2 - IIIIS SIOIllS Report. Vol. lr>. NQ. 5. May II. 1985

School Buses and Lap Belts About 18 school districlS throughout the country now require new school buses to be equipped with lap bellS, and many more are considerinl such a rule in response to parent groups that are lobbying state capitols and school boards. Carol Fast, founder and president of the National Coalition for Seat Belts in School Buses, says the movement is Irowing rapidly. "The issue is timely:' noles Fast, crediting new child restraint laws for the interest. She says her Iroup has 40 regional coordinators with coalitions set up in nearly every state. Some children entering first grade have always traveled restrained in child safety seats or safety belts, Fast says. When they get on buses that are not equipped with belts, they become "apprehensive," and their par· ents become apprehensive as well. "They know that it's a good thing to wear bells in cars," reminds Fast. "And they don't understand why there are no bells in buses.'" In 1973. when the National Highway Trame Safety Administration (NHTSA) began formally considering improving school bus safety standards. the agency proposed raisinl the backs of scats to a height of 28 inches, about the same hei&ht as an extended head reo straint in a passenger car. NHTSA also said it would consider requiring lap belts. (See Status Report, Vol. 8. No.5, Feb. 26,1983.) A requirement for combination lap and shoulder belts was, and still is, considered not feasible. In 1974, NHTSA abandoned the lap belt option. CilinS "practical objections" raised by the majority of aroups commenting on the standard NHTSA said it "detetmined that a passive system of occupant con· tainment by the scatinl system or a restraining barrier offers the most reliable crash protection in a school bus situation." By raisins the backs of seats, making them more yielding, and requiring paddina to protect a child's knees, torso, head, and face, NHTSA engineers believed that the crasb load would be spread more evenly over a child's body. The use of a lap belt, however, could cause the child to double over the belt in a frontal crash, pivotinl forward and sirikina his or her head on the back of the seat in front. Such an action would concentrate the force of the crash load on the child's face and head, which would increase the risk of head injury. Nevenheless. the aaenC)' said it would require the installation of belt anchorages in case school districts wished to install them. By 1976, when the final school bus occupant protection rule, Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard

(FMVSS) 222, 'Was issuecl, the hei&ht requirements for the backs of seats were reduced to 20 incbes, and all provisions for belt ancboraaes were lone. In a Federal R~, notice, NHTSA saKI tests by AMF Corporation indicated that the lower seat back beiaht 'Would provide "sufficient compartmentalization" for occupants. The scat back heipt was lowered because bus operators said they would not be able to 'Watch the pupils with the hi&her seats. As for lap belt anchorages, NHTSA said that in view of comments from bus manufacturers and operalars questioning their utility, that the agency would nOI require their installation. The notice indicated NHTSA intended to study the matter further and that in Ihe meanlime, lap belts could safely be attached to the seat frame by the users. But for smaller buses under 10,000 pounds, NHTSA required that they be equipped with lap belts. The reason for that, said NHTSA, was their smaller size could result in much more severe crashes. In 1918 NHTSA conducted sled teslS of belted and unbelted dummies and observed Ihat belted dummies experienced increased head injury measurements relative to unbelted dummies, but tbat un belted child dummies experienced a violent whippina eITea that warranted further study. SubsequCdt petitions for reconsideration of FMVSS 222 med by Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS) and Action for Cbild Transponalion Safety were rejected by NHTSA in 1981 and 1983, without additional tests. The physicians' and parenlS' groups question the efficacy of those tests and subsequent tests performed recently by the Canadian Ministry of Transport. However, the chief value of scat belts in school buses, they araue, is educational. Some pupil transportation supervison bave questioned whether riden wiU use lap belt buckles as weapons, and otbers have been skeptical aboutaettinl children to use the lap belts withoul havina a monitor aboard the bus. In reality, districts that bave installed lap belts do nOI repon them beina used as weapons. A spokesman (or the Greenbuqh Central School District in New York, where lap belts have been required since 1978, says that driven tepan students wbo refuse to follow tbe belt use rule to school officials, maDill monitors unnecessary. "It's a very emolional issue," Fast admits. It has pitied parents and physicians against NHTSA, bus owners, bus drivers, and school fleet administrators. Fasl says her group is willinlto trade off tess protection in frontal impacts to lain more protection in side impacts and rollovers. Data sbowing that belted dum-

