National Academies Press: OpenBook

Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry (2010)

Chapter: Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results

« Previous: Chapter Three - Synthesis Survey Development, Peer Review, and Focus Group and Methods
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter Four - Synthesis Survey Results." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14351.
×
Page 18

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

11 DESCRIPTION OF RESPONDENTS AND FLEETS A total of 198 individuals participated in this survey, although not everyone fully completed all survey items. Therefore, response tables for individual items show some fluctuation. Table 1 shows the breakdown of participants by their job title/role. In many cases, individuals indicated serving more than one role, so the total will exceed the number of individ- uals who completed the survey. A majority of participants were school bus drivers, closely followed by school bus fleet managers. Beyond these classifications, however, a variety of positions/roles within the school bus transportation field are represented. Participants had an average of 17 years of experience in the area of school bus transportation, with a range of 1 to 40 years (n = 193; Table 2). To estimate the sizes of the school systems that partici- pants were associated with, a survey question asked for an approximate number of pupils in the school system. The num- ber of pupils ranged from 37 to 487,000, with a mean of just over 20,000 pupils (Table 3). Respondents were asked to report how many of the vehicles in their fleet are equipped with GPS or automatic vehicle locator (AVL) technology. As shown in Table 4, there was considerable variation in responses, ranging from 0 to 30,000 vehicles with GPS and 0 to 15,000 vehicles with AVL. OVERALL SAFETY ISSUES (RATED AND RANKED) The survey included a list of 51 “overall safety issues” that participants were to rate based on the severity of the issue. A seven-point Likert scale, where 1 = “Not at all a safety issue” and 7 = “A very serious safety issue,” was used. The descrip- tive statistics for these items are listed here in several tables organized by driver and monitor issues, environmental issues, equipment and technology issues, and organizational design issues. These items were rank ordered based on the mean score, and each item has its “overall rank” listed in the fol- lowing tables. The rankings go across all four issue areas. A full list of the issues with their ranking in chronological order is available in Appendix F. Table 5 provides the responses of driver and monitor safety issues. Driver turnover was ranked as the greatest driver safety issue, followed by driver cell phone use and driver physical and mental health. It is important to note the rank- ing of these issues in comparison to the overall issues. Table 6 presents the responses of environmental issues. This categorization included the greatest number of survey items, and represents many of the issues that were ranked as the greatest threat to safety. Illegal passing of stopped buses by other vehicles was rated as the greatest safety threat not only in terms of environmental issues, but overall when all items are taken into consideration. This is followed by in- attentive or distracted drivers of other vehicles. Thus, based on these survey data, the two top safety issues are related to the actions of other drivers. Many of the other top safety issues (both in terms of the environment and overall) involve the actions of the student passengers, including both behav- ior on (e.g., not sitting in their seat properly) and off the bus (standing too close to the road at a bus stop). Roadway con- ditions (e.g., potholes) were ranked as the number 12 safety issue, and visibility of bus stops was ranked as numbers 16 (as a result of inclement weather), 24 (owing to curved roads), and 31 (as a result of hilly terrain). Table 7 shows the responses of equipment and technology issues. Storage of passengers’ personal items was the top safety issue in this category. Driver field-of-view and blind spots was the second safety issue in this category, although it ranked number 22 overall. This is an interesting finding given that “insufficient or ineffective mirrors” was ranked so low (number 47). This may provide evidence that the overall body style of school buses is in need of improvement (e.g., a shorter hood surface to improve visibility of the forward environment). It is important to note that overall equipment and technology issues were rated as some of the least impor- tant safety issues. Table 8 shows the responses of organizational design issues. Organizational design issues pertain to aspects of adminis- tration, policies, regulations, and politics of the school trans- portation field. Lack of sufficient funding for fleets was the top organizational design issue and was ranked number 7 over- all. This was followed by a lack of sidewalks at or near bus stops (ranked number 11), which would provide a safer envi- ronment and prompt for students to keep off the roadway when entering or exiting the bus. CHAPTER FOUR SYNTHESIS SURVEY RESULTS

