Ever ride public transit and wonder why you don’t have to wear a seat belt?
I sure have.
As a personal injury lawyer, we get calls all of the time from people who have been injured taking public transit. People fall because a bus stops suddenly. People get injured in a serious public transit collision. Are these accidents preventable had people been wearing a seatbelt. Or, perhaps, would the injuries to the riders be less significant, or even non-existent, if seatbelts were required.
And I wondered what it would look like if there were laws requiring riders to buckle up on buses, subways or streetcars.
Would things be safer? Would transit slow down because riders were required to buckle up? Would taking a bus or a streetcar be less convenient? Would having a wear a seatbelt act as a deterrent to people taking public transit? Would transit police really enforce these laws and ticket people?
I was very curious as to how this would ever play out. Seeing as I don’t manage a City’s operations, or those of a public transit provider, I would just have to wait and see it play out in the real world. And, wait patiently I did until it finally played out.
And, I would like to share with you what happened.
Our story takes us to Hong Kong where in late 2025 the government introduced legislation requiring all riders of public buses and other forms of public transportation to wear seat belts. The laws kicked in on January 25, 2026. Failure to do so would result in a fine of $5,000HKD (approximately $872CAD) and up to three months in jail! These were, by our measure, the steepest fines we could find for not wearing a seatbelt around; in particular as they related to riders taking public transit. There was now an element of “risk” whenever you rode on a public bus.
Consider that bus fares in Hong Kong vary depending on the route and length of the journey. Urban local fares typically range from $2.30-$52.60 HKD (.40c – $9.15CAD). Imagine paying .40 cents; and getting hit with an $872 ticket, plus potential jail time. You’d better make sure to buckle up with those penalties. Some people may have been deterred from riding the bus knowing of the potential consequences if they forget to buckle up.
But the laws only applied to seated passengers. It did not apply to standing passengers on a crowded bus. I’m not sure how the law would apply on an empty bus if a passenger chose to stand instead of sit. Would you be forced to sit and buckle up if there were seats available? How would that be enforced? What would happen if you did not want to sit, or you did not want to sit next to a certain person for whatever reason. Here is a reason: The person you were forced to sit next to was unhygienic. I can recall many a travel on public transit standing or sitting next to someone who had smelled like they defecated in their pants or who vomited on the trip.
Here was a report:
“Nobody move! It’s the police!” a plainclothes officer who had been posing as a passenger is seen saying as he rises from his seat, brandishes his credentials, and points out all those without seat belts secured.
That sting resulted in 31 passengers receiving fines. Even before the Jan 25 law kicked in, passengers on minibuses and cars were already required to don seat belts.
There was a story out of Hong Kong that one rider put on his seatbelt. But, it would not unbuckle. There was a piece of foil in the buckle mechanism which prevented it from unbuckling. The passenger was stuck for around 45 minutes and very uncomfortable. Police, ambulance and firefighters had to attend at the scene to free the passenger, who was eventually transported to hospital to make sure that they were ok. You can only imagine the panic and embarrassment being trapped on a bus for 45 minutes; needing to be released by emergency personnel?
The public outcry against these laws was deafening; to the point the government repealed them completely. The experiment of requiring seatbelts for public transit riders had gone totally wrong. A new seatbelt regulation for public transit users has not been considered.
This is not to suggest that a public seatbelt law on public transit cannot work. But, it shows that much like any law; if it’s not properly thought out, studied, and subject to public consultation; it likely won’t work out the way that it was intended. Or, perhaps the intention of the law works; only it’s not well received and there is so much public backlash that the law has to be repealed. Can you imagine Hong Kong Courts having to deal with trials for people who aren’t wearing their seatbelts on public transit. Leading to an overcrowding problem at prisons which become full of convicts who are guilty of not wearing a seat belt on public transit?
Is there a future where these laws become more prevalent? Not sure. It’s clear that the Hong Kong experiment failed in spectacular fashion. But, this is not to suggest that it cannot work at all. For starters, the potential jail time of not wearing a seat belt on a public transit bus is a bit much. But the idea of having functional seat belts on buses or street cars isn’t crazy. Penalizing people for not wearing them is a bit of a stretch considering that many passengers stand up because they can’t find a seat or don’t want to sit down. If you are enforcing a penalty for not wearing a seat belt on a bus, are you also then compelled to enforce a penalty for those passengers who are standing but not holding onto a grab bar? It would be a pretty arbitrary application of the law when it comes to enforcement which does not make for good law. But, how about just having seatbelts for passengers, without the laws. If you want to wear them..Great! If not…fine…and you’ll have the peace of mind that you won’t have to pay a fine or go to jail. That would sit right with me.