//Il.

mies fare worse than unbelted dummies in frontal impacts are presented out ofconte t, he said. "It's a very a .Ie ard situation" a NHTSA official told SlDtus Report. • It gives us butterflies. We can't really argue with the concept of establishing better belt habits in children," but, he adds, the possibility of exacerbating head injuries in frontal impacts makes the agency reluctant to endorse seat belts for school buses. "We'd like to leave it open to the local jurisdictions," he concludes. School bus safety bas been a maller of concern to the ationaJ Transportation Safety Board, which has over the years examined bus crashes in depth. In 1983 following its study of a prestandard bus crash in Arkansas. the safety board said it believed that most school buses win be of poststandard vintage by 1981. The board is conducting an evaluation of post-1911 school buses of all izes to ascertain the effectiveness of bus safety standards. The board concluded: "because preliminary analysis indicates that these standards appear to be effective in eliminating or substantially reducing the rruijority of school bus passenger injuries, the safety board doe not believe there i sufficient justification t this time to recommend the mandatory in tallation of lap bel in large hool bu beD in 1983, NHTSA chief Diane Steed rejected the latest PAS petition seeking the mandatory installation of belt anchorages in large bu e , she noted that the afety board did not recommend the installation of belts and added that if the agency mandated anchorages, it would "impose a financial burden on all school bus purchaser , regardless of whether they intend to install belts in the buses. Under the present standards, di tricts...that want belts in their buses are free to order buses with belt or to install them in buses they already own." ( ee SlDlUS Report Vol. 18 o. 17, OY. 22, 1983.)

They Don't

ant Any Injuri••'

F t and other criti say T A hasn't adequately tudied the i ue. NHTSA has not c()nducted any rollover or ide impact crash te t of poststaodard buses, Fast note . Children are being partially ejected through windows, says Fast, citing a case where a child's arm was nearly cut off in an impact. "There's no 'compartmentalization' in a side or rollver crash .. observes Fast Parents are reluctant to accept assurances that belts re not nec !Y, Fast continue. "They don t want minor' injurie . They don t want any injuries." (Cont'd on poge 4)

tOIllS

Report. 0/.10.

0.5. May 1 I. 19 5 - 3

.a _ IIHS Stawj Report.

Vol. 10. No.5. May I J. 1985

'The ConJu-ion Contfnue.'

School Buses and Lap Belts (Continued/rom PoSt! J) John States, M.D., an orthopedist and professor at the University of Rochester, says thai large school buses are already very safe vehicles. The primary purpose for gening belts into school buses, says States, who has worked in New York to promote them, is: "We're out to save lives in the car." Stales says belts are a load idea because of the educational tIIrryover. It's confusinl, he says - alona wilh others - to tell children that belts are a load thina in cars but not necessary in school buses. However, bolh States and Fast acknowledge Ihere are no studies indicatina a correlation between belt use on school buses and belt use in automobiles. Siaies discounts tesls showinalhat lap belts may increase the crash force on children's heads in frontal impacts. Dummies Ihat have been used are "(00 sliff," he said, to live a true measurement of what happens in a crash. (See "Canadian Crash Tests." Pate SJ SO far, only Ihe Wayne Corporation. a bus manuf.cturin. company, has a.reed to provide predrilled holes in their se.ts so that school districts can retrolil their buses with lap belts. Wayne's vice president for product assurance, Robert Kurre says that when the company installs belts in larle buses, it uses the seats that it inslalls on small school buses, which are required 10 be equipped with lap belts. They come with an addilional leg support and braces in order to withstand the added force Ihat a seal belt would concentrate in a crash. This was despite a NHTSA rulina that the present scalS are adequale in a crash. Kurre says the company goes to the additional eltpense because of potential liability problems. The cost of iostallinl seal belts is 51.200 10 51,500 per bUS, he said. In Oclober 1984. Wayne petitioned NHTSA 10 amend FMVSS 222 to set a standard covennl Ihe inSlallation of safety belts in school buses. In its petition. Wayne said, "pro seat belt orpnizalions have laken up NHTSA's sUllcstion and are lobbyinllocal authorities to specify seat belts in their new bus purchases. In some instances, pressure has been so great that local authorities are attempling to retrofit older buses wilh seat belts." Wayne reponed that over 3S bills have been liIed in stale lqislaturcs seeking to require seat belts. and U.S. Rep. Peter Kostmayer. Pennsylvania Democrat, has

