4 ms·
One example of this is the law in the US that all buses are supposed to stop in front of tracks regardless of traffic signals. There was an accident once and no
by djohnston 6y ago
One example of this is the law in the US that all buses are supposed to stop in front of tracks regardless of traffic signals. There was an accident once and now buses do this needless maneuver: https://brokensecrets.com/2011/04/08/the-incident-why-buses-open-their-door-at-railroads/ https://brokensecrets.com/2011/04/08/the-incident-why-buses-....
- jessaustin 6y agoI don't want to ride a bus, and I especially don't want my kids to ride a school bus, that doesn't stop to check for oncoming trains.
- djsumdog 6y agoOP is specifically talking about the part where the bus driver opens the door, not just the signal check. I knew bus drivers who'd open the door as they went over the tracks .. kinda defeats the purpose.
- jessaustin 6y agoIn buses licensed to serve the public, opening the door is a single button-press, accessible from the driver's normal seated position. No additional delay is created.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThere was considerably more than "one accident once".
- djohnston 6y agoFTA (i linked): "Although it was required by law for school bus drivers to stop at railway crossings in 1938, drivers were not required to open their door. On December 1st of that year a gruesome accident changed that. It was a blizzard in Salt Lake City, Utah and a school bus driver stopped his bus at a railway crossing. Because of the snow, the visibility was terrible and the driver was not able to see an approaching freight train." If there were more accidents, they weren't a catalyst for anything. It was this specific incident and politicians' syllogism that caused the silly thing to be enacted.
- AnimalMuppet 6y agoThat says that, based on one incident, it was required that they open the door. They were already required to stop. If you have one precipitating incident for them being required to stop, let's hear it. (Though, probably, there was one incident that was the last straw, with several more before it.) But I was also wrong. I was recalling accidents in the 1960s, and assuming that those were the basis for the law. But if the law was already there in 1938, clearly those (multiple) accidents were not the reason for the law. Those accidents happened in spite of the law (though perhaps reinforcing the reason for the law to be there).
- djohnston 6y agoSorry on my original post I miswrote, not the stopping but the opening of the door is what I was referring to. Someone clarified on behalf but I can't update the original.