The safety of our children is paramount. That is a no-brainer.

So why has it taken such a long time and so much teeth-gnashing for seat belts in school buses to be made compulsory here?

The Land Transport Authority (LTA) had been considering the move since 2002. But for one reason or another, it never got off the ground.

Perhaps it has to do with the relatively incident-free years we have had.

American consultants Hall & Associates, which the LTA engaged to help in its seat belt endeavour, noted that "Singapore has a good record of safety in its transportation of students to and from school".

"No cases of children receiving fatal or serious injuries while travelling in a school bus from 2001 to 2007 have been reported," it said.

But in April this year, Primary Two pupil Russell Koh died after being flung out of his school bus which collided with two other vehicles.

Loud clamouring from parents and Members of Parliament ensued. It took less than six months for the LTA to roll out a $35 million five-year plan to have the 6,400 small buses here fitted with seat belts and front-facing seats.

It had consulted key stakeholders like schools, childcare centres, parents as well as school bus operators, bus builders and trade associations.

The roll-out is based largely on recommendations by Hall & Associates, whose findings include:

Big buses need not have restraints as their sheer size allows them to withstand impact far better;

Side-facing seats in small buses are unsafe, as occupants do not have the benefit of backrests or headrests when front and rear collisions (the most common types) occur;

Two-point seat belts, or lap belts, are not only ineffective but can contribute to injury during an accident; and hence

Small buses (weighing up to 3,500kg when occupied or seating up to 15) should have three-point seat belts and front-facing seats.

All well and good. But a sizeable and often cited hurdle to several new initiatives looms large: cost.

The LTA found that retrofitting a bus to meet those recommendations costs about $4,000. And the carrying capacity of many buses will be reduced, since individual seats will be needed for each child ? as opposed to the current practice of allowing three children to share seat space meant for two adults.

But as Singapore has demonstrated time and again, where there is political will, few things are insurmountable.

In one deft move, the Government decided to foot the retrofitting bill, which comes to $25.6 million for 6,400 buses. And it is dishing out about $10 million more to offset the drop in income many operators will face with the lower carrying capacity.

No small change. In fact, it is significantly more than the $21 million it is forking out to make public buses wheelchair-accessible.

So it is understandable if parents baulk at the possibility of a fare rise on account of the seat belt initiative. After all, the Government is already footing the entire retrofitting bill, and then some.

Expectations would be different without the Government aid.

Bus operators argue that the new seat belt rule will reduce the capacity of some of their buses. Some may even have to put out more vehicles to cater to their existing customer load.

But they should pause before engaging gear.

Senior Minister of State for Transport Lim Hwee Hua revealed yesterday that the total utilisation capacity of all school buses here was currently only 69 per cent. That means there is spare capacity of 31 per cent out there.

Surely cooperation among operators can put the spare capacity to good use?

And there are substantial cost savings associated with the safety exercise, too. Firstly, buses will be lighter because they will carry fewer children.

If a bus carries five fewer children, the weight saving comes up to between 120kg and 180kg. The new seats with seat belts could weigh more ? but not drastically more ? since new materials and packaging are likely to be more lightweight than some of the ancient seats found in some of our minibuses.

A lighter vehicle uses less fuel. It is estimated that a 100kg weight saving translates to a 5 per cent fuel saving.

With fewer children onboard, school runs will also be shorter, with far fewer stops in between. Again, that means less fuel used. A conservative estimate on savings from this: 15 per cent less fuel.

In total, each bus could potentially save 20 per cent on fuel usage. If an operator spends $800 on fuel a month (an average the Singapore School Transport Association declared last year), the saving could work out to be $160 ? or equivalent to 2.5 children's fares.

There are other savings, such as less wear and tear (lower mileage and lighter weight), and lower insurance premiums (a bus with seat belts is a far safer bus). These can be quantified. For instance, if a bus changes its tyres once every 18 months instead of 12 currently, the monthly cost is $13.33, instead of $20.

And that is only tyres.

Drivers will also have more time freed up, which they can use to rest or to cater to other customers. Once again, this will mitigate the drop in carrying capacity.

At the end of the day however, even if parents have to pay more, they should do so less grudgingly. After all, their children will not only have a safer ride to and from school, they will arrive in much better shape because of the newfound roominess onboard. And it is hard to put a price on that.

christan@sph.com.sg

This article was first published in The Straits Times on Oct 21, 2008.