has filed a bill to provide federal incentive grants to states rCQuirinlt them. "The controversy surroundinl the seat belt debate has created confusion rather than enlilhtenment," Wayne said. "Questions have been raised and conm'ting information bandied about conceminl the number (Cont'donpa~ IIJ

School Bu. StotfatfC8:

It'. Safer lnalde School buses provide one of the safest modes of transportation available, acxording to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Since 1977 NUTSA reports an averap of I S school bus occupants have died each year in crashes. The most dalllerous place for a child is not lhe interior of a school bus. but its exterior. An averqe of 66 children are killed each year as they enter or exit school buses, NHTSA says. In 1983, the lasl year for which data are available for such pedestrian fatalities. NHTSA reported 44 pedestrian deaths. Two-thirds of Ihem were children under nine years of age. Of the 139 people killed in fatal school bus crashes in 1983, only 13 were riding in buses. The remainder were pedestrians, bicyclists, other drivers, and their passengers. Stale data on school bus crash injuries are incomplete. Where numben have been collected. all injuries are lumped toaether makina il impossible to distinguish belween scratches and more serious injuries. Although the Departmenl of Transportation and National Transponation Safety Board have attempled to study bus crashes that do not involve falalilies, investiption teams have been stymied because so few crashes occur thai offer sufficient data. The only Ii.ures available come from the National SafelY Council and those are derived from stale data and amount 10 no more lhan roulh estimates. However. for the 1982-83 school year, the safety council estimales thai 3.300 pupils were injured in 2,000 school bus crashes.

IIHS tatu. Report. Vol. 10, Nd. 5. May 11. /985 - 5

Lo~

buSt'S ore soft'rfor riders.

Lorxe bu obsorb ua hforct>S, lfisens injuries.

CanadianC~

e

5

o

.w.".

Recent te ts conducted by the Canadian government indicate that in vere frontal impacts lap belts in hool bu could do children more harm than good. The 1985 tudy of lap belt performance in frontal impacts w conducted by Transport Canada, the equivalent of the U.S. Department of Transportation. The Canadian conducted three fuji-scale 30 mph barrier impacts u ing various sizes of dummies, some equipped with instruments to record injury levels. The vehicles Ie ted were a 66-passenger Blue Bird school bu which meets U.S. standards designed to protect unbelted occupants, and two smaller buses seating 20 and 22 passengers. The lap belted dummies on the large bus recorded head impacts two to three times more severe than the unbelted dummie . But by far the worst scores were recorded by the lap belted dummies on the small bu e , The result were not surprising, says Dr. Kennerly Digge deputy ociate administrator for research at the ational Highway Traffic Safety Administration (HT ). In 1978. sled tests by the safety agency showed that lap beJts caused an increase in peak accelerations' resulting in harder head impacts with seat backs. Digge noted. as have other

HTSA officials that

in side and roUover crashes belts would provide safety

benefits to hool bus occupants. However, he contends that lap belts for large buses are a pooT investment from a cost-benefit point of view. "You d be better off nding the money on better brakes and better driv rs." he y.

a

ood?

