Special Safety Concerns of the School Bus Industry (2010)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

20 This synthesis report provides an overview of current safety issues in the field of pupil transportation as identified in rele- vant safety journals, trade and government publications, and Internet sites, as well as research findings from a widely dis- seminated survey on school bus safety. The peer-reviewed sur- vey questionnaire was designed based on the Socio-Technical Systems model of transportation safety to explore each aspect of school bus operations, including the driver, environment, equipment/technology, and organizational design. Survey respondents included school bus drivers, fleet managers, train- ers, mechanics, transportation specialists, and a variety of other positions relevant to school bus operations. The main objective of this synthesis effort was to identify the most relevant safety issues and explore perceived barri- ers to making improvements as well as potential solutions. It is clear that although there are a variety of safety issues in pupil transportation, those regarded as the most severe by survey respondents include illegal passing of buses by other motorists, the behavior of passengers both on the bus and while loading/unloading, and driver skill level. In addition, there appears to be growing concern regarding security and violence issues on the school bus and at bus stops. BARRIERS AND SOLUTIONS TO IMPROVING SAFETY Survey respondents believe that barriers to improved safety in school bus operations consist mainly of inadequate funding; a lack of strict law enforcement and public awareness of laws; and insufficient support from administrators and parents to improve safety and intervene with the problem behavior of students. Funding In terms of funding, many survey respondents believe the typ- ical salary for a school bus driver is insufficient given the level of responsibilities and roles the drivers must fill. Increasing school bus driver pay may reduce turnover and decrease the amount of funding needed for new hiring procedures and train- ing. Many respondents also believe that the amount of passen- ger monitoring and discipline necessary on the bus is too much for one individual to take on alone, especially while simul- taneously attempting to monitor the driving environment. Therefore, school bus monitors/aides are seen as a necessity for improving safety; however, not all school districts/fleets can afford additional staff members to handle such responsi- bility. Another consideration within this issue is the potential lack of qualified applicants to fill monitor positions. Besides rating monitor turnover (which was not perceived as a rela- tively important issue as it was ranked 45 of 51 of the overall safety issues), this survey did not directly address hiring issues related to monitors/aides. This may be an important issue to address in future research. Other funding issues noted were related to driver training and equipment/technology upgrades and maintenance. These issues are discussed in more detail here. Law Enforcement and Public Education Many respondents believe that given the frequency of illegal passing of buses by other motorists, that there is insufficient police attention to such issues as they are happening, as well as a lack of prosecution once violators are reported. Some survey respondents believe that there is need for educating the public regarding such laws. For example, some survey respondents believe that other motorists seem unsure of whether they are allowed to pass buses, thus “creeping” past the bus. Other motorists appear to believe that the stop signal arms on buses are to be treated like regular stop signs, whereby the driver only has to come to a momentary complete stop before pro- ceeding past the bus, even if the stop signal arm is still deployed and the loading or unloading of children is still occurring. Support from School Administration, Parents, and Fleet Management When responding to the open-ended question regarding bar- riers to safety, some survey respondents expressed frustra- tion with a lack of follow-through with student disciplinary actions, particularly on the behalf of school administration. For example, it may be the case that problem students are not being disciplined enough to discourage future behavioral issues. Some respondents indicated that more parental involve- ment is needed to make parents aware of their children’s behavioral problems and to work with school administrators and bus drivers to derive solutions for addressing such issues CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS

