TRANSPORT A N D ROAD RESEARCH LABORATORY Department of Transport

RESEARCH REPORT 6

THE USE OF MINIBUSES IN GREAT BRITAIN

by D A WALMSLEY

The views expressed in this Report are not necessarily those of the Department of Transport

Transport Planning Division Safety and Transportation Department Transport and Road Research Laboratory Crowthorne, Berkshire 1985

ISSN 0266-5247

Ownership of the Transport Research Laboratory was transferred from the Department of Transport to a subsidiary of the Transport Research Foundation on I st April 1996.

This report has been reproduced by permission of the Controller of HMSO. Extracts from the text may be reproduced, except for commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged.

CONTENTS

Abstract

Page

1

1. The Regulations Governing the Use of Minibuses 1

2. The Study 2

3. Overall Numbers of Minibuses 2

4. Minibus Permits 4

5. The Types of Minibus User 4

6. Vehicle Characteristics 5

6.1 Age and Annual Mileage 5

6.2 Seating Capacities 5

6.3 Adaptation for Carrying Disabled Passengers 6

7. The Passengers 6

8. Accidents 7

9. Difficulties with Regulations 8

9.1 Information 8

9.2 Vehicle Construction 8

9.3 Annual Testing 8

9.4 Minibus Permits 9

9.5 Extensions to the Permit Scheme 9

9.6 Tachographs 9

10. Summary of Main Findings 9

11. Acknowledgements 10

12. References 10

Appendix Ao The Minibus Survey 11

Appendix B. Minibus Accidents 13

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 1985 Extracts from the text may be reproduced, except for

commercial purposes, provided the source is acknowledged

THE USE OF M I N I B U S E S IN G R E A T B R I T A I N

D A Walmsley, Transport and Road Research Laboratory

ABSTRACT

This study of minibus use was undertaken to provide information for a review of minibus regulations. It aimed to identify the various categories of users, to discover problems and suggest changes in the regulations, and to see if minibuses are more or less safe than cars or buses.

The study found that a quarter of all minibuses are used by firms and businesses, 13 per cent by private individuals, 12 per cent by PSV and hire companies and 17 per cent by local authorities, health authorities and other statutory bodies. The remaining third are in the voluntary sector. Indications are that travel by minibus is at least as safe as travel by car, and could be as safe as travel by bus.

The greatest problem facing minibus operators is obtaining correct information, and there is a need for clear published information describing all aspects of minibus law. A common set of construction regulations for all minibuses, a common annual test, and the introduction of Minibus Permits for non-profit making operation which are not specific to a particular vehicle as at present would be beneficial.

1 THE REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE USE OF MINIBUSES

This study of minibuses in Great Britain was carried out in order to provide information needed for a Department of Transport review* of minibus regulations. Very little statistical information about minibuses was previously available. In this report, the term 'minibus' refers to a vehicle with seats for at least 9 and not more than 16 passengers, excluding the driver.

In the past, road passenger transport has been considered in terms of cars on the one hand and buses and coaches on the other, and the main body of legislation has been intended to apply to one or other of these forms of transport. Accordingly, until 1977 minibuses could operate for hire and reward only if they conformed to the same Public Service Vehicle regulations as commercial buses and coaches. Recent changes in legislation have produced important relaxations of controls on some uses of

*This review was part of the more general review of public transport policy contained in the White Paper 'Buses' (Department of Transport, 1984A) and consultation paper (Department of Transport, 1984B). A Transport Bill is to be considered by Parliament in 1985.

minibuses, but as a result, regulations governing the operation of minibuses have become complex and, apparently, lead to considerable confusion.

The changes in legislation are the 1977 Minibus Act which introduced the Minibus Permit allowing passengers on vehicles operated by certain non-profit making groups to make a payment for their journeys, and the 1978 Transport Act which relaxed the conditions under which Community Buses operate. Minibus Permits were extended to certain larger vehicles in the 1980 Transport Act, and the whole of the public transport legislation was consolidated in the 1981 Public Passenger Vehicles Act.

As a result of these changes there are now four separate categories of minibus operation, with different sets of regulations applying to each:

(i) PSVMinibuses are Public Service Vehicles operated commercially for hire and reward in the normal manner of bus and coach operations, under a PSV Operator's Licence.

(ii) Minibus Permit Vehicles are operated for hire or reward but wi thout a view to profit and not for the carriage of the public at large. The issue of permits is by Local Authorit ies, Traffic Commissioners and designated bodies in the voluntary sector, and their use is restricted to education, welfare and similar activities. Minibus pools for travel to work, and transport solely for recreation or sporting activities, are not included.

(iii) Community Bus Services are minibuses operated without a view to profit to meet the social and welfare needs of communities, using volunteer drivers. They operate in the same way as ordinary stage carriage services and are available to the general public. The term 'Community Bus' should not be confused with 'Community Transport', a term in common use to describe schemes set up with the objective of meeting the needs of sections of the community with particular transport problems. Community Transport normally operates under a Minibus Permit which specifies who can be carried; Community Buses can carry anyone.

(iv) Private Minibuses carry passengers wi thout any payment in cash or kind. They may be owned or hired by companies, private individuals, local authorities, or voluntary groups.

Depending on the mode of operation, different sets of regulations apply. PSV conditions of fitness cover such matters as the provision of internal lighting and emergency exits, and the vehicles are subject to spot checks and

prohibition by vehicle examiners. Minibus Permit vehicles have their own set of fitness regulations, incorporating the basic safety features of the PSV regulations but differing in detail, thus allowing the use of less expensive vehicles. Although liable to spot checks in the same way as private cars they are not subject to prohibition. Community Buses have another set of fitness regulations, much the same as those for permit vehicles. Private Minibuses need only conform to Motor Vehicle Construction and Use regulations which are not so demanding. Minibuses are also subject to a variety of other regulations regarding driver licensing, minimum age for drivers, speed limits, drivers hours for commercial use and annual testing; the main requirements are summarised in Table 1.

EEC Drivers Hours regulations, including the requirement for tachographs, are not generally applied to minibuses in the UK except for certain types of PSV operations by 15 or 16 seaters. 1968 Transport Act rules come into play when the EEC rules do not apply, but they concern only PSVs and 13+ seaters driven by professional drivers. Minibuses which are taken abroad to other EEC countries should, in general, be f i t ted with a tachograph, but outside the EEC a logbook is still an acceptable alternative.

The regulation and use of minibuses in other EEC countries is the subject of a separate, complementary TRRL study (Pickup 1985).

With such a diversity of legislation, it is not surprising that there is a great deal of ignorance and confusion among minibus operators, and this can extend to official bodies such as the Police, the Local Authorit ies and Traffic Area Offices, who sometimes give confl icting advice.