12 Job Title/Role Frequency School Bus Driver (n = 89) Class A commercial driverís license (CDL) 10 Class B CDL 73 Class C CDL 4 No CDL/unspecified 2 Fleet manager 85 Instructor/trainer 34 State agency employee 32 Other 27 Transportation specialist 23 Maintenance supervisor 15 Mechanic/technician 14 Routing specialist/dispatcher 13 State director of pupil transportation services 13 Contractor management 7 School superintendent 5 Bus monitor/aid 5 Transportation researcher 3 Special interest group representative 2 Federal agency employee 0 School bus manufacturer 0 Total 367 TABLE 1 WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING BEST DESCRIBES YOUR POSITION? n Response Average Range Years of experience 193 17 1–40 TABLE 2 HOW MANY YEARS OF EXPERIENCE DO YOU HAVE IN THE AREA OF SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION? n Response Average Range Number of pupils 149 20,267 37–487,000 TABLE 3 IF YOU WORK WITHIN A SCHOOL SYSTEM, APPROXIMATELY HOW LARGE IS THE SYSTEM BASED ON THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PUPILS? Vehicle n Average Range Number with GPS 152 340 0–30,000 Number with AVL 125 129 0–15,000 TABLE 4 PLEASE ESTIMATE THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN YOUR FLEET WITH GPS OR AVL n Average Overall Rank Dri ver turnover 186 3.9 19 Driver cell phone use 192 3.8 28 Driver physical health 189 3.5 33 Driver mental health 190 3.4 36 Driver fatigue 190 3.2 43 Bus monitor/attendant physical health 166 3.1 44 Bus monitor/attendant turnover 165 3.1 45 Bus monitor/attendant mental health 164 3.0 46 Driver safety-belt use 191 2.9 48 Bus monitor/attendant safety-belt use 161 2.5 51 TABLE 5 DRIVER AND MONITOR ISSUES categorized by two independent raters. If there was a discrep- ancy between the two raters, the item was discussed until an agreement was reached. In some cases, respondents listed sev- eral responses that were tallied separately under the appropriate category. When a respondent replied that they had nothing to say for a particular question, it was tallied as “no suggestion.” If an item was left blank, no tally was made; however, total sample size is noted in each of the following tables so one can determine the number of non-responses from participants. Finally, if a response was not understood, appeared to apply only to their specific school system, or otherwise indicated that the respondent did not understand the question, it was catego- rized as “other.” Table 9 provides the responses for the question: “What do you consider to be the most important safety issue(s) in school bus transportation?” Other motorists and their driving behaviors (notably illegal passing) was the most frequently cited safety issue, followed closely by passenger behavior on the bus. Other frequently cited safety issues included passen- gers as pedestrians and driver issues (e.g., lack of skill). Table 10 shows the frequencies of categorized responses for the question: “What are the barriers to these issues?” The most frequently cited responses included funding, lack of sup- port from administration/parents, and lack of law enforcement. Table 11 presents the responses for the question: “Do you have any recommendations/suggestions for how these issues should be addressed in the future?” Many respondents believe that stronger law enforcement and driver training were meth- ods for addressing safety issues. OVERALL SAFETY ISSUES (COMPARISONS BETWEEN DRIVERS AND NON-DRIVERS) The overall safety issues were explored to determine differ- ences between school bus drivers and non-drivers (e.g., fleet managers, etc.). Non-drivers believe turnover is more of a safety issue than do drivers. One other item that appears sig- nificant was survey item 21: “Weather conditions when school is not delayed/cancelled.” School bus drivers and non-drivers indicated that drivers believe weather conditions are some- what more of a safety issue than do non-drivers. OVERALL SAFETY ISSUES (OPEN-ENDED) In addition to the overall safety issue ratings, respondents were asked several open-ended questions regarding overall safety issues in school bus transportation. Open-ended responses were

