Quebec City, Quebec
June 15, 2000

Prepared by :
PricewaterhouseCoopers

Table of Contents

• 1.0 Introduction
   
• 2.0 Main Themes
   
• 3.0 Specific comments regarding drivers
  • 3.1 Specific comments regarding school bus drivers
    • 3.1.1 Recruitment of school bus drivers
    • 3.1.2 Training of school bus drivers
  • 3.2 Specific comments regarding motor coach drivers
    • 3.2.1 Recruitment of motor coach drivers
    • 3.2.2 Training of motor coach drivers
       
• 4.0 Specific comments regarding passengers
  • 4.1 Specific comments regarding school bus passengers
  • 4.2 Specific comments regarding motor coach passengers
     
• 5.0 Specific comments regarding vehicles
  • 5.1 Specific comments regarding school buses
    • 5.1.1 Seat belts
    • 5.1.2 Sedans
    • 5.1.3 Visibility
    • 5.1.4 Warning lights
  • 5.2 Specific comments regarding motor coaches
     
• 6.0 Specific comments regarding the regulatory framework
  • 6.1 Specific comments regarding the regulatory framework for school buses
  • 6.2 Specific comments regarding the regulatory framework for motor coaches
     
• Appendix A – Agenda
   
• Appendix B – List of Participants
   
• Appendix C - Slide presentation

Top

1.0 Introduction

In June 1999, Transport Canada, with the assistance of the Institute on Governance, held a pilot session in Victoria, B.C. to discuss the issue of bus safety and identify actions which might further improve Canada’s strong safety record. PricewaterhouseCoopers was contracted by Transport Canada to assist, in conjunction with the Institute on Governance, with bus safety consultations across Canada.

The Quebec workshop followed the Maritime, Prairie, Manitoba and Ontario workshops, respectively held on February 29, March 7, March 14 and May 11, 2000. The Quebec session was held on June 15, 2000, at the Fédération des Augustines building, 2285 chemin Saint-Louis, Sillery, from 9 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. The facilitator was Johanne St-Cyr, of the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec, accompanied by Nathalie Roy, of PricewaterhouseCoopers, who took notes. It should be noted that this session, unlike the previous sessions, was organized by representatives of the Société de l’assurance automobile du Québec and not by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Session participants included a number of representatives from different stakeholder groups: bus operators, parent associations, bus manufacturers, the federal and provincial Departments of Transport, the Quebec Department of Education, school boards and trustees.

Nicole Pageot, of Transport Canada, made a presentation on the context in which the consultation is taking place. Reference was made to the mandate received by Minister David Collenette in 1999 to improve bus safety following accidents that re-ignited the debate on the use of seat belts in buses. Based on previous consultations, the organizers identified four themes for discussion: drivers, passengers, vehicles and regulations, for school buses and motor coaches. Ms. Pageot mentioned that road safety is a responsibility shared by the federal and provincial governments, and that the purpose of this national consultation is to find means of improving the already exemplary school bus safety record, by working hand in hand with the provinces.

The purposes of the meeting were as follows:

• to share knowledge on the subject;
• to identify the concerns of the main stakeholders in Quebec;
• to identify problems calling for special attention;
• to reach a consensus on the concrete steps to be taken, if any.

At the end of the meeting, Ms. Pageot noted that participants would receive, electronically or by mail, a copy of the report on the Quebec session, produced by PricewaterhouseCoopers. Participants and other interested parties were invited to review the consultation outcomes on the web site at http://www.policity.com/worksites_transport.htm (no longer available) and to leave any comments on the site.

It should be noted that the intent of this report is to present the views and ideas expressed by the participants at the workshop. We have endeavoured to capture the discussion as accurately as possible, without offering any overall analysis or conclusions. The Final Report will cull all the ideas and suggestions provided in the sessions and on the Web site, and offer some overall analysis and conclusions on bus safety.
 

Top

2.0 Main themes

This section presents the main themes that were highlighted throughout the day’s discussion.

• Concerns relating to school bus drivers essentially concerned recruitment, gradual driver qualification, the lack of subsidized training tools and programs, and driver training.
   
• Recruitment and training were also considered important issues for motor coach drivers, albeit less essential than for school bus drivers.
   