2 THE S T U D Y

The objectives of the TRRL Minibus study were to identify the extent and character of existing minibus use, to identi fy the problems which various categories of user f ind wi th the regulations, and to see where changes in these regulations could make life easier for existing users or st imulate new minibus use. A further objective was to investigate the extent to which minibuses are more or less safe than private cars or conventional buses.

In carrying out the study, several sources of information were used:

(i) Published statistics on numbers of vehicles and travel (Department of Transport 1983A), on road accidents (Department of Transport 1983B) and on the issue of Minibus Permits (Department of Transport 1983C).

(ii) Data from the vehicle licence records giving numbers of currently-licensed minibuses classified by geographical area, taxation class and make.

(iii) A postal survey of minibus users to establish who operates minibuses, who their passengers are, what sort of journeys they make and what problems they find with the current regulations. A sample of 5,500 minibus owners was drawn from the vehicle licence records, and 2,700 usable responses were obtained. The method of selecting the sample could lead to some bias due to the omission of vehicles which were converted to minibuses after first registration. The occurrence of such vehicles is not believed to be large, but it was not possible to estimate their numbers. Further details of the survey are given in Appendix A.

(iv) Interviews and discussions with selected bodies concerned with minibus transport. Useful discussions were held with local authorities, bodies concerned with community and voluntary transport, and with a small number of respondents to the survey who had indicated willingness to cooperate.

3 OVERALL NUMBERS OF MINIBUSES

The sampling frame for the survey consisted of all vehicles in the vehicle registration files which were listed as 'body- type minibus'; there were 82,037 in March 1984. However, the figure does not correspond exactly to the definition of a minibus as a 9-to-16 passenger vehicle, because it includes some motorcaravans and other vehicles which are wrongly classified (perhaps having been converted after initial registration), and it also includes some minibuses outside the 9-to-16 seat range. The breakdown, from survey data, is as follows:

Minibuses with 9 to 16 seats Minibuses with 8 seats or less Minibuses with 17 seats or more Other vehicles

63,300 11,400

1,900 5,400

82,000

This study concentrates on the 63,300 minibuses in the 9-to-16 seat range, because the Minibus Act applies to vehicles of this size. Most of the vehicles smaller than this in the survey were used privately, by firms or individuals. The sample includes PSV minibuses, of which there were 5,100 in December 1983. For comparison, there were 67,000 larger buses and coaches (of which 64,000 were PSVs), and 15.6 million private cars and vans in the same year. (Department of Transport 1983A and vehicle licence data).

The total number of minibuses represents an average of 1.16 per thousand population, and this figure does not vary significantly between England, Scotland and Wales or between regions in England.

By far the most common make of minibus is Ford, with 65 per cent of those registered. The next most common are Leyland (12.6%), Bedford (7.6%) and Volkswagen (3.0%).

TABLE 1

A summary of regulations relating to minibus operations in the United Kingdom

' • tspect of ration

ype Type o f ~ operation "X~

PSV minibus

Minibus with permit

Community Bus Service

Private minibus

PSV Operators

Licence

Yes - (restricted PSV licence if not commercial bus operator)

No-- Minibus permit only

No-- community bus disc to be displayed

No

Driver's Licence

Conditions

PSV licence minimum 21 years of age (18 on domestic journeys by minibus of 14 seats or under, or on regular services under 50 kms).

Full licence i holder over 21 years

Full licence holder over 21 years-- volunteer

Over 21 years

Driver's hours/ records

EEC regulations apply*, except on domestic journeys by minibuses of 14 seats or under or on regular services under 50 kms. In these cases domestic rules applyt.

EEC regulations not applied in UK. Elsewhere EEC regulations apply.

As for PSV

EEC regulations not applied in UK but for business use domestic regs. apply over 12 seats and EEC regs over 14 seats. Elsewhere EEC regulations apply.

May carry...

Public at large for payment

Members or clients for payment but not for profit

Public at large for payment but not for orofit.

Road Service Licence

Yes for stage carriage operation except in trial areas**

No

Any No person(s). No payment

As for PSV

VEHICLE

Construction and use Vehicle

requirements testing

Motor vehicles regs. 1978 and PSV conditions of fitness equipment and certification 1981. PSV carrying capacity regs. 1984 and PSV conduct of drivers regs. 1936

Motor vehicles regs. 1978 and minibus conditions of fitness equipment and use regs. 1978

Motor vehicles regs. 1978 and community bus regs. and PSV carrying capacity regs. 1984 and PSV conduct of drivers regs. 1936

Motor vehicles regs. 1978

Certificate of initial fitness and annual tests at PSV testing station

Annual MOT test. If more than 12 seats then Class V test

As for minibus permit vehicles

As for minibus permit vehicles

*Directives 543/69 on drivers hours and 1463/70 on tachographs. tTransport Act 1968 (Part VI) **See Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981.

Full details of Drivers Hours regulations may be found in leaflet PSV 155 (Dept of Transport 1984 C)

4 MINIBUS PERMITS

Minibus Permits allow certain types of user to collect contributions from their passengers while avoiding the full panoply of PSV licensing. They are issued by the Traffic Commissioners, by Local Authorities, or by designated bodies (charities and national institutions) to their own members. The available statistics on numbers of permits in force are rather vague, because there is no record of permits which fall into disuse and because, it is suspected, some designated bodies are fairly lax about notifying the Traffic Commissioners when they issue a permit, as they are required to do.

The Annual Reports of the Traffic Commissioners (Department of Transport 1983C) report 11,855 permits issued up to March 1983, but there are gaps in the figures due to some areas not reporting the permits issued by the designated bodies. Grossing up for these missing figures and allowing for a notional 20 per cent of permits falling into disuse each year gives an estimated 10,000 permits in force at March 1984.

From the survey, 14 per cent of minibuses have permits, which would imply a total of 9,000 in force. Given that some permits are issued to vehicles outside the 9-16 seat range, and that the 20 per cent per annum disuse rate was an assumption, this figure is consistent with the 10,000 quoted above.

Out of those minibuses with a permit, 49 per cent carry passengers who do not pay for their journeys. The same is true of minibuses with a PSV licence, though this may reflect their use on school contracts. Out of those minibuses which carry paying passengers, 40 per cent have no permit or licence which allows them to charge legally. There is an implication here of great confusion about Minibus Permits and the law relating to hire and reward. Probably those who do make a charge without having a permit are not aware that they are operating illegally, and probably too those who have a permit but do not charge are confused by the regulations and imagine that any use of a minibus requires a Minibus Permit.

