School Bus Drivers Parked at 65?
Force retirement, say some districts, despite new law.
Debating experience and safety.
A provincial law put into effect this year says people aged 65 can't be forced to retire, but some B.C. school boards want that protection removed from school bus drivers.
Those boards want an exemption from the law, arguing safety concerns for students. At least three districts have taken steps to purge their employment rolls of over-age drivers.
Meanwhile, Coast Mountain Bus Company, the Translink subsidiary that provides transit services in the Lower Mainland and employs over 3000 bus drivers, is enthusiastically complying with the new law, and already has a small cohort of over-65 drivers in its fleet, with eight full-sized buses now being driven by the older drivers, and 17 of the company's van-sized smaller buses.
"There is no real reason for us to discriminate against older drivers," say Sandra Hentzen, Coast Mountain's vice president for human resources. "Nothing special happens at age 65 to make you a worse driver. If we forced drivers to resign, we'd be violating the human rights code."
An Alberta precedent?
But the school boards that have decided to block over-65 drivers from their fleets are relying on a 1999 ruling by an Alberta human rights panel for their precedent in believing that the new anti-discrimination law should not apply to bus drivers.
The panel, relying on research and evidence provided by two expert witnesses, determined that driving ability does diminish with age, that no reliable tests exist that would allow an employer to sort out competent and incompetent older drivers and that, because of these two findings and the importance of protecting student safety, an employer was justified in requiring age-based retirement for school bus drivers despite statutory prohibition of age discrimination.
Dr. Rick Clapton, a traffic safety and driver behavior expert who formerly taught at the University of B.C. Okanagan, told The Tyee that research does support the notion that driving skills deteriorate with age. However, he noted, most older school bus drivers are professionals who have driven and continue to drive extensively. Skills that are practiced regularly, he said, do not deteriorate as rapidly as others.
According to Deborah Stewart, who speaks for the B.C. Public School Employers Association, there are 60 public school districts in B.C. When she spoke to The Tyee on June 10, she was aware of one district, District 23 in Central Okanagan, where the board had decided to insist on retirement at 65 for its directly employed bus drivers.
However, according to Larry Paul, District 23 secretary treasurer, the district plans on offering a transition program to its driver employees as they reach 65 if they want to continue work. Drivers will be taken off the road at 65, he told The Tyee, but will be offered the opportunity for other work within the system.
Reassigned in Coquitlam
The Public School Employers' Association has circulated to its membership a discussion paper about bus drivers and mandatory retirement that reviews the new law, the Alberta human rights ruling and the several options available to school districts, including imposing mandatory retirement and, alternatively, establishing a testing regime for drivers of all ages to insure driver competence across the fleet.
At School Districts 41 and 43 in Burnaby and Coquitlam, where bus service is provided on an outsourced basis through a contract with Cardinal Transportation, a new agreement between the districts and the bus company stipulates that drivers over 65 must not drive on routes serving schools in the two communities.
"Nobody is losing their job," insists Dex Hallwood, director of purchasing for the Coquitlam School Board. "We have to put the safety of students first. That's the most important thing."
Hallwood said that Cardinal drivers over 65 were being assigned to different duties, not let go, when they were removed from school bus duty in his district and in Burnaby, which is covered by the same contract as Coquitlam. Calls to Cardinal to verify what happens to drivers removed from bus routes in the two districts were not returned by the time this story was filed.
Hallwood cited the 1999 Ensign decision in Alberta to bolster his view that being below the age of 65 should qualify as a "Bona Fide Occupational Requirement" under human rights legislation, thus permitting his board to block anyone over that age from driving a school bus.
'My blood began to boil'
Dennis Jaeger drives for Cardinal on Coquitlam school bus routes, and he has made fighting the new age requirements into a personal crusade. He has already fired off a letter of protest to the Coquitlam school superintendent, Lorcan O'Mellin, spoken at an open school board meeting in May and arranged to meet with district purchasing director Hallwood on June 19.
Jaeger told The Tyee he has spoken with B.C.'s Human Rights Tribunal and may co-operate with other Cardinal drivers to file a human rights complaint. Still in his early 60s himself, Jaeger says "my blood began to boil" when he learned that older fellow workers were being re-assigned to other work sites and taken off school board work in Coquitlam and Burnaby.
Greyhound takes keys at 65
"I fought in a war to protect democracy," says Jaeger, who says he was a U.S. Army Ranger and prisoner of war in Vietnam. "All my life I've tried to help people, and this is just another example. I will not allow people to be suppressed"
Jaeger says that it is "nonsense" for Cardinal to refuse to let drivers operate school buses in Burnaby and Coquitlam and then transfer them to do the same work in Vancouver and Surrey. He says his June 19 meeting with Coquitlam district official Hallwood represents an opportunity for the district to correct a policy he says is discriminatory. "Otherwise we may have to take legal steps."