• Under-funding has had an impact on school bus passengers, in that there are more of them with the attendant reduction of safety on board. The concept of safety awareness on and around the bus emerged as an important concern, especially for children between 5 and 11. They appear to be the ones most at risk, and specific steps were suggested to ensure their safety.
   
• Motor coach passengers are a very different clientele than school bus riders, but a number of concerns related to both—passengers moving around or standing during a trip, for example.
   
• With respect to school buses as transportation vehicles, four subjects were identified:
  1. seatbelts, which do not seem to represent a problem so much for the industry as for the public, including parents;
  2. sedans used for transporting students, although they are not subject to specific regulations;
  3. limited driver visibility;
  4. the lack of uniformity when it comes to warning lights, which can lead to confusion.
   
• Little was said about motor coaches as transport vehicles. The main concerns related to brakes and braking systems. Participants felt that the general construction of motor coaches was safe and that they have safety features also found in school buses, such as compartmentalization.
   
• Discussions about regulations pinpointed some difficulties with school buses:
  1. the rule about gradual qualification for trainee drivers;
  2. the lack of regulations regarding sedans;
  3. the optional nature of certain features on school buses;
  4. the lack of subsidized training programs;
  5. the introduction of regulations regarding pollution prevention equipment;
  6. the distance between and frequency of stops on high-speed roads.
   
• For motor coach drivers, just as for school bus drivers, gradual qualification for trainee drivers is a problem relating to regulations. There is also the problem of having to obey foreign regulations and the lack of training for this purpose, as well as the general lack of uniformity in regulation.

Top

3.0 Specific comments regarding drivers

This section summarizes participants’ specific comments on the subject of drivers. Statistics were presented on school bus drivers and motor coach drivers, and are attached for reference as Appendix C.

Top

3.1 Specific comments regarding school bus drivers

3.1.1 Recruitment of school bus drivers

• One of the challenges faced by bus companies is the difficulty of recruiting candidates. High employer contributions, collective agreements and regulations governing training were mentioned as factors that complicate recruitment. Financial cutbacks represent another major difficulty, since it is hard to recruit skilled people at an hourly wage of $12.50 to $13.50 for an average work week of 25 hours. Working conditions for school bus drivers were also compared with those for intercity bus drivers, who earn an average annual salary of $50,000 and do not have to worry—or at least not much—about their passengers’ safety (as the fact that students travel standing up shows). School bus drivers, for their part, have to make sure their young charges are safe, handle the bus and maintain discipline, all for a salary of $14,000 to $16,000 per year. It was felt that the demands were too high for the wages paid.
   
• Gradual qualification for trainees, meaning the three-month learner’s permit, was also seen as part of the problems surrounding the recruitment of school bus drivers. One participant said that having to wait three months is "crazy!" All the groups represented seemed to concur with this view. Difficulties arising from the need for three months’ supervised driving not only have financial implications, i.e. the need to pay a second driver, but also raise the question of the availability of other drivers. The participants suggested a probationary period of three months without an accompanying driver. It was not clear for the participants what problem this three months’ period was intended to address. The Transport Canada representative stated that a Canada-wide review of the question of gradual qualification is in progress.
   
• One participant mentioned that the high turnover rate tends to reduce the quality of drivers. Other participants strongly disagreed, saying that the problem is mostly about replacing experienced drivers when they leave. Another participant said that her school board signs contracts with bus companies, and as a result the drivers are not school board employees, and the board cannot evaluate their skills.
   
• The participants also wondered about the validity of driver’s licences. According to one man, anyone with a class 2 licence could be hired as a driver, even if he hasn’t driven a school bus for years. This situation is also a problem.

Top

3.1.2 Training of school bus drivers

• The stakeholders considered driver training a serious cause for concern. It seems that employers who subsidize and provide training cannot keep the employees they train, who leave for jobs offering better working conditions. These companies become training grounds for more lucrative industries, such as chartered transportation. For instance, one participant cited a pilot project offering 150 hours of training for school bus drivers, developed by the Charlesbourg and St-Jérôme road transport training centre. The participants nonetheless demanded that the Department of Education give a professional course to provide tools for school bus drivers in the same way as heavy vehicle drivers.
   
