Talk:School bus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of WikiProject buses, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to bus transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject buses to do list
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance within the buses WikiProject.

Welcome to the Talk page for School bus

Contents

[edit] What is said and what is meant

"A school bus driver will not run over a child he or she can see." I'm pretty sure this is a law, no matter what vehicle you are driving... 12.218.145.112 02:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Probably the idea is that if a child is run over by a school bus, it is an accident caused by the child being in one of the numerous blind spots that many school buses have, not driver malice or carelessness. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[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

This section seems to give a large chunk of credit to whatever company it references. I think it was some form of advertising. (for the 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) This section needs citation for the part were it says that children will hit each other with the seat belts, and that they infrequently use them, or that should be removed.


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)
The section is better now, but I'm still struck by the fact that any presentation of the seat belt debate make it look as though seat belts are the "obvious" answer, and accordingly the argument for not having seat belts is presented with points that seem caveman like and lack luster. Having seat belts is not the obvious answer, which is why this has been on the table for 30 years, and it seems as though those who would rather not have seat belts in the school bus system as it stands now aren't being given a fair shake. The biggest arguments for not having seat belts I have rarely seen published. -ThomasBus8516, 7 March 2007
I tried to sort through the Against Seatbelts argument to remove the blatant POV. Take a look if you feel that you could support it more. - Tenthkarma 19:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shorten with link to a separate article?

Perhaps the seat-belt section should be shortened, with just a summary of the arguments pro and con and a link to a separate article for those who wish to take a longer look at the question. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Adding a photo of a bus seat with seat belts

The school district where I work at recently acquired 9 new buses that came with seat belts. I understand this might not go along with the current topic but I would like to upload a photo of these seats in question. How can I do this? Adavalosjr (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] School buses in other countries

So far this section only talks about way pupils commute in Berlin. 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)


I agree. Like many English entries of Wikipedia, this particular school bus entry is very U.S.-centric. 71.146.10.163 (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

1978 Crown Supercoach #25

Restored 1961 Thomas International school bus
US school bus.png

A United States school bus

Chevrolet/Bluebird bus in Hampton, Virginia.

Back end of a Blue Bird bus in Hampton, Virginia.

A retired 1955 Kenworth T-126 Pacific SchoolCoach in Washington State.

2001 Carpenter Classic model.

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)

[edit] Special Purpose Bus

This section could do with some cleanup. But a few points need clarifying:

  • What on earth has this to do with retired school buses?
  • Why is it a Special Purpose Bus, rather than simply a special purpose bus?
  • How is the "driver" caring for the riders a driver?

-- Smjg 11:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] possible name change

as this is way, way, way too biased toward the US, i would say that it might be an idea to change the article name to express that. something like "school busses in the united states", or if plans to include other dedicated school busses in the world are planned (as opposed to information on regular busses being used as school busses), call it something like dedicated school bus. as this article stands now, it gives the impression that ALL school busses are dedicated useage. the fact is, that in some places, buses used for public transportation are sometimes used, and have their own route that they follow. --Alphamone 00:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with the name change. For one, the term "School Bus" is used to describe a vehicle that is explicitly marked as such, and used for a dedicated purpose. Regardless of "national or global" point of view, this article should be dedicated to the subject at hand, the familiar "yellow and black" school buses that are explicitly built just for that purpose. Buses used for public transportation, that also get used for school transportation does not warrant the notion nor lend credence to the idea that they should be included into a major portion of the article. If a vehicle other than a dedicated school bus also serves a dual role in student transportation as well, only a small mention should be made, otherwise, as I see it, this article is fine as is, and IMO, the tag suggesting that it doesn't meet a worldwide view should be deleted from the article's heading.Srosenow 98 09:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Costs?

Can anyone find useful information about what the costs are? Surely it's cheaper to have one professional transport scores of kids to/from school than to have each kid individually driven by a parent -- as measured in time, fuel, carbon emissions, amount of the schoolgrounds you have to pave, and just about everything else. Does anyone have good numbers for this? WhatamIdoing 04:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Safety section

The bit that starts "stationary bus cannot run over a rider" looks like WP:OR - if you Google that phrase it doesn't turn up anywhere. Maybe copied from some pamphlet or something. In any case, a citation is definitely needed... Dickpenn 18:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, why? Have you ever heard of a bus rider managing to get underneath the wheels of a bus while the bus is not moving at all? We don't really need a source to "prove" that non-moving objects aren't moving. The fact that you can't find that exact phrase on Google merely means that no one has violated a copyright by copying and pasting the exact words.
Are you perhaps interested in finding a source for these common safety rules in general? That shouldn't be hard to turn up, especially if you check the parent/student handbook for any school district that runs buses (which description, alas, does not include anything in my area). WhatamIdoing 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is any policy on the kind of sources which can be cited in WP articles? The reference to a "Googobits" article refers to an author called Joanna Young without revealing where she is from or why she should be believed. A citation to "I read it spraypainted on a wall somewhere" would be equally valuable. Dickpenn 19:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Read WP:SOURCE#Sources] for more the answer to this question. WhatamIdoing 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wisconsin Warning Lights

I don't how to edit this to make it sound correct: Wisconsin still does not allow the use of a full 8-way roof warning flasher system. This isn't exactly true. I drive a '06 BlueBird Vision and BlueBird puts an 8-way WL system standard, but instead of amber inner lights, they are red. What it should say that Wisconsin doesn't allow 8-ways with amber for the inner lights. Here is an example of an '04 http://www.boomspeed.com/grnthmb55/birdcleanfl.jpgFox McCloud MyU (talk) 11:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the State of Wisconsin may begin allowing the use of ambers in the 8-way system. If I can recall, I read it on the web forums of a major school bus industry trade publication.Srosenow 98 (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Wiki schoolbus.JPG

Image:Wiki schoolbus.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 03:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] i suggest that the short bus article be merged...

Considering that the school bus article describes many different kinds of buses,I felt that the short bus article should be merged into the school bus article.I already put up the mergeto tag on the short bus article just now.And it makes no sense for the school bus article to describe differebt buses all over the world but not have a section on the short bus.The short bus article standing alone in relation to the school bus article doesn't make sense.And,can someone please try and find the actual name for this kind of bus?I'm sure the model for this bus has a more sophisticated name...Sammy theeditor (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


Ok,I'm going to put the tag on,but will take it off later if anyone disagrees with me later on this,I'm only putting the tag on,I won't actually merge the articles together. Sammy theeditor (talk) 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • My only concern is that "short bus" has specific connotations to it that might detract from the rest of this article. —C.Fred (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)