In Canada large hool buses meet safety standards that are miliar to U.S. requirements. However small Canadian scbool buses weighing less than 10,000 pounds are not equipped with lap belts and the bead protection zone and seat spacing measurements differ from U.. requirements. Tran port anada concluded that in the tests • the belted dummies experienced higber head accelerations, lower che t accelerations. and more severe neck extension than did the unbelted [dummies]. This indicates that if lap belts are installed on current designs of school bus seats. a greater potential for head injury exi ts." The report said that the "passive occupant restraint system (compartmentalization) required [by Canadian safety standard 222] since 1980 functions as intended during frontal impacts and provides excellent protection faT occupants." Tbe "Scbool Bus Safety Study" was written by G.N. Farr, an automotive safety engineer with the crashwortbine section of Transport Canada. The tests were conducted under contract with Calspan, a private researcb company. William T. Gardner, head of crasbworthiness engineering for Transport Canada, says the tests were conducted becau it might be more damaging to add lap bel and previous studies indicated that bead and neck injuries might be aggravated by them. The tests ere done to an er those questions. About SS percent of all bool bu crashes in Canada during 1981 were frontal the report noted. The engineers tested a 66-passenger 1984 Blue Bird bus a 1984 Camp on van conversion type, 20passenger bus and a 1984 Thomas Minotaur 1 22(Conf'd on poge 6)

6 - IIH

lOrus Report. Vol. 20,

0.5. May 1I. 1985

Full-size bus: seQI cushions Impact. (Continued/rom Page 5)

passenger bus built on a Ford school bus chassis. AU three are commonly used tbroughout Canllda, tbe study said. For the test series. 4-foot, to-incb, 5tb percentile adult female anthropomorphic dummies were used in eacb bus. Three were belted and three were unrerained in each bus. Each instrumented to determine head and chest acceleration during the crash. Some of the dummies were instrumented to measure knee and upper leg injury data. Other, smaller dummi were placed on the lafle bus to provide a photographic comparison with the laraer dummies. one of the test dummie were certified for compliance testing under U.S. Federal Motor ehicle Safety tandard (FMVSS) 208. Therefore, a calculated head injury criterion (HIC) level of 1,000 for the dummies u ed in these tests cannot be correlated with tbe HIC level of 1,000 set as the upper limit under the U.S. occupant safety rule. However, the measurements obtained in the Canadian era b te IS can be used to compare lap belted and unbelted performance of the dummie u ed in each ofthe school bu tests.

Small bus: "Soft" landlfig/or lhe unbeJted.

The barrier crashes of the two smaller buses showed that in all cases, the dummies secured by lap belts measured HIC value exceeding I,OOO-and in some cases, scores in the 2,000 plus range were calculated. All unrestrained dummies bad mc values of less than 1,000. "From these result ," the Farr report said, • it must be concluded that for frontal impacts the re trained occupant would receive more severe head injuries than the unrestrained one. One can further conclude that injuries could very likely be life threatening." The test film howed that many of the belted dummie ' beads stru k the seats in front of them violently that the force bent the heads back on the neck at almost a 90 degree angle. The action was severe enough to be judged to cause erious injury, Farr aid. In the large school bus, the HIC values for the lap belted dummies were about three times greater than for the unrestrained dummies. However, none meaured mc values in excess oft,OOO. The reason they dido't, says Transport Canada's Bill Gardner is that a 30 mph barrier crash of the small (ConJ'd on fJQge 8)

llHS Status Report. Vol. 20. No.5. May 1 J. /985 -7

Unbelted

C Acceleration (e)

