text:
Talk:Flag of Russia

May 2004
Image:Russian_SFSR_flag_medium.png doesn't exist. 217.132.59.190 17:28, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

Untitled
I couldn't verify (nor disprove) contribution of 64.228.152.240. Doesn't look like a vandalism, but... Nikola 11:05, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How is the MOSCOW coat of arms relevant? It is the capital, but it isn't related to the nation's flag.

--- The Moscow coat of arms is that of St. George (Giorgi) and was adopted by the Muscovy before the Russian Empire was proclaimed. It subsequently became the symbol of the state even though the capital was no longer in Moscow. It has no relevance to the flag because it predates the flag of Peter I. Marky 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) markrich

I need help with my project
why are the colors red, blue, and white? For example maybe blue is for the water because there is a big lake in russia and whatever I really need to know this because my project on russia is due tommorow.

Pan-Slavic colours.71.19.6.20 16:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

--- My understanding is that there isn't a reason for the colours. They never meant anything officially (unlike the Ukrainian flag [blue sky, golden wheat field], although many myths have been made to their purpose. The colours were chosen because many flags in Western Europe used red-white-blue as their colours and Peter I adopted those for Russia (subsequently adopted from there to other Slavic states).  They weren't chosen only because of the Netherlands flag, although it would have had an influence.  The meaning of the flag colours was popular after the dissolution of the USSR because everything was 'new'.  Tradditional flags again became popular (although Lukachenko reversed this for his state and returned a variation of the Soviet Belorussia flag) after the 'independence' of the Soviet Republics due to nationalist groups keen on creating a identity continuous with pre-soviet history.  Many of those, however, were never independent states prior to their creation by the USSR. Marky 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) markrich

 * I added a subsection about this, linking to a popular flag site with several theories being alleged. The real meaning of the colors, even if one existed at some point, is probably either completely lost in history, or requires expert research to uncover. Nevertheless, there doesn't seem to be a problem with the number of theories proposed for the subject, not the least because making a guess as to the origin of three colors doesn't require any special education, or anything at all for that matter save for imagination. IgorSF 07:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * When I did my research on the Russian flag back in 2001, I was pointed to a lot of theories. Two of the theories I have found came from a similar source, the Russian Consulate in San Francisco (website has a 404 error now.) Officially, now, there is no symbolism tied to the flag according to the Constitution. Even the members of the Russian Center of Vexillology and Hearldry state that there is no official symbolism tied to the colors. I do not have a personal meaning that I stick with, but if this article is expanded, I would suggest to include the majority existing ones, which we list on FOTW. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC) (Zachary Harden from FOTW)

 * In fact, I also remember the same consular link, which now shows a 404 from an SF-based Russian TV company for some reason. Although the opinion of a Russian counsel is certainly not "official", it's nevertheless an interesting trivia info. Having interest in both flags and Russia of my own, I may indeed expand this article in the way you suggested. If that happens, using some of the flags stored on FOTW may prove useful, but according to my cursory check, they prohibit commercial use of images, thereby not allowing GFDL licencing. If you know otherwise, or perhaps a different way of using these flags, I'd appreciate knowing about it. Although I suppose it's not entirely too difficult to recreate most of the world's flags in a basic image editor. IgorSF 03:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do know SVG so I can pretty much do any of the flags you wish to use for this article. The Russian flag, in SVG, was done by me based on the Kremlin website and Russian Constitution. I did the Victory Banner and some other Russian flags, so I can do the others. Let me know what is needed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

RussiaPresentation of Russia; Description of the flag; Flag day; Origin of the flag; Supposed color meanings; Flag mourning; Russian flag museum; Flag related ... www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru.html - 19k - Cached - Similar pages Russian FlagAllegedly, he based Russia's flag on the flag of the Netherlands, making it a tricolour with three equal horizontal fields, but he chose Russian colors for ... www.russianstory.com/flag.html - 12k - Cached - Similar pages —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.13.9 (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Change to red flag
The article states that the tricolor was discarded by the Bolshevik's after the 1917 revolution. This is probably wrong and needs clarification. My understanding is that the Petrograd Soviet changed the flag to the red one (without additional symbols) after the February 1917 revolution and not the Bolsheviks in the October revolution. Marky 14:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC) markrich
 * Petrograd Soviet was a representative body of Petrograd city workers, and altough it had great political influence it was a local institution. Russian Provisional Government continued to use tricolor as national flag.95.27.63.245 (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

External links / Exact colours?
The external links don't work as the website moved to http://www.rsnet.ru/

I couldn't find the appropriate pages there, maybe someone who understands the russian language better?

Are the exact colours specified? On Russian sleeping-cars painted in the national colours they are RAL 9016, RAL 5003 and RAL 3001 (though most of the roof is in RAL 7042 as white would look dirty too soon). But this may only be the interpretation of RZD or DWA Görlitz.

--84.115.129.76 (talk) 01:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-1858 flag
The Russian Empire didn't have a flag before 1858. The flag illustrated represents "colours" chosen for "celebrations and notable events" by several Russian monarchs, but these were not exclusively so, or used only as flags. The colours were also used in officer sashes and in cockades. However, the cockade was changed sometimes to black and white, notably by Alexander I. This caused confusion with edits in the flag used in the Battle of Borodino article which displayed the eagle because the eagle was the Imperial symbol (double eagle).

This Imperial symbol was displayed on the standards of every regiment, and the personal flags of all the generals, and indeed the Tsar. The double eagle on the tricolour flag was therefore the most appropriate symbol to use in the article in absence of another image.

For the record, the Russian Imperial Army followed a European convention of flags where the regiments were issued with a regimental and a "King's" (in this case Tsar's) standard, the later being "national". In Russia as elsewhere this was white, representing Peace (the ideal of an ideal monarch), emblazoned with the Imperial symbol, the double eagle.--mrg3105 (comms) If you're not taking any flak, you're not over the target. 03:29, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

 * See below. Викидим (talk) 03:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

USSR flag
Given that modern Russia is considered to be the successor state to the USSR, therefore sharing a continuous existence with it, shouldn't the Flag of the Soviet Union be here as well, even if was the flag for more than just Russia? --superioridad (discusión) 09:06, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The layout of the article mentions the USSR flag, but it is all messed up. The USSR flag is mentioned in the variant section, which is quite odd. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, belongs in Soviet flag article.--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

1668 flag?
I don't see any sources for the 1668 flag from the Russian frigate Oryol. We know the colors from the historical record, but what's the basis for the cross-like arrangement? --Amble (talk) 07:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Volkov Claims
The information about the date of "re-adopting" Russian three-colour state flag is not quite correct. On 22. August 1991 only parliamentary decision had been adopted to rise this flag over the building of parliament (White House). This was made under suggestion of deputy Leonid Volkov in order to demonstrate the democratic victory over antidemocratic putchists and continuity of Russian democratic tradition from Russian Revolution of February 1917. To establish this Banner as an permanent state flag it was necessary to change Russian Constitution, what at that moment had not been possible.I, Leonid Volkov, had been that deputy. The event is protocolled. It had been also transmitted by CNN television. ''— Dr. Leonid Volkov. mail : allikv@mail.ru''

Doubt the post above
Some of that might be true, but I doubt "and continuity of Russian democratic tradition from Russian Revolution of February 1917", since Russia never had a democratic tradition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.214.9.248 (talk) 10:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

 * In 1917 the Provisional Government attempeted to convert Russia into a democratic state, which was interrupted by the Bolsheviks rule. Re-adoption of the tricolor flag in 1991 symoblized continuation of the democratization policy which was started in February 1917. Hellerick (talk) 14:13, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Official colors
See commons:File talk:Flag of Russia.svg. Colors used Russian government in state purchases (zakupki.gov.ru) are Pantone 286 C ( #0039a6 ) and Pantone 485 C ( #d52b1e ). --Sasha Krotov (talk) 21:09, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

restoring original version.
the current shade of colours used in the article is incorrect, there is no real evidence for darkning the colours can someone please restore the original shade of colours as in http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/f/f3/20120812153730%21Flag_of_Russia.svg 90.129.78.238 (talk) 20:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Flag of Russia. The image is not hosted on Wikipedia, but at - the relevant discussion page is therefore commons:File talk:Flag of Russia.svg; please also see the section immediately before this one. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Colour of middle strip on current flag is fake
I wonder who came up with (obviously someone from the lower officials) that the middle strip should be dark blue? It's not the US flag. Historical black-and-white photographs show that the middle band is lighter the bottom - this can only happen if it is AZURE, not blue-purple as shown on "current" flag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bearg (talk • contribs) 10:24, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see the thread directly above. Also, observe the WP:NOR policy. Personal interpretations of the colours in a black-and-white photo is neither a reliable source, nor is it verifiable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:20, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation
I've seen some ww1 Wikipedia articles use the private 1914 flag with the bird on the top left while some others use the formal flag without it, which one should be there Consistency hobgoblin (talk) 05:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * WIthout. "Private flag" was, at best, "co-national", additional flag and it did not repeal/replace plain WBR flag - and it is evident from Russian document about the flag, which explicitly contrasted "flag-symbol" (flag with the Imperial standard) with the Russian national flag (plain WBR). So, the plain white-blue-red flag remained main flag of Russia until the October Revolution. Bests, --Seryo93 (talk) 07:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Readdition of the old flags?
I remember older versions of this article having the flags of the russian empire, so why can't the be re added back into this article? I know they are in a different article, but it would be FAR better if they were in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LockyHimself (talk • contribs) 12:25, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Flag of Russia (democratic)
That section seems to contain advocacy content, violating WP:NOTADVOCACY. I don't think that all Russians who want the end of the war feel the urge to change the national flag. The current flag of Russia is not a symbol of Putin's regime, meanwhile the "proposed" flag (by whom?) doesn't have any connection with the Russian vexillological history. -Dziego~enwiki (talk) 21:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article should mention the proposed flag. Removed parts that might be considered advocacy. Suggest that any further development should be productive. The flag exists now in Russian hisotory and should therefore be in the article and edited accordingly later on. If it is used, adopted or banned by actors of the stage. Wikipedia is here to record it. All this should be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spespatriae (talk • contribs) 00:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The content of the proposed flag section still does not meet the notability guidelines of Wikipedia (WP:N). The article must provide reliable and independent sources which indicate that the flag is being used by some advocacy group. Has that flag been used in any rally in Russia? Compare, for example, the proposed flag of Belarus, which contains solid proof that it is used by those from the Belarussian people who oppose Lukashenko.

