FIRST TAKE Te de rigueur of school bus operations is safety, which, one would surmise, renders moot the


conversation about distracted driving, especially that tied to cell phone use. Yet, far too many school bus drivers continue to talk or text on their cell phones while transporting students. In early November, for example, a school bus driver in El Paso County, Colo., was cited for


Are There


Technological Answers to Distracted Driving?


By Ryan Gray


talking on a mobile phone shortly before crashing on U.S. Highway 24. Te 29 people on board, including 24 members of Calhan School District boys and girls basketball teams and five adults, escaped with only minor injuries, but the incident highlights a growing concern that some school bus drivers are continuing to break not only their employer’s policies banning cell phones while driving but also state law. Bruce Little, the senior student transportation consultant at the Colorado Department of Educa-


tion, said the state has no rule banning the use of cell phones since many districts, especially those operating in rural areas like El Paso County in east-central Colorado that is a mixture of prairie and mountains, need cell phones to stay in communication with their buses. “We do require that districts have procedures controlling the use of personal cell phones,” Little


added. “Colorado does have a state law not allowing any driver to text while driving.” While the state tally on laws restricting cell phone use by drivers remains at 19, most school dis-


tricts have a policy that bans cell phone usage while driving except in an emergency. But, as Scottish poet Robert Burns once uttered, “Best laid plans of mice and men often go astray.” Distracted driving has become a hallmark of Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Te Depart-


ment of Transportation published a new Web site late last year that gives faces to those killed in crashes caused by distracted driving, such as 13-year-old Margay Schee. A much publicized inci- dent especially in pupil transportation circles, the Citrus, Fla., girl was killed in 2008 when a driver of a semi who was talking on his cell phone slammed into the rear of Margay’s school bus during the unloading of students. In October, a federal ban went into effect regarding interstate truckers and bus drivers talking


on mobile communication devices. Te FMCSA rule targets both phone and texting conversations as well as any other use of the devices while attempting not to touch, so to speak, essential com- munications via two-way radio. But most school district bus drivers are exempt from the new law. However, drivers employed by private bus companies with U.S. DOT numbers engaged in interstate activity trips will be subject to individual fines of $2,750 for violations, plus they could have their CDL taken away. Employers are also accountable with fines of up to $11,000 for each driver citation. It begs the question, is there some way technology could prevent all drivers from conversing on


cell phones, at least in those jurisdictions where it is unlawful? Tis month, we decided to find out in our “Special Report.” Much media attention over the past year has centered on blocking cell phone communication


by prison inmates, and that conversation evolved into one on driver conversations. LaHood himself told the media that NHTSA would consider any technology currently available but reminded that we “have to have good laws, you have to have good enforcement, and you have to have people take personal responsibility. Tat’s the bottom line.” Te bottom line is that the FCC bans commercial products from blocking or jamming radio


frequencies, and the federal Communications Act would need to be amended to allow this type of regulation. As the article on page 26 shows, the issue is a complex one. Not only would the FCC ban need to be reversed, new certification standards would also need to be developed by the wireless communication industry. But perhaps learning a bit more about how cell phones work can lead to this industry becoming


a stakeholder along with the wireless industry, safety organizations and the feds and work toward finding a solution that makes sense. Certainly cell phones are just one piece to the distracted driv- ing puzzle but a highly-visible one at that. School transportation could step to the forefront of this debate as a champion of child safety, something the national community is well versed at. But those voices need to be heard loud and clear. ■


12 School Transportation News Magazine January 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