[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN IMPROVING
SCHOOLBUS SAFETY
=======================================================================
(116-29)
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
HIGHWAYS AND TRANSIT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 25, 2019
__________
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available online at: https://www.govinfo.gov/committee/house-
transportation?path=/browsecommittee/chamber/house/committee/
transportation
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
40-797 PDF WASHINGTON : 2020
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon, Chair
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, SAM GRAVES, Missouri
District of Columbia DON YOUNG, Alaska
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland Arkansas
RICK LARSEN, Washington BOB GIBBS, Ohio
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania
JOHN GARAMENDI, California RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., ROB WOODALL, Georgia
Georgia JOHN KATKO, New York
ANDRE CARSON, Indiana BRIAN BABIN, Texas
DINA TITUS, Nevada GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
JARED HUFFMAN, California MIKE BOST, Illinois
JULIA BROWNLEY, California RANDY K. WEBER, Sr., Texas
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida DOUG LaMALFA, California
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
MARK DeSAULNIER, California PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California, Vice GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
Chair BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland JENNIFFER GONZALEZ-COLON,
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York Puerto Rico
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
GREG STANTON, Arizona ROSS SPANO, Florida
DEBBIE MUCARSEL-POWELL, Florida PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas GREG PENCE, Indiana
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota
HARLEY ROUDA, California
(ii)
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of Columbia, Chair
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas RODNEY DAVIS, Illinois
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee DON YOUNG, Alaska
JOHN GARAMENDI, California ERIC A. ``RICK'' CRAWFORD,
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., Arkansas
Georgia BOB GIBBS, Ohio
JARED HUFFMAN, California DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JULIA BROWNLEY, California THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
FREDERICA S. WILSON, Florida MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina
ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California ROB WOODALL, Georgia
MARK DeSAULNIER, California JOHN KATKO, New York
SALUD O. CARBAJAL, California BRIAN BABIN, Texas
ANTHONY G. BROWN, Maryland DAVID ROUZER, North Carolina
ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York MIKE BOST, Illinois
TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey DOUG LaMALFA, California
GREG STANTON, Arizona BRUCE WESTERMAN, Arkansas
COLIN Z. ALLRED, Texas LLOYD SMUCKER, Pennsylvania
SHARICE DAVIDS, Kansas PAUL MITCHELL, Michigan
ABBY FINKENAUER, Iowa, Vice Chair MIKE GALLAGHER, Wisconsin
JESUS G. ``CHUY'' GARCIA, Illinois GARY J. PALMER, Alabama
ANTONIO DELGADO, New York BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
CHRIS PAPPAS, New Hampshire TROY BALDERSON, Ohio
ANGIE CRAIG, Minnesota ROSS SPANO, Florida
HARLEY ROUDA, California PETE STAUBER, Minnesota
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California CAROL D. MILLER, West Virginia
ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey GREG PENCE, Indiana
SEAN PATRICK MALONEY, New York SAM GRAVES, Missouri (Ex Officio)
DONALD M. PAYNE, Jr., New Jersey
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois
DINA TITUS, Nevada
STACEY E. PLASKETT, Virgin Islands
PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon (Ex
Officio)
(iii)
CONTENTS
Page
Summary of Subject Matter........................................ vii
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Highways
and Transit:
Opening statement............................................ 1
Prepared statement........................................... 2
Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit:
Opening statement............................................ 2
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure:
Opening statement............................................ 3
Prepared statement........................................... 4
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, prepared statement............................. 69
WITNESSES
Hon. Andrew J. McLean, House Chairman, Joint Standing Committee
on Transportation, Maine State Legislature, on behalf of the
National Conference of State Legislatures:
Oral statement............................................... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Hon. Sue Fulton, Chief Administrator, New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission:
Oral statement............................................... 13
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Kristin Poland, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety,
National Transportation Safety Board:
Oral statement............................................... 16
Prepared statement........................................... 17
John Benish, Jr., President and Chief Operating Officer, Cook-
Illinois Corporation, on behalf of the National School
Transportation Association:
Oral statement............................................... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Anne Ferro, President and Chief Executive Officer, American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators:
Oral statement............................................... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 31
Matthew Condron, Secretary-Treasurer, Teamsters Local 384,
Norristown, Pennsylvania:
Oral statement............................................... 34
Prepared statement........................................... 36
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Report, ``State of the Air 2019--20th Anniversary,'' by the
American Lung Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon.