Also, the section title must change from "Flag of Russia (democratic)" to "Proposed flag of democratic Russia". -Dziego~enwiki (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 * Yes, it has been used in several rallies. The photographic evidence can be seen in the web page.
 * It seems to be on going phenomena and we shall seen what the actual purpose of the flag will become.
 * Should be added in the page - maybe later when things cool down.
 * https://whitebluewhite.info Spespatriae (talk) 20:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian Flag of 1991/93
Hi

Did you know why Putin's United Russia and pro-Russians in Ukraine used in Donbas and Crimea the previous flag of Russia? --Panam2014 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Russian flag violates the principles of vexillology ?
https://meduza.io/en/feature/2022/03/16/a-new-symbol-of-russia-s-anti-war-movement

According to Western symbology expert Michel Pastoureau, when it comes to flags, there are two types of colors. Group one includes gold, yellow, silver, and white, while group two includes colors like red, blue, black, and green. On a well-designed flag, no two colors from the same group should touch; they should be separated by a color from the other group. (In Russia's flag, the blue and red stripes touch.) --Espoo (talk) 13:07, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Who freaking cares? Just look at Gallery of sovereign state flags. Guten morgen deutschland some french fry eater thinks your flag is wrong! Loew Galitz (talk) 19:14, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Citation needed and opinion statements.
'''During the dissolution of the Soviet Union, after the 1991 August Coup, the Russian SFSR adopted a new flag design that looked almost identical to the pre-revolutionary tricolour that had been abolished in 1917. The ratio of the new flag was 1:2, and the flag colours consisted of white on the top, azure in the middle, and scarlet on the bottom. The flag design remained the same until 1993, when the original Russian tricolour was fully restored as the current flag after the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis.''' This is what I am changing it to but without a citation to back these statements presented as facts I will have to take the hatchet to this even more. I am moving this statement to a more relevant section where it belongs.
 * no citation
 * original Russian tricolour vs pre-revolutionary tricolour?
 * that looked almost identical is an opinion
 * does not belong in the introduction. Should be in the section 1991–present: Russian Federation

'''During the dissolution of the Soviet Union, after the 1991 August Coup, the Russian SFSR adopted a new flag design similar to the pre-revolutionary tricolour that had been abolished in 1917. The ratio of the new flag was 1:2, and the flag colours consisted of white on the top, blue in the middle, and red on the bottom. The flag design remained the same until 1993, when the original Russian tricolour was fully restored as the current flag after the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis.''' The Impartial Truth (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
 * First Russian National Army.jpg

Russian Flag
Essay 103.106.136.22 (talk) 10:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 April 2024
There vandalism on the infobox ManU9827 (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

 * This is the most bizarre bug I've ever seen on Wikipedia. There is no indication inside the wikitext of anything that might cause this, and it doesn't show up in preview mode either. Liu1126 (talk) 13:28, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ See Special:Diff/1221201657. Liu1126 (talk) 13:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

New category
Needs Category:Tricolours flags. 92.71.60.61 (talk) 13:03, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Can somebody please add this?

Replaced?
To the best of my knowledge (based on the Great Russian Encyclopedia article), the flag in 1858 did not replace another one: it was a first proclamation of a national flag. I have introduced cn in the text and if there would be no objections, I will replace the text using the GRE as a source. Викидим (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Flag of Russia


text:
School bus

A school bus is any type of bus owned, leased, contracted to, or operated by a school or school district. It is regularly used to transport students to and from school or school-related activities, but not including a charter bus or transit bus. Various configurations of school buses are used worldwide; the most iconic examples are the yellow school buses of the United States which are also found in other parts of the world.

In North America, school buses are purpose-built vehicles distinguished from other types of buses by design characteristics mandated by federal and state/provincial regulations. In addition to their distinct paint color (National School Bus Glossy Yellow), school buses are fitted with exterior warning lights (to give them traffic priority) and multiple safety devices.

19th century

In the second half of the 19th century, many rural areas of the United States and Canada were served by one-room schools. For those students who lived beyond practical walking distance from school, transportation was facilitated in the form of the kid hack; at the time, "hack" was a term referring to certain types of horse-drawn carriages. Essentially re-purposed farm wagons, kid hacks were open to the elements, with little to no weather protection.

In 1892, Indiana-based Wayne Works (later Wayne Corporation) produced its first "school car" A purpose-built design, the school car was constructed with perimeter-mounted wooden bench seats and a roof (the sides remained open). As a horse-drawn wagon, the school car was fitted with a rear entrance door (intended to avoid startling the horses while loading or unloading passengers); over a century later, the design remains in use (as an emergency exit).

In 1869, Massachusetts became the first state to add transportation to public education; by 1900, 16 other states would transport students to school.

1900–1930
Following the first decade of the 20th century, several developments would affect the design of the school bus and student transport. As vehicles evolved from horse-drawn to "horseless" propulsion on a wider basis, the wagon bodies of kid hacks and school cars were adapted to truck frames. While transitioning into purpose-built designs, a number of features from wagons were retained, including wood construction, perimeter bench seating, and rear entry doors. Weather protection remained minimal; some designs adopted a tarpaulin stretched above the passenger seating.

In 1915, International Harvester constructed its first school bus; today, its successor company Navistar still produces school bus cowled chassis.

In 1919, the usage of school buses became funded in all 48 U.S. states.

In 1927, Ford dealership owner A.L. Luce produced a bus body for a 1927 Ford Model T. The forerunner of the first Blue Bird school buses, steel was used to panel and frame the bus body; wood was relegated to a secondary material. While fitted with a roof, the primary weather protection of the Luce bus design included roll-up canvas side curtains.

1930s
During the 1930s, school buses saw advances in their design and production that remain in use to this day. To better adapt automotive chassis design, school bus entry doors were moved from the rear to the front curbside, becoming a door operated by the driver (to ease loading passengers and improve forward visibility). The rear entry door of the kid hacks were re-purposed (as an emergency exit).

Following the introduction of the steel-paneled 1927 Luce bus, school bus manufacturing began to transition towards all-steel construction. In 1930, both Superior and Wayne introduced all-steel school buses; the latter introduced safety glass windows for its bus body.

As school bus design paralleled the design of light to medium-duty commercial trucks of the time, the advent of forward-control trucks would have their own influence on school bus design. In an effort to gain extra seating capacity and visibility, Crown Coach built its own cabover school bus design from the ground up. Introduced in 1932, the Crown Supercoach seated up to 76 passengers, the highest-capacity school bus of the time.

As the 1930s progressed, flat-front school buses began to follow motorcoach design in styling as well as engineering, gradually adopting the term "transit-style" for their appearance. In 1940, the first mid-engined transit school bus was produced by Gillig in California.

Developing production standards
The custom-built nature of school buses created an inherent obstacle to their profitable mass production on a large scale. Although school bus design had moved away from the wagon-style kid hacks of the generation before, there was not yet a recognized set of industry-wide standards for school buses.

In 1939, rural education expert Dr. Frank W. Cyr organized a week-long conference at Teachers College, Columbia University that forever changed the design and production of school buses. Funded by a $5,000 grant, Dr. Cyr invited transportation officials, representatives from body and chassis manufacturers, and paint companies. To reduce the complexity of school bus production and increase safety, a set of 44 standards were agreed upon and adopted by the attendees (such as interior and exterior dimensions and the forward-facing seating configuration). To allow for large-scale production of school buses among body manufacturers, adoption of these standards allowed for greater consistency among body manufacturers.

While many of the standards of the 1939 conference have been modified or updated, one part of its legacy remains a key part of every school bus in North America today: the adoption of a standard paint color for all school buses. While technically named "National School Bus Glossy Yellow", school bus yellow was adopted for use since it was considered easiest to see in dawn and dusk, and it contrasted well with black lettering. While not universally used worldwide, yellow has become the shade most commonly associated with school buses both in North America and abroad.