13 SCHOOL BUS DRIVER SAFETY ISSUES: DRIVER HIRING AND TRAINING ISSUES Several questions regarding the thoroughness of driver hiring and training procedures were explored. Overall, it appears that driver screening and criminal background checks are very thorough and do not necessarily present a safety issue (see Tables 12–16). In particular, the thoroughness of crimi- nal background checks seems to be held in high regard by the survey respondents. Participants were asked a series of questions regarding the number of pre-service and in-service training hours that are mandated in their school district. The results of these questions are summarized in Table 17. Given the wide range of responses, it may be helpful to focus on the median response. The average for pre-service driver training is 27.9 hours, whereas the average for in-service driver training is 10.4 hours, which shows that the majority of training hours are completed before a driver is on the road. When considering monitor/attendant training, the number of training hours is markedly decreased in terms of median hours, with a median of 4 hours for pre-service training and a median of 5 hours of in-service training. Table 18 shows the responses for the question: “What par- ticular aspect of driver training is the most important in terms Issue Overall Rank Illegal passing of stopped buses by other vehicles 1 Inattentive or distracted drivers of other vehicles 2 Distractions (to the driver) on the bus 3 Student passengers not sitting in their seat properly 4 Passengers as pedestrians in the loading/unloading zone 5 Horseplay at bus stops 6 Violence/bullying among student passengers 8 Student passengers standing too close to the road at the bus stop 9 Noise levels on the bus 10 Roadway conditions (e.g., sunken/soft shoulders, potholes, width of road) 12 Distractions (to the driver) outside the bus 14 Visibility of bus stops in inclement weather conditions (fog, snow, heavy rain) 16 Passengers not immediately leaving loading/unloading area 17 Traffic congestion 18 Railroad crossing issues 20 Visibility of bus or students on curved roads 24 Students eating/drinking on the bus 25 Student inattention or distraction owing to personal electronic devices 27 Visibility at bus stops in hilly terrain 31 Children left on buses 32 Animal action (e.g., deer or other wildlife) 35 Slippery floors/stairwells n 192 187 187 190 188 192 187 187 190 190 188 191 186 189 190 188 191 193 190 190 184 192 Average 5.7 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.6 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.1 4.0 3.9 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.2 42 TABLE 6 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

14 Issue Overall Rank Storage of passengers’ personal items (e.g., backpacks, instruments) 13 Driver field-of-view and blind spots (i.e., visibility issues, hood, body posts, mirrors) 22 Considerations for special needs student passengers 23 Students sticking arms and heads out of windows 26 Keeping up with routine school bus maintenance 37 Restraints for wheelchairs 38 Storage of driver’s items (e.g., purses, clipboards, routing information) 39 Passenger restraints for special needs passengers 40 Insufficient or ineffective mirrors on the school bus 47 Rear bumper height 49 School bus foot pedal design (accelerator and brake) n 190 191 182 188 188 181 192 178 189 169 180 Average 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.3 2.9 2.9 2.7 50 TABLE 7 EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY ISSUES Issue n Mean Overall Rank Lack of sufficient funding for fleet operation/maintenance/equipment 183 4.5 7 Lack of sidewalks at or near bus stops 189 4.2 11 Security issues 189 3.9 21 Bus stops on major highways 188 3.8 29 Lack of an adequate waiting area for passengers at bus stops 188 3.7 30 Emergency evacuation procedures 191 3.5 34 Too many student passengers at a single stop 187 3.3 41 TABLE 8 ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN ISSUES Response Category Frequency Other motorists 46 Passenger behavior on the bus 41 Passengers as pedestrians 24 Driver issues (e.g., lack of skill) 22 Bus issues (design, maintenance) 18 Turnover, low pay, poor management 16 Lack of monitors/aides on buses 3 Alternative transportation for students (walking, 3 parents driving) Road conditions 2 Bus security 1 Total 176 TABLE 9 MOST IMPORTANT SAFETY ISSUES IN SCHOOL BUS TRANSPORTATION (Open Ended) Response Category Frequency Funding 43 Lack of support from administration/parents 27 Lack of law enforcement 23 Driver quality/training 19 Uneducated public 16 Student behavior 10 Other motorists 10 Other 8 Equipment/technology 6 Lack of control 3 Politics 2 No suggestion 2 Total 169 TABLE 10 BARRIERS TO SAFETY ISSUES (Open Ended)

