People just realising why you don’t have to wear seat belts on buses

Seat belt legislation in the UK became mandatory for drivers and front seat passengers in January 1983, and perhaps surprisingly, seat belts in the rear of cars weren’t compulsory to be worn until as late as 1991.

Of course, when travelling on public transport that isn’t always the case, whether it be via bus, train, taxi or underground metro service. According to the RAC, when travelling on a minibus, bus or coach, you must wear a seat belt if there’s one available though.

In addition, passengers sitting in seats that are in line with, or in front of, the driver (excluding seats on an upper deck) must use seat belts that are fitted. The law does not require passengers using other seats in coaches to wear seat belts, however. Meanwhile, in larger minibuses, under-14s are not required to wear seat belts.

But why is this the case? That was the thought of a Reddit user who recently pondered in a post: “Why do you have to wear a seat belt in cars but not on public transit? I’m not anti seat belt or anything, I’m just curious.”

It prompted one person to explain the physics behind the reasoning: “The danger with car crashes is deceleration. Your car goes from moving very fast to not moving very quickly and your body keeps moving until something stops it. When you crash a car into another car, the car stops almost instantly.

On the contrary, however, they continued: “When a bus hits a car, it doesn’t decelerate very quickly because it’s so much heavier than the car it’s decimating. It’s sort of like when a car runs over a traffic cone. You feel a bump but for the most part the car just keeps going. To a bus, a Honda Civic with two adults, a child and a baby inside is like a speed bump. You sort of just crush it like a bug and keep rolling.”

Sharing their experience, a second person concurred: “The tremendous mass of a bus makes it unlikely to be necessary. I’ve been in a bus crash and it feels like a little speed bump.”

Whilst a third person stressed: “It mostly comes down to design and speed. In cars, you’re in a smaller space, you’re going faster, and sudden stops or crashes are way more dangerous for passengers. So seat belts is a total must. They keep you from flying into the dashboard or worse.

“But public transit, is a totally different setup. Buses and trains are built heavier, so they don’t take the same kind of damage in collisions. Plus, they’re usually going slower, especially in cities.”

“If you aren’t belted in, the thing that stops it might be the steering wheel column going through your sternum or the curb you fly head-first into when you fly through the windshield.”

Meanwhile, a fourth Reddit user pointed out: “This is not universally true, on some buses (especially long-distance, but also regional ones) there are seat belts which (at least in my country) you do have to wear while seated. Rail-bound vehicles generally have safety features (e.g. signals) that make them not very likely to crash, and even if they do, they aren’t capable of decelerating as quickly as cars, so crashes aren’t quite as dangerous.

“On city buses there are typically no seat belts because they don’t typically travel at very high speeds anyway, they are more massive than cars, and a lot of passengers are standing anyway. It would be very inconvenient to make passengers put on a seat belt if they aren’t travelling for very long anyway.”

The RAC adds: “If you’re caught travelling in a vehicle without wearing a seat belt – and none of the exemptions apply – you could be hit with an on-the-spot Fixed Penalty Notice of £100 (which will not carry any penalty points).

“Remember, the driver is responsible for children aged up to 14 and you could be fined for each child passenger without a belt. Those over 14 are responsible for their own actions – so if you’re caught not wearing a belt as a passenger, you could be hit with a £100 fine.”