1940s
During WWII school bus manufacturers converted to military production, manufacturing buses and license-built trucks for the military. Following the war, school bus operation would see a number of changes, following developments within education systems.

Following WWII and the rise of suburban growth in North America, demand for school busing increased outside of rural areas; in suburbs and larger urban areas, community design often made walking to school impractical beyond a certain distance from home (particularly as students progressed into high school). In all but the most isolated areas, one-room schools from the turn of the century had become phased out in favor of multi-grade schools introduced in urban areas. In another change, school districts shifted bus operation from buses operated by single individuals to district-owned fleets (operated by district employees).

1950s–1960s
From 1950 to 1982, the baby boomer generation was either in elementary or high school, leading to a significant increase in student populations across North America; this would be a factor that would directly influence school bus production for over three decades.

During the 1950s, as student populations began to grow, larger school buses began to enter production. To increase seating capacity (extra rows of seats), manufacturers began to produce bodies on heavier-duty truck chassis; transit-style school buses also grew in size. In 1954, the first diesel-engined school bus was introduced, with the first tandem-axle school bus in 1955 (a Crown Supercoach, expanding seating to 91 passengers).

To improve accessibility, at the end of the 1950s, manufacturers developed a curbside wheelchair lift option to transport wheelchair-using passengers. In modified form, the design remains in use today.

During the 1950s and 1960s, manufacturers also began to develop designs for small school buses, optimized for urban routes with crowded, narrow streets along with rural routes too isolated for a full-size bus. For this role, manufacturers initially began the use of yellow-painted utility vehicles such as the International Travelall and Chevrolet Suburban. As another alternative, manufacturers began use of passenger vans, such as the Chevrolet Van/GMC Handi-Van, Dodge A100, and Ford Econoline; along with yellow paint, these vehicles were fitted with red warning lights. While more maneuverable, automotive-based school buses did not offer the reinforced passenger compartment of a full-size school bus.

Structural integrity
During the 1960s, as with standard passenger cars, concerns began to arise for passenger protection in catastrophic traffic collisions. At the time, the weak point of the body structure was the body joints; where panels and pieces were riveted together, joints could break apart in major accidents, with the bus body causing harm to passengers.

After subjecting a bus to a rollover test in 1964, in 1969, Ward Body Works pointing that fasteners had a direct effect on joint quality (and that body manufacturers were using relatively few rivets and fasteners). In its own research, Wayne Corporation discovered that the body joints were the weak points themselves. In 1973, to reduce the risk of body panel separation, Wayne introduced the Wayne Lifeguard, a school bus body with single-piece body side and roof stampings. While single-piece stampings seen in the Lifeguard had their own manufacturing challenges, school buses of today use relatively few side panels to minimize body joints.

1970s
During the 1970s, school buses would undergo a number of design upgrades related to safety. While many changes were related to protecting passengers, others were intended to minimize the chances of traffic collisions. To decrease confusion over traffic priority (increasing safety around school bus stops), federal and state regulations were amended, requiring for many states/provinces to add amber warning lamps inboard of the red warning lamps. Similar to a yellow traffic light, the amber lights are activated before stopping (at 100-300 ft distance), indicating to drivers that a school bus is about to stop and unload/load students. Adopted by a number of states during the mid-1970s, amber warning lights became nearly universal equipment on new school buses by the end of the 1980s. To supplement the additional warning lights and to help prevent drivers from passing a stopped school bus, a stop arm was added to nearly all school buses; connected to the wiring of the warning lights, the deployable stop arm extended during a bus stop with its own set of red flashing lights.

In the 1970s, school busing expanded further, under controversial reasons; a number of larger cities began to bus students in an effort to racially integrate schools. Out of necessity, the additional usage created further demand for bus production.

Industry safety regulations
From 1939 to 1973, school bus production was largely self-regulated. In 1973, the first federal regulations governing school buses went into effect, as FMVSS 217 was required for school buses; the regulation governed specifications of rear emergency exit doors/windows. Following the focus on school bus structural integrity, NHTSA introduced the four Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for School Buses, applied on April 1, 1977, bringing significant change to the design, engineering, and construction of school buses and a substantial improvement in safety performance.

While many changes related to the 1977 safety standards were made under the body structure (to improve crashworthiness), the most visible change was to passenger seating. In place of the metal-back passenger seats seen since the 1930s, the regulations introduced taller seats with thick padding on both the front and back, acting as a protective barrier. Further improvement has resulted from continuing efforts by the U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Transport Canada, as well as by the bus industry and various safety advocates. As of 2020 production, all of these standards remain in effect.

As manufacturers sought to develop safer school buses, small school buses underwent a transition away from automotive-based vehicles. The introduction of cutaway van chassis allowed bus manufacturers to mate a van cab with a purpose-built bus body, using the same construction as a full-size school bus. Within the same length as a passenger van, buses such as the Wayne Busette and Blue Bird Micro Bird offered additional seating capacity, wheelchair lifts, and the same body construction as larger school buses.

1980s–1990s
For school bus manufacturers, the 1980s marked a period of struggle, following a combination of factors. As the decade began, the end of the baby-boom generation had finished high school; with a decrease in student population growth, school bus manufacturing was left with a degree of overcapacity. Coupled with the recession economy of the early 1980s, the decline in demand for school bus production left several manufacturers in financial ruin. To better secure their future, during the 1990s, school bus manufacturers underwent a period of transition, with several ownership changes leading to joint ventures and alignments between body manufacturers and chassis suppliers.

In 1986, with the signing of the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act, school bus drivers across the United States became required to acquire a commercial driver's license (CDL). While CDLs were issued by individual states, the federal CDL requirement ensured that drivers of all large vehicles (such as school buses) had a consistent training level.

In contrast to the 1970s focus on structural integrity, design advances during the 1980s and 1990s focused around the driver. In 1979 and 1980, International Harvester and Ford each introduced a new-generation bus chassis, with General Motors following suit in 1984. To increase driver visibility, updates in line with chassis redesigns shifted the bus driver upward, outward, and forward. To decrease driver distraction, interior controls were redesigned with improved ergonomics; automatic transmissions came into wider use, preventing the risk of stalling (in hazardous places such as intersections or railroad crossings). Initially introduced during the late 1960s, crossview mirrors came into universal use, improving the view of the blind spots in front of the bus while loading or unloading. To supplement the rear emergency door in an evacuation, manufacturers introduced additional emergency exits during the 1980s, including roof-mounted escape hatches and outward-opening exit windows. Side-mounted exit doors (originally introduced on rear-engine buses), became offered on front-engine and conventional-body buses as a supplemental exit.

Alongside safety, body and chassis manufacturers sought to advance fuel economy of school buses. During the 1980s, diesel engines came into wide use in conventional and small school buses, gradually replacing gasoline-fueled engines. In 1987, International became the first chassis manufacturer to offer diesel engines exclusively, with Ford following suit in 1990.

While conventional-style buses remained the most widely produced full-size school bus, interest in forward visibility, higher seating capacity, and shorter turning radius led to a major expansion of market share of the transit-style configuration, coinciding with several design introductions in the late 1980s. Following the 1986 introduction of the Wayne Lifestar, the AmTran Genesis, Blue Bird TC/2000, and Thomas Saf-T-Liner MVP would prove far more successful.

During the 1990s, small school buses shifted further away from their van-conversion roots. In 1991, Girardin launched the MB-II, combining a single rear-wheel van chassis with a full cutaway bus body. Following the 1992 redesign of the Ford E-Series and the 1997 launch of Chevrolet Express/GMC Savana cutaway chassis, manufacturers followed suit, developing bodies to optimize loading-zone visibility. As manufacturers universally adopted cutaway bodies for single rear-wheel buses, the use of the Dodge Ram Van chassis was phased out. By 2005 the United States government banned the use of 15-passenger vans for student transport, leading to the introduction of Multi-Function School Activity Buses (MFSAB). To better protect passengers, MFSABs share the body structure and compartmentalized seating layout of school buses. Not intended (nor allowed) for uses requiring traffic priority, they are not fitted with school bus warning lights or stop arms (nor are they painted school bus yellow).

Manufacturer transitions
In 1980, school buses were manufactured by six body manufacturers (Blue Bird, Carpenter, Superior, Thomas, Ward, Wayne) and three chassis manufacturers (Ford, General Motors, and International Harvester); in California, two manufacturers (Crown and Gillig) manufactured transit-style school buses using proprietary chassis (sold primarily across the West Coast). From 1980 to 2001, all eight bus manufacturers would undergo periods of struggle and ownership changes. In 1980, Ward filed for bankruptcy, reorganizing as AmTran in 1981. The same year, Superior was liquidated by its parent company, closing its doors. Under its company management, Superior was split into two manufacturers, with Mid Bus introducing small buses in 1981 and a reorganized Superior producing full-size buses from 1982 to 1985. At the end of 1989, Carpenter would file for bankruptcy, emerging from it in 1990. In 1991, Crown Coach would close its doors forever; Gillig produced its last school bus in 1993. Following several ownership changes, Wayne Corporation was liquidated in 1992; successor Wayne Wheeled Vehicles was closed in 1995. In 2001, Carpenter closed its doors.

