|
Regulatory Impact
Fuel Tanks
Fuel Tank Impact
In two cases, school buses were struck very hard in the area of the fuel tank without loss of fuel.
The fuel integrity standard appears to be effective in protecting non-pressurized fuel tanks. The
fact that two children died in a propane fire indicate that the design of this type of fuel system
bears consideration. Of concern is the fact that in one case the seat covering material burned
from the top down in approximately six minutes when ignited by a flame above the seats. The
requirements for fire resistant seat covering should be re-examined.
Top
Emergency Exits
In all of the cases in which the primary exit was blocked, occupants were able to leave the bus
through the emergency exits. In the case of the propane fatality, children were able to escape via
the rear emergency exits. In one case, investigators expressed concern that the rear door might be
too heavy to open if the bus had rolled on the other side but the exits seemed to be effective.
Top
Joints
Joint Separation
There were no children ejected through any of the bus body joints nor were any injured by
separated joints. In one case, however, a body joint separated above the entrance door and presented
a sharp edge.
The location of the separation was not considered to be covered by the standard because it was in
a maintenance area. Perhaps this exemption should be reconsidered.
Top
Visibility
Improved visibility
The visibility standards came into question in two cases where the bus was impacted by a truck
approaching from the right side. A recent modification to the design of one type of new bus reduces
the width of the front vertical structure considerably with the result that the right side
visibility is greatly improved.
The problems associated with children being run over by their own school bus must be addressed.
A passenger control device to ensure that disembarking children must stay far enough in front of a
bus to remain visible to the driver should be considered for all buses. Amendments to the
requirements for mirrors designed to improve the driver’s ability to see a child in
front of or beside the bus became effective in 1997 [6].
Further improvements in this area, such as retro-fitting new mirror systems, and the use
of monitors, will likely fall into the area of provincial/territorial jurisdiction since
these jurisdictions deal with the operation of school buses.
Top
Seat Belts
Seat belts were an issue in four cases. One injury
from a one quarter rollover and two cases of injury in side impact may have been prevented
by seat belts. The single case of ejection is of concern. However, the small number of
serious injuries which are thought to have been preventable by seat belts seems to
indicate that current buses perform very well in protecting occupants from injury.
The safety standards currently rely on providing passive safety in the form of a padded
compartment to reduce injuries. The provision of a passive protection compartment appears
to work well for most occupants but the integrity of the compartment must be maintained.
In the case where a child was ejected through the rear emergency exit, the child would not
have received the critical head injuries had she been retained within the compartment with
the other three children.
Top
Windows
Larger windows
The compromising of the occupant compartment in the one case of ejection through the rear
emergency exit is being investigated to ensure that current requirements are adequate. In this
case the large windows in the rear exit came free of the rubber molding and openings were provided
which were sufficiently large that a child could easily have been ejected. The child was, in
fact, ejected through the door, not the window, but there is still room for concern over a
trend to larger windows in rear exits.
Top
Latches
The latch requirements are being reviewed.
Top
Structural Integrity
The fact that only one ejection was found in the study indicates that the side windows and frames
continue to maintain the structural integrity of the compartment.
|