Jesus G. ``Chuy'' Garcia....................................... 43
Statement of Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Indiana...................................... 69
``Illegal Passing Video, Student Injury--New Jersey,'' Submitted
for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................... 25
Statement of the National Safety Council, Submitted for the
Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton........................... 70
Report, ``A Continuous Video Recording System on a Lap-Belt
Equipped School Bus: Real-World Occupant Kinematics and
Injuries During a Severe Side Impact Crash,'' by Kristin Poland
et al., Submitted for the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton. 71
APPENDIX
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Andrew
J. McLean, House Chairman, Joint Standing Committee on
Transportation, Maine State Legislature, on behalf of the
National Conference of State Legislatures...................... 83
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Sue
Fulton, Chief Administrator, New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission..................................................... 88
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Kristin Poland, Ph.D.,
Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, National
Transportation Safety Board.................................... 88
Question from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Kristin Poland,
Ph.D., Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, National
Transportation Safety Board.................................... 89
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Kristin
Poland, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety,
National Transportation Safety Board........................... 89
Questions from Hon. Doug LaMalfa to Kristin Poland, Ph.D., Deputy
Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation
Safety Board................................................... 90
Questions from Hon. Gary J. Palmer to Kristin Poland, Ph.D.,
Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, National
Transportation Safety Board.................................... 90
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to John
Benish, Jr., President and Chief Operating Officer, Cook-
Illinois Corporation, on behalf of the National School
Transportation Association..................................... 93
Questions from Hon. Gary J. Palmer to John Benish, Jr., President
and Chief Operating Officer, Cook-Illinois Corporation, on
behalf of the National School Transportation Association....... 95
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Anne Ferro, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators................................................. 96
Question from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Anne Ferro, President
and Chief Executive Officer, American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators......................................... 97
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
July 25, 2019
SUMMARY OF SUBJECT MATTER
TO: Members, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
FROM: Staff, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit
RE: Subcommittee Hearing on ``Examining the Federal
Role in Improving School Bus Safety''
PURPOSE
The Subcommittee on Highways and Transit will meet on
Thursday, July 25, 2019, at 2:00 p.m. in 2167 Rayburn House
Office Building to receive testimony related to ``Examining the
Federal Role in Improving School Bus Safety.'' The purpose of
this hearing is to evaluate current school bus safety measures
and to consider whether additional Federal safety requirements
are warranted. The Subcommittee will hear from representatives
of the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the
New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, the National School
Transportation Association (NSTA), the Teamsters, the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), and the
National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB).
BACKGROUND
According to the NTSB and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA), nearly 475,000 school buses
transport over 26.7 million children to and from school each
day.\1\ The American School Bus Council estimates that students
are 70 times more likely to get to school safely when taking a
bus instead of traveling by car, making school buses one of the
safest vehicles on the road.\2\ Because of their unique design
and stringent standards, school buses have a strong safety
record. However, when a fatal crash involving a school bus does
occur, it revives the long-standing debate over school bus
safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/pages/schoolbuses.aspx
\2\ http://schoolbusfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/
SafetyFeatures.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BUS SAFETY DATA
According to NHTSA estimates from 2008 to 2017, school bus
crashes account for approximately 0.4 percent of all fatal
traffic crashes each year.\3\ Approximately 52 percent of
school bus crashes occur in rural communities.\4\ NHTSA data
estimates that between four and six schoolage children \5\ are
killed in school transportation vehicles each year.\6\ Between
2008 and 2017, 264 school-age children died in crashes
involving a school bus: 100 were occupants of other vehicles,
97 were pedestrians, and 61 were occupants of the school
bus.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NHTSA, School-Transportation-Related Crashes, June 2019.
https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812712
\4\ Id.
\5\ NHTSA defines ``school age'' children as children 18 years old
and younger.
\6\ Supra note 3.
\7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
School transportation safety is overseen by Federal, State,
and local agencies. At the Federal level, NHTSA sets Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school vehicle safety
features,\8\ such as brakes and emergency exits. NHTSA has also
developed in-service training to school bus drivers and
conducts public awareness campaigns. The Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA) establishes rules for commercial
driver licensing, including requiring school bus drivers to
receive a school bus endorsement. While FMCSA is responsible
for setting and enforcing Federal safety regulations that apply
to large commercial truck and bus operators, these regulations
do not apply to home-to-school and school-to-home
transportation. In addition, the NTSB has the authority to
investigate crashes involving school buses and make
recommendations to increase safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 49 U.S.C. 30125
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States build upon these standards by implementing state-
specific requirements, including additional driver training and
qualifications, vehicle inspections, and other operational
rules. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported
that all 50 States require school bus inspections and most
require additional training for school bus drivers beyond
Federal minimum standards.\9\ At the local level, school
districts are responsible for implementing and supervising
school bus operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO-17-209, ``School Bus Safety: Crash Data Trends and Federal
and State Requirements''. January 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal funding is not available for school transportation
vehicles and operations. Funding for school bus service comes
from the State and local level. School districts can employ
their own drivers, purchase their own buses, and operate their
own transportation service, or they can contract with a private
company to provide school bus service. Approximately one-third
of the nation's school transportation is operated by private
school bus providers, according to the NSTA.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/nsta/6571/Yellow-School-
Bus-Industry-White-Paper.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Bus Issues for Consideration
SEAT BELTS
In 2009, NHTSA implemented a final rule requiring small
school buses (under 10,000 lb. gross vehicle weight)
manufactured on or after October 21, 2011, to have lap/shoulder
belts installed.\11\ However, Federal regulations do not
require full size school buses to be equipped with lap or
shoulder belts.\12\ Instead, NHTSA maintains that occupant
protection in a large school bus is best served by
``compartmentalization.'' School bus seats are made with an
energy-absorbing steel inner structure and high, padded seat
backs secured to the bus floor. NHTSA research has concluded
that this provides a suitable passive form of occupant
protection (versus an active system such as a seat belt) by
keeping the student protected within the seat. Large school
buses are heavier and distribute crash forces differently than
passenger cars, meaning that, in the event of an accident, a
child on a school bus experiences much less crash force than
would be present in a passenger car. School buses are also
required to meet stringent manufacturing standards, including
high body joint standards to prevent splitting, steel cage-
encased fuel tanks to prevent fires, and stringent rollover
protection features.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 49 C.F.R. Part 571; Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards No.
222
\12\ 73 Fed. Reg. 62744 (2008); 76 Fed. Reg. 53102 (2011)
\13\ 49 C.F.R. Part 571
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some safety advocates have called for NHTSA to require seat
belts on large school buses as they do for smaller ones.