5 THE TYPES OF MINIBUS USERS

The most valuable information to come from the survey is the types of organisation which operate minibuses. The classification of user types is shown in Table 2, with the final column showing the numbers grossed up to the total number of minibuses in the country, and the same information is shown diagrammatically in Figure 1.

Nearly a quarter of all minibuses are used by firms and businesses (with construction firms being prominent). Thirteen per cent are used by private individuals and 12 per cent by PSV and hire companies. None of these

T A B L E 2

Types of minibus user

Type of User

Private Individual PSV Operators Hire Companies Firms Health Education

and Social Services

Other Statutory Bodies

Community Organisations and Charities

Schools and Colleges

Youth Organisations (Scouts etc) and Sports

Other users

TOTAL

Number Number in GB in Per (95% confidence

Survey cent limits)

290 13 8,400 ( _+ 900) 141 6 4,100 (+ 600) 127 6 3,700 ( + 600) 514 23 14,800 ( + 1,100)

196 9 5,600 ( + 800)

179 8 5,200 ( + 700)

80 4 2,300 ( + 500)

387 18 11,100 (+1,000)

188 9 5,400 ( + 700) 94 4 2,700 ( + 500)

2,196 100 63,300

operators, which together run nearly half the minibuses, is eligible for a Minibus Permit under current regulations, though a permit could be issued to another body which borrows the minibus for certain activities.

Out of the 17 per cent of minibuses used by statutory bodies, about half (eg those owned by central government, police, and local authority maintenance departments) are used for carrying employees in a similar manner to the firms and businesses. On the other hand, health authorities and local authority education and social service departments also run many minibuses, and these are mostly used for carrying children, sick, elderly and disabled passengers, in a similar manner to the voluntary sector operators.

The voluntary sector consists of schools and colleges, youth, sports, community and charity groups. Together, these bodies run a third of the country's minibuses, and these types of use are mostly eligible for a Minibus Permit, though one is not needed if no form of fares is charged. Minibuses owned by schools and colleges make up half the group, but the distinction between vehicles run by a school, and those run by a local education authority, cannot always be made clearly.

Community Buses (those providing stage-carriage services to particular communities) do not appear in Table 2 as they are relatively few, there being about 30 in the country.

4

Private individuals 13%

Firms 23%

PSV operators

companies 6%

Other Oth . . . . . . . 4% / / / ~ " ~ _ statutory

k J Youth and / k S°cial Services sports / ~ 9%

Schools and colleges

18"/o

Fig. 1 Types of minibus user (Population in Great Britain approx. 63 000, sample size 2196 )

Table 3 shows permit use, and shows that as expected, firms and private individuals make little use of permits, while local authorities and bodies concerned with education and community activities use them much more. In the voluntary sector, 35 per cent of minibuses have permits.

TABLE 3 Use of Minibus Permits

Type of User

Private Individuals and firms

PSV and Hire Health, Education,

Social Services Other Statutory Bodies Community

Organisations and Charities

Schools and Colleges Youth Organisations Others

TOTAL

Number in % of GB (95%

No. in User confidence Survey Group limits)

6 1% 0-300 6 2% 0-300

24 13% 400-1,000 7 4% 50-400

22 29% 400-900 165 43% 4,100-5,500 55 30% 1,200-2,000 21 23% 300-900

306 14% 8,000-10,000

6 V E H I C L E C H A R A C T E R I S T I C S

6.1 AGE AND A N N U A L MILEAGE More than half the minibuses in the survey were under five years old, and 87 per cent were under ten years old; this still leaves an appreciable number of elderly vehicles, however. The average annual mileage was 11,750 and the median 9,500, but 15 per cent did very low mileage (3,000 or less) and 12 per cent high mileage (over 20,000).

Figures 2 and 3 show the age and annual mileage respectively for each type of user. Minibuses belonging to firms, transport operators and public sector users tend to be newer and to have higher annual mileages, while voluntary bodies and (especially) private individuals tend to use older vehicles and have lower mileages.

6.2 SEATING CAPACITIES On the basis of the survey, there are 41,000 minibuses (65%) in the 9-to-12 seat range, and 22,000 (35%) in the 13-to-16 seat range. The significance of the division is that above 12 seats a minibus requires a Class V MOT test which is not normally available at ordinary garages.

The breakdown of each user group into these seating ranges is shown in Table 4. Minibuses used for educational purposes, and those used by statutory bodies, tend to be larger than average, while PSV and hire companies, firms and private individuals predominantly use 9-to-12 seaters.

100 I- Statutory bodies ~

m m

"~, (D

. ~ Voluntary sector ~E ~ 40 '= I //// " Private individuals

~ ~ 20

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Age in years

Fig.2 Age distribution of minibuses, by user group

100

~ 80 L

E . ~ " O u ~ m ~ ~ 60 E

" d ~ ~ 40

O c

~ 20 O~

O

o _

-Voluntary

s es

~ Private individuals

i I I

0 10 000 20 000 30 000 Annual miles

Fig. 3 Annual mileages of minibuses, by user group

In addition to the minibuses of 9-to-16 seats, the survey also found many smaller-capacity minibuses. They are not included in the analyses in this report, because they do not form a complete sample of smaller passenger vehicles and because vehicles of this size are treated as cars in the regulations. Grossed up to national figures, there are 11,400 of these smaller vehicles (up to 8 seats) predominantly owned by private individuals and firms. The survey also indicates that there are 700 PSV Minibuses of up to 8 seats, and 300 of 17 seats or over. These together with 4,100 9-to-16 seaters shown in Table 4, form a total of 5,100 PSV Minibuses, which agrees with the figure from licence statistics quoted in section 3.

6.3 A D A P T A T I O N FOR C A R R Y I N G D I S A B L E D P A S S E N G E R S

Only a few (2%) of the vehicles had been adapted for carrying passengers in wheelchairs, mostly by being fitted with a tail lift. The figure represents 1,300 nationally, or 2,000 if minibuses with capacity for less than 9 passengers are included (since providing space for wheelchairs can significantly reduce the capacity).

TABLE 4

Seating Capacities

No of passengers Type of User (excluding driver)

9-12 13-16

Private individuals PSV Operators Hire Companies Firms

7,400 (88) 3,700 (89) 2,900 (78)

10,800 (73)

1,000 (12) 400 (11) 800 (22)

4,000 (27) Health, Education, Social

Services Other Statutory Bodies Community Organisations

and Charities Schools and Colleges Youth Organisations Other Users

2,500 3,100

(44) (59)

1,800 (80) 3,500 (32) 3,500 (65) 1,700 (64)

3,100 (56) 2,100 (41)

500 (20) 7,600 (68) 1,900 (35) 1,000 (36)

TOTALS 40,900 (65) 22,400 (35)

Grossed-up Numbers in each category to nearest 100. Percentages of total in user group in brackets.

