Talk:School bus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Talk page for School bus


Contents

[edit] stupid children?

"children, especially the younger ones, are stupid..." While this may be true, the way it is phrased is less that the NPOV which one would expect from an encyclopedia... I think this should be changed. What do other people thing? Duomillia 19:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

first, some children are "stupid", as are some adults. However, that is not the reason for extra care in crossing for children. The article has been edited to reflect the scientific fact of the issue, which is that children, "especially the younger ones, do not have brains developed sufficiently to fully embrace the danger and consequences of crossing safety without adult supervision. Under U.S. tort laws, a child cannot legally be held accountable for negligence for this reason. For that same reason, adult crossing guards often are deployed in walking zones between homes and schools."
It would probably be better to say that children, especially the younger ones, are not yet mature.--Jusjih 15:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think simply indicating lack of maturity is too broad. The more lengthy explanation is very meaningful to understanding why extra protection is prudent. Vaoverland 22:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Anyone having any ideas about the Canadian tort laws?--Jusjih 13:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling of school bus

In the U.S., the normal and preferred spelling of the vehicle is "school bus", two words, no hyphen, (not a school-bus). The NTSB and some legal authorities in the U.S. use the single word "schoolbus." Vaoverland 10:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Cleanup notice

Iraqi girl looks out the window of a school bus. Baghdad, Iraq (April 2005).
Iraqi girl looks out the window of a school bus.
Baghdad, Iraq (April 2005).

This article desperately needs a cleanup: there is sloppy prose, poor image placement, retardedly long section headings, and other crap that needs fixing. Please somebody rescue this article!  ALKIVAR 01:13, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

The situation has resulted from many editors from many countries. Take a look at the article history. Vaoverland 02:37, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Doesnt surprise me, but it is still quite in need of a cleanup :) Hell a good look by 1 user familiar with all the rules of grammar would be a good first step.  ALKIVAR 03:19, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I will chip away at parts of it, but I'm working on other things. The debate about school bus stopping laws is especially messy and full of POV crap. Vaoverland 04:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I have moved the lengthy content about school bus stop laws around the world to a new article school bus traffic stop laws. I also tried to condense some of the longer section headings. Its a start. Vaoverland 05:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It looks to me like this article still needs cleaning up. I decided that before I looked here in the talk page. The major issue is that the entire article describes school buses and policies issues relating to them from a North American perspective, with no information at all from elsewhere. It's also very long-winded (over suggested article size) and rambling, and has about 20 times as many external links than it should. -dmmaus 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move most content to a separate article

The content on this page is not particularly problematic but for the fact that it mostly just describes the situation in North America.

I would suggest that either most of the article is moved to a separate article detailing the North American or US situation (leaving just an introduction or whatever general content is in the article) or else move this entire article to a new title - School buses in North America (or US).

This would leave a woefully short article at this location, but would allow for easier expansion of the general article rather than the American specifics.

FWIW - the situation in Ireland is that school bus services are provided by Bus Éireann, the state bus operator. Usually old buses (in some cases around 20 years old) are used, also some services are contracted out to private bus/coach operators. Vehicles are a mix of old coaches (intercity/regional) and buses (city buses). In recent years there has been some concern over current practice, with a number of fatalities arising from the use of old buses, and the safety standards (3 kids in two seats, no seatbelts). Also in recent months there have been several incidents of old coaches catching fire (no fatalities in these recent incidents). Ordinary bus services (city and regional, and services by Dublin Bus) are also used by school children.

zoney talk 15:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that Section 9 of this article should be forked to a separate article.

Ketsuban 01:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism?

I noticed that there were lines about how children can be run over while ON the school bus, and that running toward a moving school bus is imperative. Obvious vandalism (which I reverted) but I'll try to keep an eye on future attempts.

Begreen 00:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Someone put in that section again. Someone else. Using the edit history, I found out that 72.145.115.221 originally put in the section about how children can be run over while on the bus etc.

I'll look into who re-did it. Samurai 004 09:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


I reverted some vandalism. I initially only saw a few gibberish words at the top, but then I found an entire phrase of vandalism in the article. Inclusive disjunction 05:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Structural Integrity 1920's

I don't see anything wrong with a picture in that section depicting a school bus from that era. The article section states the following: "As the school bus evolved in the United States and Canada as a specialized vehicle, there became concerns for the protection of the school children during major impacts. A weak point and location of structural failure in catastrophic school bus crashes was well-known to be joints, the points where panels and pieces were fastened together. Longitudinal steel guard rails had been in use since the 1930s to protect the sides of buses, but behind them on the sides and on the roofs, by the 1960s, all manufacturers were combining many individual steel panels to construct a bus body. These were usually attached by rivets or similar fasteners such as huckbolts". I cannot see a clear reason for removal of the picture. Does anyone have an opinion you would like to share? Thank you --Lperez2029 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seat Belt Section

Has anyone even read this section. It is totally biased and it's quite clear that the author has some sort of agenda. The writing is full of opinions and wild speculation that don't belong in this article. I'd like to remove it but I'd like to hear what some other people think first, also I have nothing to put in its place.--Sgiven 02:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. This is definitely an essay, and it might be copyrighted material, as well. Nothing in the section mentions the low use of seat belts among teenage students, either. - Tenthkarma 04:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that the current version of the seat belt section has no place in an encyclopedia. First of all, one can't write in first person in an encyclopedia, and encyclopedias are not a place to make claims about an agenda. The text should be completely removed. An encyclopedia could make a mention of the debate, and cite the good reasons from each side for supporting their side, but other than that I think this issue may be too emotionally/politcally charged to cite in an encyclopedia as fact. --ThomasBus8516, 7 March 2007.

I agree..remove this section Sabb0ur 23:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


I have completely rewritten this section. I agree that it was completely biased and poorly written (what kind of encyclopedic entry writes in all caps?). At the same time, it is important to display both sides of the issues here, as I expect many people come here wondering why school buses don't have seat belts, and there has been significant research in this field. Please don't remove the section, rather improve it by citing more scientific studies for both sides of the argument. The cleanup and neutrality dispute tags have been removed (I suspect only one or two users were a cause of it to begin with). Smartidiot 21:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Smartidiot

Since the vandalism and one-sided view still seems to be prevalent in this section of the article, why don't we just delete the section, or at least the minimum prevent unregistered or new users from editing it. With the recent acts of vandalism in this section, and the constant violations of the WP:3RR, it seems like the only vialble alternative right now.Srosenow 98 08:01, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] School buses in other countries

The yellow long-hooded school bus form factor seems pretty much exclusive to North America. It would be interesting to see a section on school bus practices in other countries. In fact, the only time I've seen such a school bus in Europe was (surprisingly enough) in rural Kaliningrad. In most other countries school buses seem identical to those used for public transit, albeit usually with 'School bus' indicated in the destination display. --GSchjetne 03:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

I've relocated this image gallery in the talk section for possible future use with this article. May I suggest someone create a School Bus Safety article. Additionally, could someone with a bit more Wiki-knowledge please fix the total mess that's been created by 75.117.135.206? I'm 99.9% sure that this article no longer is WP:MOS.
v/r
Chitrapa 12:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding to that, what happened to the rest of the article, like the portion mentioning lists of current and former manufacturers, and the former and current models of school buses? Going to the Seat-belt issue, we could corral it into its own article, let the fun begin there, and restore this article to the way it was.Srosenow 98 07:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
I took the liberty of reverting to one of the last versions with the full article, as it looks like it was removed by accident. My apologies if I screwed up anyone's edits. --Bongwarrior 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)