1

X X X

2 3 4

X X

5

e

60.4

Large Bus

649 629 220

40.8

Blueblrd,66 Passenger Weight 8147 kg

28.1

34.2

Velocity Deceleration

48.8km/h

25.0

Dynamic Crush Body Slide

1371 mm n5mm

40.1

&mel

48.2

X

205 731

X

2,S05

X

2 S

X

X

e

X

1 2

X

3

X

X X

4

X

e

NA

X

15g

u

893

47.9

Thomas Mlnotour, 22 Passenger

t. 44-

38.8

WeIght

4033 kg

741

59.8

Velocity

47.0km/h

1.178

42.4

Deceleration

19.5g

4tM

44.9

Dynamic Crush

729mm

BodySfide

381 mm

2,018

32.5

SmalfBua

389

21.1

Van Conversion Type

2.196

32.2

C8mpwagon. 20 Passenger

948

42.0

wetght

3058 kg

1,711

37.5

Velocity

47.1 km/h

607

24.4

Deceleratlon

499

DynaenicCruah

495mm

BOdy Slide

0

HlC (Head Injury Crtterlon) data not COIIIpatabltJ to acorn obtained by dummies ueect for testing under FMV8S 208. Generally, the hIgher the HlC, the greater the likelihood 0' Injury.

Source~TranallOrt Canadll

8 - IIHS Status Report. Vol. 10. No.5. May II. 1985 (Continued/rom Page 6)

bus is much more severe than that of a 66-passenger bus. The smaller buses are much stiffer than the larae bus and, in addition, the smaller buses stop much more quickly. Because the larse bus body slides on the frame and its front end crushes, much of the crasb force is absorbed before it is transferred 10 the occupants. Tbe hi.h head injury loads measured by the dummies were, in part, a result of lhe stiffness of tbe dummies used in the lest. the report noted. Gardner pointed out lba. the severity or the rearward nexure experienced by the dummy heads after they hit the seats in front of them is particularly noteworthy because the stiffness of the dummies should have acted to decrease the amount of nexion.

or

the large school bus, two unreDurina tbe crash strained dummies the size of six-year-olds struck the selt bac:ks below tbe seat back frame spreadina the forces of the crash over tbe dummies' bodies..... isexpeeled that this size of child would be better proteclccl by tbe 'compartmentalizalion' concept than a laraer child," Farr said. An adult-sized lap belled dummy in the driver's seat of the Iarse school bus was struck in the head by the !lleerina column in Ihe crash. The driver probably would have suffered serious or fatal injuries in the crash. Farr concluded. There were other problems noted. On the Blue Bird bus. the fuel tank cap was punctured. «If a rollover had occurred," Farr said, "a sisnificant leakage of fuel would probably have occurred." On the Thomas Minotour bus, a gasoline lank hose broke loose. "If even a partial rollover had occurred:' Farr reported, "a mlijor fuel spill would have happened." Durinlthe crash of the school van, two of the three left side windows shaltered, burling u a tremendous number of small shards oflempcred &lass" throughout the bus interior. Had the bus been filled with children, the &Ius could have caused severe eye and body injuries, Fan said. He sugested thai window glazing and fuel systems reo:ive further attention from ministry scienliSlS. Because of the Canadian lest results, the U.S. Ha· tionel Transportation Safely Board, which is conductina an evaluation oflar&c FMVSS 222 buses, hasdccided to elltpand ils Sludy 10 examine how well small, vanIype school buses are protectina their occupants in cnshes. (See "Safety Board Studies," Pasc I I.)

_

diICIidI _ _ and

............. r.. _ .... 08 _ Me IIOppiIli ..

oar....

.... dri.... rdroId crcwi tIJi. tile NadoDaI

r-...