During the 1990s, as body manufacturers secured their future, family-owned businesses were replaced by subsidiaries as manufacturers underwent mergers, joint ventures, and acquisitions with major chassis suppliers. In 1991, Navistar began its acquisition of AmTran (fully acquiring it in 1995), phasing out the Ward brand name in 1993. In 1992, Blue Bird would change hands for the first of several times. In 1998, Carpenter was acquired by Spartan Motors and Thomas Built Buses was sold to Freightliner; the latter was the final major school bus manufacturer operating under family control.

Alongside the 1981 introduction of Mid Bus, Corbeil commenced production in Canada and the United States in 1985. Following the second (and final) closure of Superior in 1986, New Bus Company acquired the rights to its body design, producing buses from 1988 to 1989. In 1991, TAM-USA was a joint venture to produce the TAM 252 A 121. Assembled in Slovenia with final assembly in California, the TAM vehicle was to be the first American-market school bus imported from Europe.

In comparison to body manufacturers, chassis suppliers saw a smaller degree of transition. As International Harvester became Navistar International in 1986, the company released updated bus chassis for 1989; in 1996, it produced its first rear-engine bus chassis since 1973. In late 1996, Freightliner produced its first bus chassis, expanding to four manufacturers for the first time since the exit of Dodge in 1977. Ford and General Motors gradually exited out of cowled-chassis production with Ford producing its last chassis after 1998; General Motors exited the segment after 2003. Both Ford and GM continue production today, concentrating on cutaway-van chassis.

2000–present
The beginning of the 21st century would introduce extensive changes to the production of school buses. Though vehicle assembly saw few direct changes, manufacturer consolidation and industry contraction effectively ended the practice of customers selecting body and chassis manufacturers independently. While the aspect of customer choice was largely ended (as a result of corporate ownership and supply agreements), decreased complexity paved the way for new product innovations previously thought impossible. During the 2010s, while diesel engines have remained the primary source of power, manufacturers expanded the availability of alternative-fuel vehicles, including CNG, propane, gasoline, and electric-power buses.

At the beginning of the 2000s, manufacturers introduced a new generation of conventional-style school buses, coinciding with the redesign of several medium-duty truck lines. While Ford and General Motors shifted bus production to cutaway chassis, Freightliner and International released new cowled chassis in 2004 and 2005, respectively. In 2003, Blue Bird introduced the Vision conventional; in line with its transit-style buses, the Vision utilized a proprietary chassis (rather than a design from a medium-duty truck). In 2004, Thomas introduced the Saf-T-Liner C2 (derived from the Freightliner M2), with the body designed alongside its chassis (allowing the use of the production Freightliner dashboard). A trait of both the Vision and C2 (over their predecessors) is improved loading-zone visibility; both vehicles adopted highly sloped hoods and extra glass around the entry door. In 2005, IC introduced a redesigned CE-series to fit the International 3300 chassis; to improve visibility, the windshield was redesigned (eliminating the center post).

Between 2004 and 2008, Advanced Energy, an NC based non-profit created by the NC Utilities Commission begun an effort to move to plug-in hybrid school buses. A business and technical feasibility proved the benefits, and in 2006, 20 districts awarded a contract facilitated by Advanced Energy to IC Bus to produce the buses. Although the buses produced significant benefits, the buses were slowly discontinued when the hybrid system manufacture Enova faded into financial challenges.

In 2011, Lion Bus (renamed Lion Electric Company) of Saint-Jérôme, Quebec was founded, marking the first entry into the segment in over 20 years by a full-size bus manufacturer. Using a chassis supplied by Spartan Motors, Lion produces conventional-style school buses, its design features several firsts for school bus production. Along with a 102-inch body width, to resist corrosion, Lion uses composite body panels in place of steel. In 2015, Lion introduced the eLion, the first mass-produced school bus with a fully electric powertrain.

Small school buses have undergone few fundamental changes to their designs during the 2000s, though the Type B configuration has largely been retired from production. Following the 1998 sale of the General Motors P-chassis to Navistar subsidiary Workhorse, the design began to be phased out in favor of higher-capacity Type A buses. In 2006, IC introduced the BE200 as its first small school bus; a fully cowled Type B, the BE200 shared much of its body with the CE (on a lower-profile chassis). In 2010, IC introduced the AE-series, a cutaway-cab school bus (derived from the International TerraStar). In 2015, the Ford Transit cutaway chassis was introduced (alongside the long-running E350/450); initially sold with a Micro Bird body, the Transit has been offered through several manufacturers. In 2018, the first bus derived from the Ram ProMaster cutaway chassis was introduced; Collins Bus introduced the Collins Low Floor, the first low-floor school bus (of any configuration).

Manufacturing segment stability
Following the 2001 closure of Carpenter, the manufacturing segment has seen a much lower degree of contraction (with the exception of the 2005 failure of startup manufacturer Liberty Bus). Following the bankruptcy of Corbeil, the company was acquired at the end of 2007 by Collins, reorganizing it as a subsidiary (alongside Mid Bus) and shifting production to its Kansas facilities. The same year, U.S. Bus was reorganized as Trans Tech. In 2008, Starcraft Bus entered the segment, producing school buses on cutaway chassis (a 2011 prototype using a Hino chassis was never produced). In 2009, Blue Bird and Girardin entered into a joint venture, named Micro Bird; Girardin develops and produces the Blue Bird small-bus product line in Canada. The 2011 founding of Lion Bus marked the return of bus production to Canada (with the first Canadian-brand full-size buses sold in the United States). During the 2010s, Collins retired the Mid Bus and Corbeil brands (in 2013 and 2016, respectively).

Safety innovations
During the 2000s, school bus safety adopted a number of evolutionary advances. To further improve visibility for other drivers, manufacturers began to replace incandescent lights with LEDs for running lights, turn signals, brake lights, and warning lamps. School bus crossing arms, first introduced in the late 1990s, came into wider use. Electronics took on a new role in school bus operation. To increase child safety and security, alarm systems have been developed to prevent children from being left on unattended school buses overnight. To track drivers who illegally pass school buses loading and unloading students, in the 2010s, some school buses began to adopt exterior cameras synchronized with the deployment of the exterior stop arms. Onboard GPS tracking devices have taken on a dual role of fleet management and location tracking, allowing for internal management of costs and also to alert waiting parents and students of the real-time location of their bus. Seatbelts in school buses underwent a redesign, with lap-type seatbelts phased out in favor of 3-point seatbelts.

Design overview
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), school buses are the safest type of road vehicle. On average, five fatalities involve school-age children on a school bus each year; statistically, a school bus is over 70 times safer than riding to school by car. Many fatalities related to school buses are passengers of other vehicles and pedestrians (only 5% are bus occupants). Since the initial development of consistent school bus standards in 1939, many of the ensuing changes to school buses over the past eight decades have been safety related, particularly in response to more stringent regulations adopted by state and federal governments.

Ever since the adoption of yellow as a standard color in 1939, school buses deliberately integrate the concept of conspicuity into their design. When making student dropoffs or pickups, traffic law gives school buses priority over other vehicles; in order to stop traffic, they are equipped with flashing lights and a stop sign.

As a consequence of their size, school buses have a number of blind spots around the outside of the vehicle which can endanger passengers disembarking a bus or pedestrians standing or walking nearby. To address this safety challenge, a key point of school bus design is focused on exterior visibility, improving the design of bus windows, mirrors, and the windshield to optimize visibility for the driver. In the case of a collision, the body structure of a school bus is designed with an integral roll cage; as a school bus carries a large number of student passengers, a school bus is designed with several emergency exits to facilitate fast egress.

In the United States and Canada, numerous federal and state regulations require school buses to be manufactured as a purpose-built vehicle distinct from other buses. In contrast to buses in use for public transit, dedicated school buses used for student transport are all single-deck, two-axle design (multi-axle designs are no longer in use). Outside of North America, buses utilized for student transport are derived from vehicles used elsewhere in transit systems, including coaches, minibuses, and transit buses.

Types
There are four types of school buses produced by manufacturers in North America. The smallest school buses are designated Type A (short bus); a larger format (bodied on bare front-engine chassis) are designated Type B buses. Large school buses include Type C (bodied on cowled medium-duty truck chassis) and Type D (bodied on bare "forward control" or "pusher" chassis). Type C buses are the most common design, while Type D buses are the largest vehicles.

All school buses are of single deck design with step entry. In the United States and Canada, bus bodies are restricted to a maximum width of 102 in and a maximum length of 45 ft. Seating capacity is affected by both body length and operator specifications, with the largest designs seating up to 90 passengers.

Other formats
In both public and private education systems, other types of school buses are used for purposes of student transport outside of regular route service. Along with their usage, these buses are distinguished from regular yellow school buses by their exterior design.

An "activity bus" is a school bus used for providing transportation for students. In place of home to school route service, an activity bus is primarily used for the purpose for transportation related to extracurricular activities. Depending on individual state/provincial regulations, the bus used for this purpose can either be a regular yellow school bus or a dedicated unit for this purpose. Dedicated activity buses, while not painted yellow, are fitted with the similar interiors as well as the same traffic control devices for dropping off students (at other schools); conversely, it cannot be used in regular route service.

