SPECIAL REPORT
districts weigh potential revenue against child and public safety. Colorado was the first in the nation to
allow school bus ads dating back to the early 1990s and was followed by Arizona, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Texas and Tennessee. An informal survey of those states uncovered no associated crashes, injuries or deaths tied to the ads. New Jer- sey and Utah will soon join the list, and Oklahoma joined Florida in filing bills this year seeking to do the same. Similar leg- islation in Idaho was rejected last month. One issue is the potential obscuring of
the characteristic color of school bus yel- low that serves as a rolling caution sign to other motorists that students are on board. NASDPTS, FAPT and countless others in the industry say that ads in es- sence cheapen the visibility of the buses. NASDPTS also pointed out that the ads could distract motorists from the federal- ly-regulated flashing safety lights and the external stop arm on the driver’s side that
instructs motorists to stop for children during the loading and unloading process. “Tese distinctive features send a mes-
sage to motorists that children are present and extreme caution is required,” NASDPTS wrote. “Advertising will compromise these distinctive safety features of school buses, because it displaces some of them and is designed to catch the attention of passing motorists, thus creating a distraction.” Te NASDPTS paper also cited the Na-
tional Motor Vehicle Causation Study, which studied 7,000 crashes that occurred between 2005 and 2007 and found that looking at an external object results in the third-highest odds ratio of a crash. Accord- ing to Strayer at the University of Utah, it all comes down to the false belief today that people can successfully multi-task. “It would be more convenient, maybe,
if we could be better at multi-tasking. But our responses are effectively kind of se- rial,” he said. “You’re really doing one thing at a time and maybe switching attention
back and forth as you try to multi-task. But in doing so there’s a kind of overhead associated with that switch. Paradoxically, people who tend to multi-task a lot are less good at it than people who don’t do it so much.” Ultimately, the NASDPTS paper rec-
ommended against school bus ads. But, if legislatures allow the ads, NASDPTS said states should ensure the advertisements are secured on school buses so as to not snag student clothing or related items. NASDPTS also suggested that school districts should develop criteria that limits the size and lo- cation of the bus ads as well as the content. Arizona and New Mexico, for example, pro- hibit any ads related to alcohol or tobacco products. Arizona law also specifies the per- missible location of the ads, such as in areas other than those that will impede the safe operation of the school bus. Te other side of the coin shows po-
tential legal ramifications. In 1993, a federal judge ruled that the Massachusetts
34 School Transportation News Magazine May 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68