Respondents to the survey were also asked if their vehicles regularly carried people who have difficulty getting about because of age, disability or health; the wording was designed to include infirm people as well as those who would normally be described as disabled. Eighteen per cent of the vehicles carried such passengers. Six per cent carried passengers confined to wheelchairs, so since only 2 per cent of vehicles are adapted the remaining disabled passengers presumably ride on the ordinary seats with their wheelchairs stowed.

The carriage of disabled and infirm passengers is an important function of community transport and has been an important development over recent years, but it does not feature prominently in the overall use of minibuses generally.

7 THE PASSENGERS

Table 5 shows who the main passengers are for each type of user. Overall, nearly half of all minibuses (29,000) are used privately for carrying employees or family and friends of the owner, and another 21 per cent (13,500) are used to carry schoolchildren. Those minibuses which are used for purposes such as carrying young children or the old, sick and disabled amount to only 10 per cent of the total (6,400).

Not surprisingly, the 14,800 minibuses owned by firms and businesses mostly carry employees, and that mostly in course of work, although 37 per cent of firms carry employees to or from work. Under present law they can only make a charge for this if they hold a PSV Operator's

Type of User

Private Individuals PSV Operators Hire Companies Firms Health, Education, Social

Services Other Statutory Bodies Community Organisations

and Charities Schools and Colleges Youth Organisations Others

Passenger type as % of all passengers

TABLE 5

Types of Passenger Rows total to 100 per cent (-- indicates less than 10

Family and Friends

84

m

m

D

12

Employees at Work

58

13 73

13

11

23

Employees to/from

Work

m

37

D

11

m

D

11

Members

18

71 64

11

)er cent)

Young, elderly,

sick, disabled

14

44

43

27

10

School Children

D

25

25

88

21

Public and others

54 87

11

16

12

licence (there is a restricted category of PSV licence for such use), but very few firms in the survey did.

Among the 8,400 minibuses run by private individuals, the great majority are used for carrying family, friends and relations. Most private individuals choose to run a minibus because they have a large family or to carry goods, camping or leisure equipment. It would appear, therefore, that most privately run minibuses are used either as a large family car or van, and are not being used for 'bus service' types of operation.

Among the 10,800 owned by statutory bodies, half are used to carry employees in a similar manner to private firms (but fewer take employees to and from work). Social service and education authorities serve their own 'customers' almost entirely, but more health authority minibuses are used for carrying employees than patients.

Schoolchildren form the main passengers of 21 per cent of minibuses, making them the most important type of passenger after employees of firms and statutory bodies. Schoolchildren can be carried in vehicles owned by the education authorities, by the schools themselves or by parent-teacher associations; these types of ownership are not easily distinguished. Many schools also use commercial minibuses from PSV operators; 25 per cent of the 4,100 PSV minibuses specialise in carrying schoolchildren, constituting 8 per cent of all those minibuses which carry schoolchildren.

Apart from those owned by schools and colleges, most voluntary sector minibuses carry mainly members of the organisations which own them. The exception is the 2,300

minibuses owned by community and charity organisations, of which 43 per cent cater for young children, the elderly, sick or disabled, and another 16 per cent for others not connected with the organisation. These figures are uncertain due to the small sample sizes involved.

8 ACCIDENTS

Accident statistics relating to minibuses are of interest because any proposals for changing the regulations affecting minibuses or encouraging their wider use are inevitably accompanied by concern that in so doing the safety of passengers and other road users would be compromised. This section therefore gives some comparisons between minibuses, cars and buses. The derivation of the figures, and the assumptions made, are discussed more fully in Appendix B.

There is a fundamental difficulty in that there are no separate records of accidents involving minibuses; the standard accident report form completed by the police classifies vehicles by body-type, and no distinction is made between minibuses and motor-caravans. In the absence of any other information it is assumed here that two-thirds of the accidents in the 'Minibus and Motor caravan' category involve minibuseso There are roughly equal numbers of each type licensed, so the assumption is equivalent to assuming minibuses are twice as likely to have accidents as motor caravans. There is no evidence

to support this assumption, but it is done in order to calculate a 'worst case' accident rate for minibuses. It will be shown that, even with this disadvantageous assumption, minibuses compare favourably with cars and buses, so in fact they may be better still.

Assuming, then, that two-thirds of accidents in the 'Minibus and Motor caravan' category involve minibuses, the rate for minibuses is 17 injury accidents per thousand vehicles per year, of which 5 are fatal or serious. This is similar to the rate for cars (18, of which 5 are fatal or serious) and much lower than that for buses and coaches (193, of which 35 are fatal or serious)

In the minibus survey, 19 accidents in the previous 2 years were reported, whereas from the above rates one would expect between 60 and 90. The difference might imply that the assumed split between minibuses and motor caravans was unduly pessimistic, but it could also be due to under-reporting in the survey. The survey result suggests that the accident rate for minibuses at worst is no higher than the 17 per thousand quoted above, and could be considerably lower.

On a distance basis, minibuses have 93 (of which 29 are fatal or serious) injury accidents per hundred-million vehicle-km per annum, again less than cars (115, of which 30 are fatal or serious) and much less than buses and coaches (342, of which 62 are fatal or serious).

When the greater carrying capacity of buses and coaches is taken into account, the picture changes. Buses and coaches have 19 casualties (of which 4 fatal or serious) per 100-million passenger-kin, which is considerably lower than cars (33, of which 11 fatal or serious). Minibuses fall between the two, but the actual figure depends on what assumption is made regarding the average number of passengers per vehicle. Using a deliberately low assumption of 4, the casualty rate is 21 (of which 10 fatal or serious) per 100-million passenger-kin; the rates would be lower than those for buses if a higher occupancy were assumed, and would approach those for cars if a lower.

Analysis of pedestrian casualties shows that minibuses injure rather fewer (16 per hundred-mill ion vehicle-km, of which 5 are fatal or serious) pedestrians than do cars (19, of which 6 fatal or serious). Buses injure many more (50, of which 14 fatal or serious), reflecting their use in busy streets.

On all the figures shown here, minibuses compare favourably with cars and buses. There would therefore appear to be no cause for concern that encouraging greater minibus use would lead to more accidents.

The overall conclusion which can be drawn is that, even on unfavourable assumptions, travel by minibus is at least as safe as travel by car, and at best could be as safe as travel by bus, and this conclusion agrees with general impressions among insurance companies, brokers and transport operators. From the vehicle point of view, minibuses have no more accidents than cars, and many fewer than buses.