A Multi-Function School Activity Bus (MFSAB) is a bus intended for use in both the private sector and the educational system. While sharing a body structure with a school bus, an MFSAB is not designed for use in route service, as it is not fitted with traffic control devices (i.e., red warning lights, stop arm) nor is it painted school bus yellow. Within the educational system, the design is primarily used for extracurricular activities requiring bus transportation; in the private sector, the MFSAB is intended as a replacement for 15-passenger vans (no longer legal for child transport in either the public or private sector). Many examples are derived from Type A buses (with derivatives of full-size school buses also offered).

Livery
To specifically identify them as such, purpose-built school buses are painted a specific shade of yellow, designed to optimize their visibility for other drivers. In addition to "School Bus" signage in the front and rear above the window line, school buses are labeled with the name of the operator (school district or bus contractor) and an identification number.

Yellow color
Yellow was adopted as the standard color for North American school buses in 1939. In April of that year, rural education specialist Frank W. Cyr organized a national conference at Columbia University to establish production standards for school buses, including a standard exterior color. The color which became known as "school bus yellow" was selected because black lettering on that specific hue was easiest to see in the semi-darkness of early morning and late afternoon. Officially, school bus yellow was designated "National School Bus Chrome"; following the removal of lead from the pigment, it was renamed "National School Bus Glossy Yellow".

Outside the United States and Canada, the association of yellow with school buses has led to its use on school-use buses around the world (although not necessarily required by government specification). Some areas establishing school transport services have conducted evaluations of American yellow-style school buses; to better suit local climate conditions, other governments have established their own color requirements, favoring other high-visibility colors (such as white or orange ).

Retroreflective markings
While its yellow exterior makes it more conspicuous than other vehicles, a school bus can remain hard to see in some low-visibility conditions, including sunrise or sunset, poor weather (all seasons), and in rural areas. To further improve their visibility (to other vehicles), many state and provincial governments (for example, Colorado) require the use of yellow reflective tape on school buses. Marking the length, width, height, and in some cases, identifying the bus as a school bus, reflective tape makes the vehicle easier to see in low light, also marking all emergency exits (so rescue personnel can quickly find them in darkness). Other requirements include reflective "School Bus" lettering (or the use of a front-lighted sign).

The equivalent requirement in Canada is almost identical; the only difference is that red cannot be used as a retroreflective color.

Safety devices
To comply with federal and state requirements, school buses are equipped with a number of safety devices to prevent accidents and injuries and for the purposes of security.

Mirror systems

When driving and when loading/unloading students, a key priority for a school bus driver is maintaining proper sightlines around their vehicle; the blind spots formed by the school bus can be a significant risk to bus drivers and traffic as well as pedestrians.

In the United States, approximately $2/3$ of students killed outside of the school bus are not struck by other vehicles, but by their own bus. To combat this problem, school buses are specified with sophisticated and comprehensive mirror systems. In redesigns of school bus bodies, driver visibility and overall sightlines have become important considerations. In comparison to school buses from the 1980s, school buses from the 2000s have much larger windscreens and fewer and/or smaller blind spots.

Emergency exits
For the purposes of evacuation, school buses are equipped with a minimum of at least one emergency exit (in addition to the main entry door). The rear-mounted emergency exit door is a design feature adopted from horse-drawn wagons (the entrance was rear-mounted to avoid disturbing the horses); in rear-engine school buses, the door is replaced by an exit window mounted above the engine compartment (supplemented by a side-mounted exit door). Additional exits may be located in the roof (roof hatches), window exits, and/or side emergency exit doors. All are opened by the use of quick-release latches which activate an alarm.

The number of emergency exits in a school bus is dependent on its seating capacity and also varies by individual state/provincial requirements. The most currently installed is eight on school buses in Kentucky. Buses that are owned or used by Kentucky school districts require, in addition to the main entry door, a rear exit door (or window, for rear-engine buses), a left-side exit door, four exit windows (two on each side), and two roof-mounted exit hatches. The current Kentucky standards were enacted after 27 people died in the Carrolton bus collision on May 14, 1988, in which a former school bus that was converted into a church bus was hit head on by a drunk driver.

Video surveillance
Since the 1990s, video cameras have become common equipment installed inside school buses. As recording technology has transitioned from VHS to digital cameras, school buses have adopted multiple-camera systems, providing surveillance from multiple vantage points.

While primarily used to monitor and record passenger behavior, video cameras have also been used in the investigation of accidents involving school buses. On March 28, 2000, a Murray County, Georgia, school bus was hit by a CSX freight train at an unsignaled railroad crossing; three children were killed. The bus driver claimed to have stopped and looked for approaching trains before proceeding across the tracks, as is required by law, but the onboard camera recorded that the bus had in fact not stopped and had the AM/FM radio playing.

In the 2010s, exterior-mounted cameras synchronized with the stop arms have come into use. The cameras photograph vehicles that illegally pass the bus when its stop arm and warning lights are in use (thus committing a moving violation).

Restraint systems
In contrast to cars and other light-duty passenger vehicles, school buses are not typically equipped with active restraint systems, such as seat belts; whether seat belts should be a requirement has been a topic of controversy. Since the 1970s, school buses have used the concept of compartmentalization as a passive restraint system during the late 2000s and 2010s, seatbelt design transitioned, with 3-point restraints replacing lap belts.

As of 2015, seatbelts are a requirement in at least five states: California, Florida, New Jersey, New York, and Texas; Canada does not require their installation (at the provincial level). Of the states that equip buses with two-point lap seat belts (Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey and New York), only New Jersey requires seat belt usage by riders. In other states, it is up to the district or operator whether to require riders to use them or not.

Passive restraints (compartmentalization)
According to the National Highway Transportation Association (NHTSA), studies completed previously on school buses showed that due to their size and heaviness, school buses did not require that safety belts be in place. Information gathered in previous studies showed that a size of a bus, combined with the design of the seat and the material in the space between the seats themselves, showed that there was no need for safety belts on a school bus. A bus is larger and heavier than a normal size passenger vehicle and could distribute the force of the crash evenly. Combined with the space between the seats as well as the design prevented serious injuries from happening. This attribute, does not carry over to a small bus due to its lesser size; buses with a GVWR under 10,000 pounds are required to have safety belts.

However, recent accidents involving school buses that have caused serious (if not fatal) injuries have caused the National Transportation Safety Board to conduct new tests to check the legitimacy of this continued practice. After completing these tests due to bus accidents in 2016, they have recommended that new buses being built need to have both a lap and shoulder harness in place. They have also recommended that 42 states add seat belts as a requirement. There are some states that have already added the lap belt. This study made the NTSB recommend adding shoulder harnesses to those states that already have a lap belt in place.

In 1967 and 1972, as part of an effort to improve crash protection in school buses, UCLA researchers played a role in the future of school bus interior design. Using the metal-backed seats then in use as a means of comparison, several new seat designs were researched in crash testing. In its conclusion, the UCLA researchers found that the safest design was a 28-inch high padded seatback spaced a maximum of 24 inches apart, using the concept of compartmentalization as a passive restraint. While the UCLA researchers found the compartmentalized seats to be the safest design, they found active restraints (such as seatbelts) to be next in terms of importance of passenger safety. In 1977, FMVSS 222 mandated a change to compartmentalized seats, though the height requirement was lowered to 24 inches. According to the NTSB, the main disadvantage of passive-restraint seats is its lack of protection in side-impact collisions (with larger vehicles) and rollover situations. Though by design, students are protected front to back by compartmentalization, it allows the potential for ejection in other crash situations (however rare).

Active restraints (seatbelts)
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 222 was introduced in 1977, requiring passive restraints and more stringent structural integrity standards; as part of the legislation, seatbelts were exempted from school buses with a gross vehicle weight (GVWR) exceeding 10,000 pounds.

In 1987, New York became the first state to require seatbelts on full-size school buses (raising the seat height to 28 inches); the requirement did not mandate their use. In 1992, New Jersey followed suit, becoming the first state to require their use, remaining the only state to do so. Outside of North America, Great Britain mandated seatbelts in 1995 for minibuses used in student transportation. In 2004, California became the first state to require 3-point seatbelts (on small buses; large buses, 2005 ), with Texas becoming the second in 2010.

In 2011, FMVSS 222 was revised to improve occupant protection in small (Type A) school buses. Along with requiring 3-point restraints (in place of lap belts), the revision created design standards for their use in full-size school buses. While previously reducing seating capacity by up to one-third, NHTSA recognized new technology that allows using seatbelts for either three small (elementary-age) children or two larger children (high-school age) per seat. In October 2013, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) most recently stated at their annual transportation conference (NAPT) that they now fully support three-point lap-shoulder seat belts on school buses.

CBC Television's The Fifth Estate has been critical of a 1984 Transport Canada study, a crash test of a school bus colliding head-on that suggested that seat belts (at the time, which were two-point lap belts) would interfere with the compartmentalization passive safety system. This had become "the most widely cited study" in North America, according to U.S. regulators, and was frequently quoted for decades by school boards and bus manufacturers across the continent as a reason not to install seat belts. Transport Canada has stuck to its stance against installing seat belts on school buses, despite numerous newer studies and actual accidents showing that compartmentalization could not protect against side impacts, rollovers, and being rear-ended; which would have been avoided by implementing three-point seat belts that would have kept occupants from being thrown from their seats.