Proponents of belts on these school buses contend that
compartmentalization is designed to mitigate injuries and
fatalities resulting from front and rear-end crashes, but it
does not offer adequate protection for side-impact and rollover
collisions. Supporters of using seat belts on school buses also
believe this will help prevent bullying, reduce distracting
student behavior for the driver, and lower the number of
injuries from students sticking their head or arms out of the
bus's windows. They further assert it will help students adopt
a consistent practice of always wearing their seat belt, even
when not on the bus.
Opponents of requiring seat belts on large buses most often
cite cost as a concern. In 2008, NHTSA estimated that the
incremental cost of adding seat belts on large school buses at
$5,485 to $7,345, while some State officials have estimated it
costs upwards of $10,000.\14\ The Congressional Research
Service (CRS) has estimated the cost of equipping the roughly
31,000 new large school buses sold annually with lap/shoulder
belts would result in capital costs of between $250 million and
$465 million.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Supra note 12.
\15\ Peterman, David Randall. ``Seat Belts on School Buses:
Overview of the Issue.'' CRS. August 31, 2007
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2011, NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking from the
Center for Auto Safety and 21 other petitioners asking that
NHTSA mandate the installation of three-point seat belts for
all seating positions on all school buses.\16\ Building on a
rulemaking in 2008, which did not mandate the installation of
seat belts on large school buses, NHTSA concluded that ``we
have not found a safety problem supporting a Federal
requirement for lap/shoulder belts on large school buses, which
are already very safe.'' The agency concluded that the decision
to install seat belts on school buses should be left to State
and local jurisdictions.\17\ Additionally, NHTSA found that an
increase in costs to purchase and operate large school buses
could reduce school bus service, thereby reducing school bus
ridership and causing more students to use alternative, less
safe means of school transportation and increase the risk of
injury. Further, NHTSA has reported that installing lap/
shoulder belts would significantly reduce the seating capacity
on buses. CRS estimates that lap/should buses would decrease
seating capacity for elementary school children by an average
of 16 to 33 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ 76 Fed. Reg. 53102
\17\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After investigating dozens of fatal school bus-related
crashes, the NTSB in 2018 determined that compartmentalization
is not enough to prevent all injuries, particularly in side
impact and rollover crashes. The NTSB now recommends that
States enact laws to require the use of three-point seat belts
(covering the lap and shoulder as opposed to just the lap) for
maximum occupant protection on school buses. Their
investigations of crashes involving school buses equipped with
seat belts found that belt use significantly reduced injuries
and helped prevent fatalities.
STATE LAWS
At least 32 states have considered legislation to require
belts on school buses since 2007.\18\ Several States have
enacted laws requiring seat belts on school buses, including
Arkansas, California, Florida, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey,
New York, and Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/should-school-
buses-have-seat-belts.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York was the first state to pass a law requiring lap
belts on large school buses in 1987. However, use of seat belts
is not required unless the local school district mandates it.
Although California law does not require school districts to
provide bus service to students, if a jurisdiction provides
this service, California requires large school buses purchased
on July 1, 2005, or later to be equipped with lap/shoulder
belts. In 2018, California passed a law requiring all large
buses to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts by 2035.
California estimates that new buses with seat belts cost
approximately $300,000 per vehicle.
In Louisiana, school buses purchased after June 30, 2004,
are required to be equipped with occupant restraint systems,
subject to available state funding. To date, Louisiana has not
appropriated any funding. Arkansas allows for voters in a local
school district to petition the district to install lap/
shoulder belts on buses, but requires voters to also approve a
property tax equivalent to the cost of installing seat belts.
Arkansas voters have not approved the tax increase.
BUS STOP SAFETY
According to NHTSA, the greatest risk to school children is
not riding the bus, but getting on or off a school bus. Every
school bus is required to have specific safety features that
indicate to motorists that children are loading or unloading,
such as yellow and red flashing lights and a red stop-arm.
State laws require traffic in both directions to stop and
remain stopped until all children are off the roadway, the red
lights stop flashing, the red stop arm is withdrawn, and the
bus begins moving again.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/school-bus-safety/reducing-illegal-
passing-school-buses
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While it is illegal in all 50 states to pass a stopped
school bus with red lights flashing, referred to as ``stop-arm
violation,'' it is a common occurrence. In a 2018 survey by the
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation
Services, school bus drivers in 38 States and the District of
Columbia reported that 83,944 vehicles passed their buses
illegally on a single day during the 2017-18 school year. In a
180-day school year, the Association found that these sample
results point to more than 15 million stop-arm violations.\20\
Stop-arm violations can result in crashes that cause
significant injuries or fatalities. For example, on October 30,
2018, in Rochester, Indiana, a motorist did not obey the red
stop-arm and struck four children who were crossing the road,
killing three children, and injuring the fourth child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ http://www.nasdpts.org/stoparm/2018/index.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL BUS DRIVERS
School bus drivers must have a valid Commercial Driver
License (CDL), which requires a driving record check, drug and
alcohol testing, and passing a knowledge and skills tests.\21\
Drivers must also obtain a school bus endorsement to their CDL
which involves additional knowledge and skills tests specific
to school buses. Most states mandate additional training or
qualifications for school bus drivers as well.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 49 C.F.R. Part 383
\22\ GAO-17-209, ``School Bus Safety: Crash Data Trends and Federal
and State Requirements''. January 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEDICAL QUALIFICATIONS
Federal law requires a CDL applicant to obtain a valid
medical examiners certificate indicating fitness to drive,
which must be renewed every two years on average. This
requirement applies to privately employed school bus drivers
who transport students in capacities other than home-to-school
and school-to-home, such as field trips. The medical
certification rules do not apply to school bus drivers employed
by a public entity, such as the State or school district, or
who operate in intrastate transportation. However, individual
state laws may still require medical certification for school
bus drivers who are publicly employed or who operate
intrastate.