9 D IFF ICULTIES W I T H R E G U L A T I O N S

This section discusses some of the most common problems experienced by minibus operators with respect to the regulations and operating conditions, and suggests some possible solutions. The list is compiled from the responses in the survey, and from discussions with local authorities and voluntary bodies concerned with minibus transport.

9.1 INFORMATION Obtaining correct information is the greatest problem facing minibus operators particularly about the permit scheme and the various sets of construction regulations. The confusion appears to extend to official bodies such as Traffic Area Offices, MOT Test Centres, the Police, Local Authorities etc, and even those operators who know that they need information have difficulty obtaining it.

Conclusion: A published, clearly written leaflet covering the regulations on the following topics would clear much of the uncertainty and confusion:

Construction

Annual Testing Driving Licences Speed Limits

Permits--what can and cannot be done under a permit Definition of Hire and Reward Excise Duty Drivers House and Tachographs

In addition, perhaps some public education is necessary to make people aware that minibuses are not just large cars and that they are subject to additional regulations.

9.2 VEHICLE CONSTRUCTION Much confusion arises from the differing construction requirements for different classes of minibuses.

Conclusion: A harmonised set of regulations, enabling manufacturers to produce a common design, would meet the approval of both professional operators and responsible voluntary groups. The harmonised regulations should cater for cases where vehicles are needed, temporarily or permanently, to carry disabled people. Provision for certifying that a vehicle meets the prescribed standards should be made.

9.3 ANNUAL TESTING At present minibuses with 13 seats or over are subject to a Class V MOT test which, although little different from a standard car test (Class IV), is only available at HGV Testing Stations and specifically authorised garages. All PSV minibuses are subject to the Class VI (PSV) test which includes more items.

The differing types of test according to use and seating capacity cause confusion, and many owners--and testing stations too--are ignorant of the requirements.

Conclusion: A common test for all minibuses is needed, and it should be available at least at the larger local garages, as a long journey to a suitable test station causes inconvenience to many operators.

9.4 M IN IBUS PERMITS Voluntary groups have difficulty obtaining accurate information on the need for and use of permits, even from the issuing bodies. Many groups hire or borrow minibuses and, under present law, a separate permit is required for each vehicle. The issue of non-specific permits which could be used on any vehicle meeting the construction requirements would help these groups. Again, many voluntary organisations like to make full use of their vehicles by lending them to other welfare groups in their area, and some exist solely to provide welfare transport in this way. The present use of a Minibus Permit for authorising both the operator and the vehicle does not fully allow for such cases.

Conclusion: A Minibus Permit which is not specific to a particular vehicle, but which certifies a particular body as an operator, would allow more flexibility in the use of vehicles.

9.6 T A C H O G R A P H S In the survey, there were many complaints by private owners and voluntary bodies about the need for a tachograph when travelling abroad and other EEC regulations. In the UK all minibuses of up to 14 passenger seats are exempted from EEC regulations for journeys within the UK (though for some commercial purposes domestic drivers' hours regulations apply, see Table 1). In addition, minibuses which are used privately or for non-profit-making purposes under the Minibus Permit scheme are not regarded as being subject to drivers' hours and tachograph regulations.

Other EEC countries do not have the same exemptions and interpretations of the regulations, and all minibus drivers are advised to conform. The hours limitations themselves are not likely to be a serious imposition to the non-commercial user, but the expense of f itt ing and maintaining a tachograph is considerable, and a dispensation to use log books instead (as permitted in non-EEC countries) would be of great benefit to such users.

9.5 EXTENSIONS TO THE PERMIT SCHEME

At present, minibus permits are available only for educational, religious or social welfare purposes; they do not cover social and recreational travel or provision of travel to work by an employer. These modes of operation could possibly be brought within scope of the regulations.

TRRL has carried out an experiment (Jackson, 1982) in minibus-pooling for the journey to work, by smoothing the way to obtaining a PSV licence. The experiment suggested that minibus-pooling may be an attractive means of travel for relatively small groups of workers with long distances to commute, and may cater for journeys for which conventional public transport cannot effectively provide. Equally it showed that bus licensing requirements are a daunting obstacle for potential users.

Conclusion: Extending permits to cover minibus-pooling for the journey to work would encourage this type of use. The demand might be limited to small numbers of people in particular circumstances, or it might expand once regulations permit.

With regard to recreational travel, many self-drive minibuses and some private vehicles in the survey were used for such purposes as carrying darts clubs, football teams and anglers. Probably many such trips are run on a shared-cost basis, though the cost-sharing provisions of the 1981 Act do not extend to minibuses.

Conclusion: An extension of the permit scheme to cover social and recreational activities would probably merely legalise what happens already.

10 SUMMARY OF MAIN FINDINGS

This study was undertaken in order to find out who uses minibuses and for what purposes, and to see what difficulties arise from the present regulations covering minibus use. Prior to the investigation, there was little statistical information available about minibuses in Great Britain, so the information from the study which is summarised below is relevant to the Department of Transport's review of minibus legislation.

There are approximately 63,300 minibuses of 9-to-16 seats currently registered (March 1984 figures). A quarter of them are used by firms and businesses, 13 per cent by private individuals, and 12 per cent by PSV and hire companies. Out of 17 per cent used by local authorities, health authorities and other statutory bodies, half are used for their own employees and half are used by health, education and social service departments for the people they serve. The remaining third of the country 's minibuses are in the voluntary sector, consisting of schools and colleges, youth, sports, communi ty and charity groups.

Roughly 9,000-10,000 Minibus Permits are in force, representing 14 per cent of all minibuses. In the voluntary sector, 35 per cent have permits.

Minibuses belonging to firms, transport operators and public sector users tend to be newer and to be used more intensively, while voluntary bodies and private individuals use older vehicles with lower annual mileages.

Only two per cent of vehicles are adapted to carry passengers riding in wheelchairs, but 6 per cent regularly carry passengers who are conf ined to wheelchairs and another 12 per cent carry other infirm people.

Most minibuses belonging to private individuals carry family and friends, and most belonging to firms carry employees. Schoolchildren form the main passengers of 21 per cent of all minibuses. Ten per cent of all minibuses are used for social welfare purposes, carrying young children or elderly, sick and disabled people.

Data relating to minibus accidents are sparse, but they indicate that travel by minibus is at least as safe as travel by car, and at best could be as safe as travel by bus, and this conclusion agrees with general impressions among insurance companies, brokers and transport operators. From the vehicle point of view, minibuses have no more accidents than cars, and many fewer than buses.