'hwIIpartuioD Wet, a.nt 1'fK:OtIIDW'.,

Tbo

iMtjnn fJla1rllD ........... willi. e.m.tIIe. Viqiaio, ill 1914. " 1_ _ oolIidod _ ............ _

Ibo baud' _ _

-._ilI_...-

_..,... ... _alr... .... r8IIlId IIlII Il1o _ filiIod to ""'" W.... _ to _Il1o - . Tbo _ IIIlllae _GllIae .... _ _ _ alritsclloa. . Tbo""" _ nJIIed Two ofllle 26 . .• iIQuNd anditlbo _ _, , - _ _ •

_ -..-r

.. r

"""'11

dri

ID

_

_diad.

"'ran ...

Retrofitting School Buses With Lap Belts? Handle With Care School districts that retrofit Iheir school buses with lap belts should be very careful about their inslallation, say officials of the Nalional Hiahway Trame Safety Administration (NHTSA) and Ihe Wayne Corporation, a bus manufacturing company. Under no circumstances should belts be added to buses that were manufactured before 1977. The old bus seats have an exposed rail. Because ofthe dynamics of a crash, lap belts would actually increase the force with which an occupant's head would strike the rail. NHTSA has said that il is safe to attach the lap belts to the current seats in postSlandard (1977) buses. That statement is still true, .ys Ralph HitchCOCk, director ofNHTSA's omceofvebicle safety standards. Hitchcock says lhat if!Choal diSlricts want to retrofit school buses that were manufactured after 1977, they should first make sure that they purchase lap bellS lbat meel Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) 209. Also, if the manufacturer sells buses that bave a lap belt option, school districts should check 10 see bow they are installed and, if possible, follow tbe manufacturer's instaJlllion method. In .eocral, bells should be attached to the seal frame: if the bells are anached to the noor, children's

/lHS talu Report, Vol. 20.

o. 5. May II, 19 5 - 9

feet will get tangled in them and they will probably get dirty, thus discouraging their use, Hitchcock noted. Some frame are manufactured with predriOed holes for in tallation of the lap bel . Others have a round bar about hich the belt can be wrapped and fastened. till oLhe require that belt brac ets be welded to the at frame. In the case of buses that require welding Hitebcoc some hool district have contracted the wor out to local garages. Such a practice often results in faulty workmanship, he say , because garage personnel are u ually not familiar with the trength requirements necessary to ensure safe restraint. If tbe belt brackets mu t be welded to the seat frames, Hitchcock said profe ional engineers should check tbe installation.

LOADING MI"RO"

When Wayne installs belts, it provIdes seats equipped with an extra leg mounted at the midpoint of the eat. Braces are added to botb legs. The additional r inforcement helps pread crash forces evenly to the t frame and body wall. Wayne representative said the a are identical to those tbey install in small hool buses. uch a practice is probably not necessary, Hitcbcoc y gi en the infrequency of very severe crashes. Ho e er, school districts that choose to retrofit their bu hould at least be aware of some of the dr. bac of not reinforcing the in their large b In the rare case ofa violent cr it is possible tbat unbelted occupants ould be hurled into the back of a t in which belted occupants are itling. It is not clear that the seat bolding tbe belted occupants would be ble to u tain the load. In the mall buses meeting FMVSS 222, the bus occupant eating and protection rule, the seats are reo quired to withstand 5,000 pounds of crash force, a coniderably stronger requirement tban that required for the eat on large buses. NHTSA set the higher requirement for small buses because mall van-type bus cr he are likely to be mucb more violent than large bu crashes.