Manufacturing
In 2018, 44,381 school buses were sold in North America (compared to 31,194 in 2010). Approximately 70% of production is of Type C configuration.

Production (North America)
In the United States and Canada, school buses are currently produced by nine different manufacturers. Four of them—Collins Industries, Starcraft Bus, Trans Tech, and Van Con — specialize exclusively in small buses. Thomas Built Buses and Blue Bird Corporation (the latter, through its Micro Bird joint venture with Girardin)—produce both small and large buses. IC Bus and Lion Electric produce full-size buses exclusively.

During the 20th century, Canada was home to satellite facilities of several U.S. firms (Blue Bird, Thomas, Wayne), exporting production across North America, with other production imported from the United States. Domestically, Corbeil manufactured full-size and small school buses (1985–2007) and Girardin produced small buses. In 2011, Lion Bus (today, Lion Electric Company/La Compagnie Électrique Lion) was founded as a Quebec-based manufacturer of full-size buses, shifting development to fully-electric vehicles.

Operations
Every year in the United States and Canada, school buses provide an estimated 8 billion student trips from home and school. Each school day in 2015, nearly 484,000 school buses transported 26.9 million children to and from school and school-related activities; over half of the United States K–12 student population is transported by school bus. Outside North America, purpose-built vehicles for student transport are less common. Depending on location, students ride to school on transit buses (on school-only routes), coaches, or a variety of other buses.

While school bus operations vary widely by location, in the United States and Canada, school bus services operate independent of public transport, with their own bus stops and schedules, coordinated with school class times.

Licensing
School bus drivers in the United States are required to hold a commercial driver's license (CDL). Full-size school buses are generally considered Class B vehicles; most van-based school buses are considered Class C vehicles. In addition to a standard P (passenger) endorsement, school bus drivers must acquire a separate S (school bus) endorsement; along with a written and driving test, the endorsement requires a background check and sex offender registry check.

Loading and unloading
Coinciding with their seating configuration, school buses have a higher seating capacity than buses of a similar length; a typical full-size school bus can carry from 66 to 90. In contrast to a transit bus, school buses are equipped with a single entry door at the front of the bus. Several configurations of entry doors are used on school buses, including center-hinged (jack-knife) and outward-opening. Prior to the 2000s, doors operated manually by the driver were the most common, with air or electric-assist becoming nearly universal in current vehicles.

School bus routes are designed with multiple bus stops, allowing for the loading (unloading) of several students at a time; the stop at school is the only time that the bus loads (unloads) passengers at once.

To inhibit pedestrians from walking into the blind spot created by the hood (or lower bodywork, on Type D buses), crossing arms are safety devices that extend outward from the front bumper when the bus door is open for loading or unloading. By design, these force passengers to walk forward several feet forward of the bus (into the view of the driver) before they can cross the road in front of the bus.

In the past, handrails in the entry way posed a potential risk for to students; as passengers exited a bus, items such as drawstrings or other loose clothing could be caught if the driver was unaware and pulled away with the student caught in the door. To minimize this risk, school bus manufacturers have redesigned handrails and equipment in the stepwell area. In its School Bus Handrail Handbook, the NHTSA described a simple test procedure for identifying unsafe stepwell handrails.

Traffic priority
When loading and unloading students, school buses have the ability to stop traffic, using a system of warning lights and stop arms-a stop sign that is deployed from the bus to stop traffic when the door is opened.

By the mid-1940s, most U.S. states introduced traffic laws requiring motorists to stop for school buses while children were loading or unloading. The justifications for this protocol were:

 * Children (especially younger ones) have normally not yet developed the mental capacity to fully comprehend the hazards and consequences of street-crossing, and under U.S. tort laws, a child cannot legally be held accountable for negligence. For the same reason, adult crossing guards often are deployed in walking zones between homes and schools.
 * It is impractical in many cases to avoid children crossing the traveled portions of roadways after leaving a school bus or to have an adult accompany them.
 * The size of a school bus generally limits visibility for both the children and motorists during loading and unloading.

Since at least the mid-1970s, all U.S. states and Canadian provinces and territories have some sort of school bus traffic stop law; although each jurisdiction requires traffic to stop for a school bus loading and unloading passengers, different jurisdictions have different requirements of when to stop. Outside of North America, the school bus stopping traffic to unload and load children is not provided for. Instead of being given traffic priority, fellow drivers are encouraged to drive with extra caution around school buses.

Warning lights and stop arms
Around 1946,the first system of traffic warning signal lights on school buses was used in Virginia, consisting of a pair of sealed beam lights. Instead of colorless glass lenses (similar to car headlamps), the warning lamps utilized red lenses. A motorized rotary switch applied power alternately to the red lights mounted at the left and right of the front and rear of the bus, creating a wig-wag effect. Activation was typically through a mechanical switch attached to the door control. However, on some buses (such as Gillig's Transit Coach models and the Kenworth-Pacific School Coach) activation of the roof warning lamp system was through the use of a pressure-sensitive switch on a manually controlled stop paddle lever located to the left of the driver's seat below the window. Whenever the pressure was relieved by extending the stop paddle, the electric current was activated to the relay. In the 1950s, plastic lenses were developed for the warning lenses, though the warning lights (with colorless glass lenses) used sealed-beam lamps into the mid-2000s, when light-emitting diodes (LEDs) came into use. The warning lamps initially used for school buses consisted of four red warning lights. With the adoption of FMVSS 108 in January 1968, four additional lights, termed advance warning lights, were gradually added to school buses; these were amber in color and mounted inboard of the red warning lights. Intended to signal an upcoming stop to drivers, as the entry door was opened at the stop, they were wired to be overridden by the red lights and the stop sign. Although red & amber systems were adopted by many states and provinces during the 1970s and 1980s, the all-red systems remain in use by some locales such as Saskatchewan and Ontario, Canada, older buses from California, as well as on buses built in Wisconsin before 2005.

The Ontario School Bus Association has challenged the effectiveness of Ontario's all-red 8-light warning system, citing that the use of red for both advance and stop warning signals is subject to driver misinterpretation. The Association claims that many motorists only have a vague understanding of Ontario's school bus stopping laws and that few drivers know that it is legal to pass a school bus with its inner (advance) warning lights actuated. Transport Canada's Transport Development Centre compared the effectiveness of the all-red system to the amber-red system and found that drivers are 21% more likely to safely pass a school bus when presented with amber advance signals instead of red signals. Transport Canada states that amber advance signals are proven to be slightly superior to red signals and recommends that all-red warning signals be replaced by the eight-lamp system in the shortest period possible. After the issue had received media attention, a petition has been signed to make the switch from the all-red to amber advance lights on Ontario school busses. The Ministry of Ontario of Transportation (MTO) has not yet provided any plan or timeline for the change.

To aid visibility of the bus in inclement weather, school districts and school bus operators add flashing strobe lights to the roof of the bus. Some states (for example, Illinois) require strobe lights as part of their local specifications.

During the early 1950s, states began to specify a mechanical stop signal arm which the driver would deploy from the left side of the bus to warn traffic of a stop in progress. The portion of the stop arm protruding in front of traffic was initially a trapezoidal shape with painted on it. The U.S. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131 regulates the specifications of the stop arm as a double-faced regulation octagonal red stop sign at least 45 cm across, with white border and uppercase legend. It must be retroreflective and/or equipped with alternately flashing red lights. As an alternative, the legend itself may also flash; this is commonly achieved with red LEDs. FMVSS 131 stipulates that the stop signal arm be installed on the left side of the bus, and placed so that when it is extended, the arm is perpendicular to the side of the bus, with the top edge of the sign parallel to and within 6 in of a horizontal plane tangent to the bottom edge of the first passenger window frame behind the driver's window, and that the vertical center of the stop signal arm must be no more than 9 in from the side of the bus. One stop signal arm is required; a second may also be installed. The second stop arm, when it is present, is usually mounted near the rear of the bus, and is not permitted to bear a or any other legend on the side facing forward when deployed.

The Canadian standard, defined in Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 131, is substantially identical to the U.S. standard. In Alberta and Saskatchewan, the use of stop signal arms is banned under traffic bylaws in multiple cities, citing that they provide a false sense of safety to students by encouraging jaywalking in front of the bus rather than safely crossing at an intersection. These bans have been the subject of public debate in cities such as Regina and Prince Albert.

Environmental impact
As the use of school buses transports students on a much larger scale than by car (on average, the same as 36 separate automobiles ), their use reduces pollution in the same manner as carpooling. Through their usage of internal-combustion engines, school buses are not an emissions-free form of transportation (in comparison to biking or walking). As of 2017, over 95% of school buses in North America are powered by diesel-fueled engines.

While diesel offers fuel efficiency and safety advantages over gasoline, diesel exhaust fumes have become a concern (related to health problems ). Since the early to mid-2000s, emissions standards for diesel engines have been upgraded considerably; a school bus meeting 2017 emissions standards is 60 times cleaner than a school bus from 2002 (and approximately 3,600 times cleaner than a counterpart from 1990). To comply with upgraded standards and regulations, diesel engines have been redesigned to use ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel with selective catalytic reduction becoming a primary emissions control strategy.