Obtaining correct information is the greatest problem facing minibus operators, particularly about the permit scheme and the various sets of construction regulations. The need for special MOT tests, and the requirement for a tachograph when travelling abroad, were also frequently mentioned. A common set of construction regulations for all minibuses, a common annual test, and the introduction of minibus permits which are not vehicle-specific would be beneficial. There should also be clear, published information readily available which describes all aspects of the law relating to minibuses.

1 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I should like to acknowledge the valuable discussions held with many organisations during this study, in particular with Avon County Council, Strathclyde Regional Council, the Inner London Education Authority and the National Advisory Unit for Community Transport.

I should also like to acknowledge the invaluable contribution of Mrs Enid James and her colleagues at the Driver Vehicle Licensing Centre to the survey organisation, and of Miss Penny Slater to the survey analysis.

The work described in this report was carried out in the Transport Planning Division of the Safety and Transportation Department of TRRL.

12 REFERENCES

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, WELSH OFFICE (1983). Transport Statistics Great Britain. 1972-1982. H M Stationery Office, London.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SCOTTISH DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, WELSH OFFICE (1983). Road Accidents Great Britain 1982. H M Stationery Office, London.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (1983). Annual Reports of the Traffic Commissioners 1982-83 (and earlier years). Department of Transport, London.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT, SCOTTISH OFFICE, WELSH OFFICE (1984). Buses, Cmnd. 9300. H M Stationery Office, London.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (1984). Buses White Paper Consultation: Minibuses. Department of Transport. London.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT (1984). Drivers Hours for Road Passenger Vehicles. DTp Leaflet PSV 155 (4/84), Department of Transport, London.

HOBBS, C A, E GRATTAN and J A HOBBS (1979). Classification of Injury Severity by length of stay in hospital. Department of the Environment, Department of Transport, TRRL Report LR 871: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

JACKSON, R L (1982). Minibus Pooling: the' Ilford Experiment. Department of the Environment, Department of Transport, TRRL Report SR 739: Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

MINIBUS ACT (1977). Ch. 25. H M Stationery Office, London.

PICKUP, L (1985). The regulation and use of minibuses in the EEC. Department of the Environment, Department of Transport TRRL Report RR22 (in preparation) Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne.

PUBLIC PASSENGER VEHICLES ACT (1981). Ch. 14. H M Stationery Office, London.

TRANSPORT ACT (1978). Ch. 55. H M Stationery Office, London.

TRANSPORT ACT (1980). Ch. 34. H M Stationery Office, London.

10

A P P E N D I X A

THE MINIBUS SURVEY A postal survey of minibus users was carried out in order to identify who operates minibuses, who their passengers are, what sort of journeys they make, and what problems they find with the regulations. The sample for the survey was drawn from the vehicle licence records held by DVLC Swansea, by randomly selecting from those vehicles classified as having a minibus body type. Seating capacity would have been a more appropriate means of identifying minibuses, but that information is only recorded for the minority of vehicles registered as Hackney carriages.

The selection by body type could lead to some bias, in cases where the vehicle has been modified but the owner has failed to notify DVLC, for example, on conversion from minibus to motor caravan, or van to minibus. Those vehicles which were wrongly included in the sample, like large buses, vans and motor caravans, could simply be eliminated during analysis. The potentially more serious fault is the exclusion of other vehicles which had been converted to minibuses; there was no way of sampling these, or even estimating their number accurately.

However, the occurrence of vehicles converted to minibuses is not believed to be large, except perhaps in the case of community transport for disabled people where a vehicle adaptation is necessary anyway, and as shown in Section 6.3 only a small proportion of minibuses fall into this category.

The survey took place in two stages: a pilot survey of about 500 minibus owners and a main survey of 5,000. About 60 per cent of the questionnaires were returned, without the use of reminders which, it was thought, might produce adverse reactions. The respondents were assured of confidential i ty in an introductory letter and in fact, since the sample selection was done automatically by DVLC, no record of the non-respondents was held at TRRL.

The forms returned were as follows:

Minibuses 2,704 Motor Caravans 109 Other vehicle types 78 Vehicles sold or scrapped 180 Rejected for other reasons 13

Total forms returned 3,084

The 2,704 Minibus forms were coded for analysis. A number of them referred to minibuses with less than 9 or more than 16 seats, which are subject to different regulations and were not of primary interest. These vehicles were therefore excluded from the analyses (except where otherwise stated), leaving 2,199 minibuses in the 9-to-16 seat range.

The questionnaire used in the survey is shown in Figure A1.

11

Transport and Road Research Laboratory ~ t of me Env l t ~n t D~p4ut~ t of lrrlmtit~ O~ Wok~gh4~ Road C,o~ho~ B~k~hlt* RG% 1 6AU

May 1984

Dear Minibus Owner

M]NIgUS SURVEY

The Transport and Rood Research Laboratory is conducting a survey of m i n i b u s o ~ e r s t o d i s c o v e r tile m a n y u s e s t o w h i c h m i n i b u ~ e s a r e put. The purpose of tbls r e ~ e a r c h is to find out whether the present regu- lations m e e t t h e n e e d s o f m i n i b u s o p e r a t o r s a n d u s e r s .

~'e WoMId l i ke you to take pu r l i n t h i ~ ~u rv , ' y by ans~ ' e r i ng t i le ques - t i ons on tile attached form, about )'our minibus and the journeys you use it for. Your name has been chosen at random from the Vehicle Licence rccord~ at Swansea, but any information which you give us will hc COmFletely confidential, and will be u>ed only f.r galilerin~ >tati~- tic~. The infurmntio;~ ~ l l i ch will iJe transferred to thr computer for statistical analysis ~iil n o t i n c l u d e a n y t h i n g which could i d e n t i f y i . d i v i d u a l s a n d no i n f o r m a t i n n abOUl i n d i v i d u a l o w n e r s w i l l be p a s ~ e d on t o th£' v t ' h i c l e ] i c e n b i n & a u t h o r i t i e s , t i l e p o l i ( ' e o r ;l l lyon@ o lN@.

IChell we h a v e s t u d i e d t i l e r e ~ l i e s Prom t h e ~ u r v e y , we may w i s h t o a s k you f o ; ' a l i t t l e mol'e d e t a i l . %'c hop , ' you w i l l h e w i l l i n g t o hP Ip f u r t h e r , b u t t h e r e i ~ no o b l i g a t i o n f o r y o u t o do bo e a n d i f y o u w o u l d p r e f ( ' r n o t t o be c o n t a c t e d a g a i n y o u e a n s . y s n a t t i l t ' e n d UP t h e f o r m . A f L e r t h e s t u d } " i s c o m p l e t e d , t h P f e r n s w i l l hv d e s t r o y t , d .

