48 School Transportation News Magazine September 2011


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!


Last month, I addressed differences in crossing


equipment and touched upon differences in their engagement within Arizona. In contrast, differences from state to state in both the equipment and their engagement are startling. In terms of equipment, many states allow vehicles other than yellow school buses to install amber and red flashers (and usually stop arms), among other quirks: • Alabama church buses (which make moot the


need for retrofit devices) must contain red flashers that engage for boarding and alighting. Church and youth buses may also do so in Tennessee. Worker transport buses and some permited vehicles in Oregon may use both amber and red flashers. Massachusetts non- yellow school buses with fewer than 15 passengers are allowed to employ amber and red flashers as well as other crossing equipment. • Colorado school buses carrying fewer than 15


passengers do not require them. Additionally, flash- ers need not be engaged on a school bus of any size when a student is using a wheelchair lift. • A handful of states (Delaware, New Jersey, Ohio)


Muffler Manufacturing London, Ontario


Des Moines, Iowa


don’t require flashers in school loading zones; at intersections controlled by traffic signals or police officers (Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kan- sas); when the school bus is being used to transport nonstudents (Delaware); in “business districts” de- signed by local authorities (Idaho); when the bus is entirely off the roadway (Idaho, Kansas, Ohio); at the school itself (New Jersey, Iowa, Montana); or at extracurricular or educational activity locations that require no crossing (Iowa, Montana, Ohio). • Engagement of ambers must occur at a mini- mum of only 100 feet (Maryland, Arizona [according to one set of regulations] and Rhode Island). • In Utah, flashers may be used only when a student


must cross the roadway. Meanwhile, red flashers may be engaged only for “emergency purposes.” • In Virginia, red flashers must be engaged only for the


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


loading or unloading of students with disabilities or if the bus is stopped behind another bus that is about to load or unload passengers. Virginia has an ambiguous policy that the failure of a school bus warning device does not relieve any motorist from a duty to stop “as provided.” One suspects that, in this 1-percent state, motorists are required to stop behind school buses whether or not the flashers and stop arm are engaged. • Wisconsin mandates that red flashers engage


at a minimum of 100 feet before the stop. • Finally, New Jersey school buses need not engage


Manufacturing Bus & Truck Parts Since 1969 www.auto-jet.com


red flashers on or within 500 feet of school grounds, and motorists need not even stop when flashers are en- gaged at any other point. Instead, they need only slow down and pass the bus at a speed no greater than 10 mph. Michigan motorists may pass a school bus with its red flashers engaged at up to 15 mph. Fortunately, the majority of states follow the ba-


sic traditional approach, whereby the flashers must simply be engaged for the loading and unloading of


school buses. Tese states do not exempt their usage at signalized intersections and require their engage- ment even when drivers are certain (or suspect) that the boarding or alighting students will not have to cross the street and do not allow other types of ve- hicles to install and engage them. Otherwise, can we reasonably expect an interstate truck driver to keep track of all these differences when traveling from state to state? With so many exceptions and quirks, were one of these drivers to illegally pass a school bus and strike a student, the probable lawsuit would de- teriorate into a cataclysm of chaos. Te source of much of this information originat-


ed from a 2005 study by a motorist’s association, “School Bus Stop Laws in the United States, Can- ada and Other Countries,” so it is likely that some exceptions may be outdated or may have been modified. But they help explain why, for example, the proceedings of the National Congresses on School Transportation have never included a single word about crossing apart from the treatment of crossing equipment. Because of my respect for so many outstanding members of our community who have devoted their careers to the safety of our school children, I will withhold the epithets that the legislators in these states genuinely deserve. Similar to when Florida imposed lap belts on large school buses, I feel a deep sympathy for many state direc- tors of pupil transportation, as well as their local school transportation directors, saddled with this matrix of reckless, if not ignorant, regulations. Regardless, the disparity from state to state in the


installation and engagement of crossing devices, compounded by differences in retrofit provisions, cannot help but bear a large part of the responsibility for hundreds of crossing fatalities, and likely thou- sands of serious injuries, that occur annually. While regional differences are legitimate in several areas genuinely not motivated by knee-jerk political reac- tions to freak accidents, few differences of which I am aware justify all or most of the quirks in the instal- lation, retrofit and engagement of crossing devices that are commonplace throughout this country. For these reasons, it is hardly a coincidence that


most illegal passing lawsuits hold liable school districts and/or contractors — not third-party motorists who most often struck the crossing stu- dents. It is my hope that the information above helps explain why this apportionment of blame is justified, just as it my hope that our community begins to recognize that some aspects of pupil transportation vehicles and operations beyond paint chip color (not even a federal requirement) should be made uniform in every state and prov- ince in the United States and Canada. ■


Einstein is an expert witness and owns Transporta- tion Alternatives in New York City. His views do not necessarily reflect those of STN or its editors.


State Variations in Crossing Part 3B: Flashers and Crossing Devices


By Ned Einstein


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