Talk:School bus/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let's sort this article out

Actually I think this article is just fine. It just happens that specifically-designed school buses are the predominant form of student transport in North America, so "from a certain point of view" as Obi-wan Kenobi would say, there is no systemic bias. But while North Americans imagine a yellow thing with flashing lights and sticky-out stop signs whenever they hear the term school bus, anyone else around the world imagines a generic bus which at that time is full of children being used for student transport but at any other time could be used to carry other passengers. It's not OK for the North American usage to dominate Wikipedia. So maybe this article should be split to School buses in North America and Student transport by bus. I do not want to formally propose a split just yet; could we first try to agree on whether there is even a problem?Nankai (talk) 20:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Or how about School bus (vehicle) (for student-specific vehicles) and School bus (transport service)?Nankai (talk) 20:36, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the systemic bias tag likely can be removed (while we would like to add more content about school buses worldwide, it is difficult to pick and choose, and the scope of this article is possibly part of the reason more aren't included.

Shall we split the article though? I think in some ways, this is an change that has been done already. By the creation of the Student transport article, it allows to talk about all the ways of how students get to school and focuses around the world. Looking at Template: Buses shows comparable articles; although this will likely still be longer, something comparable to the bus configuration or bus usage articles will be the final product. --SteveCof00 09:26, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

given the article is currently school buses in the US, with some international stuff tacked on, i think the US majority of the article should be moved into another article 'School buses in the United States' with a brief summary and main article link here. To say that custom fitted school buses are only US entities is an utter misnomer, although yours do tend to have more variance form coaches than most. In the mean time i have marked the curretly US only sections as to do otherwise is ridiculous in a article with the current title Mycosys (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Steve, you could start all over, putting stuff anywhere you want. It's easy to make a new article. Sammy D III (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Removing the globalize tag

Obviously, this would be an ideal goal. For the most part, it is something that can probably be taken down (in its current form) now. Most likely, a better way to serve things would to add this:

to the school buses around the world section. While some parts of that section are well thought out, others need some work (others are derived from other articles). This is more targeted and will likely generate a faster response. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

This seems ridiculous - the majority of the article is still utterly US focused and becoming more so - the US stuff needs to be split into a 'School Buses in the US' article. Til then the globalize tags are needed, at the least to alert readers to the total in-applicability of the info in those sections to the rest of the world.Mycosys (talk) 17:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Explaining the reconstruction/tearup

For the most part, the page is the same, but it's a lot different. I decided to take some inspiration from the layout Bus article itself, and that helped a lot. Down towards the bottom, I redesigned a couple of sections (other types of school buses and retired school buses). Types of school buses, which was sloppy (I'll fess up to putting the content there) is now laid out much neater.

I decided to add the US, Canada, and Mexico to "buses around the world". It works out a LOT nicer, and it cleans up the lead as well. As far as the rest of the content, I'm thinking that's stuck (for now...) --SteveCof00 11:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Ideally, I am looking to address the scope of the "very long" tag. I am looking at trimming down a just a bit (mostly the design history and safety sections, once they get reorganized) --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Bias more US?

There is an old tag about worldwide view, garbage. “vehicles specifically designed and manufactured for carrying students” are almost exclusively US, all the info is. Should the default be US? “School buses around the world" have anything that is not specifically used in US, including US exports? Most already is there. Maybe all Canada down there, too? You could lose some “(North America)”s. “The first school bus was a horse-drawn coach” to history, “School buses are either owned or leased” to ? Just ideas, feel free to revert. Sammy D III (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure where you are going with this, but I do agree on getting rid of the tag; the section headers are a bit confusing as well. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:24, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I am thinking that a “School bus”, the primary subject, was conceived, designed/legislated/redesigned, built, operated, and scrapped primarily, if not almost exclusively, in the US. The article should assume that. I generally buy "Worldwide view", but think this is a US vehicle, not "Student transport". Elsewhere the term "School bus" is used more as an adjective. Anything not legally School bus yellow (or variations in the US) should be on the bottom, in “School buses around the world” (I’m not sure about Canada, but putting it all on the bottom punches up that section). Most is, maybe “Export” should go down a touch. Any vehicles outside the US are probably mechanically variations of, or can at least be compared with, US buses.
I cut and pasted the lead to try to emphasize the importance of the vehicle in the US. I probably will plug away at some “(North America)”s. If nothing else, I feel it is a poor grouping, the US and Canada may be similar, but I don’t think Mexico is.
Grammar and form aren’t my place, but I don’t think you should have only one sub-section, otherwise it is the next higher level. Any chance I am clear? If you have an X.1 you should have X.2, otherwise X.1 is just X, no point 1. This affects (x=point for clarity) 1x2x1, 1x3x1, 1x5x1, 2x1, 6x1x1, 6x4x1. I won’t try that, it may need changing titles and maybe reflect the content better(?).
I followed you here, common interests, but am not trying to co-edit, you seem on a roll. Just outside opinion intended. There is so much stuff here that I, with some knowledge and interest, am overwhelmed. A compliment, not a complaint, I personally hate following a bunch of links to lame articles.
Wow, there is so much info here. Wow. Sorry I’m long-winded, poor communication. Have a good one.Sammy D III (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

"Operations" section

Recent events have got me thinking about some type of “Operations” section. To me this is machines, but there are people who run them. It could be a cancer, and run away, but it could keep “people” away from the cool stuff.