I n order for u s to g o t a c o m p l e t e pirturr t*f minihu~ nbo i[ iN i m p o r t - a n t t h a t we r e c e i v e a r e p y f "om e v e r y o n e . P h , a a , , r e t u r n th," q u e s t i o n n a i r e t o u~ i n t g e e n v c | , H ~ e p r o v i d e d . No Fo~ta¢e s t a m p i s n e c e s s a r y .

T h a l l k y . u f o r t a k i n g t i l e t i m e t , , r e a d t h i s It. t t ( . r . I f y o u h a v e a n y tIueriq.s ; ( h u n t t h e ~ u l ' v e y , you c ; tn " o n t n e )a%" d Ka m~lo~" a t Tilt" transport a n t i R o a d I te>P; t l ' ch L x d , o r a t o r y d u r i t l ; ~ nPf i ( ' ¢ ' I , o u r ~ , t , . I t , p h o n v C r o w t h o r n e 7 7 " 1 5 1 E x t n 2324, r o x ' e r ~ i n ~ t i l l" ( h a r ~ ; r ~ i f %oft ~ i~h .

Y o u r ~ ~ i n t ' e r v I )

G }IAIIGASI }N

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . + 0 + + + + 0 + _ I t B A C K OF THIS LETTER

PLEASE TURN OVER

TRAN~T ANO ROA~ R ~ LABORATORY MIN I~ STUDY

PI2#FF A~WFR T~E FOLLOWING OU~..!~S PPCq/T ~I~UP t'INIPbff. Tr~y gFFFP C~,%Y " TO THF MINIP[~ W~E P~IFTR~TICW I~PFP ~PPF~F3 WITH Y~ #P{h~F~F ON THE

ACCC'~PAPYINO Lgr/T~. IF YOU p~VE ~Et~IV£T ~ F " ~ V 0NF OF "~X~SF FORF3, AKD #LL THE PINIPLS~F APF ~FF IN ~ S~J~F k'~Y. YOP MAY F~PD IT t ~F CC~V~!£'NT TO FILL IN C~ FOF~ FOR ~LL ~ TY~, Plff PLF#FF PFTURP ALL THF

P. THF VI~ICLF

1. 14he~ i s the )ini~) bP.~P~?

To~m . . . . . . . . . . . . . Count y/Pe~lo~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pest code . . . . . . .

p. HOW ~py P~ss~Pp~Pr~ can be c a r r i e d ( p o t ~ t i n~ the d r i ve r )? ( . . . 1

~, PaY the vehicle PPen ~dapted ir spy ~y for carrying p~ss~ger$ riding in ~beelehalr-~?

~If so, pJeale say how ~ny ~eleh~ir passengers it cap e e r r y , end ~ e t b e r i t i t f i t t e d , w i th a romp or l i f t )

FOR OFF IC~ t ~

,~FTI-~ "FFI'[]

~w~ lurx

~ F ~ ,~FFFFI

=F~

a. *bout hew 0~py v l l e ~ has ! t t r a v a i l e d I r ~he l a s t i ? ~ t h S ? r . . . . . . ~ m ~ - "

~. i s the ~ in ibu~ ~oulpoed fo r use as ~ P~ te r e~cav~n? YE$ / i.~ ~: ~-

B. ,~.F ~ $

6. Is th~ rinibut U~'P4 bv ¢plP..-e ~ick (f applle,~le):

¢ p r l v m * indlvt¢~u~l? F l

A PuP]io Fe rv ic~ Vehic]# ~ r ~ t o r ? f i

IF t~gF OP TVFSg: P ea.~ say which er~api.~atlc~ rh~ mirltu~ i* usu=]Iv uPed

Pv:

Rr~ wh~t ,h~ir P~iP ~ e ' i v i ' v i s ~ ~p~+m:-+ion f i ~ , you,h clut .re~: I

lIM

MINIBUS 5TUOY (cont inued)

7, Do you ~ your minibus under any o f the fo l l ow ing (please t i c k ) :

PSV Operator's Lleenee

Minibus Permit

Ccm~vnlty Pus Lteenee

Ron~ of these

@. AN~6E~ THIS C~E~TIOH (INLY IF YOU AN~dFEFD -~ PRJVAT~ iNDIVI[YJAL" TO 0.6: Do you have a special reason for running a mlnibtts rather than a smaller v e h i c l e ? IF so, please say ~ a p It Is.

FOR U~ IQE

[ ]

[ ]

[ ]

"[7

C. THE Pk~BE}~S~RS

9. APe your p ~ s s e n g e r s u s u a l l y (please t i c k ) :

fami ly , t r le r~s and relations? ( )

others? ( ]

(PLEASE S~Y WHO, eF ~hoe ] ch l i d ren , employees t o / f r ~ wop~, employees i n e o ~ r s e o f ~r~, g e n e r a l public, ere)

I0. IF eothecs% do you have s meFolar aPPangeme~t to ca r ry the • ~ ¢ ~ p e o p l e ?

YES / NO

11. Do yo~ Pep~Jlarly carry people ~ have d l f f i o J l t y ve t t l n8 a l~ because of a~e, d ! sab i l l t y o r heal th?

YE.~ / NO iF ~ , do any of" tJaem usua! ]y use tRleeleb~irs? YE~ / NO

12-. L~o your pas-~gPrs pay 8nythlPg to~aPds the cost. OF their J~. ys?

Y~S / NO

E. ~CCID~NTS

i ? . In t h e l a s t P years, MS t h e Mlnlb~e been i f l vo lved i n an accident in ~ I cb someone (ei ther inside or outside the Minlbu~) Was In~ure~ or k i l l nd?

PLEASE TURN OVER •

"D

"D 2M

MINIBUS STUOY ( con t i nued ) :O~U~FICE

PFCULATICNF

~a. t r ~h is ~ e c t i c n w~ ~ould l~k~ yOU ~c "~]1 us IF vou h a w Pound ar d l f f ! e u J t i e ~ wi th t he r-e~ul~tion~ O~ r i n i r u ~ P~r~l t~ . d r i v e r s ' l i c e r c e s , vehlc]es or iP~uranee. For instance, havr ycu h~d ~y d~f f icu l ty fz'rding out about pewi ts , c r are t h e ~ ~ow~ tyoe£ o f )c~J~eys or passengers you would l ike to serve, ~ut are net ~er~it, Pd ,c ~t pr~s~rtT Please use the t p a c e telCw and c c n t i n u ~ a t t b f ~ o t I ~ o f t he r~ re i f you ~d more s p a c e .

,TPer,k yc~ Car tek l r~ th~ t ~ub le tn ..o~p~rl~ ' r t ~ 0uo.~tlcnnair~. L=ter, ~e Pay w~h ~o ~sk for CurtPrr d r '~ l ]~ . I f vec ~-Pu]d pr . f¢r rot tc tY ccrI~etr~ ~F~ip, p'*f~s{, pu*. ~r 7 in tP l : rex:

3 .