15 Response Category Frequency Stronger law enforcement 23 Driver training 20 No suggestion 19 Increase funding 15 Educating public 12 Other 12 Student discipline 11 Improve bus design/technology 10 Educating parents and getting their support 5 More monitors/aides on buses 5 Other drivers/lack of control 3 Total 135 TABLE 11 RECOMMENDATIONS/SUGGESTIONS FOR ADDRESSING ISSUES (Open Ended) n Average Responses “thorough” 183 5.8 TABLE 12 IN YOUR OPINION, HOW THOROUGH ARE THE DRIVER SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR YOUR FLEET (or in General If You Are Not Involved with a Fleet)? n Average Responses “thorough” 187 6.2 TABLE 13 IN YOUR OPINION, HOW THOROUGH ARE THE DRIVER CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK PROCEDURES FOR YOUR FLEET (or in General If You Are Not Involved with a Fleet)? n Average Responses “thorough” 179 5.9 TABLE 14 IN YOUR OPINION, HOW THOROUGH ARE THE SUBSTITUTE DRIVER SCREENING PROCEDURES FOR YOUR FLEET (or in General If You Are Not Involved with a Fleet)? n Average Responses “thorough” 183 6.2 TABLE 15 IN YOUR OPINION, HOW THOROUGH ARE THE SUBSTITUTE DRIVER CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECK PROCEDURES FOR YOUR FLEET (or in General If You Are Not Involved with a Fleet)? n Average Responses “thorough” 186 5.7 TABLE 16 IN YOUR OPINION, HOW THOROUGH ARE THE DRIVER TRAINING PROCEDURES FOR YOUR FLEET (or in General If You Are Not Involved with a Fleet)? Training Pre-service driver In-service driver Pre-service monitor/attendant In-service monitor/attendant n 152 151 123 122 Average (h) 27.9 10.4 10.7 7.5 Range (h) 0–240 0–56 0–240 0–56 TABLE 17 HOW MANY PRE-SERVICE AND IN-SERVICE HOURS OF TRAINING ARE MANDATED? Response Category Behind the wheel training and defensive driving General training and policy awareness Student control Loading/unloading of passengers Attention/awareness/mirror use Pre-trip inspection Emergency situations Other Total Responses 47 35 32 27 20 9 5 1 176 TABLE 18 WHAT PARTICULAR ASPECT OF DRIVER TRAINING IS THE MOST IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF SAFETY? (Open Ended) of safety?” The most frequent response to this question was “driver training” (particularly defensive driving). General training and policy awareness, as well as student control, were also frequently cited, as was the proper loading/unload- ing of passengers. Table 19 shows the responses for the question: “What, if any, areas of driving training need to be covered that are not part of your training program?” Many respondents indicated that they had no suggestions. However, of those who did make a suggestion, “student management and discipline” was the most frequent response. Response Category Responses No suggestion 36 Student management/discipline 24 People/communication skills 12 Specific driving skills (e.g., backing, braking) 9 Emergency situations/first-aid 8 Defensive driving 7 More training 6 Security 5 Special needs students 5 Other 4 Involvement of law enforcement at trainings 1 Total 117 TABLE 19 WHAT, IF ANY, AREAS OF DRIVING TRAINING NEED TO BE COVERED THAT ARE NOT PART OF YOUR TRAINING PROGRAM? (Open Ended)

