MAILBAG


A DOSE OF COMMON SENSE I wish I could say I was surprised at the potential of a $900,000


federal grant to study driver distractions on a school bus (“Missed Opportunity or Dodged Bullet?” February, page 8). Tere have been many such grants I’m sure that proceeded through the process and actually received funding for similar ridiculous studies. With the damage done, and forthcoming with educational budget cuts at the state and local levels, it would be a pitiful shame for any grants of this nature to be authorized. Unfortunately, the process involves a bureaucracy that delights in having their way without much oversight or real purpose. When I was actively involved in FMVSS school bus standards


Transportation Management Software • Student Database • Vehicle Maintenance • Training Records • Field and Athletic Trips • Employee Timekeeping • Bio-Metric Time Clock • Dispatch Dashboard • Numerous Reports and Letters • Computerized Routing and Mapping • GPS and Student Bus Passes • On-Line Trip Requests for Schools • Multi-User and Networked


Web Hosted • Internet Based • Low Monthly Fee • We Maintain Hosted Environment • Multiple Users • Schools Can Enter Electronic Trip Requests • Schools Can Map Student Home Addresses • Up and Running in 3 Business Days • Access TransTraks Via Your Smartphone, Tablet or iPad


Visit Us at the


STN Conference & Trade Show Drawing for prizes!


info@transtraks.com 925.838.8514


www.transtraks.com 10 School Transportation News Magazine April 2012


testing, we all took the job seriously, knowing that the end result would make our children safer. In the 1970s, numbers were thrown around that each bus would cost $1,750 more to have padded seats, stronger joints, better egress standards, etc. Te price was paid in the name of making transportation safer. Yet, when I challenged locally the value of those investments when children were being allowed to “stand” in the aisles during transport, safety was thrown to the wind. We aren’t taking advantage of the safety and integrity already built into our buses when we allow such “local” abuse to take place, negating all the value of the original investments in safety that were made and built into each bus. Tis type of logic and administration is a problem. Spending and


enforcement are all key ingredients to benefit from existing costs and programs to promote safety. Safety should be for everyone, not the select few who can be seated during transport. Funding of research should provide an obvious benefit to child safety, not to dig up more reasons to legislate. We have abandoned common sense, both in the funding of student transportation and the administration of how it is utilized. A good dose of common sense would solve many of our budget problems without compromising our children’s safety. Robert L. LaDow, National Sales Manager InPower LLC, Galena, Ohio


FOR THE RECORD Re: “With Integrated Child Seats, Vests and Restraints, Tere’s Always Room for Improvement,” February, page 32. One of the best tools that manufacturers can have in the


development of products for the pre-K and special needs markets is user feedback on existing products. Changes in design and features can best be directed by better understanding how your product is used and what enhancements would further improve it for the market it serves. Te SafeGuard STAR was wildly successful when it was first


introduced in 2003 because it was the first and only school bus specific child seat, but we heard frequent requests from Head Start agencies and school districts for a higher, standard weight rating than 65 pounds. Within a year, we introduced the SafeGuard STAR Plus rated at 25 to 90 pounds. Tis was followed by the STAR Special Needs, which is rated to 105 pounds. Our SafeGuard Integrated Child Seat was introduced with a weight rating of 22 to 65 pounds. By request of users, we soon redesigned and lead the market by increasing the maximum weight to 85 pounds. Charlie Vits, Safeguard Market Development Manager


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