Fig. A.1 Minibus Survey Questionnaire

12

APPENDIX B

MINIBUS ACCIDENTS The basic data for the study of Minibus Accidents are drawn from the official publication Road Accidents in Great Britain (RAGB) (Department of Transport 1983B). The figures here refer to 1982 but the pattern is not likely to be different in other years. The objective is to discover whether minibuses have more or fewer accidents than cars or buses, but the appropriate basis for comparison is a matter for discussion. The three bases considered here are: accidents per vehicle per annum, accidents per vehicle-km, and casualties to drivers and passengers per passenger-kin.

All definitions are as used in RAGB, except where stated. An accident is an incident involving personal injury, and a casualty is a person injured; there can of course be more than one casualty per accident. The statistics are compiled from the official record forms STATS 19 completed by the police; thus, only accidents which become known to the police are included. It is suspected that a considerable number (21 per cent, according to one source (Hobbs 1979)) of serious accidents are not reported, and probably many more slight accidents. Possibly, accidents involving buses and coaches are more fully reported than those for cars, because of the involvement of passengers.

One difficulty for the present study is that vehicles are classed on the accident report forms by body type, and no distinction is made between minibuses and motor caravans. It is therefore necessary to make an arbitrary assumption about the number of accidents attributable to each type of vehicle, and in the absence of any other information it is assumed here that two-thirds of the accidents in the "Minibus and Motor caravan" category involve minibuses. There are roughly equal numbers of each type licensed, so the assumption is equivalent to assuming minibuses are twice as likely to have injury accidents as motor-caravans. There is some logic behind this assumption in that minibuses have more passengers exposed to risk, but the two-thirds figure is mainly chosen so as to err on the cautious side.

Another possible source of error arises from the distinction between minibuses/motor caravans and ordinary buses. The definitions provided for police at the scene of the accident do not refer to seating capacity, and it is possible that some minibuses (particularly the larger ones) are wrongly classified. No allowance for such errors has been made.

In order to calculate casualty rates per passenger-km, it is necessary to assume an average number of occupants per vehicle. For buses and cars, the occupancies used in RAGB have been adopted here, namely 13 and 1.85. For minibuses, there are no data available, and a deliberately low figure of 4 has been assumed in order to present a "worst case" accident rate.

The results are shown in Table BI . Expressed on a vehicle basis, buses, with 193 per thousand vehicles per annum, have many more accidents than cars with 18, and this is only partly explained by their higher annual mileage, as shown by the rates per vehicle-kin (342 and 115 per 100 million veh-km).

But obviously, buses carry more passengers than cars, and on a passenger-kin basis, buses have fewer casualties than cars (19 per 100 million occupant-kin as opposed to 33). This figure is perhaps the best measure of the relative safety of buses and cars; although a single bus has a higher chance of being involved in an accident than a single car, it takes fewer buses to carry a given number of passengers so the chance of injury to each passenger is less. The casualty rate per passenger-kin for minibuses (21), is very dependent on the assumed occupancy, here taken to be 4. If the average were higher, say 6, the casualty rates would be 14, lower than for buses. This does not of course mean that th e risk to an individual minibus is reduced by carrying more people.

The final line of Table B1 shows casualties to pedestrians, expressed on a vehicle-km basis. Once again, minibuses, with 16 pedestrian casualties per 100 mill ion vehicle-kin, compare favourably wi th cars (19). The figure for buses is much higher (50), probably because much of their mileage is in town centres where the exposure to risk is comparatively high.

There are two further points to notice. Firstly, a quarter of the injuries to bus passengers are sustained during boarding and alighting, which reflects their use in busy streets. Cars, and minibuses too unless they are used on bus-service operations, are probably less subject to this risk.

Secondly, in all the figures quoted, the proportion of accidents which are fatal or serious is lower for buses; this may reflect more complete reporting of slight accidents. Minibuses appear to have a higher proportion of fatal and serious accidents than cars though the number per vehicle-km or passenger-km is less.

On all the figures shown here, minibuses appear to compare favourably with cars and buses, even after making some possibly unfavourable assumptions on the average occupancy of a minibus and the number of accidents among minibus and motor caravans which are attributable to minibuses. There would therefore appear to be no cause for concern, on the basis of the figures presented here, that encouraging greater minibus use would lead to more accidents. The overall conclusion which can be drawn, taking into account all the assumptions and uncertainties in the figures, is that travel by minibus is at least as safe as travel by car, and at best could be as safe as travel by bus, and this conclusion agrees with general impressions among insurance companies, brokers and transport operators. From the vehicle point of view, minibuses have no more accidents than cars, and many fewer than buses.

13

T A B L E B1

Accident statistics for Cars, Buses and Minibuses

Vehicle Population Total distance travelled

Accidents: number of vehicle involvements

BUSES AND MINIBUSES CARS COACHES

All Fatal + All Fatal + All Fatal + Accidents Serious Accidents Serious Accidents Serious

77 Ill 15,40312~ 67 )61 15 ~3) 2,398 (2) 38 (2)

Units

thousands hundred million veh-km

1,342(4) 413 ~4) 275,507 (2) 71,239 (2) 12,911 (2) 2,33812) number

Accident "Rate per vehicle 17.5 5.4 17.9 4.7 193.4 35.1 per thousand

Accident Rate per per hundred-million vehicle-km 93 29 115 (s) 3015) 342 (5) 6215) veh-km

Number of casualties (drivers and passengers) 1,188 (4) 568 (4) 145,261 (4) 49,877 (4) 9,948 (4) 1,752 (4) number (pedestrians) 231171 67 .71 45,95218~ 13,925 Isl 1,915 ce~ 538181 number

Assumed occupancy 4, including driver 1.85 13+dr iver number per vehicle

Occupant Casualty Rate per passenger-kin 20.5 9.8 32.7 11.2 18.7 3.5 per 100 million pass-km

Pedestrian Casualty Rate per vehicle-km 15.9 4.6 19.2 5.8 50.4 14.2 per 100 million veh-km

Sources (1) Section 3 of this report, including vehicles outside the 9-16 seat range (2) RAGB Table 40, 1982 (3) From survey data on average annual mileage (4) RAGB Table 41, 1982, assuming ~ of 'minibus and motor caravan' accidents involve minibuses. (5) RAGB Table 43, 1982 (6) Vehicle licence data, including non-PSV vehicles (works buses etc) (7) Road Accident data 1982 (8) RAGB Table 20, 1982

Printed in the UK for HMSO Dd8222651 2185 10170 (61)

14