16 Response Category Responses Student behavior 160 Cell phones and other electronics 10 Medical situations 2 Total 172 TABLE 20 WHAT ARE THE MOST COMMON DISTRACTIONS TO SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS ON THE BUS? (Open Ended) Response Category Responses Other motorists 115 Passengers as pedestrians 21 Parents/siblings at bus stops 10 Weather 6 Animals 5 Other 4 Construction 3 Coworker/supervisor-related 3 Not sure 3 Total 170 TABLE 21 WHAT ARE THE MOST COMMON DISTRACTIONS TO SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS OUTSIDE THE BUS? (Open Ended) Response Category Responses Training 40 Student discipline/training 26 Law enforcement 23 Monitors/aides/assigned seats 16 Public awareness 13 Unsure 13 Increase bus driver attention 6 Parent involvement 4 Other 4 Alternative routes 2 Equipment related 2 Total 149 TABLE 22 HOW CAN THESE DISTRACTIONS BE MINIMIZED? (Open Ended) Frequency Responses Annually 111 Annually and periodically 1 Periodically 40 Total 152 TABLE 23 HOW OFTEN ARE PHYSICAL EXAMS REQUIRED WITH YOUR FLEET? Frequency 1 to 2 years 2 years 30 days 6 months As mandated by Department of Motor Vehicles As necessary Initially, and as required by DMV Never Once Quarterly Home health screening Varies Total Responses 3 26 2 1 2 1 1 5 5 1 1 1 50 Table 20 shows the responses for the question: “What are the most common distractions to school bus drivers on the bus?” Student behavior on the bus was clearly the most fre- quently cited response to this item, followed by distractions from cell phones and other electronics. Two individuals noted that medical situations are common distractions on the bus. Table 21 shows the responses for the question: “What are the most common distractions to school bus drivers outside the bus?” Other motorists’ behaviors were the most fre- quently cited response to this item, followed by pedestrians as passengers. Table 22 shows the responses for the question: “How can these distractions be minimized?” The most frequently cited response for this item was “driver training,” followed by “student discipline” and “law enforcement.” Participants were also asked about the frequency of required physical examinations for drivers (Tables 23 and 24). A majority of respondents indicated that the drivers in their district must complete an annual physical examination. A smaller number of respondents indicated that drivers in their district must complete a periodic exam. Those who indicated that a periodic exam is required were also asked how often these exams occur (Table 24) in an open-ended question format. A majority of those with periodic physical exami- nations reported that they are required every two years. It is also interesting to note that five individuals reported no mandatory physical examination. TABLE 24 IF PERIODICALLY, HOW OFTEN? EQUIPMENT AND TECHNOLOGY SAFETY ISSUES Table 25 shows the responses for the question: “How can a schoolbusdesign be improved for safety?” The most frequently cited response for this item was related to improving mirrors or visibility around the school bus (e.g., reducing blind spots). Table 26 provides the responses for the question: “What technology has improved safety in school bus operations?” Many respondents believed that cameras, GPS devices, and improved mirrors and lighting were some of the most useful technological advances in school bus operations.

