HEADLINES


The Story of the Study and the Seat Stakeholders discuss what could have been regarding the Alabama school bus


seat belt study, which does not reflect flexible seating technology STN also spoke with seat manufacturers


When the final results of the Alabama seat belt study finally hit the newsstands


in the fall, many thought it would become the new rallying cry for seat belt oppo- nents. Te study came to the conclusion that the costs involved with adding seat belts combined with the loss in capacity would create a financial burden that most districts could not handle. Te report also advised that the money would be better spent in educating students about the dangers of the loading and unloading zone. But, when Bob Knapp, executive vice president at school bus seating manufacturer


C.E. White, first read the report, one major issue stood out — capacity. Te loss of seat- ing capacity had been the defense for most school districts when asked by parents why all their school buses did not have seat belts. Up until recently, by adding three-point lap/shoulder belts to a school bus seat, transporters could expect to lose about a dozen seating positions in a large bus. Knapp said he believed the study had jumped the gun. “Any time we save a child’s life, whether it’s at the breakfast table or in a horrific


crash in the middle of the road, it’s one more child we saved. I don’t want to split hairs where to spend money,” said Knapp in response to the study’s conclusion. Enter the new Quasi-Static three-point student safety seat, which exceeds cur-


rent FMVSS 210 and 222 and NHTSA’s new quasi-static standards, and complies with all the compartmentalization standards. Te seat was unveiled at the NAPT Summit trade show in early November. But before the NAPT conference began in Portland, Ore., Knapp sent School Transportation News his response to the Alabama study, which soon led to a discussion with study lead Dr. Dan Turner. “We agree with almost all of Bob’s comments,” said Dr. Turner after a second


phone conversation with Knapp. “Our study used the buses/seats available when the study started.” Te buses used in the study were purchased in late 2007 and early 2008, and the


results reflect only the seats and belts that were available at that time. Tis was prior to NHTSA publishing its final rule, which included flexible seating technol- ogy utilized by C.E. White, SafeGuard/IMMI and M2K/SynTec Seating Solutions to solve the capacity issue. “We understand why the industry feels that our study was premature, but fol-


lowing a tragic crash in which four pupils were killed, the immediate demand for seat belts on Alabama school buses required immediate action,” said Dr. Turner. “We completely agree that 3/3-12 seating is available today. Tis option was added to our capacity study, using flexible seating to retain 3/3-12 seating. At that time it required lengthening buses, which is no longer the case.” Te new C.E. White seat features a thinned-down back that takes up less com-


partment space and allows the rows of seats to be placed closer together for zero loss of occupancy. Te sides of the seats are also tapered to allow 12 inches of aisle spacing, 15 inches of hip spacing at the top of the seat and 14 inches of spacing 30 inches up from the floor, according to Knapp. “With all of these attributes together it allows you to place the same students and


the same number of students in a bus equipped with these three-point belt seats as you would in a bus equipped with standard seats without having to make sure every third passenger is 10 years old or younger,” said Knapp. And even though the seat was not yet available for purchase at this writing, cus-


tomers are ready and waiting. “We will be using it in all our future buses once Blue Bird is ready,” said John Roselli, new school bus sales director at A-Z Bus Sales in Colton, Calif. ■


20 School Transportation News Magazine January 2011


SafeGuard/IMMI and M2K/SynTec Seat- ing Solutions while attending the NAPT Summit, who agreed that the study was premature and did not take into account the seating options that were available as the study began. “SafeGuard/IMMI welcomes continued


research on lap/shoulder belts in school buses such as this Alabama report,” said Charlie Vits, the market development man- ager at SafeGuard/IMMI.


“Tese reports


increase the awareness of the value of lap/ shoulder belts as a means to protect our traveling students in a way desired by the majority of parents in this nation. Tis study was a snapshot of the use of lap/shoul- der belts based on technology available in 2007 and used under a set of guidelines established by the state of Alabama for the purpose of this study. We know of a num- ber of school districts across this nation that have already proceeded to equip their buses with lap/shoulder belts and have implemented working usage policies and procedures. Teir experience has been such a success that they have no desire to return to buses without lap/shoulder belts.” “With the technology available today [flex


seating], buses having seats with lap/shoulder seat belts do not suffer the capacity penalties inherent with earlier generations of seating, and the cost of these seats has also come down considerably as the products have matured,” added Brandon Marriott, general manager of M2K/SynTec Seating Solutions. “SynTec recognizes that there are no easy decisions to be made when it comes to pro- tecting our children, and that many strategies exist for increasing safety while traveling be- tween home and school. Lap/shoulder seat belts provide a complementary level of safety in rollover and side impact crashes, as well as improving the effectiveness of compartmen- talization in severe head-on and rear-end crashes — crash modes that are ever more frequent as buses travel further and at higher speeds each day.”


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