Motorcoach and school bus occupant protection and passenger safety in Australia
Ian J. Faulks & Julia D. Irwin Department of Psychology, Macquarie University
Ian J. Faulks is a partner in Safety and Policy Analysis International
January 2009
Acknowledgment This paper is based, in part, upon an international review and synthesis performed during 2008 by Barry M. Sweedler, Kathryn Stewart and Ian J. Faulks, of Safety and Policy Analysis International as part of a major project examining seatbelts on buses in Singapore
January 2009
Overview of the presentation Discussion of:
Injuries to bus passengers
Timeline of bus safety in Australia
Australian Design Rule ADR 68
Development of new seats
The Seatbelt for Kids subsidy program
Improving safety management in Australia’s bus industry
Small buses
Concluding comments
January 2009
Introduction
Important factors in bus design include the maximisation of operational economy, seating capacity, passenger visibility, and the ease of loading and unloading As well, buses are also designed to be price competitive, so design is, in part, a trade off between construction cost and passenger safety This is a common feature of motor vehicle design, and the inherent tension between vehicle manufacturers and the community has led to regulatory interventions to provide for improved vehicle crashworthiness and to require minimum safety features, such as seatbelts, to be introduced Regulatory interventions, in the past, have tended to be prescriptive and punitive There is a significant tension over the issue of seat belts for buses, between bus operators, transport regulators, and road safety officials who are mainly on one side, and public health workers, educators, and communities on the other side
January 2009
Injuries to bus passengers
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 another vehicles (Irwin & Faulks, 2000) 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
January 2009
Injuries to bus passengers
In general, the injuries to bus passengers in crashes are associated with either the penetration of another vehicle or roadside object directly, or with impact with bus fixtures, or some combination of acceleration forces and intrusion (Irwin & Faulks, 2000) In particular, impact of the face and upper body with the seat back in front of passengers' seating position is a major mechanism of injury resulting in lacerations, fractures and bruising Other bus injuries are associated with: Falls by passengers standing in the aisle of a moving bus, which also result in lacerations, fractures and bruising; Falls by passengers embarking or egressing the bus; and Entrapment of bus passengers in bus doors
January 2009
Timeline
1970: Australian Design Rules (ADR) introduced that made it compulsory to fit seatbelts to all new passenger cars . . . by 1973 all Australian states had passed laws making it compulsory to wear seatbelts wherever they were fitted in passenger cars 1973: Joubert completes a review of truck and bus design in relation to road safety in Australia for the Commonwealth Office of Road Safety (crashworthy seats, but not seat belts) 1980s: Australia adopts policy of harmonization with European coach occupant regulations (ECE Regulation 80), requiring effective compartmentalisation of coach occupants in crashes involving decelerations up to 10g Between 1970 and 1990 there were numerous fatal and injury crashes involving buses (including many buses carrying school children) . . . but no significant investigative action by road safety agencies (most information on non-fatal crashes is known from crash database records only; Paine, 1995)
January 2009
Timeline
1992: Australian Design Rule ADR 66 - requires compartmentalisation of coach occupants in crashes involving decelerations up to 10g, with seat belts only for occupants of the front seats 1992: Henderson and Paine (1992) find that most buses built since 1991 had seats that met the intent of ADR 66 and that these buses required less upgrading than older buses They also recommended that a national code of practice be developed for retrofitting seat belts to small buses 1994: Guidelines issued by the National Road Transport Commission, Federal Office of Road Safety and Australian Bus and Coach Association for a voluntary code of practice for fitting seat belts (and other occupant protection measures) to all sizes of buses
January 2009
At the same time . . .
