Crash fuels demands for bus seat-belt law: Christian Wolmar reports on renewed safety concerns after the M2 accident

THE COACH disaster on the M2 has prompted calls from a range of safety organisations for seat belts to be fitted compulsorily on coaches. But technical problems and the resistance of other European countries make legislation unlikely.

The RAC said that, while road deaths were generally being reduced, the casualty rate in bus and coach accidents was rising. It pointed out that one child and two drivers had recently been killed in school bus crashes.

Edmund King, its campaigns manager, said: 'The time is right to re-examine this issue and introduce seat belts for passengers, in particular children.'

Derek Prentice, assistant director of the Consumers' Association, said: 'If seat belts were fitted in all coaches, dozens of passengers could be saved from injury and even death every year.'

Coach and bus travel has a generally good safety record. Although in 1992, 19 people were killed and 636 were seriously injured on buses and coaches, in terms of passenger mile, coaches are 10 times safer than cars, and three times safer than rail travel if deaths by falling from trains are included.

Robert Key, the Minister for Roads, added his weight to the campaign for seat belts, saying on BBC Radio: 'It must be true that seat belts of any kind are better than none.'

However, this is disputed by both industry sources and some independent experts.

The Bus and Coach Council, which represents the majority of coach and bus companies, argues that there are serious technical problems in installing seat belts which would meet similar standards to those in private cars.

Alan Gurley, the council's technical director, said: 'Lap belts are unsatisfactory because they cause the body to jackknife and research shows they make the head travel three times faster than if the body is unrestrained. So you really need to be fully strapped in with a belt that has a third anchorage point above the seat.

'This is difficult as there is no suitable place because of the window and even if a point is found, it will be higher than the vehicle's centre of gravity, which could make it more likely to topple over.'

Mr Gurley also says that coach floors are not sufficiently robust to resist the necessary forces created during an accident. Nor could they be sufficiently strengthened without extensive re-engineering and possibly exceeding the 17.5 ton maximum weight for a two-axle vehicle.

Without the floors being reinforced, seat belts could cause extra danger for passengers because the seats could become detached with people still in them.

Some manufacturers have begun to produce buses with seat belts but these have specially reinforced floors and tend to be for use by schools in urban areas.

A spokeswoman for the Bus and Coach Council said no manufacturer was producing a vehicle with three-point belts.

Richard Simpson, technical editor of the industry's magazine, Coach and Bus Week, said: 'The industry is not against introducing seat belts, but it is reluctant to have them if they don't offer the same degree of protection as they do in cars.'

Instead of seat belts, most coaches are now fitted with energy absorbent seats, with backs that are made to crumple on impact from passengers. Mr Gurley said it was difficult to combine these with full seat belts which needed strong seats that did not give way on impact.

The other problem is legislative. There is, in fact, already European Union legislation which says that seats which do not have another one in front to restrain passengers in the event of an accident, such as the middle back seat and in front of doors, must be fitted with belts. However, passengers do not have to wear them.

Despite pressure from Britain, only three other EU countries back compulsory seat belts for coaches and Mr Key said yesterday that he was powerless to act without EU backing because European manufacturers would still be able to export coaches to the UK which met EU, rather than UK standards.

However, Edmund King of the RAC said: 'We are still a sovereign state. We should go ahead anyway.'

But there is also the question of whether people would wear the seat belts. Rear seat passengers in cars have been found to be unwilling to wear belts, despite legislation which makes it an offence not to do so.

None of these objections convinces James Tye, director general of the British Safety Council, who said: 'These are engineering problems which could be overcome.

'The same sort of thing was said when I first wrote a report recommending seat belts in 1959. It is extremely callous and cynical of the bus and coach industry to use money as an excuse for endangering the lives of passengers.'

(Photograph omitted)