PnJtJI'ng

n evaluation of top arms on school buses re eaIs the stop sian on a swina arm can cut down illeaaI passina by 30 percent or more, a Texas study shows. The researcb into their effectiveness foUo ed a pilot study by the Insurance Institute for Hiab y Safety urns) documentina tbat illegal passina of school buses stopped to load or discharge passenaers is a dangerous problem. In recent years, bus drivers have reported increasina numbers of motorists breakina the law. Since 19.80, the Texas Department of Public Safety has reported a total of six school-bus-related pedestrian fatalities and 150 injuries - 35 of them incapacitatina. In each case, the victim was under the aae of 16 and was not struck by the hool bus. Researchers for

nus say that a1thoup

orne of the

illegal passina is the result of deliberate decisionmatina by the motorist, some of it may be the result of

If money wasn't limited, y Hitchcock, and installation were readily available the ideal belts to install in hool buse ould be combination lap and shoulder bel . Those systems ould sol e the problem ofjac nirmg in frontal crashes, and ould do a better job of pina beads arms and shoulders here they belnng in a rollover crash.

confusion. In the 1984 pilot study conducted for the DH by the Texas Transportation Institute, observers in t 0 large urban school di . reported that on an averaae day each school bus passed illegally by bout

hool districts con idering wbetber they ant to intall belts sbould con ider the routes and speeds of their buses, Hitchcock noted. For e ample, school di tric with buses travelina over mountainous terrain at high peeds might find belts more useful than urban and uburban districts with more nat terrain where buses travel relatively slowly.

A total of six bus routes were observed, three of them in Houston and three in San Antonio for a total of three days each. There were 8.33 illeaaI passes per day per bus in Hou on, and 4.65 per day per bus in San Antonio. Over 77 percent of all the illegal passes occurred on multiple lane hiBbways. (Cont't!onpage 10)

vencars.

10 - IIHS Status Report, Vol.lO. No.5. May 11,1985 (Continued/rom Page 9)

However, 25 percent of the illegal passing occurred only after the passing vehicle first slowed down and many vehicles stopped when they were not required to do so. In addition, a survey of drivers also indicated they were confused by the complex light systems on today's school buses. The rear of a new bus is equipped with 12 signal lights plus three running lights. (See figures.) Two of them are large red brake lights, and two of them are small red brake lights. There are two large yellow warning lights and two large red loading lights. There are also multiple sets of lights on the fronts of buses. In general, the public is required to stop only for the flashing red loading lights and may proceed with caution at any other time. In the pilot study, drivers were asked whether they would or would not stop for various combinations of light signals. Although the survey probably elicited cautious responses, 6 to 10 percent said they would not stop when, in fact, they would be required to stop. Forty-eight percent said they would slop if only warning lights were lit, 31 percent if only flashing red loading lights were lit, and 90 percent said they would stop for loading lights if they were on the opposite side of a divided highway -where they are not required to stop. In the later study which was mandated by the Texas legislature, the Texas Transportation Institute observed the effects of adding a swing-out stop arm that is activated when the red loading lights are illuminated. This study revealed that the stop arm lowered the likelihood of illegal passing by .30 percent or more.

the Texas Transportation Institute concluded, in Texas, "45 accidents [involving pedestrians] could be eliminated in 10 years." A second survey of drivers showed considerable confusion over the meaning of the array of light signals on buses. However, the researchers did fmd that the stop arm "significantly enhanced" driver understanding.

Sa/ety tGndard Since 1977, new school buses have been required to meet four sets of federal safety standards. They are: Federal Motor Vehicle Safety StalEld81r,d (FMVSS) 220 covers school bus to 0 r protection. This rule is intended to produce adequate structural integtit)' of e bus during a rollover crash to minimize e oof crush and pc it throop emergencye

FMVSS 221 strength requires in~K'io panel joints tha separation in a crash.

Assuming that the 30 percent reduction in illegal passes i 50 peroent effective in reducing collisions, RED IDENTIFICATION UGHTS A• •EllWIUINING UGHTS gD LOADING UGHTS

o o under lap

are ReD R£FL£CTORS

'th a

IIHS Statu Report, Vol. 20.

.... -_ .....,._.,...

..__ .-

~

,_.

---.-

....

.~

18 8

~~

.-

--

0.5. May II. 19 5-11

-'~

8 'f

2

.... 2-

2-

,~

Soom:e: T_T...

