chassis lighting with the exception of head/park/turn combination assemblies” failed by a vote of two in favor and 45 opposed. A Pennsylvania delegate disputed the proposal’s statement that it carried no financial impact. Delegates from several states asserted that including LEDs in specifications would beholden districts to the technology, even if future technology proves to be a better option. Dave McDonald, executive vice president of business


development and specifications compliance with Rosco Vision Systems, sat on the Body and Chassis Committee that vetted the proposal and approved it for a floor vote. He is among committee members who think delegates who voted it down didn’t fully understand what the pro- posal sought to do. He compared the LED proposal outcome to a defeated


proposal for remote-controlled side mirrors, which he said are an OEM feature on 92 percent of new school buses. “We look at remote control mirrors as being a safety necessity, not a convenience, because it only takes the driver to properly adjust them, rather than needing two people,one outside the bus adjusting it, and the driver sitting in the seat,” McDonald said. “Delegates looked at it as a state-to-state-to-state issue: ‘Don’t make it part of the national standard.’ The standard doesn’t say anything that you can’t have LED lights, but they leave it open for the states to either adopt it or not. That was the biggest thing. The states, some of them, get very, very objection- able when it comes to being told what they have to do.” However, McDonald said, it is important for people to


understand how the NCST voting process works. “The NCST is the minimum standard ... and then states can go beyond that. If it’s approved, it becomes a standard in every state that adopts the [National School Transporta- tion Specifications and Procedures],” he said. “They can add to it, but they can’t take away from it. Some states will use it as a guideline, but they don’t fully adopt it. ... But for the most part, states still control bus specifica- tions for their particular state.” Jim Haigh, the strategic account manager of school and transit for Safe Fleet, added that LEDs are just one type of light source. Vehicles today, he said, use in- candescent lamps, quartz halogen and HID/Xenon, in addition to LEDs. “There are many other light sources currently in use and


LED’s are not necessarily the most beneficial source of light for all applications,” he shared. “I believe that [delegates] didn’t want to lock themselves into one technology and prevent the use of emerging technologies in the future.” Mike VerStrat, communications manager of Opti-Luxx,


Inc., said NCST delegates are savvy enough to recognize that LED lighting is “already the de facto standard on new buses,” particularly because of the newer technolo- gy’s many advantages. Brett Kuchciak, specification and compliance manag-


er at First Light Safety Products in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, said he and other manufacturer representatives at the NCST were “quite surprised by the big down vote,” especially because the Body and Chassis Committee thoroughly vetted various options and proposals. “It’s interesting because a lot of people do think any


decision they make at the national level is going to have a cost implication. Most of these decisions, regardless of cost implication, though, are for a justified reason, which in this case is safety,” he said. Kuchciak said a Canadian Standards Association


committee is working on standardizing LED lights under the voluntary CSA D250 standard. “Despite the NCST not going forward, we think it’s something beneficial for the safety of school buses,” he said. McDonald and Kuchciak noted that some northern


state fleet operators prefer incandescent exterior lights because their heat melts snow and ice. “It’s not some- thing that’s widely seen as a benefit, but you’ll get the occasional shop guy who says that,” Kuchciak said. “Typ- ically, though, something that gets hot on a school bus is not ideal. You’d rather have the safety factor of an LED light because before you leave the yard, you’re going to make sure the bus is clear and free of snow, anyway.” VerStrat said some delegates’ hesitance to support


Proposal 25, due to the belief that better technology could emerge, is “almost a sideways compliment to LEDs” because of their rapid adoption by the transportation industry. For example, fewer than eight percent of cars globally had LED headlamps in 2015, according to one industry estimate. Another survey indicated approximate- ly 72 percent of autos were equipped with LEDs by 2023 with the number expected to rise to 75 percent by 2024. Because the 2020 NCST was canceled, delegates really


haven’t had an opportunity to address the issue until now despite their surge in use. “LEDs have rushed onto the forefront, so to speak, and I think that makes delegates say, ‘What else is coming? What’s the next thing?’” added Ver- Strat, noting there’s a need to give NCST delegates “a real understanding of what, if any, technologies are coming.” McDonald, who has served on NCST writing commiit- tees since 2000, said the 2020 NCST cancellation created a log jam of proposals for consideration. While commit- tees whittled down that backlog and this year’s delegates addressed many issues, “2030 will be an interesting one, because they’re still going to have some carryover items,” added McDonald, who retires from Rosco next month. The creation of the emerging technologies writing


committee will help in the future consideration of many issues, including innovations such as loading zone illu- mination. What about some NCST delegates’ concerns that better technology will displace LEDs any time soon? “There’s not anything that you would remotely say is going to be a standard other than LEDs in the near future,”


www.stnonline.com 23


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  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76