Licenses, tests, endorsements, qualifications, that stuff could go on forever.

Who drives them? It’s a part time seasonal job. In the past it was very attractive for mothers with kids in school, after the crash, it may have become a really good job, in high demand?

Who runs them? There is stuff about districts, sub-contractors, money comes from X, contractors can have Y number of Zs, bla bla bla.

I wish the social stuff would go somewhere else, but where? There is a mention of court ordered, a new ax being ground just now, these machines have certainly been used for social engineering. And this is happening right now, I can see it at the bus stop across the street.

I can’t do this, don’t want to, is it even a good idea? Some of this stuff is already there, spread around. Just a thought, for what it's worth. Sammy D III (talk) 15:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm not quite sure what you are suggesting here, but if I am understanding this right, there are a couple are articles that can answer your (rhetorical?) questions pretty well and we don't need to duplicate things here. The Bus driver article covers some of these issues about who drives school buses, while the student transport article is a better fit for the operations (literally, how students get to and from home). Admittedly, that page probably needs a bit more work done. --SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
It was a bad idea, you have answered. I thought that Policy inefficiencies, and similar social stuff, had to be accommodated. No it does not, School transportation is a much better place. I was using driver stuff to pad and smooth the section, no need, and Bus driver is the place. I didn’t see any link, maybe See also?
The last thing needed is another section. I was trying to make a place to put non-mechanical stuff, it isn’t needed. Sorry. Sammy D III (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe it isn't something that should be just pasted onto the article, but asking these sort of questions sometimes can get things going on where to update things. --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:10, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Policy Inefficiencies"

Since 2011, the Canadian Fair Parenting Project has lobbied school bus authorities to make more efficient routing decisions.[1] In Canada and the United States more than one in four children has separated parents and lives in two homes. Even as of 2014, many school districts have school bus policies that send a bus to one house 100% of the time and only pick-up a child 50% of the time.[2]


I'm pretty sure this is something meant for a parenting article (for a forum?); that's why I took it out. While I do agree that there are many factors that affect school bus routing...there are many more that come BEFORE whether or not someone filed an obscure lawsuit because they are divorced and they have to pay for their kids getting to school.

It is also a bit suspicious that the posting editor has made 0 (zero) other edits on WP as well. --SteveCof00 (talk) 11:10, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Page work explained

Apparently, what started out to fix what was an incorrect use of information (the "California top" is not the first bus roof with spaced windows that go down, but it is a hard top for a CAR...) ended up re-writing a bunch of the article. However, some of it was intentional. While it is now quite a long section, the content about structural integrity and the 1977 federal safety standards are now part of school bus development rather than safety devices (it gives context, although some editing will be needed on the first section). Conversely, the safety devices section is much better for the change.

As mentioned above, perhaps the operation of the school bus can be elaborated upon as well. I like the Operation section of Public transport bus service as a starting point. Not as something to copy literally, but something to look at and work from. --SteveCof00 (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

IC Bus

I like the IC buses. I also like the SAF-T-LINER's SchoolBuses (talk) 19:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