5

hUI"-e ion The National Transportation Safety Board is studying crashes of post-1977 large school buses to ascertain whether safety tandards are adequately protecting occupants. Tbe safety board bad expected to complete the tudy by the end of 1985, but foUo ins publication of Transport Canada' crash tests of large and smaU school buses the board is no considering e panding the study to include crash investiption of vans equipped as school buses, and other smaU school buses. As part of the study, board investigators are seeking to evaluate wbether buses should be equipped with lap belts. The board is also examining the role of lap bells in car crashes. "In the accidents we have seen so far. tbere is no clear pattern emerging that indicates lap belt installation would have made tbat much of a difference in seriou or fatal injuries on large buses" a board official says. One of the nuVor problems 'tb evaluation of lap belts is the I of school bus injury data, the official says. There i no uniform reporting ofschool bus related injuries. hen they are reported the injuries are lumped together so that there is no way to differentiate between minor scratcbes and severe injuries. The board is especially interested in investigating crashes of conventional larle buses equipped with lap belts. and needs to be notified when and where they occur. the official said. In 1983, the fety board said it did not believe there was sufficient data to justify a mandatory requirement for lap bel in large buses. nother board udy indicates that lax vehicle maintenance and poor driver traininl practices by private

_lIdIUo'......,.

school bus operators ha e contnDuted to or caused serious crashes. The board has recommended that stales tighten up their inspection procedures, and require improved driver education, licensing, and certification requirements for private bus drivers, as a result.

School Buses and Lap Belts: 'The Confusion Continue ' (Continued/rom Page 4)

of belts, their lenath. floor . seat anchorage. the type of buckle, adequacy of supporting structures, retrofitting belt acce • release. injuries, etc. and the confusion continues." NHTSA should promulgate a rule specifyinl exactly how seat belts sbould be installed, said the manufacturer, so that school districts wishing to voluntarily adopt them and the manufacturers that produce them will have some luidance, and theoretically. some immunity from potential liability. In Fairfl County Virginia, tbe Board of Supervisors voted to appropriate 100,000 to provide seat belts for new boof buses. . tant Superintendant itIiam Shadle ys that in the past school year. the county recorded 71 mishaps involvinl scbool buses. There were no deaths and the most serious injury as a dislocated boulder. He adds that without putting an aiae in every bus, a safely belt rule would be hard to enforce. "We have 800 buses with 5.400 daily runs in just can't get too enthu180 schools." said Shadle. siastic. Of course. if we have to do it. we'U do it."

h.

Some HTSA officials believe the Wayne petition wiU be answered aft"rmatively soon. However, the proposal for rulemakinl mu be cleared by the White House's Office of .Manaaement and Budget a detour that could delay the decision.

2 - IIH

talU Report. Vol. 20. No.5. May II. /985

~Dll!c·all

Vol. 20,

e ---------------

of Status Report focuses on chooI bus eubjects

utet,. Other apecl

I..... haYe focused on

Belt Use Laws - Vol 19, No. 14 (1984) R on Teenagers' DriYing - Vol. 19, • 10 (1984) TIte Itt/UI7 Feel Book - Vol. 19, 7 (1984) AuttOmlltic R - YoI. 1&. 18 (198 ) en....... - VoL1&. 4 (1983) Hazards - Vol. 17, 20 ( 982) ..........tIon.. SJIIIIl'OSiumon - Vol. 17, .18 (1982)

Vol. 17,

•

.1 (1882)

Autos - Vol. 18, No. 14 (1981 ) DrtIIlkinI9.11d D - Yolo 1 S (1981 ) .... - VoL1S, 19 (1980) 14 (1979) 13 (1979) .....1S.1eI

e. .

(Contents may be republished whole, or In

he highway loss reduction

watergate 600 Wahlngton, D.C. 20037 • 202J333.077O

_lOCIat. Production:

ISS 0018-988X

o. 5. May 11, 1985

~rt,

with attribution. I