• Participants mentioned first-aid training several times, noting that this framework is a good way of training drivers on safety issues. They cautioned that first-aid training could easily become a catch-all in which bus safety rules become lost. It seems that many passengers have allergies, and it was suggested that drivers be prepared to cope with emergencies involving allergies, by adding these skills to first-aid training. This implies, of course, that the parents must provide the school authorities with the necessary information. First-aid training could also include ways of making school bus drivers aware of the dangers of routine. One participant noted that the worst enemy of drivers is routine, and that ways must be found to make drivers aware that they are carrying very young passengers who often display unpredictable behaviour. It was felt that bus companies must remind drivers of this regularly.
   
• There is a view among parents that drivers do not receive enough training. Parents felt that the system of gradually giving trainee drivers more responsibility (3 months accompanied driving) is good training. Some parents feel that anyone can become a driver. The participants discussed the training provided for drivers, however, and one parent representative said that it would be a good idea to educate parents on this matter. Participants suggested that if it is a problem of perception, it must be solved through communication rather than regulation.
   
• The participants unanimously agreed that safety is a concern not only for drivers and school bus drivers and companies, but also for parents, schools and school boards, and that everyone must pitch in to maintain and improve the exemplary safety record for school buses.

Top

3.2 Specific comments regarding motor coach drivers

3.2.1 Recruitment of motor coach drivers

• Recruitment represents a less serious problem where motor coach drivers are concerned than among school bus drivers, given the better working conditions (number of hours of work, training offered, higher pay). This industry appears to be governed by supply and demand, meaning that there will be difficulties to replace the baby boomers when they retire.
   
• The industry says that it looks for more than just "anyone who can shift gears." Motor coach drivers must have good relations with passengers and good behaviour. The industry is also looking for people who can work outside Quebec, meaning that more bilingual staff is necessary. These characteristics show the need for training.
   
• The seasonal nature of employment for motor coach drivers means that recruitment can be particularly difficult when demand peaks in the tourism season. In addition to a lack of vehicles, companies must cope with the difficulty of hiring drivers for just a few weeks during peak periods. Accordingly, it is the shortage of vehicles and skilled drivers that constitutes a problem during peak tourism periods.

Top

3.2.2 Training of motor coach drivers

• It was reported that employers are providing more and more training and education for their drivers, and this has brought changes in their behaviour with respect to safety. Training for motor coach drivers is all the more important in that they are operating in a business environment. One participant referred to a pilot project offered by the road transport training centre, offering motor coach drivers a 300-hour training program. However, the Department of Transport does not subsidize the program, and this could discourage participation.
   
• Some participants maintained that the training offered for school bus drivers also creates a pool of candidates for chartered transportation. Just as for school bus drivers, boredom is a danger for motor coach drivers, who have to drive long distances. Curiously enough, the pool of candidates trained to drive motor coaches can in some cases lose trained candidates to the trucking industry.
   
• Given the seasonal nature of motor coach employment, drivers could receive extra training to keep them on the labour market before and after the high tourist season.

Top

4.0 Specific comments regarding passengers

This section summarizes participants’ specific comments regarding school bus and motor coach passengers. Relevant statistics are attached as Appendix C.

Top

4.1 Specific comments regarding school bus passengers

• Participants said that under-funding has resulted in an increase of passengers on school buses, which in return adds to the risk of accidents when children are not safely seated or when they are standing. It was added that the number of children on school buses is a safety problem; on the other hand, reducing the number of passengers would mean more buses on the road, thereby pushing down drivers’ wages considerably and reducing the quality of employees that the industry could recruit. It was clear for one participant that reducing the number of passengers on school buses would necessarily call for more generous government funding.
   
• One important aspect for school bus passengers is awareness of safety in the bus or on the road around the bus. Young children, it was noted, do not know how to behave or what to do in the bus. Participants considered that parents must be made more accountable in this respect. It has been shown that safety campaigns on boarding and exiting school buses for young children are insufficient. Parents must now become involved. One parent representative noted, nonetheless, that some parents are working to increase their children’s awareness. She also reiterated that the information must reach parents, and suggested that Quebec parents’ committees be provided with the information. For most participants, children’s awareness begins at home.
   
• Participants felt that school boards also play a role in educating parents, especially when children are just starting school. It was also considered that automobile drivers must be informed, too, in order to help enhance safety.
   