In 2005, Congress mandated that FMCSA create a registry of
certified medical examiners eligible to conduct physicals that
follow U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) standards. This
mandate stemmed from reports of fraud and the ease of
falsifying medical certificates, and was in response to several
NTSB recommendations. Commercial drivers may only receive a
valid medical certificate from an examiner listed on the
National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners (Registry). In
order to be listed in the Registry, medical examiners must
apply, complete training, and pass a test on physical
qualification standards.
There are certain conditions and medications that preclude
a driver from receiving a medical certificate. Disqualifying
conditions include: certain types of heart disease, respiratory
dysfunction, high blood pressure, rheumatic or arthritic
conditions, epilepsy, mental or psychiatric disorder, and
hearing loss not corrected by a hearing aid. Drivers cannot
receive a medical certificate if they use any Schedule I
drugs--such as opiates, depressants, stimulants, and
marijuana--or amphetamines. Other drugs can be permitted as
long as they are prescribed by a physician and reviewed by the
medical examiner as safe for driving.
Medical examiners assess drivers for all of the above
conditions and more to determine whether or not they will
interfere with the drivers' ability to safely operate a
vehicle. Medical examiners have broad authority to determine a
driver's fitness, as long as the driver passes a Skill
Performance Evaluation to demonstrate the ability to drive a
commercial vehicle safely. For instance, drivers with impaired
or missing limbs can still receive a medical certificate, and
drivers with vision impairment can apply for a waiver, which is
often granted. In addition, drivers with insulin-treated
diabetes may still receive a medical certificate, but are
required to have it updated more frequently.
DRUG & ALCOHOL TESTING
Commercial drivers who hold a CDL must comply with random
drug and alcohol testing and under several conditions: pre-
employment, post-accident, reasonable suspicion, return-to-duty
and follow-up (after a positive test).\23\ In 2012, under the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L.
112-141), Congress mandated FMCSA create a national drug and
alcohol clearinghouse, in response to concerns that drivers
could easily ``job-hop,'' or change employers without
disclosing past positive drug test results, particularly on
pre-employment tests.\24\ FMCSA published a final rule
establishing the clearinghouse in December 2016, with a
compliance date of January 6, 2020.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 49 C.F.R. Part 382
\24\ Section 32402, P.L. 112-141
\25\ 81 Fed. Reg. 87686
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMPLOYER NOTIFICATION
Federal regulations require CDL holders to notify their
employers of any traffic violation they incur (besides parking)
within 30 days of conviction, regardless of what type of
vehicle they were driving at the time. If their license is
suspended, revoked, canceled, or otherwise disqualified,
drivers must notify their employer within one business day.
Employers who knowingly use a driver with a suspended license
are liable for civil or criminal penalties.
Under current regulations, employers are required to check
their employees' driving history record on an annual basis. In
the event an employee does not self-report, he or she could
continue to drive until the disqualification is discovered in
an annual check. According to estimates from the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), only 50 to
80 percent of commercial drivers actually self-report
violations to their employers.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/
registration/commercial-
drivers-license/396341/aamvaens-design-and-best-practices-
recommendations-ver-102.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In an effort to ensure disqualified drivers do not remain
on the road, some States have established Employer Notification
Systems (ENS) to facilitate real time notification of traffic
violations or other changes in driver status to employers.
There were 16 States who reported having some variation of an
ENS in 2016 \27\.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/
registration/commercial-
drivers-license/396341/aamvaens-design-and-best-practices-
recommendations-ver-102.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In MAP-21, Congress required FMCSA to develop
recommendations and a plan for the development and
implementation of a national driver record notification system
(NDRNS).\28\ FMCSA submitted their report to Congress in 2015,
which contained a plan for the NDRNS and best practices.\29\
Additionally, AAMVA received funding from FMCSA to establish a
working group and AAMVA released a report outlining ENS best
practices and design recommendations for a national system
which leverages existing commercial driver databases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ Section 32303, P.L. 112-141
\29\ The National Driver Record Notification System Report to
Congress, September 2015, https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/National%20Driver%20Record
%20Notification%20System%20Report%20Enclosure%20FINAL%20September%202015
.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAO REVIEW
In 2015, Congress enacted the Fixing America's Surface
Transportation Act (FAST Act; P.L. 114-94), which included a
provision directing the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
to study and report to Congress on specific school bus safety
topics, including a comparison of regulations that apply to
public and private school bus operations and expert
recommendations on best practices for safe and reliable school
bus transportation.\30\ GAO issued a report in January 2017
that analyzed fatal school bus crash data from 2000 to 2014,
reviewed federal laws and regulations, and summarized state
laws and regulations on school-bus inspections, driver
training, and maximum vehicle age and capacity in all 50
states. As part of the report, GAO ``surveyed states to
determine whether they track the type of school bus operator in
crash data, or other state data such as inspection or funding
data, since information states collect on school bus crashes
and operations differs.'' The report did not assess the
correlation between public or private school bus fleet
operators involved in an accident and safety inspection
results, age of the bus, or violation of State and Federal
laws.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Section 5511, P.L. 114-94
\31\ GAO-17-209
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
RECENT SCHOOL BUS CRASHES AND NTSB INVESTIGATIONS
Several high-profile crashes in recent years, some that
have been investigated by the NTSB, have provided additional
public focus on school bus and driver safety standards.