17 Response Category Responses Improved mirrors/visibility 46 No suggestions 22 General bus design/improve quality of manufacturing 14 Seat issues (ergonomics, seat height) 12 Evacuation related 8 Seat belts 7 Sensors/alert systems 7 Global positioning system 5 Internal/external cameras 5 Improved storage inside bus 5 Uniform switches/controls 3 Improved stairs (reduce slips/trips) 3 Light-emitting diode (LED) lights 3 Improved communication devices 3 Total 143 TABLE 25 HOW CAN A SCHOOL BUS DESIGN BE IMPROVED FOR SAFETY? (Open Ended) Response Category Responses Cameras 41 GPS 24 Mirrors 22 Lighting 21 Seat design 17 Communication devices 15 Other 12 Crossing arm Anti-lock brakes 7 7 Child monitors 7 Automatic transmissions 5 Body design 4 Total 182 TABLE 26 WHAT TECHNOLOGY HAS IMPROVED SAFETY IN SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS? (Open Ended) Response Category Responses Cameras 25 GPS 23 Other 16 No suggestion 15 Improved lighting 9 Child tracking systems 9 Improved driver training/monitoring 5 Improved seat design 4 Vehicle sensors/backing alarm 3 Improved communication devices 3 Improved equipment for special needs passengers 2 Improved mirrors 2 Total 116 TABLE 27 WHAT TECHNOLOGY FOR IMPROVING SAFETY WOULD BE USEFUL IN THE FUTURE? (Open Ended) Table 27 shows the responses for the question: “What tech- nology for improving safety would be useful in the future?” The responses to this item matched closely those cited earlier, with cameras and GPS devices listed as the top responses. Table 28 presents the responses for the question: “Do you have any suggestions for how to improve driver pre-trip inspections?” Many respondents believe that increased supervision was needed to ensure that drivers are completing inspections. The second most frequent response was to use diagnostic equipment to detect issues. When asked about the level of compliance for drivers per- forming pre-trip inspections, a majority of respondents indi- cated that at least half of their drivers do so (see Table 29). It is interesting that only 23 respondents indicated 100% compli- ance for pre-trip inspections. On the other hand, 15 respondents indicated low levels of compliance. Response Category Responses Increased supervision 39 Technology/diagnostic equipment 33 No suggestion 21 Standardize the procedure 13 Increased training 7 Increase driver pay 3 Install lighting systems under the hood 3 Other 3 “Just do them” 2 Total 124 TABLE 28 DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR HOW TO IMPROVE DRIVER PRE-TRIP INSPECTIONS? (Open Ended) ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN SAFETY ISSUES Table 30 shows the responses for the question: “What can fleet safety managers do to improve the safety of their oper- ations?” The most frequently cited response to this item was to improve driver training and monitoring. Table 31 shows the responses for the question: “Do you have any suggestions for new federal or state regulations for Level of Compliance Responses 0%–24% 15 25%–49% 27 50%–74% 34 75%–99% 80 100% 23 Total 179 TABLE 29 WHAT LEVEL OF COMPLIANCE DO THE DRIVERS IN YOUR FLEET MEET FOR PERFORMING PRE-TRIP INSPECTIONS?

school buses?” Many respondents did not have any sugges- tions for new regulations. However, one frequently cited response had to do with standardizing laws federally instead of having different laws for states. Table 32 shows the responses for the question: “Are there any current federal or state regulations for school buses you think should be reconsidered?” There was a wide variety of responses to this item, although the most frequently cited response was “Not applicable or no suggestion.” The next most frequent response was that the regulations concerning mandatory seat belts should be reconsidered. SECURITY-RELATED SAFETY ISSUES Survey respondents were also asked to report whether they have received and/or given security awareness training for drivers over the course of the last 1, 3, and 5 years. Tables 33– 35 show the results. A majority of respondents indicated that security training was completed in the last year. Table 36 presents the responses for the question: “What do you or your school bus drivers do to ensure your/their bus is safe in terms of security?” Conducting pre- and post-trip 18 Response Category Responses Improve training/monitoring employees 86 Improve communication with employees 21 Ensure maintenance issues are resolved 8 Other 6 Establish and maintain a safety culture 6 Educate the public, administration, law 6 No suggestions 4 Keep detailed records 3 Total 140 TABLE 30 WHAT CAN FLEET SAFETY MANAGERS DO TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THEIR OPERATIONS? (Open Ended) Response Category Responses No suggestions 39 Other 18 Standardize laws; make them federal, not state-based 13 Do not require seat belts 8 Equip buses with new technology 7 Mandatory training 7 Require seat belts 6 Make it mandatory to replace buses after certain age/mileage 3 No cell phones while driving 3 Total 104 TABLE 31 DO YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS FOR NEW FEDERAL OR STATE REGULATIONS FOR SCHOOL BUSES? (Open Ended) Response Category Responses Not applicable or no suggestion 56 Mandatory seat belts 8 Requirements for extensive training/testing of drivers 3 CDL requirements 3 “10 foot” rule 2 Railroad crossing regulations 2 Head Start 2 Seat height requirements 2 Allowing self-inspection 1 Waiver for driver vision testing 1 Aleana’s Law in Georgia 1 Hours of service regulation CDL = commercial driver’s license. 1 Flame retardant seat requirements 1 Total 83 TABLE 32 ARE THERE ANY CURRENT FEDERAL OR STATE REGULATIONS FOR SCHOOL BUSES YOU THINK SHOULD BE RECONSIDERED? (Open Ended) Responses Yes 110 No 45 Total 155 TABLE 33 HAVE YOU GIVEN SECURITY AWARENESS TRAINING FOR YOUR DRIVERS IN THE PAST 1 YEAR? Responses Yes 113 No 21 Total 134 TABLE 34 HAVE YOU GIVEN SECURITY AWARENESS TRAINING FOR YOUR DRIVERS IN THE PAST 3 YEARS? inspections was the most frequently cited response. Many respondents also stressed the importance of keeping buses and bus storage yards locked securely. When considering special needs passengers, survey respon- dents were asked to report whether there are individual evac- uation plans for these students. A majority indicated there are evacuation plans for each of their special needs passengers (Table 37). Respondents were also asked whether they conduct evac- uation drills with special needs passengers (Table 38) and if

