Click for next page ( 7

The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 6
7 Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 specifically safely (Keeping Children Safe . . . 1995). Special Report 269 deals with school bus passenger seating and crash protection. (Committee on School Transportation Safety 2002), how- "Compartmentalization" protection of passengers is provided ever, notes that it is difficult or impossible to determine the through the use of this standard. Currently, a proposed rule relative safety of school buses compared with transit buses change to this standard is being considered by NHTSA. The used for student travel. This is due to data issues, including that key elements of the proposed rule change would require lap- transit properties may not keep statistics on student ridership shoulder belts instead of only lap belts on small school buses, and that pedestrian injuries in route to transit stops may not provide guidance for voluntary installation of lap-shoulder be classified as transit-related. The use of motor coaches for belts on large buses, and raise the minimum seatback height field trips and other transportation needs is of concern because from 20 to 24 in. on all new school buses (CBS News 2007; of the lack of knowledge regarding the vehicle, the driver, School Bus Fleet 2008). and the company and its operations. Qualification of drivers, issues of fatigue, and the safety of the vehicle are assumed According to the literature review, the issue of seatbelts on to be acceptable yet neither the school district nor the school school buses has been a constant since 1985. Should school bus operator has control over these issues (Keeping Kids buses have seat belts? Today, five states [New York, New Safe . . . 2002). Also important is the security of students as Jersey, Florida, California, and Texas (2010)] have required it relates to drivers. Transit and motor coach operators are not or are in the process of requiring seat belts on school buses. required to go through a criminal background check as are NHTSA continues to assert that compartmentalization, as school bus drivers. School districts are mandating the use of defined by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 222, yellow buses for student transportation and requiring more provides effective safety for large school bus occupants (Trans- stringent controls of motor coach companies through contrac- portation Research Board 1989; Booz, Allen & Hamilton and tual and procedural requirements. E. A. Williams & Associations, Inc. 1987). NHTSA is cur- rently conducting crash tests of large school buses to deter- Emerging technologies for diesel engines and their impact mine the effectiveness of shoulder-lap belt combinations. The on students' health was also found during this literature review intent of these tests is to provide more insight and possibly a (Fromm and Tujillo 2002; Clean School Bus USA 2003a,b). unified approach for an issue that has received much attention The implementation of anti-idling and smart driving in combi- but divided opinions (LeMon 1998; Cullen 1999; History of nation with more fuel-efficient engines and cleaner fuels (i.e., School Bus Safety . . . 2000; Enhancing School Bus Safety . . . ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel) is advocated to reduce emis- 2002; Hinch et al. 2002; National Transportation Safety Board sions that can harm the health of young students transported 2008; Seat Belts, School Buses and Safety, n.d.). by school buses. Reflective tape, cross-view mirrors, stop signal arms, and bus crossing arms are recent improvements of safety equip- ORGANIZATIONAL DESIGN ment on school buses that enhance student safety (Special Report 222 . . . 1989; NHTSA n.d.a). Reflective tape allows The extent to which safety regulations affect school bus oper- the bus to be seen more easily by approaching traffic during ations is dependent on the organization that provides the ser- nighttime conditions and cross-view mirrors allow the driver vice. Private school bus contractors are subject to many federal to see students crossing in front of and immediately to the side safety regulations (Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations of the front of the school bus. Stop signal arms, which warn n.d.) and all state regulations. School districts that operate their other motorists to stop when students are loading and unload- own fleet of buses are subject to limited federal regulations ing approximately 10 ft in front of the school bus, are a means (e.g., Commercial Drivers' Licensing and drug and alcohol of protecting the students from approaching traffic as they testing) for those drivers that are included under such regula- begin to cross the street. Bus crossing arms guide students tions and any applicable state regulations regarding opera- away from the front of the school bus before crossing a street tion. Throughout the literature review, regulatory compliance so they are more easily seen by the bus driver and by motorists of school bus operations is not a recurring theme. approaching the school bus. The Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Pro- The use of non-traditional school buses for student trans- grams, which is available to each state, includes a guideline for portation is a recurring issue throughout the literature (Keep- pupil transportation safety (NHTSA n.d.b). The guideline ing Children Safe . . . 1995; National Transportation Safety establishes minimum recommendations for state highway Board 1999, 2000; Keeping Kids Safe . . . 2002). Some urban safety programs for pupil transportation safety and it includes areas are using their community's public transit-style buses to the maintenance of buses carrying students; the training of pas- transport students to and from school along regular transit sengers, pedestrians, and bicycle riders; and the administration routes. This practice concerns both school bus operators and of the program. It also includes minimum requirements for major school bus organizations because the students must drivers of school buses, other buses, and vehicles that are used walk to designated transit stops and then walk from stops to for school-chartered activities. The guideline addresses state school, which is a less direct method of transporting students administration of programs for school bus safety; requirements