NTSB investigated two fatal school bus crashes that
occurred in November 2016 in Baltimore, Maryland and
Chattanooga, Tennessee. In 2018 NTSB issued an investigative
report on these crashes and found that poor driver oversight by
school districts and contracted motor carriers resulted in
unsafe operation of the school buses and issued a series of
safety recommendations.\32\ NTSB focused on a number of safety
issues, including: poor management of unsafe school bus drivers
by the motor carriers and school districts; medically unfit
school bus drivers; commercial driver license fraud; occupant
protection in large school buses; and the benefits of
electronic stability control, automatic emergency braking, and
event data recorders. Additionally, in one of its safety
recommendations, NTSB recommended that States enact laws to
require that all new large school buses be equipped with three-
point seat belts (covering the lap and shoulder as opposed to
just the lap) for maximum occupant protection on school
buses.\33\ Based on these and other investigations of numerous
school bus crashes, NTSB has made a number of recommendations
to NHTSA and states to improve school bus safety.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ NTSB/SIR-18/02
\33\ Id.
\34\ https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/pages/schoolbuses.aspx
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 17, 2018, a school bus crash on I-80 in New Jersey
killed one student and one teacher on board. The driver of the
bus had his license suspended 14 times between 1975 and 2017,
including six months before the crash, again raising questions
about driver fitness. NTSB did not investigate this crash.
WITNESS LIST
The Honorable Andrew J. McLean, Chair, Committee
on Transportation, Maine House of Representatives, on behalf of
the National Conference of State Legislatures
The Honorable Brenda Sue Fulton, Chair and Chief
Administrator, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission
Ms. Kristin Poland, Ph.D., Deputy Director,
Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety Board
Mr. John Benish, Jr., President and COO, Cook-
Illinois Corporation, on behalf of the National School
Transportation Association
Ms. Anne Ferro, President & CEO, American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Mr. Matthew Condron, Secretary-Treasurer,
Teamsters Local 384, Norristown, Pennsylvania
EXAMINING THE FEDERAL ROLE IN IMPROVING SCHOOLBUS SAFETY
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 25, 2019
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eleanor Holmes
Norton (Chairwoman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Ms. Norton. Welcome to today's hearing on schoolbus safety.
It is a timely hearing, with children out of school, to see
what needs to be done to keep them safe.
And I am interested in keeping them safe not only on
schoolbuses and as they get off of schoolbuses, but I am
interested in keeping them safe in the streets as they go to
school.
It is true that schoolbuses have a relatively safe safety
record. It is also true that children are injured every year in
bus-related crashes.
More than I believe in most accidents, we owe it to our
children, to these students to examine why these fatalities
occur and what can be done to prevent them.
There are some schoolbuses in my own district, but most
take other modes of transportation, including walking, biking,
or riding in a car, going on public transportation.
Children are often at greater risk outside the schoolbus
than inside it. We have figures showing 264 students who died
in school transportation-related accidents in the last 10
years. Ninety-seven were struck by a vehicle while walking near
the bus.
We are going to hear today what Congress can do to stop
violations by drivers who illegally pass schoolbuses loading or
unloading passengers and to reduce fatalities and injuries as a
result of these crashes. But as I indicated, I am interested in
what we can do about children whether or not they are on or off
buses.
The burden of providing school transportation, we are
aware, of course, falls on the States and local districts. Some
States are ahead of others in improving schoolbus safety, such
as the State of New Jersey, which I am pleased is represented
here today, and I look forward to hearing what Congress can do
to help ensure that we have safe vehicles.
I want to thank each of the witnesses for appearing today.
We will listen very attentively in what the Congress can do,
recognizing how much responsibility falls on the States.
[Ms. Norton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in
Congress from the District of Columbia, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Welcome to today's hearing on school bus safety. School buses have
a historically strong safety record, but we still lose children every
year to school-bus-related crashes. We owe it to our students to
examine why these fatalities occur and what more can be done to ensure
they get to school safely.
For most of the students in my district, riding a yellow school bus
isn't an option. Instead, they're forced to take other, more dangerous
modes such as walking, biking, or riding in a car. Children are often
at greater risk outside the bus than inside of it. Of the 264 students
who died in school transportation-related accidents in the last 10
years, 97 were children struck by a vehicle while walking near the bus.
We will hear today about what Congress can do to stop violations by
drivers who illegally pass school buses loading or unloading passengers
and reduce fatalities and injuries as a result of these crashes.
The burden of providing school transportation falls on States and
local school districts, many of whom struggle to fund education as it
is. Yet some States are ahead of the game in improving school bus
safety, such as New Jersey which I am pleased to have represented here
today. I look forward to hearing what Congress can do to help States
ensure we have the safest drivers and vehicles possible for our
students.
Finally, more than one Member of this Committee has lost a
constituent as the result of a school bus crash in their district.
While it may seem like a small problem overall, there's no excuse for a
child's life to be cut short in a school bus crash when more could have
been done to prevent it.
Thank you to each of our witnesses for being here today and
providing your perspective on this important issue. I look forward to
your testimony.
Ms. Norton. I am pleased to recognize Mr. Davis, our
ranking member.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
And I want to welcome everyone to today's hearing.
Today the subcommittee will focus on schoolbus safety as
part of our ongoing work to reauthorize Federal surface
transportation programs and policies.
With nearly 500,000 schoolbuses transporting more than 25
million school-age children to and from school each day,
schoolbus safety is an important part of this discussion.
Statistics show that the schoolbus is the safest and most
regulated vehicle on the road. In fact, according to the
American School Bus Council, children are 70 times more likely
to get to school safely when taking a bus when compared to
walking, biking, or even traveling by car.