Greyhound Canada, which is governed by federal legislation and employs around 1,000 drivers across the country, continues to require retirement at 65.
Related Tyee stories:
- BC's Move to 'Big Box' Schools
Parents worry closing small schools hurts kids. - No Fares! (series)
Time for a free ride on public transit.
![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
dorothy
16-06-2008
why get so adversarial about it?
Could we not just use the same approach as we do with drivers in general, require testing more often, as not all 65-year olds are equal? I think it would be seen as reasonable by most people, that taking the lives of other people, particularly those with have less autonomy, into one's hands might require more in the way of proving one's capabilities.
RickW
16-06-2008
Must be a mistake!
Surely they meant 85............
And while we're at it, let's talk about teen drivers and twenty-somethings. You know, the ones who treat the streets as their personal Indy 500........I thknk the minimum age for being issued a driver's licence should 25. Maybe that way, there wouldn't be so many memorials along the road sides............
ME2
16-06-2008
It's all in the optics, stupid.
This is just another example of the misuse of the Precautionary Principle in which the most minimal - even the barest chance of a misadventure happening, becomes sufficient reason for restrictions being placed on other people's activities.
In this particular case the prime motivator of the School Board member's decision is NOT loss of safety for the kiddies, for if it was they would have recognised the case against the 65-year-old driver is contrived.
Rather, it was the fear that if they voted against the driver restriction, they could be portrayed as being lax in protecting the kiddies, thus becoming hostages to the same people who promote more laws while painting opponents as being "soft on crime".
RickW
16-06-2008
ME2
Likely there are lawyers as well, somewhere in the background, salivating.....
In Trust
17-06-2008
Whatever Works
Dumb rule. Most transit services keep some retirees on the work list because they have a second income, and don't mind working half days. Public service would decline drastically if they are excluded from work.
Moat
17-06-2008
A bit tounge in cheek...
Be that as it may, depriving the teens and twenty somethings road experience is not going to help either.
Weird paradox here.
Further testing of those over 65 may weed out bad drivers, but the "bad" young ones will pass a test with flying colours - because of selective attentiveness.
More frequent testing with increasing age is probably the fairest way to do this.
murdock
17-06-2008
so test them all
What is wrong with a skills requirement every 2 years, that increases to every year after 64?
We all 'deteriorate' in some way or another every year, simply citing the need for accurate vision is enough to bring in the testing, make it a day or two a year where everyone gets their test. Those who pass carry on working, those who do not...have to make correction or move on.
RickW
17-06-2008
murdock
And make it random, with only 12 hour notification. As we all "know" the lessons we need to pass the test, seldom translate onto the street.
murdock
17-06-2008
solution
And make it random, with only 12 hour notification. As we all "know" the lessons we need to pass the test, seldom translate onto the street.
sounds good to me Rick W, next the companies will increase their rates to pay for this testing that should have been going on anyway...
Skywalker
17-06-2008
Any statistics?
Are there any statistics on the age of a bus driver in an accident to justify this. Frankly I don't know why anyone at age 65 would want transport 30 screaming kids around but hey, it the stats show a problem. But if not then send this idea back to the guy who thought up the Edsel.
mjscox
17-06-2008
older = safer
As a professional driver, age 53, I see more reckless driving by young and inexperienced drivers than by older drivers. However, I do realize and appreciate that the older one gets, the slower one's responses, so testing of older drivers, particularly professional drivers but actually it should be of all drivers over x years, is an important component of road safety. The other issue here is that we are an aging population. If you continue to discriminate against older drivers, and older workers in general, which is something the province realized when it brought in this new law, you will find yourself operating with an imbalanced, mostly inexperienced workforce. Obviously I have a stake in this, as I only began driving professionally last year, but I think most drivers in their fifties and sixties are much safer and better drivers than those in their twenties and thirties, and this is borne out by insurance statistics.
murdock
17-06-2008
somehow 'safety' is not the issue?
I think rate of pay and insurance liability issues are the core of this situation.
But that is just my musing.
Home schooled children do not need busses anyway.
RickW
17-06-2008
murdock
I thought it was a gov'mint thing, this testing..................(not that it would stop ICBC, etc. from raising rates just the same)
Fii
17-06-2008
Can we please start with
Can we please start with making the use of cell phones while driving illegal and enforce the damn law? That is THE single most distracting, annoying and utterly selfish thing a driver of any age can do.
ME2
18-06-2008
Re reaction times
IMO, this whole issue of reaction times being a major cause of accidents is a red herring which has arisen, and been given the credibility it now has, is the logical result of the illogical "zero tolerance" campaigns re alcohol consumption.