• There was a long discussion about the ability of children from 5 to 11 to evaluate danger. It was added, in fact, that children aged 5-8 are the ones most likely to be the victims of accidents. Given children’s cognitive limitations, one participant suggested that the emphasis should be on "passive" measures, external to children, rather than making them responsible for protecting themselves. These measures include school crossing guards, parents accompanying children and new technologies. This comment provoked heated reactions from other participants, who felt that such an approach could create a false sense of security on the part of drivers, employers, parents and school boards. In addition, new technological measures would not only involve heavier financial burdens that would be difficult to assume, but would also increase the drivers’ responsibility, adding another burden to their routine. Many participants emphasized that relying on equipment increases the risks if the equipment ever fails. So according to most of the participants, it would be better to improve the behaviour of all parties involved rather than creating a reliance on equipment.
   
• Participants also emphasized that children sometimes have to walk unreasonable distances to school, and that some children have to cross what they termed dangerous zones, all because of budgetary constraints. Reducing the distance that students are obliged to walk would increase the number of students eligible for school transportation, meaning that more children would benefit from safer conditions travelling to and from school. It was mentioned that the municipalities also have a responsibility toward children who have to walk to school; they are expected to improve conditions for pedestrians, by reducing risks associated with uncleared sidewalks, for instance.
   
• Some means of making children more safety conscious were mentioned, such as including safety topics in school subjects, frequently repeating clear safety rules, using crossing gates to keep the children in visual contact with the driver, school crossing guards, delivering a Quebec road safety guide to all households, and ensuring that safety on and around the bus is taught at school at a very young age. It was also mentioned that some school boards offer "bus tours" for children, along with their parents, to familiarize them with school buses. One participant added that school transportation is a privilege, not a right, and so children must behave properly or risk seeing the privilege withdrawn.

Top

4.2 Specific comments regarding motor coach passengers

• A number of concerns apply to both motor coaches and school buses, with some variations. For instance, there is the problem of people who get up and move around the bus while it is moving. Risks associated with standing passengers apply especially for motor coaches operating in the city. In any case, such situations increase the risk of an accident.
   
• One seniors representative praised motor coach drivers, saying that she had often travelled by motor coach and was fully satisfied with the drivers’ conduct and the quality of service provided. She felt that the training offered had produced good results.
   
• Another participant spoke about a video developed by the Quebec Department of Transport and the Quebec bus owners association (APAQ) to promote safety. She also explained that when training products are available, safety is also included, especially as an aspect of customer service.

Top

5.0 Specific comments regarding vehicles

This section summarizes participants’ specific comments regarding vehicles, i.e. school buses and motor coaches. Relevant statistics are attached as Appendix C.

Top

5.1 Specific comments regarding school buses

The problem with school buses as passenger vehicles revolves around the harmonization of federal and provincial construction standards, as well as individual bus companies’ specific practices. The greatest challenge for people in the industry seems to arise from incompatible federal and provincial standards. It was also noted that new vehicles cost much more, and that having to adapt to regulations is certainly part of the reason. The subjects discussed in this section were seatbelts, the use of sedans school transportation vehicles, driver visibility and warning lights.

Top

5.1.1 Seat belts

• Some participants said that they had received more questions about the use of seat belts following the accident in Nicolet in which young children aboard a minivan were killed. The speaker said she had explained to the parents concerned that wearing seat belts does not increase safety aboard buses; in fact, wearing lap belts increases the risk of injury. Safety is assured rather by compartmentalization, high seat backs and adequate padding. Nonetheless, some parents did not seem satisfied, and asked that other studies be conducted. The Transport Canada representative explained that a study was being conducted to confirm that these findings are still valid. It was also mentioned that the research concerns mainly pre-school age children.
   
• Some practical considerations were raised regarding the installation of seatbelts. For one thing, installing seat belts on buses reduces capacity and consequently increases transportation costs for school boards. A number of questions remained unanswered: who would be responsible for fastening and unfastening seatbelts? How could the children be unfastened quickly in case of an accident? Who would make sure that seat belts were used properly? Are buses designed so that seat belts can be installed? Some school boards in the United States had installed seat belts and found serious consequences, from strangulation to bruising from the seatbelts. Participants asked that Transport Canada look into the issue of  seat belts and give a clear answer regarding their impact.
   
• Although most people in the industry do not consider seat belts a serious problem, the fact remains that parents need information on the reasons for not installing seat belts on school buses.