With that said, NHTSA's most recent estimates indicate that
schoolbus crashes account for approximately 0.4 percent of all
traffic fatalities, and that is on a nationwide basis.
No matter how safe the statistics show schoolbuses are, we
unfortunately see approximately 4 to 6 school-age children die
each year on the schoolbus and another 10 to 15 die as a result
of cars illegally passing schoolbuses.
Each fatality resulting from a schoolbus crash is more than
a statistic, and just this last December in my congressional
district outside of Bloomington-Normal, we saw a tragic
accident where a truck collided with a schoolbus transporting a
local basketball team home from a game. Two adults lost their
lives in that accident. Nine others were injured, including
eight students.
As we work to reauthorize surface transportation programs
and policies, it is my hope that we can address schoolbus
safety in a bipartisan manner that prevents such instances from
occurring in the future.
In looking at that work, this subcommittee has jurisdiction
over two agencies that play an important role in schoolbus
safety, NHTSA and FMCSA.
NHTSA sets the Federal motor safety standards for schoolbus
safety features, provides in-service training for busdrivers,
and develops public awareness programs related to schoolbus
safety.
The other, FMCSA, establishes rules for commercial driver's
licensing and requires schoolbus drivers to have a CDL with a
special schoolbus endorsement.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about ways
that we can make our school-age children safer as they wait
for, load and unload, and ride a schoolbus.
And with that, I want to thank our witnesses for being with
us this morning, and I look forward to hearing their testimony.
[Mr. Davis' prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Rodney Davis, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Illinois, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on
Highways and Transit
Today, the Subcommittee will focus on school bus safety as part of
our ongoing work to reauthorize federal surface transportation programs
and policies. With nearly 500,000 school buses transporting more than
25 million school-aged children to and from school each day, school bus
safety is an important part of this discussion.
Statistics show that the school bus is the safest and most
regulated vehicle on the road. In fact, according to the American
School Bus Council, children are 70 times more likely to get to school
safely when taking a bus when compared to walking, biking, or traveling
by car.
With that said, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration's (NHTSA) most recent estimates indicate that school bus
crashes account for approximately 0.4 percent of all traffic fatalities
nationwide. No matter how safe the statistics show school buses are, we
unfortunately see approximately four to six school-aged children die
each year on the school bus, and another 10 to 15 die as a result of
cars illegally passing stopped school buses.
Each fatality resulting from a school bus crash is more than a
statistic. Just this last December, in my congressional district
outside of Bloomington-Normal, we saw a tragic accident where a truck
collided with a school bus transporting a local basketball team home
from a game. Two adults lost their lives in the accident, and nine
others were injured, including eight students. As we work to
reauthorize surface transportation programs and policies, it's my hope
we can address school bus safety in a bipartisan manner that prevents
such instances from occurring in the future.
Looking at that work, this subcommittee has jurisdiction over two
agencies that play an important role in school bus safety--NHTSA and
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).
NHTSA sets the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards for school
bus safety features, provides in-service training for bus drivers, and
develops public awareness campaigns related to school bus safety. The
other, FMCSA, establishes rules for commercial driver licensing and
requires school bus drivers to have a CDL with a special school bus
endorsement.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about ways that we can
make our school-aged children safer as they wait for, load and unload,
and ride a school bus.
Mr. Davis. And I yield back to the chair.
Ms. Norton. I am pleased to recognize the ranking member,
Mr. DeFazio, and ask if he has an opening statement?
Mr. DeFazio. Well, I think I became chair, but thank you.
You know, this is our second safety hearing of the year
leading up to reauthorization. In the first hearing, we heard
testimony about highway fatalities--100 people dying every day
in motor vehicle accidents. That is a life every 15 minutes,
37,133 in 2017, and we need to look at ways to reduce those
fatalities.
Obviously, we are doing a lot better with the
transportation of our precious kids on their way to and from
school on schoolbuses, but it is not perfect.
We will hear some conflicting testimony today, and I would
hope that members of the panel might depart from their prepared
remarks and respond to someone who speaks earlier, for
instance. Mr. Benish from the NSTA is going to come out quite
strongly against any Federal mandate on schoolbuses for
seatbelts, and yet the NTSB is going to talk about what they
see and have felt for some time as a need for lap and shoulder
belts, and then we are going to hear from Chief Administrator
Fulton about how New Jersey is doing what others say is not
possible because of seat configuration, size of children, and
the like.
That will be an interesting contrast. I think there is much
more substantial agreement on finding ways to better identify
the bad apples out there, those who have had poor driving
records, those who have had significant health issues, and
other things.
There have been States that have moved forward with much
more prompt notification. New Jersey, I think, is on a daily
basis checking for any violations by schoolbus drivers, and so
looking at the National CDL Registry and other things that the
Federal Government does control might provide some benefit in
those areas.
So I look forward to the testimony, and this will help
instruct us on whether or not we need to include any new
provisions in the surface transportation reauthorization, which
I expect to have done hopefully by early next year.
[Mr. DeFazio's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Peter A. DeFazio, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Oregon, and Chairman, Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure
Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this important hearing.
Ensuring the safe transportation of passengers is a critical
responsibility of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. I
can't think of a more prominent reminder of why we must raise the bar
on safety than protecting school children.
Earlier this year, the Subcommittee held a highway safety hearing,
and the statistics I cited bear repeating. More than 100 people die
every day in motor vehicle accidents--that's one life lost every
fifteen minutes. In 2017, 37,133 people were killed on our roadways--
the equivalent of about 218 fully loaded airplanes falling out of the
sky in a single year.