A thought

This is something that is probably going to need a few more sets of opinions just for research alone. Over the decades, one of the many guiding influences in the designs of any forms of transportation is significant incidents/accidents (out of the desire to avoid them...). This article doesn't really go into that at all. While changing a the page to "slap on" a list would be a bad move, perhaps it would be a way to expand upon the design-related content of the page to give it some depth. --SteveCof00 "suggestion box" 08:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Bus_accidents_in_the_United_States (I don't know how to show it.)
Shallow nhtsa 1998-2008 [1]
Maybe better nhtsa [2]
Morally sound trade org [3]
Only a starting place. Google also shows tons of cheap news stories. Sammy D III (talk) 13:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
I was able to get most of the article links included above. The NHTSA data may take some interpretation before I can turn it into something that can be useful for the article here, but I think it may be useful in the end. I'm not sure about newer stories though; where I was going was incidents that have had significant effects on either design (or operations) of school buses. --SteveCof00 "suggestion box" 09:02, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand. That’s going to be a challenge, not a quick Google. It’s mostly before the USDOT. I.C.C.? I recall the term ”cookie cutter” side panels, that was the distant past in 1970.
Yuba City is sort of old safety standards. Crown is atypical, though. Strong body, but it would have standard components, right?
Clearly driver error. Possibly the very bottom of seniority list, maybe a rookie? That Crown, impressive as hell in 1950, was 26 years old. Who would drive a piece like that? (Been there, done that, not proud in retrospect). IL or the feds have had school bus life restrictions for a long time?
Brakes were crucial in the crash. I don’t think they had spring parking/emergency brakes back then. GM old looks had a handle that looked a yard long. And I think it ratcheted, you pulled several strokes. The bus probably had an air-pressure wig-wag as built? Side note, not important here: IHC, certainly all others, used vacuum brakes on gassers into the ‘70s. Another side note: some truck engines (I think Mack and maybe others) have shaft driven air compressors.
The "NTSB Accident Investigation". is near to useless.
You care and are going to do this, I’m mostly straw man babble. And is Shawn[4] a friend of yours? Sammy D III (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
A couple of notes: You are right about the Crown Supercoach; while they were built stronger than competitive school buses, a 30-foot drop onto its roof was beyond any planned designed capabilities. As far as school bus lifespans, as far as I know, there are no federal regulations governing that; it is something that is set by each state (and some states do not...taking account safety/maintenance inspections over age and mileage). As far as me knowing the webmaster of schoolbusdriver.org? No, I've only seen that website in passing a couple of times. --SteveCof00 "suggestion box" 10:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Globalization

It's far from perfect, but I borrowed some content from some other versions of this page to show how school buses are built and used in other parts of the world. --SteveCof00 "suggestion box" 10:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Splitting Global Content

While this is content that adds a great deal to the article, this is where the page starts to lose a bit of flexibility. There will be a point where this content will dominate this article here and it will have to be limited to a certain point (for length and clarity).

While I'm not sure about merging some of this content with the student transport article (it's about more than busing, and also for length issues), I think a separate article entirely might be a good idea. --SteveCof00 "suggestion box" 07:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

there clearly needs to be a 'school buses in the united states' sub article linked form a small section here. Mycosys (talk) 17:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

1953 army buses

I thought these might be deep history, somehow, maybe. There are 1953 army data sheets at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/183017787/TM-9-2800-1-1953-INCLUDING-C1-EN-C2-pdf. The Ford F-5 (29 passengers), GMC HCS-57 (37), IHC L163 (29), IHC K7 (37), and Mack EH (37) all look like school buses. There are also transit and highway coaches there, not really on subject. 1943 and 1947 have a few buses, too. Sammy D III (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting...as the data sheets say, these buses were used for transporting personnel. Along with many other vehicles listed in the manual, the buses listed are civilian-based vehicles requisitioned for military use. Today, there are still buses similar to school buses in the military motor pool. This fits well in the "Other Uses" category, but there may be some more elaboration needed (beyond the 1950s) --SteveCof00 "suggestion box" 06:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
In 1972-3 there were twenty something old Superior on IHC forward control 44 pass (adults, 4 per row) buses. Mostly student trans (no SBs there), they were also used for various inter-post shuttles. The red crosses on the clinic shuttle seemed to be pushing it.
There were brackets on the walls and roof, and the entire rear bulkhead opened in two large doors. In a war the seats came out, the back opened, and stretchers were somehow hung on the brackets, bingo, a huge ambulance.
The army uses tactical vehicles (“tacs”) to fight, but mama needs to get to the PX, kids to school, groceries to the commissary. The only tac in the Transportation Motor Pool ("TMP") was the five ton wrecker. Vans, carryalls, semi tractors, and all those buses. These are all jobs that disappear in war, all the extra day to day stuff. They all looked like real vehicles, except for the color.
This is a poor scan of US Military Wheeled Vehicles by Crismon. The buses are way down at the bottom. Pages 435-442 are all 4x2 buses, 438-441 are SB bodies, Superior and Wayne in the 1960s. But there are few page numbers. I'm suspicious of the site, but it got me to buy the book. Sammy D III (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

History content redesign

I cut down a lot on number of sections, but the content is still there. Some content was moved to the safety section (where it originally came from). This goes to shorten the page a bit. --SteveCof00My Suggestion box is open 11:25, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

School Busses in Norway

Wondering if anyone could write about School Buses/Transport in Norway?

It seems different from most examples in the article. The buses are a variation of regular route-buses and buses that, through the local bus company, do routes in agreement with a school. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.52.31.165 (talk) 16:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on School bus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

3 of 4 links work; http://www.gilligcoaches.net/pages/the_gillig_story.html does not currently work (has a robots.txt issue?).
  1. ^ (http://fairparenting.com/article/back-school-and-back-bus |title=Back to School and Back on the Bus?)
  2. ^ (www.ottawasun.com/2013/09/09/ocdsb-faces-human-rights-complaint) |title=OCDSB faces human rights complaint)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:School_bus/Archive_5&oldid=1137175667"