My observation over the years is that alcohol related accidents are by far in the main caused by those who are bad drivers when sober and who are even worse when inhibitions are lowered when drinking to excess. The kid who regularly speeds is such an example, and it is not reaction times, but foolish bravado which is the cause of the accidents he/she initiates.
Normal driving has little similarity to race-car driving, for example, where the driver tests car and driving conditions to the max, and where the tiniest error and faulty reaction can result in an accident.
Rather, most traffic accidents are caused by someone's stupidity and/or road conditions, and usually third parties have few if any options of avoidance - their reaction time notwithstanding.
Safe driving and avoidance of possible accidents is entirely dependant upon developing good driving habits, and practicing defensive driving. This latter includes recognising and then avoiding situations which involve unacceptable risk. No-one can be taught all these tricks, they have to be learned.
So, while it is possible to discover a micro-seconds deviation in an older driver's reaction time, there is no way to estimate the number of accidents her/his experience has already avoided, or will cause to be avoided in the future.
And one might even venture to say that hiring the younger - but less experienced - driver could even result in MORE accidents !!
Moat
18-06-2008
Hmmmm, tricky to compare
statement:
This is a tricky statement, as kilometers per year are not taken into account in these stats. I would say that younger drivers are on the road (twenties and thirties) more than older drivers.
That being said, the intentional risks that older drivers take are probably much less.
Unless we can do klicks per year, comparing the old with the young is vague at best.
Stump
18-06-2008
age, cars, idiots
It's been my experience that age is no barrier to stupidity, esp. on the part of drivers. As a long time Vancouver cyclist I can assure one and all that apparently rich men (going by SUV make and model) are among the biggest pricks on the road, followed a close second by the Petro-Princesses (similar vehicle, different sex)
People in a hurry (all ages, races, income brackets) are a huge danger to others on the road. Additionally, unlike ME2, I have no problem with zero tolerance with regard to cars and alcohol. Just as a pilot has care and control of hundreds of lives when the 747 takes off, one has a duty of care and attention to everyone else using public spaces when driving.
I can think of no voluntary activity that takes a toll on human lives the way driving does. It's a sign of our addiction to cars that we put up with it... and even allow our pushers to advertise to us with false promises and downright lies.
As to the subject at hand, The clear and simple solution is to test all drivers at least bi-annually. Bus drivers, taxi drivers, police, fire, ambulance, average citizen. No exceptions, no excuses. If you're not willing to take an hour out of your life every couple of years for the privilege of piloting a guided missile around town, then I guess it's just tough luck.
ME2
18-06-2008
Driver testing
Stump, your suggestion of bi-annual testing of all drivers would prove of little value if only reaction times, hearing, sight, etc were tested.
But I am in full agreement, however, when you say :
"I can think of no voluntary activity that takes a toll on human lives the way driving does."
Re your complaint about SUV drivers, I doubt it is their arrogance you percieve. Rather it is fear induced by the size of their vehicle, translated into self-preservation.
If my observations of the typical SUV driver are correct, the vast majority of them have a very poor idea of where their vehicle is in relation to other cars or the road. The most often seen instance of this is the way they hog the center of the road, and this is the result of their not having any idea of where their right-hand tire is, relative to the lane/road's edge. Surprisingly, I think this is also true of the kids with their "monster" trucks.
I would be willing to bet money that if a 6-inch objective was marked on the road, few drivers (of ordinary cars too) would be able to run over it with either right OR left front tire. Similarly,few would be able to fit their vehicle into a space one foot wider than their vehicle in one fluid motion, or park within a foot of a barrier that is below hood height.
Murdock offered an excellent suggestion above :
"What is wrong with a SKILLS requirement every 2 years, that increases to every year after 64?(Capitalising mine)
Clearly, if driving was not an activity which everyone considers to be his or her "right", the latter suggestion would have been put in place a long time ago. Where else is such hopeful faith concerning competence tolerated?
If skill testing was done, my guess is that a lot of drivers would either lose their licences, or learn to be in complete control of their vehicles. After the first couple of testings, very likely they'd become unnecessary.
Stump
19-06-2008
SUV drivers
Nah ME2, it's arrogance. Nobody buys one of those monstrosities because they're going into the woods to hunt or fish. Nobody buys one of those gas-guzzlers after they consider their own debt to the planet. They buy them because they want to look 'big'. Arrogance.
Further, to skills-testing. I meant a road test bi-annually. Should have made that distinction.
Your characterization of people treating driving as a 'right' however is spot on.
Unfortunately, we built our cities... not on rock and roll, but with the car in mind as the primary form of transport. No wonder people feel driving is their entitlement, we created an atmosphere where it's ubiquitous and 'everyone' does it.
On the road to hell, North America is definitely in the fast lane. Once again returning to the subject at hand, if school bus drivers aren't the most highly-trained and tested users on the road, it really just says something about how all our hot air about children being the future and a resource to be valued is pure poppycock.