I personally never understood why they dont. Yesterday in a town near ours school bus was hit after picking children up and trying to enter a highway by an 18 wheeler that was going 65 miles per hour. 19 Kids were hospitalized, 2 are in critical condition. Im almost positive that less kids would have been injured if they had been wearing seat belts on the bus. Why is this not mandatory?
Well, the general consensus is that due to the construction of the seats being close together (compartmentalization) and of a material that can absorb energy in the event of a crash, the seatbelts weren't necessary, as buses are safer than general vehicles. Given that, when you look at first of all, most of installing seat belts, plus the reduced number of students who would be able to tide on a bus with seat belts installed, it would mean more buses need to travel - a cost that most school boards simply can't handle. Then, you would need to be sure that the seatbelts are being properly used, so either a guard, or the bus driver would have to take the time to check each child (specifically, younger students) to make sure they are properly buckled in. This is a cost/time factor. Also, there is the safety factor - if the students need to be evacuated quickly, seatbelts can cause time delays and hindrances - a school bus on fire becomes a death trap to children who are tied in.
I was actually going to ask this question! I could never understand why buses didn't have seat belts. I guess school buses don't usually travel long distances (I don't usually see them on the high way over here), so I was more wondering why other buses that did make long trips dont have seat belts. But I guess what colleen said makes sense.
I think it is very unsafe even though half bus drivers don't even check to see if the kids have them on..
*ride on a bus (new keyboard - sorry)
*cost of installing seatbelts