Top

5.1.2 Sedans

• The use of sedans as vehicles for transporting schoolchildren was debated at length. Serious concerns are linked to the fact that there are no regulations governing these vehicles, with the exception of the "ÉCOLIERS" marking. Some participants felt strongly that sedans should not be used for school transportation. A number of concerns were also raised about the use of taxis for carrying schoolchildren. They are subject to the same mechanical examinations as traditional buses (twice yearly), but not to preventive maintenance standards. Consequently, many participants believed that given the growing number of sedans used for school transportation, they should be more closely regulated.
   
• Participants concluded that sedans are used mainly as a back-up service, for a limited number of students, and particularly to transport students in rural areas. Another participant was more critical about the use of sedans, and asked that studies be carried out to determine whether they are a hazard on the road and, if so, that people be so informed.

Top

5.1.3 Visibility

• It was considered essential that driver visibility be improved. Given that most accidents occur in the immediate surroundings of the bus, the quality of mirrors and the blind spots they do not cover are sources of concern for bus companies and drivers.

Top

5.1.4 Warning lights

• One participant vehemently stressed the need for uniformity in warning lights, with several others lending their support. Everyone agreed that red as a signal to stop and yellow as a signal to slow down and use caution are internationally recognizable. However, the provinces have not all adopted the same system of signals, with the result that some provinces use flashing yellow lights to signal drivers to slow down, while others use flashing red lights. This lack of uniformity seems to be a source of confusion for bus drivers and other drivers alike, and adds to the risk of accidents. The issue of uniformity is a problem not only from one province to another, but also between urban and rural bus companies.
   
• Given that the confusion surrounding signals could be reduced by greater uniformity in signalling systems, some participants requested that Transport Canada take the necessary steps to impose such standardization. As mentioned earlier, however, Transport Canada draws up basic standards, but has no power to enforce them. The Transport Canada representative stated that if there is a need for uniformity, Transport Canada is ready to sit down with the provinces and examine the matter.

Top

5.2 Specific comments regarding motor coaches

• There was little said about motor coaches as a means of transportation. The main concerns had to do with brakes and braking systems. The tragic accident at Les Éboulements was mentioned. Participants wondered whether all motor coaches should be equipped with engine brakes, although they are already very popular.
   
• As for the general construction of motor coaches, it was felt that they are safe and have safety features also found in school buses, such as compartmentalization and high padded seats. However, some people mentioned that seat belts should be installed for the driver and the front rows. It was mentioned that new regulations are expected on anchors for child seats.

Top

6.0 Specific comments regarding the regulatory framework

This section summarizes participants’ specific comments on the regulatory framework governing school buses and motor coaches. Related statistics are attached as Appendix C.

Top

6.1 Specific comments regarding the regulatory framework for school buses

The conversation began with the observation that school buses are already heavily regulated. The concerns addressed in this respect had mostly been discussed previously. They related to the following items:

• Gradual qualification for trainee drivers, a situation that complicates recruitment and training, and does not seem to respond to any specific need;
   
• Lack of regulation regarding sedans used for school transportation, thereby compromising passenger safety;
   
• The optional nature of certain features, meaning that users have responsibilities that should be covered exclusively by regulation;
   
• Lack of subsidized training programs;
   
• Planned introduction of legislation on pollution prevention equipment in 2001;
   
• Hazards associated with frequency of and distance between stops, especially on high-speed roads.

Top

6.2 Specific comments regarding the regulatory framework for motor coaches

There was a brief discussion about regulation of motor coaches. In short, the points raised were:

• Gradual qualification for trainees is a problem, just as with school buses;
   
• Difficulty in meeting out-of-province regulatory requirements, i.e. additional regulations such as those regarding brakes;
   
• Lack of tools and training to meet out-of-province regulatory requirements;
   
• Need for action by Transport Canada to ensure greater uniformity.

Top

Appendix A
Agenda

The following material originates with an organization not subject to the Official Languages Act and is available on this site in the language in which it was written.

Top

Appendix B
List of Participants

Top

Appendix C
Presentation - Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec.

The following material originates with an organization not subject to the Official Languages Act and is available on this site in the language in which it was written.

• Slide presentation from Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec - PDF Version
  To view PDF documents you must use Adobe® Acrobat Reader. Visit the Adobe site to download the latest, free version.
  
  If you need an alternative format or for more information, please contact us by e-mail at RoadSafetyWebMail@tc.gc.ca or call toll free 1-800-333-0371 (Ottawa area (613) 998-8616).
   
• Slide presentation from Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec - Text version