The Nation's 26 million children who travel to and from school in a
yellow bus are afforded the safest form of transportation on our roads.
While school buses are involved in only a tiny fraction of all fatal
crashes, this is still unacceptable given the level of overall carnage
on our roads. Between 2008 and 2017, 264 school-age children died in
crashes involving a school bus. We can and must do more to save
children's lives.
Protecting students on the bus is step one. This means transporting
as many students as possible on school buses, and ensuring those
children have the strongest occupant protection measures. As we will
hear in witness testimony today, several States have grappled with how
to strike this balance of stronger occupant protection through seat
belts with the realities of tight local and state education budgets. My
home State of Oregon does not require seat belts on school buses, but
mandates that if they are installed, they must be three-point belts.
A school bus is only as safe as the person controlling it. Well-
qualified and medically fit drivers are a critical factor in ensuring
the safe carriage of children. In four recent fatal school bus crashes,
driver fitness and certification issues played a significant role.
A 2016 crash in Baltimore, Maryland, killed six people when a
school bus, thankfully not carrying children, collided with a transit
bus when the driver had a seizure. This driver had a history of
seizures and over five years had been involved in at least 12 crashes
or incidents while operating a school bus or personal vehicle. In one
of these prior incidents, according to the National Transportation
Safety Board (NTSB) investigation, the driver struck multiple poles and
a parked car after he ``passed out'' while driving a school bus. Yet he
was put back behind the wheel.
In a 2016 crash in Chattanooga, Tennessee, six elementary school
children died in a school bus crash caused by the driver's excessive
speed and cell phone use at the time of the crash. The 24-year-old
driver had only been driving for about 5 months, during which the
school district received over a dozen complaints from parents,
students, and the school principal about the driver's erratic driving
and speeding. The NTSB report found that the lack of driver oversight
by the school district was a causal factor.
In a 2017 crash in Oakland, Iowa, a school bus driver and his only
student passenger--the first one to be picked up on the route--died
when the driver backed into a ditch and the engine caught fire.
According to the NTSB report, the same student had complained three
times to the school prior to the accident that the driver ``backed into
things and ran stop signs.'' The driver had significant medical
problems including a spinal condition that inhibited his ability to
walk, and his ability to sit for more than 30 minutes. The NTSB report
cites that it is ``extremely concerning'' that the driver was not able
to extricate himself and his passenger during the fire emergency when
there was no physical barrier to escape the fire.
In 2018 a crash near Mount Olive, New Jersey killed a student and
teacher because the driver was attempting an illegal U-turn on
Interstate 80 and collided with a dump truck. The driver had received
eight speeding tickets and had his license suspended 14 times in his 40
year driving career.
All of these tragedies could have been prevented with better
oversight of these drivers by their employers. Congress has taken
significant steps to ensure that drivers who hold Commercial Drivers'
Licenses (CDL) are medically qualified, subject to drug and alcohol
testing, and adequately trained. We need to ensure that existing
protections extend to drivers who carry our most precious cargo, school
children. We must also look at additional measures to ensure that
employers are notified immediately of a change in a driver's CDL
status, such as license suspension, so that children are not knowingly
placed in harm's way.
I thank our witnesses for being here today and look forward to your
testimony on ways we can strengthen school bus safety.
Mr. DeFazio. With that, I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Chairman DeFazio.
And I note that the majority leader says that he will give
priority to infrastructure, and maybe this hearing will provide
us with information that could be included in any new bill.
I did not use all of my time, and I am pleased to yield my
remaining time, 2.5 minutes, to Mr. Cohen, who has had an
experience that I think is the best way to lead off this
hearing.
I yield my good friend from Tennessee 2\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
In 2016, there were unfortunately two schoolbus crashes
that were most notable in the country. One was in Baltimore,
and one was in Chattanooga, my home State. A total of 12
children were killed. In Chattanooga, there were 6 children
killed and 20 injured.
After those crashes, the National Transportation Safety
Board issued a series of safety recommendations to the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and that was great, and
they issued them to the administration and to the States to
improve schoolbus safety.
One of the recommendations included that States should
enact laws to have all new large schoolbuses equipped with
three-point seatbelts. Other recommendations included safety
measures, such as inclusion of collision avoidance systems and
automatic emergency braking technology.
Sadly and unfortunately and kind of unfathomably, the
National Highway Transportation Safety Administration has not
initiated the process to enshrine any of these life-saving
measures in the Federal regulation, and I have no idea why they
shouldn't. They should have acted before this.
Today I introduced H.R. 3959, the School Bus Safety Act,
with Senator Tammy Duckworth, which implements those
recommendations to make schoolbuses safer by ensuring that all
seatbelts be at every seat and buses equipped with stability
control and automatic braking systems. It will also include
fire protection standards, such as requiring schoolbuses to be
equipped with fire suppression systems to address engine fires.
Additionally, the bill would create a grant program to help
school districts modify schoolbuses to meet these safety
modifications. I am hopeful Congress will work to enact these
long overdue measures.
There is no more precious cargo than our children and our
schoolchildren whenever there is an accident.
I have been trying to do this since I was a State senator.
I know it is difficult to get beyond the industries, but it is
something we need to do, and safety belts will save lives.
So I yield back and thank the chairwoman for her time.
Ms. Norton. I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
I ask unanimous consent that the chair be authorized to
declare recesses during today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that members not on the
subcommittee be permitted to sit with the subcommittee at
today's hearing and ask questions.