1989-90: Series of severe bus crashes, including: Cairns – Roll over crash, 6 school children killed on excursion Grafton – Truck-bus collision, 20 passengers killed Kempsey – Bus-bus collision, 35 passengers killed Mt Tambourine – Roll over crash, 11 passengers killed Crash investigations concluded that ECE Regulation 80 protection would have done little to prevent passenger deaths in these severe crashes . . . for example, a peak deceleration of 20g was estimated for the Kempsey crash (Dal Nevo, Duignan & Griffiths, 1991) As noted by Griffiths, Paine and Moore (2005), three-point lapsash seat belts able to withstand 20g deceleration were required Moreover, crashworthy seats (at the level recommended by Joubert in 1973) and stronger bus floors were required . . . the seats tore loose from their anchorages in the Kempsey crash
January 2009
The head-on collision between two buses on an undivided high speed rural highway at Kempsey, December 1989, 35 bus occupants killed
From NSW Office of Emergency Services
From Griffiths et al., 2005 January 2009
Australian Design Rule ADR 68
1994: Australian Design Rule ADR 68 imposes objective standards for occupant protection and crashworthiness in buses, with specific provision for: seat belts; seat belt anchorages; seat design; seat strength; and seat anchorages ADR 68 requires three point seat belts mounted on seats, with the seat assembly able to withstand loads from restrained occupant and an unrestrained occupant striking the rear of the seat: Requires a dynamic test with 20g deceleration; Applies to all Australian coaches built from July 1994, but route service buses are exempt, as are small buses seating less than 16 passengers (plus the driver) and buses with seat heights of less than 1.0 m As reported by Griffiths et al. (2005), ADR 68 has led to strong consumer demand for three-point seat belts on coaches used for charter and excursions, and a significant industry has developed for fitting ADR 68 seats to older buses
January 2009
New integrated bus seats developed
Innovative designs were developed that were similar in weight to the replaced seats, but which were compliant with ADR 68
Griffiths et al. (2005) report that concerns about cost and weight of ADR 68 seats have proved to be unfounded
McConnell Seats Australia
January 2009
New integrated bus seats developed
Schoolsafe ADR 68 seat belted seat designed specifically for the school bus and day charter McConnell Seats Australia
January 2009
New integrated bus seats developed
Executive ADR 68 coach seat with integrated seatbelts McConnell Seats Australia
January 2009
Are ADR 68 compliant seats effective?
To date, there have been few crashes of coaches built to the ADR 68 standard After a fatal bus crashes at Tenterfield in northern New South Wales in 1996 investigation found 47 of 52 passengers were wearing three point seat belts and had no serious injuries, but an unrestrained relief driver asleep in a bunk and child in the aisle returning from the lavatory were killed (Griffiths et al. , 2005 reported the crash pulse was estimated to be 6g in an offset frontal crash) Do passengers wear the seat belts provided? Griffiths et al. (2005) note police anecdotal records of several other coach crashes indicating wearing rates of less than 20% Butler-Moore, Roper, Coutts, Newman and Styles (2004) reported varying wearing rates of 14-89% during a school bus seat belt trial No large scale objective scientific observational studies have been conducted of seat belt wearing rates on buses and coaches in Australia (Sweedler, Stewart & Faulks, 2008)
January 2009
Timeline
Late 1990s and early 2000s: Reviews and reports, for example, by Bleakly (1994), Andreassen & Cusack (1996), Austroads (2001), Queensland School Safety Taskforce (2001), NSW School Bus Safety Working Group (2004) continue to reject the need for seatbelts to be installed on buses e.g., the NSW School Bus Safety Working Group report argues that priority should be given to dealing with the most risky school bus routes in the state (steep, winding roads) with funding to support re-engineering of roads and vehicles (but this could mean fitting seat belts), with bus routes in rural areas and urban areas given lesser priority Mid-2000s: After bus crashes involving school children in Queensland, WA and SA, seatbelts were introduced for school buses in some areas in those States there are significant differences in cost estimates for retrofitment - in 2006, the South Australian government states a cost estimate of A$70 million for fitting school buses with seat belts (between A$90,000-123,000 per bus), but the bus seat industry says it can be done for about A$35,000 per bus, reducing for bulk orders, and with small buses costing as little as A$15,000 for full ADR 68 lap-sash integrated seat belts if done in bulk January 2009
Timeline
2006: National Transport Commission releases Draft Code of Practice setting out requirements for modification of existing buses with the intention of improving occupant protection in crashes (Paine, Griffiths & Bailey, 2006) The Code replaces the national guidelines that were issued in 1994, and is based on: investigations of bus occupant safety research since the 1994 code was introduced; and commercial availability of ADR 68 seats with integral lap/sash seatbelts from several local and overseas manufacturers It is recommended that, where seatbelts are to be retrofitted, then only lap-sash seat belts incorporated in ADR 68 certified seats and anchored to withstand a 20g crash pulse should be permitted\
January 2009
Seatbelts for Kids subsidy program
