is currently addressed [3.]
School bus safety was included in the Commonwealth transport departments bus safety initiatives to
minimise occupant harm in the event of a crash, which was endorsed by Ministers in the early 1990s.
This was confirmed in a letter from Minister Brown in 1992, referring to the requirement for non urban
school bus routes to comply with ADR 68/00 safety requirements. States and territories chose to include
all school bus transport in the exemption within ADR 68/00, when the intention of the exemption was only
for urban route service buses, as stated in the letter. The misuse of the original safety requirements of
ADR 68/00 has caused many deaths and serious injuries the majority being school students.
We agree that It is unlikely that there will be significant safety gains in future to accrue from further
advances in technology and it is time to look at other ways of increasing bus safety outcomes. ADR
68/00 when implemented, was at the forefront of international best practice, and the excellent safety
record for coach travel since 1995 demonstrates the effectiveness. We need to expand on this success
and introduce ADR 68/00 for all buses travelling in non urban areas [as was originally intended], to effectively
reduce fatalities and serious injuries in crashes.

Page 6

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

New South Wales [3.2]

The Passenger Transport Act requires that accredited persons can ensure safety of passengers and the
public. Although complying with government standards, accredited persons cannot ensure the safety of
bus passengers, when seat belts are not provided in all buses travelling in non urban areas. The
Australian Passenger Transport Group need to provide legislation within their Act, to address safety for all
bus passengers.
Summary [3.8]
To allow the highest level of safety to bus passengers, new legislation is required for passenger transport
or through road transport legislation. The present system is failing some bus passengers, particularly high
risk passengers i.e. students who travel over 400 times each year on their school buses. The frequency of
their bus travel greatly increases their risk.
Chain of responsibility [4.1.2]
All parties responsible for bus passenger safety must be responsible in the event of death/s and serious
injuries resulting from an accident, if they have not acted to provide the highest level of safety regardless
of legislation. Social conscience should play a part, especially in the case of seat belts, as they are a
small part of the cost of a new bus [approx. $20,000 to supply and fit], the technology has been available
since early 1970s and they are a well proven safety device.
Rob Davis, Lawyer B.Soc.Sc., LL.M., LL.M (Corp & Com) *Paper attached
The legal implications if an accident occurs, is that it is the bus operator, not the contractor
(Government) who is legally responsible. In terms of duty of care, generally there is only a
need to provide reasonable care based on a cost/benefit analysis, although, there is a moral
accountability by the government.
Is safety risk being managed? [5.]
Bus passengers at high risk are not being managed effectively. This is evident when comparing coach
and bus fatality and injury data.
In addition to any reported data, we agree A shortcoming of looking at reported statistics is that this only
captures a part of the whole picture on safety. In most states and territories police are only called to
crashes that result in a death or serious injury. Many bus passengers have minor injuries which are
not reported, and therefore unrepresented in the safety snapshot i.e. lost teeth, stitches to the face,
lacerations and bruising. These minor injuries are major to the victim and their families. Trauma will last
longer than the minor injury. Any person involved in a bus accident, will remember the incident for their
whole life whether injured or not. This fact is often overlooked, with the focus being on people with
visible injuries.
Establishing a safety culture [5.1]
A safety culture does exist within the bus industry, but only in respect to compliance with legislation.
Therefore we need government, to provide the necessary legislation to improve safety outcomes and raise
the bar in terms of minimum standards.
Regulatory best practice [5.2]
The potential drawbacks outlined by The Office of Best Practice Regulations could easily be overcome by
the bus industry identifying a safety situation that needs addressing, then dealing with it [nationally] prior to
legislation amendments. This will negate time-lag and introduce increased safety quickly. A proactive
approach by the national bus industry should identify the potential for accidents or incidents before they
happen. The Federal government should be kept informed of bus safety issues and legislate accordingly.

Page 7

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

OPTIONS [6.]
We have no expertise in safety accreditation schemes but would like to make the following comments:
Option 1 [6.1] Status quo
We do not support this option.
Current safety standards for buses in Australia are inconsistent and poor, especially in respect to school
buses [large and small] and some buses used for coach travel. Best practice is lacking and mandatory
requirements are urgently needed, therefore this level of safety is unsatisfactory.
To continue with inadequate current safety standards and keep status quo accreditation arrangements,
ensures safety improvements will not be made, as would be with a risk based approach.
This is another reason for a national body controlling bus safety, as states and territories are involved in
supplying bus services - either directly [e.g. metropolitan] or by contract [eg school bus services]. This can
lead to a conflict of interest due to the cost of supplying a safe service, and being the regulator responsible
for enforcing safety.
The Waterfall rail disaster found there was no safety culture within the NSW rail authority, and we believe
this is also the situation within state and territory transport authorities with responsibility for bus travel. An
example is the deliberate exploitation of a loophole in ADR 68/00, allowing use of school buses with a
lesser safety standard on high speed country roads. They are doing this despite being aware that ADR
68/00 was intended to address a known safety risk, in all non urban buses.
Options 2 5 are all improvements on status quo.

