ANALYSIS State-by-State Variation in
Crossing Procedures Part 3A: Flashers and Crossing Devices
By Ned Einstein Unlike certain benchmark changes in
school bus design, such as seat compart- mentalization that followed on the heels of catastrophic crashes, the evolution of emergency flashers evolved from data. Most of this was suppressed by the failure to tabulate and publicize the number of crossing fatalities not involving the vic- tim’s collision with the school bus itself. With this piecemeal accumulation of only
a small fraction of the actual carnage brought to our community’s attention, improvements in flashers thus limped along, state by state, often decades apart, stimulated periodically by federal mandates for improved equip- ment on all new buses and retrofit provisions required by a small handful of states. Te proliferation of changes in certain
crossing devices, like crossing control guards, often mirrored the lobbying ef- forts of manufacturers whose personnel meticulously tracked the pattern of fatali- ties, which the addition of certain pieces of equipment have reduced. Yet, even where significant reductions were irrefut- ably documented when this equipment was added, the lives of a handful of stu- dents appear not to be worth the money
States/Canadian Provinces that Require Crossing Control Gates Alabama Arkansas Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Illinois Iowa Kentucky Louisiana Mississippi Missouri Nevada
it would cost to save them in those states that still do not require such equipment. As our economy’s largely ignored col-
lapse became more visible following the housing and financial crises of 2008, fewer and fewer funds have been spent on such improvements, and the number of states re- quiring crossing control guards, for example, was stuck at less than 30. With our current financial environment, I expect the spread of mandates for seat belts to similarly stall at or near the now six states that require one or an- other form of these restraint systems. However, funding shortages alone
are not responsible for deterring these changes. It has long been known, and not only by NHTSA, that lap belts are patently dangerous on large school buses. But this knowledge did not persuade New York or New Jersey to upgrade their requirements to three-point securement systems. It also did not prevent Florida from mandating lap-only belts following a major NHTSA seat belt study that resulted in an updated final rule set to go into effect in October, despite the objections of that state’s out- standing, extremely knowledgeable and vocal director of student transportation.
New Jersey North Carolina Pennsylvania South Carolina Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Manitoba New Brunswick Newfoundland Nova Scotia Ontario
States/Provinces that Allow Optional Crossing Control Gates Alaska Arizona Idaho California Colorado Michigan Indiana Kansas* New York* Maine Maryland* Massachusetts Tennessee Minnesota*
48 School Transportation News Magazine August 2011
RETROFITTING AND HYBRIDS Te failure of most states to retrofit am-
ber flashers (there are a few exceptions, like Missouri) created a landscape of confusion among our nation’s motorists and profes- sional drivers alike. To begin with, most state requirements on the engagement of flashers changed when amber flashers were added to the equation (with California be- ing a notable exception). Te addition of amber flashers presumably eliminated the obligatory slam-on-the-brakes stop forced upon approaching and following motorists the instant the red flashers were engaged. Instead, it provided a transitional warn-
ing signal that enabled those motorists who could stop their vehicles earlier to do so. Further, it warned all of them that red flash- ers — mandating stopping — would soon follow. But this option is of little help to motorists following school buses with only four-way flashers. Particularly on the West Coast, large numbers of school buses with both types of warnings continue to operate, often in the same school district fleets. Further compounding this problem,
many school bus drivers in states without retrofit provisions feel that their “four-way”
New Mexico Montana Nebraska New Hampshire Oklahoma Oregon* North Dakota Ohio* South Dakota Rhode Island Vermont Texas Utah Alberta* Quebec* Prince Edward Island
*Large pockets of use throughout the area. New York has bills cur- rently being reviewed in the Senate and the Assembly mandating crossing control arms.
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