19 Responses Yes 68 No 29 Total 97 TABLE 35 HAVE YOU GIVEN SECURITY AWARENESS TRAINING FOR YOUR DRIVERS IN THE PAST 5 YEARS? Response Category Responses Pre- and post-trip inspections 59 Keep buses and yards locked 31 Vigilance 17 Training 14 Cameras 7 Other 4 Improve communication 6 Making sure unauthorized people are not on the bus 5 Total 143 TABLE 36 WHAT DO YOU OR YOUR SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS DO TO ENSURE YOUR/THEIR BUS IS SAFE IN TERMS OF SECURITY? (Open Ended) Responses Yes 147 No 9 Total 156 TABLE 37 DO YOU HAVE AN EVACUATION PLAN FOR YOUR INDIVIDUAL SPECIAL NEEDS PASSENGERS? Responses Yes 128 No 31 Total 159 TABLE 38 DO YOU CONDUCT EVACUATION DRILLS WITH SPECIAL NEEDS PASSENGERS? so, how often (Table 39). A majority of respondents indi- cated drills are performed, whereas one-fifth reported having no such drills. Of those performing the drills, a majority indi- cated the drills are completed twice a year, whereas approx- imately one-quarter reported annual drills. CLOSING COMMENTS BY RESPONDENTS Table 40 shows the responses for the question: “Are there any special or unique safety concerns to school bus opera- tions you believe were not addressed in this survey?” Although some of the issues listed below were addressed to some extent in the survey, it may be the case that respondents felt some of these issues (e.g., security) should have received more attention. Frequency Responses Annually 30 2 times per year with regular passengers 1 2 times per year 67 3 times per year 13 4 times per year 1 9 times per year 1 14 times per year 1 As determined by state or district policy 1 Infrequently 1 Total 116 TABLE 39 IF YES, HOW OFTEN? Response Category Responses No suggestions 38 Violence/security issues 5 Funding 4 Special needs students 3 Educating the public 2 Management/training issues 2 Safety of students at bus stops (harm from others) 2 Seat belts on buses 2 Driver physical standards 2 Parent involvement 1 Updating equipment 1 Routing 1 Uniform background checks 1 Car seats/boosters 1 Hood wind blow over 1 Lighting in stairwells 1 Windows/windshields 1 First aid 1 Hazard reporting 1 Monitors/aides on buses 1 Hazardous materials training 1 Separating bus and other traffic at schools 1 Total 73 TABLE 40 ARE THERE ANY SPECIAL OR UNIQUE SAFETY CONCERNS TO SCHOOL BUS OPERATIONS YOU BELIEVE WERE NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS SURVEY? (Open Ended)

Next: Chapter Five - Conclusions »
Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program (CTBSSP) Synthesis 17: Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry explores various safety issues faced by school bus operators, including how the issues are currently addressed, barriers to improvements, and suggestions for making improvements in the future.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!