Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Motor Coach Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Families and Researchers Urge Lawmakers to Require Seat Belts on Motor Coaches
Summary
Advocates with Sarah’s Wish Foundation and researchers from UMass told the committee that seat‑belt use on motor coaches in New England is extremely low and urged passage of House Bill 2601 to require passengers to buckle up.
Families of crash victims and transportation researchers asked the Joint Committee on Public Safety and Homeland Security on Oct. 11 to approve House Bill 2601, which would require motor‑coach passengers to wear seat belts.
"Our daughter died in a motor coach crash, and we've always felt that if she had been wearing a seat belt, she would be alive today," said Anne Shewey of the Sarah's Wish Foundation, which advocates for motor‑coach seat‑belt laws. She and other family members spoke in support of the bill and said seat‑belt use on New England routes is extremely low.
Researchers from the UMass Transportation Center described multi‑year studies showing that low‑cost measures — signage in terminals and on coaches — can increase seat‑belt use by a substantial factor in before‑and‑after trials. John Kallura of the UMass Transportation Center said pilot work with Greyhound, Peter Pan and other carriers showed usage increases from very low baselines to much higher rates when simple interventions were employed.
Speakers noted that both New York and California already have laws requiring motor‑coach passengers to wear seat belts and urged Massachusetts to follow that trend rather than wait for a fatal crash in the Commonwealth. "At present, motor coach seat belt use is extremely low — on the order of less than 5% on many routes in Massachusetts," Anne Shewey told the committee.
The committee did not take a vote during the hearing. Supporters asked lawmakers to consider the bill as a public‑safety measure that would align Massachusetts with states that have acted following high‑profile crashes.
Why it matters: Proponents framed the bill as a straightforward highway‑safety measure with potential to reduce serious injuries and fatalities in coach crashes by increasing occupant restraint use.
