buses are unsafe and, as a consequence, improvise the engagement of amber flashers by simultaneously engaging both turn signals (or “warning lights,” as they are often referred to when engaged together) as a substitute for them. Tis im- provisation, of course, backfires: rather than render the flashers more uniform (i.e., transforming four-way buses into eight-way buses), this approach creates yet a third variation of flashers that throws most motorists into an even deeper state of confusion. Tis enigma was explored in more detail in an STN installment (No- vember 2007) of the “Crossing Guy” series titled “Retrograde and Retrofits.” As I have read deposition upon deposition of motorists who passed school
buses with their flashers engaged only to strike a student stepping out from in front of (or in some cases, behind) the bus, I began to recognize the extent and depth of this confusion. In response to it, I advocated the creation and installation of 12-way flasher systems in four successive, previous installments in this maga- zine (published, sequentially, in late 2009 and 2010). But the continued collapse of our economy and über-concentration of wealth
into a tiny sliver of our overall population have compounded this problem by both limiting funds for purchasing additional equipment as well as thinning out the ranks of our law enforcement community whose presence might otherwise deter pass-bys. So, not surprisingly, studies have continued to find that the number of “pass-bys” is not only unusual, but also that it is increasing with apparent impunity.
ENGAGEMENT Disparity among states for the installation of flashers and other crossing equip-
ment is also compounded by state-by-state differences in the requirements for their engagement. In some cases, this confusion occurs even within a single state. For example, two different sets of Arizona state regulations call for the engagement of amber flashers at a minimum of 100 and 200 feet, respectively, before the bus stop. Yet, the state’s manual for driver certification — a document presumably reviewed by every school bus driver in the state prior to his or her hiring — cites the require- ment for the engagement of amber flashers on busy highways (e.g., with speed limits of at least 50 mph) to occur a minimum of 300 feet before the stop. Tis latter requirement is so unknown by most school bus officials that it recently took me nearly 15 telephone calls to even learn about it. Most state officials at all levels told me that the 100-foot engagement of amber flashers is the state’s standard. Such an ignorant example of anti-science is not simply a matter of opinion or the
result of funding shortages. Instead, it defies the laws of motion and other dynamics related to following and stopping distances. At 50 mph, with a motorist’s average re- action time of 1.5 seconds, reaction time alone would consume 110 feet. After that, the vehicle must then brake to a stop – and, in most cases, the heavier its mass, the longer its stopping distance. So, 100 feet before the school bus stop is an alarmingly inadequate distance for the engagement of amber flashers. Unfortunately, these principles have real-life consequences. In that state, I
recently helped settle a case in favor of a motorist whose sister was behead- ed when her automobile rear-ended a school bus that had engaged its amber flashers fewer than 100 feet before the stop (and compounded this error by also pulling only halfway off the roadway – while the state requires either a full pull-off or no pull-off). While this particular example did not involve a crossing accident, it clearly illustrates why there are so many of them, as well as other types of accidents and incidents related to this particular requirement. But this is only one state and only one unnecessary death. Te next install-
ment of this series will provide an overview of differences in crossing device engagement requirements among many other states. ■
Einstein owns Transportation Alternatives in New York City and has 30 years of expe- rience as an expert witness, a designer of paratransit, school bus and transit systems, and as a consultant on federal and local government transportation programs.
Manufacturing Bus & Truck Parts Since 1969
www.auto-jet.com
www.stnonline.com 49
Call for a FREE Catalog 800-247-5391
-NO VOICEMAIL-
Talk to people who know bus exhaust Email:
brandon@auto-jet.com Fax: 515-224-0727
SCHOOL BUS EXHAUST
> America’s Most Complete Coverage > Original Equipment Fix > 48 Years Manufacturing School Bus Exhaust Systems > Over 2,500 School Garages Served This Year > Diesel, Gas, Conventional, Flatnose or Van--We Make Them All!
JUST IN! New School Bus
Exhaust Catalogs
AVAILABLE NOW! New Systems
New Accessories
188 Pages of Exhaust Parts Both Old & New!
Includes Many Photos and a Cross Reference!
Muffler Manufacturing London, Ontario
Des Moines, Iowa
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