Alternative fuels
Although diesel fuel is most commonly used in large school buses (and even in many smaller ones), alternative fuel systems such as LPG/propane and CNG have been developed to counter the emissions drawbacks that diesel and gasoline-fueled school buses pose to the public health and environment.

The use of propane as a fuel for school buses began in the 1970s, largely as a response to the 1970s energy crisis. Initially produced as conversions of gasoline engines (as both require spark ignition), propane fell out of favor in the 1980s as fuel prices stabilized, coupled with the expanded use of diesel engines. In the late 2000s, propane-fueled powertrains reentered production as emissions regulations began to negatively affect the performance of diesel engines. In 2009, Blue Bird Corporation introduced a version of the Blue Bird Vision powered by a LPG-fuel engine. As of 2018, three manufacturers offer a propane-fuel full-size school bus (Blue Bird, IC, and Thomas), along with Ford and General Motors Type A chassis.

Compressed natural gas was first introduced for school buses in the early 1990s (with Blue Bird building its first CNG bus in 1991 and Thomas building its first in 1993). As of 2018, CNG is offered by two full-size bus manufacturers (Blue Bird, Thomas) along with Ford and General Motors Type A chassis.

In a reversal from the 1990s, gasoline-fuel engines made a return to full-size school buses during the 2010s, with Blue Bird introducing a gasoline-fuel Vision for 2016. As of current production, Blue Bird and IC offer gasoline-fuel full-size buses; gasoline engines are standard equipment in Ford and General Motors Type A chassis. As an alternative, gasoline-fuel engines offer simpler emissions equipment (over diesel engines) and a widely available fuel infrastructure (a drawback of LPG/CNG vehicles).

Electric school buses
In theory, urban and suburban routes prove advantageous for the use of an electric bus; charging can be achieved before and after the bus is transporting students (when the bus is parked). In the early 1990s, several prototype models of battery-powered buses were developed as conversions of existing school buses; these were built primarily for research purposes.

During the 2000s, school bus electrification shifted towards the development of diesel-electric hybrid school buses. Intended as a means to minimize engine idling while loading/unloading passengers and increasing diesel fuel economy, hybrid school buses failed to gain widespread acceptance. A key factor in their market failure was their high price (nearly twice the price of a standard diesel school bus) and hybrid system complexity.

In the 2010s, school bus electrification shifted from hybrids to fully electric vehicles, with several vehicles entering production. Trans Tech introduced the 2011 eTrans prototype (based on the Smith Electric Newton cabover truck), later producing the 2014 SSTe, a derivative of the Ford E-450. The first full-size electric school bus was the Lion Bus eLion, introduced in 2015; as of 2018, over 150 examples have been produced.

During 2017 and 2018, several body manufacturers introduced prototypes of electric school buses, with electric versions of the Blue Bird All American, Blue Bird Vision, Micro Bird G5 (on Ford E450 chassis), IC CE-Series, and the Thomas Saf-T-Liner C2 previewing production vehicles. During 2018, Blue Bird, Thomas, and IC introduced prototypes of full-size school buses intended for production; Blue Bird intends to offer electric-power versions of its entire product line.

Walking and cycling 'buses'
Walking buses and bike bus (known as riding school bus for students) take their names and some of the principle of public transport in a group to travel to school for students under adult supervision.

Other uses
Outside of student transport itself, the design of a school bus is adapted for use for a variety of applications. Along with newly produced vehicles, conversions of retired school buses see a large range of uses. Qualities desired from school buses involve sturdy construction (as school buses have an all-steel body and frame), a large seating capacity, and wheelchair lift capability, among others.

Church use
Churches throughout the United States use buses to transport their congregants, both to church services and events. A wide variety of buses are owned by churches, depending on needs and affordability. Larger buses may often be derived from school buses (newly purchased or second-hand). Other churches often own minibuses, often equipped with wheelchair lifts. When school bus derivatives are used, church bus livery is dictated by federal regulations, which require the removal of "School Bus" lettering and the disabling/removal of stop arms/warning lights. In some states, School Bus Yellow must be painted over entirely.

In church use, transporting adults and/or children, traffic law does not give church buses traffic priority in most states (Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia being the only states where a church bus can stop traffic with flashing red lights ).

Community outreach
In terms of vehicles used for community outreach, school bus bodyshells (both new and second-hand) see use as bookmobiles and mobile blood donation centers (bloodmobiles), among other uses. Both types of vehicles spend long periods of time parked in the same place; to reduce fuel consumption, they often power interior equipment and climate control with an on-board generator in place of the chassis engine.

Bookmobiles feature interior shelving for books and library equipment; bloodmobiles feature mobile phlebotomy stations and blood storage

Inmate transport buses
Larger police agencies may own police buses derived from school bus bodies for a number of purposes. Along with buses with high-capacity seating serving as officer transports (in large-scale deployments), other vehicles derived from buses may have little seating, serving as temporary mobile command centers; these vehicles are built from school bus bodyshells and fitted with agency-specified equipment.

Prisoner transport vehicles are high-security vehicles used to transport prisoners; a school bus bodyshell is fitted with a specially designed interior and exterior with secure windows and doors.

Uses of retired school buses
As of 2016, the average age of a school bus in the United States is 9.3 years. School buses can be retired from service due to a number of factors, including vehicle age or mileage, mechanical condition, emissions compliance, or any combination of these factors. In some states and provinces, school bus retirement is called for at specific age or mileage intervals, regardless of mechanical condition. In recent years, budget concerns in many publicly funded school districts have necessitated that school buses be kept in service longer.

When a school bus is retired from school use, it can see a wide variety of usage. While a majority are scrapped for parts and recycling (a requirement in some states), better-running examples are put up for sale as surplus vehicles. Second-hand school buses are sold to such entities as churches, resorts or summer camps; others are exported to Central America, South America, or elsewhere. Other examples of retired school buses are preserved and restored by collectors and bus enthusiasts; collectors and museums have an interest in older and rarer models. Additionally, restored school buses appear alongside other period vehicles in television and film.

When a school bus is sold for usage outside of student transport, NHTSA regulations require that its identification as a school bus be removed. To do so, all school bus lettering must be removed or covered while the exterior must be painted a color different than school bus yellow; the stop arm(s) and warning lamps must be removed or disabled.

School bus conversions
In retirement, not all school buses live on as transport vehicles. In contrast, the purchasers of school buses use the large body and chassis to use as either a working vehicle, or as a basis to build a rolling home. To build a utility vehicle for farms, owners often remove much of the roof and sides, creating a large flatbed or open-bed truck for hauling hay. Other farms use unconverted, re-painted, school buses to transport their workforce.

Skoolies are retired school buses converted into recreational vehicles (the term also applies to their owners and enthusiasts). Constructed and customized by their owners; while some examples have primitive accommodations, others rival the features of production RVs. Exteriors vary widely, including only the removal of school bus lettering, conservative designs, or the bus equivalent of an art car. An example of a Skoolie is Further, a 1939 (and later, 1947) school bus converted by Ken Kesey and the Merry Pranksters, intended for use on cross-country counterculture road trips. Both versions of Further are painted with a variety of psychedelic colors and designs.

School bus export
Retired school buses from Canada and the United States are sometimes exported to Africa, Central America, South America, or elsewhere. Used as public transportation between communities, these buses are nicknamed "chicken buses" for both their crowded accommodation and the (occasional) transportation of livestock alongside passengers. To attract passengers (and fares), yellow buses are often repainted with flamboyant exterior color schemes and modified with chrome exterior trim.

Around the world
Outside the United States and Canada, the usage and design of buses for student transport varies worldwide. In Europe, Asia, and Australia, buses utilized for student transport may be derived from standard transit buses. Alongside differences in body, chassis, and seating design, school buses outside North America differ primarily in their signage, livery, and traffic priority.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: School bus


text:
74th Academy Awards

The 74th Academy Awards ceremony, presented by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS), took place on March 24, 2002, at the Kodak Theatre in Hollywood, Los Angeles. During the ceremony, AMPAS presented Academy Awards (commonly referred to as Oscars) in 24 categories honoring films released in 2001. The ceremony, televised in the United States by ABC, was produced by Laura Ziskin and directed by Louis J. Horvitz. Actress Whoopi Goldberg hosted the show for the fourth time. She first hosted the 66th ceremony held in 1994 and had last hosted the 71st ceremony in 1999. Three weeks earlier, in a ceremony held at the Regent Beverly Wilshire Hotel in Beverly Hills, California, on March 2, the Academy Awards for Technical Achievement were presented by host Charlize Theron.

A Beautiful Mind won four awards, including Best Picture. Other winners included The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring with four awards, Black Hawk Down and Moulin Rouge! with two, and The Accountant, For the Birds, Gosford Park, Iris, Monster's Ball, Monsters, Inc., Murder on a Sunday Morning, No Man's Land, Pearl Harbor, Shrek, Thoth, and Training Day with one. Despite a record length of four hours and twenty-three minutes, the telecast garnered nearly 42 million viewers in the United States.

