Special Report
A closed-track demonstration shows why electronic stability controls could be necessary to improve school bus safety.
Making the Safest Vehicle Safer? NTSB recommendations have the industry buzzing about additional safety equipment for school buses
WRITTEN BY CLAUDIA NEWTON |
CLAUDIA@STNONLINE.COM O
n May 22, the National Transportation Safety Board held a meeting to review findings of its investigative teams studying the November 2016 Baltimore and Chattanooga school bus crashes, and to make recom-
mendations for increased student safety going forward. Te recommendation that received the most national media atten-
tion was for standardized lap-shoulder seat belts nationwide, which echoed NTSB’s repeated calls for the past decade. NTSB stopped short of asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to initiate rulemaking to require the occupant restraint systems, which NTSB officials have previously told the industry is unlikely to happen. It did, however, recommend that all school buses be equipped with electronic stability control systems (ESC)—which it also first called on NHTSA to require nearly a decade ago—and crash avoidance systems, including automatic braking. School buses were excluded from the heavy-duty truck and bus
ESC rule published three years ago, because NHTSA at the time deemed the technology largely unnecessary for the common, short home-to-school routes. It also said the cost of ESC might reduce student ridership.
While many student transporters remain unconvinced about
how these three technologies could improve school bus safety, a recent School Transportation News reader survey indicates that support is increasing. Te survey, administered last month to transportation directors,
supervisors and fleet managers, asked which of the three recommended safety systems, if any, they planned on implementing. Half of the nearly 300 respondents said they were not planning to add anything. Nearly one-third said they planned to add lap-shoulder belts, almost one-quarter said they were considering collision avoidance and
18 School Transportation News • JULY 2018
almost a fifth said ESC interested them. Andrew Madura, director of transportation for Lake Region Schools in Maine, said he would like to add all three of the technologies, but pointed out that the district’s replacement cycle of one to two buses per year means it could take decades before the whole fleet would be equipped. In the meantime, he said the district would face the complicated issue of addressing parent inquiries about why their child’s school bus lacks those safety features, when they are present for other routes. “Tere really needs to be a funding mechanism at the state, national and local level to replace these buses—to help us bridge that gap to get these done quicker,” he noted. While Madura said the current state funding program is lacking, he added that he is excited for the opportunity presented by the Volkswagen settlement, and he has already submitted a letter of interest for 11 buses that would be eligible for replacement. “Tey’re going to pay for 80 percent of the cost of the bus, so it would be a good time to get some of these extra things in,” he explained.
ESC is on the wish lists of both Dawson Independent School
District in Texas and Sheridan School District in Arkansas. Aaron Hogue, supervisor of maintenance for Dawson ISD, said he values its usefulness in helping prevent rollover crashes. Rhonda Harris, transportation coordinator for Sheridan School District, predicted it would help drivers navigate the area’s rural roads, especially when they become slick with water or ice. While three-point seat belts require driver and student training on use and evacuation, as well as monitoring to make sure they are actually used, ESC and collision avoidance are easier to implement, because they “take the human element out,” said Ryan Lyman,
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