2007: Federal government announces Seatbelts for Kids subsidy program The objective of the Seatbelt for Kids subsidy program is to increase the number of school buses equipped with seatbelts for students in rural and regional areas. The scheme provides up to $10 million per annum over four years (2007-11) to fit seatbelts to new buses or retrofit existing buses A subsidy of up to $25,000 per bus is available for the installation of seatbelts in school buses It is estimated that the funding would enable at least 1,500 regional school buses will be fitted with seat belts over the next four years (375 school buses a year in non-metropolitan Australia) New South Wales, Victoria, Tasmania and Northern Territory governments do not support the program, arguing bus travel is already the safest form of travel for school children Senior transport studies academic states that advocates for seat belts on buses are "irrational" After change of Federal government in late 2007 the Seatbelts for Kids subsidy program continues, but more than 16 months of the program no summary information of take up has been released January 2009
Timeline
2008: National Transport Commission releases discussion paper on improving safety management in Australia’s bus industry The document reviews current safety arrangements for the bus industry to establish whether a national, risk-based approach could improve safety outcomes, discussing regulatory best practice and suggesting some alternatives for bus operator accreditation, based on a risk management approach Draws an explicit parallel between the bus and coach industry and the rail industry: like the bus and coach industry, rail is also a passenger transport provider, so while the risk of an incident might be low, the consequences of a crash can be very high with large passenger capacities (seated and standing) there was a potential for recent rail crashes (e.g., at Waterfall near Sydney) to have been far more catastrophic a similar potential exists for school bus travel, where more than 80 seated and standing school children may be carried
January 2009
Improving safety management in Australia's bus industry
The National Transport Commission concludes that the development of safety regulation in the bus industry has largely been actions taken by individual jurisdictions (rather than national), prescriptive and reliant on actions to remove or prohibit accreditation in the event of a breach, focused on vehicle standards (introducing rollover standards, etc.); and not focused on processes or systems for safety 'While serious bus crashes are infrequent events in Australia, this does not necessarily mean that safety is being well managed. 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, and . . . while some road transport agencies collect incident information, national reporting and collation of data is far from complete.. . . . Many ‘incidents’ or situations could increase the likelihood of a serious crash, but unless a crash occurs the issue may go undetected [or unrecognised]'
The National Transport Commission is yet to release its final report into safety management in Australia's bus industry January 2009
What is happening with small buses?
Griffiths et al. (2005) argued that as the vehicle structure in small buses is usually adequate, then seat belts can be highly effective in rollovers – investigation of a fatal rollover crash of a small bus on a steep descent at Jamberoo in Australia showed seat belts would have been highly effective in preventing ejection and fatal injury to two passengers National Transportation Safety Board's 1999 study of four fatal crashes involving small buses used to transport school children that did not conform to the U.S. Federal standards for school buses (called nonconforming buses) – if conforming buses had been involved then less damage to the vehicles and fewer and less severe injuries would have been expected; and if passengers had been wearing seat belts then ejections from the vehicles would not have occurred (which resulted in fatal injuries)
January 2009
Small buses
ADR 68 provides an exemption for small buses (with seating for 16 passengers or less, plus seating for the driver) But NHTSA found rollover risk is 3 x higher with a laden small bus and Griffiths et al. (2005) noted that delta V in crashes involving small buses is likely to be higher than for larger buses Griffiths et al. (2005) reported that ADR 68-compliant seats have been successfully fitted to a number of models of small buses used in Australia (see below)
Tasmania
January 2009
Retrofitting to ADR 68 compliance
The Code of Practice aims to ensure that all retrofitted buses meet the same high standards as new coaches Paine et al. (2006) therefore proposed that: all seat belt retrofits be certified by an approved engineer; retrofitted buses be fitted with a modification plate or similar for clear identification; and that further work be undertaken on a simplified seat anchorage test to facilitate certification of retrofitted vehicles to ADR 68 performance levels The availability of consulting engineers who are competent to advise on and certify retrofits was one issue identified by Paine et al. (2006)
January 2009
Concluding comments
The standards set by Australian Design Rule ADR 68 are world leading practice for bus occupant protection at 20g (Griffiths et al., 2005; Paine et al. 2006) Over the past 15 years of research and development Australian seat manufacturers have built seats which are economical and lightweight, so there is no longer any economic reason for regulating lesser protection The cost for retrofitment is estimated to be about A$1,000 per seat (in accord with the estimate by Griffiths et al. 2005 of about US$750 per seat (with costs reducing for bulk orders, and lower for original equipment)
January 2009
Concluding comments
The Seatbelts for Kids subsidy program may speed up retrofitment There may be very rapid changes if Australian transport authorities adopt the National Transport Commission proposals for improving safety management in Australia’s bus industry Other remaining challenges are: Convincing bus operators and transport regulators Achieving higher wearing rates by passengers Ensuring removal of older buses (which may cost more to refit) from the Australian fleet Development of an appropriate seat anchorage test to facilitate certification of retrofitted vehicles to ADR 68 performance levels Ensuring there are sufficient trained engineers competent to advise on and certify retrofitment
January 2009
Thank you
From Davis (2001) January 2009