We believe a national approach is essential and compliance must be monitored independently of the bus
industry and state and territory governments, to avoid conflicts of interest.
A proactive approach, based on risk assessment, would ensure better safety outcomes for bus travel in
Australia. Known effective safety measures should be prescribed so that uniform national outcomes are
achieved. High level objectives should be defined in a national legislative framework, with compliance
monitored by a national body, such as the NTC.
We do not believe the ATC would be a suitable national body for monitoring safety, as member states
have compromised safety outcomes in the past to control costs of services they deliver [e.g. rural school
buses not required to comply with ADR 68/00].
Conclusion [7.]
To be consistent and include all buses, we believe all operators of small buses should require
accreditation, to improve safety practices. Defining these operators as any passenger vehicle
which is not a taxi, should ensure all operators are included.
Other problems have been addressed above, and mandating lap/sash seat belts for all non urban
bus travel is our main concern. We are also very concerned with students standing on buses in
non urban areas, and although this problem would be addressed if seat belts are installed, it needs
to be outlawed urgently.
The bus industry is presently not restricted and could improve safety standards for bus travel
independently. Unfortunately cost concerns inhibit any real safety reform and therefore national
legislation by the Federal government is required for bus passengers to see new safety benefits.

Page 8

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

1990 Coroner Mr Kevin M Waller stated, regarding the Kempsey bus accident:
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 have been allowed to take precedence over matters of personal safety.
Promising suggestions are deflected for investigation elsewhere and largely forgotten
(P.17)

Some bus operators have a conscience and have applied a risk analysis to provide safe bus travel
i.e. have installed seat belts without legislative requirements. Mandating seat belts and other
safety initiatives is the only way to progress bus safety reform in any real way.

Further comments
1.
Professor Danny Cass Paediatric Surgeon and Director of the Trauma Centre at The
Childrens Hospital, Westmead, NSW and National President of Kidsafe
Professor Casss main concern relates to the lack of medical resources in rural areas in the case of
accidents. Retrieval is very difficult due to distance and communication problems, while mass arrival of
trauma cases puts a strain on any emergency department, even in the city.
In the long term the ongoing cost associated with physical and psychological consequences of
catastrophic non-fatal injuries is a large problem. A fatal injury is not costly to the system at all. One life
saved is cost effective, as a spinal injury can cost between $5 million and $10 million.
He said there is always strong community support for any initiatives to improve safety where children are
concerned. Parents have been vocal about the need for seat belts, as they fear the worst when they are
made to put their children on a school bus without them. Driving children to school is the only alternative which isnt often feasible in country areas and increases the congestion around schools.
2.
The trauma suffered by bus drivers who survive a bus accident, particularly a school bus accident,
must be enormous. Are bus drivers properly trained to deal with trauma of this magnitude?
A teacher, who was one of the few survivors in a tragic school excursion bus accident in 1975, likened the
scene to a war zone. This teacher has not worked since this accident occurred, and still suffers severe
trauma. Lap/sash seat belts would have saved the lives of many of the children killed in this accident.
3.
The NTC document [2.2] states that: "Similarly, while serious bus crashes are rare events, a
severe crash involving an at capacity bus could result in multiple deaths. A crash involving a full school
bus would invoke a considerable public reaction. Even if a crash involves no injuries, as public transport
carriers, bus crashes are far more likely to capture the attention of the media, and be under public scrutiny,
than the more common car crashes 4."
Therefore it is imperative that when these accidents do occur, as they inevitably will, any measures to
ensure the least possible number of injuries and fatalities, should be implemented. Clearly this can only
be achieved if all bus passengers are wearing lap/sash seatbelts.
4.
Many states in the United States have mandated seat belted school buses, with California being
the first, in 1980s. As accidents occur, the need becomes evident. Australia needs to be proactive, not
reactive.

Page 9

Belt Up for Safety (B.U.S.) Action Group

Mrs. Glenda Staniford, President
63 Princes Highway
Termeil NSW 2539

Telephone: 02 4457 1124

email: ferngullywinery@bigpond.com

We believe a national, risk based approach will be beneficial to improve bus safety in
Australia, but only if identified improved safety measures are mandated and a
national accreditation scheme monitors their implementation.
2 attached support documents:

Page 10