Winners and nominees
The nominees for the 74th Academy Awards were announced on February 12, 2002, at the Samuel Goldwyn Theater in Beverly Hills, California, by Frank Pierson, president of the academy, and the actress Marcia Gay Harden. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring earned the most nominations with thirteen. It was the seventh film to earn that many nominations. A Beautiful Mind and Moulin Rouge! tied for second place with eight apiece.

The winners were announced during the awards ceremony on March 24, 2002. By virtue of its latest Best Picture victory for A Beautiful Mind, DreamWorks became the second film studio to release three consecutive Best Picture winners; the studio had previously released American Beauty and Gladiator. Denzel Washington was the second African-American to win the Academy Award for Best Actor, following Sidney Poitier for 1963's Lilies of the Field. Halle Berry became the first, and, only, African-American to win the Academy Award for Best Actress. Nominated for their performances as the title character in Iris, Best Actress nominee Judi Dench and Best Supporting Actress nominee Kate Winslet became the second pair of actresses nominated for portraying the same character in the same film, following Best Actress nominee Winslet and Best Supporting Actress nominee Gloria Stuart as Rose in 1997's Titanic.

Awards

Winners are listed first, highlighted in boldface, and indicated with a double dagger (‡).

Academy Honorary Award

 * Sidney Poitier
 * Robert Redford

Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award

 * Arthur Hiller

Presenters and performers
The following individuals (in order of appearance) presented awards or performed musical numbers.

Ceremony information

The academy wanted to find a new venue for the festivities amid limited seating and rehearsal time concerns with the Dorothy Chandler Pavilion. In addition, problems arose regarding staging the Oscars at the Shrine Auditorium because there was difficulty of directing guests from the auditorium where the main event took place to the adjacent Exhibition Hall for the Governor's Ball. In August 1997, AMPAS and Canadian development firm TrizecHahn went into negotiations over the development of an entertainment complex located on the corner of Hollywood Boulevard and Highland Avenue adjacent to the Mann's Chinese Theatre. Seven months later, both the academy and TrizecHahn agreed on a twenty-year lease that allowed for the ceremony to be staged at a new venue, which would later be called the Kodak Theatre, located within the property which was also situated near the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel site of the inaugural awards ceremony in 1929. This was the first time the ceremony was held in Hollywood since the 32nd ceremony took place at the Pantages Theatre in 1960.

In view of the return of the Oscars to Hollywood, the academy hired film producer and Sony Pictures Entertainment chairman Laura Ziskin in September 2001 to oversee production of the telecast. Pierson explained the decision to hire Ziskin saying, "This show is one of the most difficult—if not the most difficult—producing jobs in show business. Laura Ziskin brings intelligence, experience and wit expressed in everything she has done." This marked the first occurrence that a woman produced the Oscars solo. Four months later, Whoopi Goldberg was selected as host of the 2002 ceremony. In an article in the Los Angeles Times, Ziskin justified her choice of Goldberg commenting that she has "great warmth, with humor, humanity and social conscience, all qualities that I feel are essential for this year's show. I look forward to collaborating with Whoopi to put on a meaningful and entertaining evening."

Furthermore, the September 11 attacks affected the telecast and its surrounding events. Despite speculation and suggestions that the festivities be postponed or canceled, AMPAS President Pierson wrote in a Variety column refusing to take such action stating that it would send the message that "the terrorists have won". However, due to security concerns the academy announced that red carpet bleacher seats would now be limited on a reservation basis based on a random selection and a background check.

On Oscar night, Tom Cruise opened the show and stated that it was the job of filmmakers to make films during troubling times. In addition, later in the evening Goldberg introduced a "New York icon" to the stage and filmmaker and director Woody Allen, who had previously refused to attend a ceremony, made a surprise appearance. He was greeted with a hearty standing ovation from audience members including Baz Luhrmann, Ron Howard, Jennifer Connelly, Washington, and Ethan Hawke. He explained after the events that happened that September he was there to represent the city he so loved and to plead filmmakers to continue to film in New York City. Woody then presented a film montage created by fellow New Yorker and screenwriter Nora Ephron saluting New York City in film.

Several other people participated in the production of the ceremony. Actors Glenn Close and Donald Sutherland served as announcers during the show. The orchestra led by film composer and telecast musical supervisor John Williams, performed selections of film scores during a montage saluting film composers produced by Kyle Cooper. Filmmaker Errol Morris filmed a vignette featuring several famous people discuss movie memories. Director Penelope Spheeris produced a montage saluting 60 years of Oscar-winning documentary feature films. Cirque du Soleil performed a dance number inspired by movies and visual effects.

Introduction of Best Animated Feature award
Beginning with this ceremony, AMPAS introduced a new competitive award that would honor animated feature films. According to Academy communications director John Pavlik, the film must be at least 70 minutes in length, have a significant amount of animated characters, and be at least 75 percent animated in order to be qualified for consideration. A minimum of eight qualifying films must be released within the calendar year to permit a slate of three nominees. If the number of films exceeds twelve, the nominee roster increases to five. Prior to the introduction of this category, three Disney films (1937's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, 1988's Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and 1995's Toy Story) were all given Special Achievement Academy Awards.

Box office performance of nominated films
At the time of the nominations announcement on February 12, the combined gross of the five Best Picture nominees at the US box office was $484 million, with an average of $96.9 million per film. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring was the highest earner among the Best Picture nominees with $271 million in domestic box office receipts. The film was followed by A Beautiful Mind ($113 million), Moulin Rouge! ($57.1 million), Gosford Park ($22.2 million), and finally In the Bedroom ($19.5 million).

Of the top 50 grossing movies of the year, 46 nominations went to 14 films on the list. Only The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2nd), Shrek (3rd), Monsters, Inc. (4th), A Beautiful Mind (15th), Black Hawk Down (25th), Jimmy Neutron: Boy Genius (27th), Training Day (29th), Bridget Jones's Diary (31st), Ali (41st), and Moulin Rouge! (44th) were nominated for Best Picture, Best Animated Feature, or any of the directing, acting, or screenwriting awards. The other top-50 box office hits that earned nominations were Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (1st), Pearl Harbor (7th), Vanilla Sky (19th), and AI: Artificial Intelligence (28th).

Critical reviews
The show received a mixed reception from media publications. Some media outlets were more critical of the show. Television critic Robert Bianco of USA Today complained that the awards ceremony was "intensely narcissistic and characteristically, almost unrelievedly, dull." Columnist Matthew Gilbert of The Boston Globe bemoaned that "TV's most-watched slug crawled back into town last night." He also sniped, "As usual, the technical awards formed a Bermuda triangle in the middle of the show, and the film-clip fests and production numbers numbed our brains." The Sacramento Bee's Rick Kishman lamented that "It was the first time both best-acting Oscars went to African Americans...yet viewers had to fight hours and hours of boredom to care." He also quipped that the excessive amount of montage and tributes dragged down the proceedings.

Other media outlets received the broadcast more positively. Orange County Register film critic Henry Sheehan praised Goldberg's performance as hosting writing that her "ensuing entrance a la Moulin Rouge was a comparative triumph and her boom-boom-boom succession of jokes put the show right on track." Television columnist Joanne Ostrow of The Denver Post raved, "The nearly five-hour telecast was stunning, historic, slick, efficient, and helped along by some knockout clothes." She also commented that Washington and Berry's acceptance speeches and the Sidney Poitier tribute added to the historic and emotional mood of the festivities. John Levesque of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer commended producer Ziskin for producing "the best Oscar telecast this TV watcher can remember." In addition, he wrote that "It was clear the 74th Academy Awards ceremony was something special: fresh, crisp, different from its predecessors."

Ratings and reception
At four hours and 23 minutes, the ceremony was the longest in history. The American telecast on ABC drew in an average of 41.82 million people over its length, which was a 3% decrease from the previous year's ceremony. The show also earned lower Nielsen ratings compared to the previous ceremony with 25.54% of households watching over a 40.34 share. In addition, it garnered a lower 18–49 demo rating with a 16.13 rating over a 36.46 share among viewers in that demographic.

In July 2002, the ceremony presentation received seven nominations at the 54th Primetime Emmys. Two months later, the ceremony won one of those nominations for Debra Brown's choreography during the telecast.

In Memoriam
The annual In Memoriam tribute, presented by actor Kevin Spacey, honored the following people.

 * Jack Lemmon – Actor
 * Nigel Hawthorne – Actor
 * Beatrice Straight – Actress
 * Eileen Heckart – Actress
 * Jason Miller – Actor, writer
 * Ann Sothern – Actress
 * Harold Russell – Actor
 * Kim Stanley – Actress
 * Michael Ritchie – Director
 * Ted Demme – Director
 * Budd Boetticher – Director
 * Hiroshi Teshigahara – Director
 * Herbert Ross – Director
 * Julia Phillips – Producer
 * Jay Livingston – Composer
 * William Hanna – Producer
 * Chuck Jones – Animator
 * Samuel Z. Arkoff – Producer
 * Danilo Donati – Costume designer
 * Sacha Vierny – Cinematographer
 * John A. Alonzo – Cinematographer
 * Carroll O'Connor – Actor
 * Aaliyah – Actress
 * George Harrison – Producer, composer, actor
 * Anthony Quinn – Actor

Before the In Memoriam montage was shown, Spacey requested a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the September 11 attacks.

title: 74th Academy Awards