21 on a student-by-student basis. Suggestions were made to include training and education for parents regarding behav- ioral issues relevant to school transportation and how to effectively teach and/or discipline their children when behav- ioral issues are reported. Finally, survey respondents believe that fleet managers should improve training, increase supervision and monitor- ing of drivers, ensure maintenance issues are resolved, and make efforts to educate the public regarding school bus safety. In addition, six respondents believe fleet managers are respon- sible for creating and maintaining a safety culture among their fleet. This means making safety a priority, setting a safe exam- ple, and improving communication regarding safety issues to drivers on an individual basis as well as in group meetings. Training One somewhat conflicting result from the survey is that when asked how thorough driver training procedures are, the average response was less than 7 = “Very thorough” (see Table 16). However, improved driver training was rec- ognized throughout the open-ended responses as a necessity to increasing safety. A need for more, if not improved, behind- the-wheel training and defensive driving skills training seemed to be a recurrent theme in survey responses. Another gen- eral training issue recognized was a need for drivers to have improved “people skills” (e.g., communication) in dealing with students, parents, and administration to handle behav- ioral issues and discipline, as well as the reporting of inci- dents, safety/discipline concerns, and mechanical issues. Some survey responses included the suggestion for training relevant to stress management skills for school bus drivers to help them cope with frustrations and effectively handle various situations with students, parents, and other motorists. Finally, there were respondents who believe that additional specific training is needed in the areas of special needs students (interacting with, loading/unloading, and evacuation procedures for special needs children) and school bus security. Technology/Equipment Survey respondents recognized how various technological advances [e.g., cameras, global positioning systems (GPS), and improved mirror design] have improved driving safety, yet many school districts and fleets lack the funding to include such technologies in their buses, let alone maintain and upgrade their current equipment. Cameras on the bus are useful for monitoring student behavior and dealing with dis- cipline issues, while cameras exterior to the bus are useful for reporting illegal passing and other risky driving behaviors by motorists sharing the roadway. Improved mirror housing designs and placements eliminate blind spots and allow the driver to have a better feel for the driving environment when changing lanes, pulling into traffic, scanning for pedestrians, backing up, etc. GPS and automatic vehicle locator devices are useful for successful route navigation, thus eliminating driver stress and distraction from being lost, as well as for security issues if a situation arises where administrators need to know the exact locations of their vehicles. Other useful and needed technologies mentioned included passenger monitoring to detect whether all students are accounted for at the appropriate time, so that no passengers are left behind on the bus if they have fallen asleep during the route. Some survey respondents indicated a need for sensors around the vehicle to detect objects or pedestrians in the path of the vehicle, thus adding a layer of protection that mirrors themselves cannot provide. Finally, a recurrent theme was the need for diagnostic programs to aid drivers in detecting main- tenance issues with their vehicles, thus providing a more com- prehensive inspection of the vehicles pre- and post-trip. Other aspects of equipment survey respondents mentioned as needing improvement included seat design for both the drivers (ergonomics) and passengers (reduced seat height for a better view of the passengers), as well as evacuation-related improvements (e.g., emergency exits on the floor in case of roll-over, and ramps or slides on emergency exits). One interesting finding from the survey is that the issue of mandatory seat belt use of passengers did not receive much attention, and when it did, the frequency of positive and neg- ative remarks was nearly equal. For example, when asked about what federal or state regulations should be made (see Table 31), eight respondents indicated that seat belts should not be mandatory, although six respondents believed they should be. It is not clear whether these respondents were in a district where seat belts are mandatory or not, which would have been an interesting comparison if that information were available. Those opposing mandatory seat belts appeared to be mostly concerned about whose responsibility it would be to verify that passengers are buckled up, whereas those who advocated mandatory seat belts believe it would save lives and would also make the high seat backs less of a necessity, thus improving the view of passengers and their behavior. Finally, in terms of equipment, it is interesting that when asked what level of compliance the drivers in their fleet have for performing pre-trip inspections, many respondents reported that fewer than half of the drivers do so. Possible solutions to improve compliance with this important issue included increased supervision/monitoring of drivers to ensure that they complete the inspections, provision of diagnostic equipment, increased training, and additional incentives (e.g., more pay) to complete the inspections. Organizational Design Some of the major organizational design issues included the location and/or quality of bus stops. For example, of the 51 overall safety issues rated, “lack of sidewalks at or near bus stops” was ranked as number 11, “bus stops on major high-

ways” was ranked as 29, and “lack of an adequate waiting area for passengers at bus stops” was 30. Also, some drivers indi- cated there were issues with bus stop placement, which made them difficult to see, including placement near curves and on hilly terrain. Security A majority of respondents indicated either giving or receiving security awareness training in the past year. When asked what drivers could do to ensure that their buses are safe in terms of security, most responses had to do with performing pre- and post-trip inspections, keeping buses locked in a secure area, and increasing vigilance for suspicious or unusual activities, packages, etc. A smaller number of respondents believe that increased and/or improved training in security issues is war- ranted. Other survey respondents noted concerns regarding terrorism, as well as increased violence among students both on the bus and while at bus stops. LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK One of the major limitations of this research was the relatively low response. Extensive efforts were made to distribute the survey widely through listservs, individual e-mails, flyers at a major school bus safety conference, flyers at work, telephone calls, and advertisements/announcements in trade publica- tions. The survey was offered in electronic, paper, and online formats, and those completing the paper version had the options of returning it by mail or fax. Individuals were encouraged to voice their concerns and have them documented through this process, yet only 198 indi- viduals completed the survey. Another related limitation is that owing to the multiple methods of recruitment and the “snow- balling” referral tactic, it was impossible to calculate the exact response rate. Several steps may improve the response in the future, including providing a longer time frame to build net- works and distribute the survey (this project, from inception to completion, was to be completed in less than a year), provid- ing incentives for survey completion, and perhaps even short- ening the survey. These suggestions may also reduce selection bias, as it is assumed that only the most conscientious or con- cerned individuals took the time to respond to the survey. With incentives, for example, perhaps a wider variety of individuals would have completed the survey. The challenge of the survey was to gather as much infor- mation regarding school bus safety as possible, without mak- ing the survey too long for an acceptable completion time. Although this survey was successful in exploring the major issues, barriers, and solutions to safety problems, future research might focus on particular issues to explore them in more detail. Another limitation was the brevity of questions regarding the demographics of the participants and their school systems. By having more of this information available, it would provide greater context for individuals’ responses. Finally, given that a majority of the surveys were completed online and participants were guaranteed anonymity, it was impossible to identify participants to be able to probe based on their responses or otherwise ask for clarification. This too is a difficult issue because guaranteeing anonymity/ confidentiality may be necessary to obtain the most truthful responses from participants. In summary, this synthesis provides a basic foundation of information regarding the safety of school bus operations that will be useful to policymakers, administrators, trainers, fleet managers, and safety researchers. 22