I am going to introduce the panel of witnesses, but before
I introduce them all, I am going to yield to Mr. Davis to
introduce Mr. John Benish.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am pleased to introduce John Benish, Jr., the president
of the National School Transportation Association, and a
resident of the great State of Illinois.
John, Mr. Benish, thanks for testifying today, and thank
you for all of the commendable work you and the other bus
operators do in keeping our kids safe.
The overwhelming number of kids that travel safely back and
forth to our schools every day on your schoolbuses ought to
also be commended.
We ought to address the issues in transportation safety
regarding schoolbuses and other modes of transportation, but
let's not ever forget the fact that there is an overwhelming
amount of students, the overwhelming majority, that arrive
safely and go home safely and do it again the next day until
they graduate high school like my kids did this year.
So no more schoolbuses for me for a while, but thanks for
your service, and thanks for being here today.
Ms. Norton. Well, thank you, Mr. Davis.
I am simply going to run down the names of the witnesses
and then call on the first witness.
We are pleased to welcome the Honorable Andrew J. McLean,
House chairman, Joint Standing Committee on Transportation,
Maine State Legislature, who is here on behalf of the National
Conference of State Legislatures.
In addition, the Honorable Brenda Sue Fulton, chief
administrator, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission.
Also, Dr. Kristin Poland, Deputy Director, Office of
Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety Board.
Ms. Anne Ferro, the president and CEO of the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
And finally, Mr. Matthew Condron, secretary-treasurer,
Teamsters Local 384, Norristown, Pennsylvania.
Forgive my coughing cold, but welcome all of you, and we
are going to proceed left to right.
Try to give your testimony within 5 minutes, your opening
statements, rather, within 5 minutes.
I would like to welcome and ask first to speak Mr. McLean,
who is speaking for the National Conference of State
Legislatures.
You may proceed. Turn on your microphone.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ANDREW J. McLEAN, HOUSE CHAIRMAN, JOINT
STANDING COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION, MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE,
ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF STATE LEGISLATURES;
HON. SUE FULTON, CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, NEW JERSEY MOTOR VEHICLE
COMMISSION; KRISTIN POLAND, Ph.D., DEPUTY DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
HIGHWAY SAFETY, NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; JOHN
BENISH, Jr., PRESIDENT AND CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, COOK-
ILLINOIS CORPORATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL
TRANSPORTATION ASSOCIATION; ANNE FERRO, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF MOTOR VEHICLE
ADMINISTRATORS; AND MATTHEW CONDRON, SECRETARY-TREASURER,
TEAMSTERS LOCAL 384, NORRISTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA
Mr. McLean. Thank you very much.
Chairwoman Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and
distinguished members of the House Subcommittee on Highways and
Transit, my name is Andrew McLean. I am House chair of the
Maine Joint Standing Committee on Transportation and cochair of
the National Conference of State Legislatures, National
Resources and Infrastructure Committee.
I appear before you today on behalf of NCSL, a bipartisan
organization representing the 50 State legislatures and
legislatures of our Nation's Commonwealths, Territories,
possessions, and District of Columbia.
Every schoolday more than 25 million children climb into
485,000 buses across the country that take them to and from
school-related activities. Thankfully, schoolbuses are
statistically the safest way to transport schoolchildren.
However, 61 children who were schoolbus occupants died in
crashes between 2008 and 2017, and this is 61 children too
many.
States across the Nation have responded to these tragedies
with laws that NCSL has determined fall into three distinct
categories: laws requiring seatbelts on schoolbuses; laws
authorizing cameras mounted on stop-arms to cite drivers that
illegally pass a stopped schoolbus; and laws making changes to
requirements for schoolbus drivers.
Overall, 35 States have debated more than 250 school safety
bills in 2018 and 33 States have considered more than 200 bills
in 2019 thus far. Compare this only to 132 bills in 2014 and
173 bills in 2015. You can see that there has been an uptick in
legislative interest in schoolbus safety.
Schoolbuses are designed to protect riders through
compartmentalization using structural safety features, such as
high, energy-absorbing seat backs and closely spaced seats so
children are kept snug.
However, these features do not necessarily protect children
the way seatbelts do during side-impact crashes or high-speed
rollovers when passengers can be thrown from their seats.
In May of 2018, a schoolbus crash took the life of one
student and one teacher in Paramus, New Jersey. In response,
New Jersey enacted legislation requiring lap/shoulder seatbelts
instead of solely lapbelts.
In addition to New Jersey, seven other States require
seatbelts on schoolbuses.
In 2018, more than 108,000 schoolbus drivers observed
almost 84,000 vehicles illegally passing schoolbuses in 1
single day. Thankfully, most State laws require vehicles on
both sides of the road without a median to stop and remain
stopped while a schoolbus stop-arms and flashing red lights are
deployed.
In 2014, Wyoming became the first State to require all
schoolbuses to be equipped with a camera system to capture
images of motorists illegally passing stopped schoolbuses.
States have also added language to address privacy concerns.
Alabama's law requires that images or videos not include
the face of a driver or passengers and be destroyed within 90
days if there is no violation.
Overall, 21 States explicitly allow local governments or
school districts to use cameras to capture images and issue
tickets for drivers who illegally pass stopped schoolbuses.
States have also moved to increase penalties for illegally
passing a stopped schoolbus.
Illinois now requires the revocation of a driver's license
when someone illegally passes a schoolbus and the violation
leads to a motor vehicle crash resulting in death.
Finally, I would like to highlight how States have
strengthened their requirements for schoolbus drivers. For
example, New York enacted a bill that requires all schoolbus
drivers to take preemployment alcohol and drug testing, as well
as be subject to random testing, with all drivers required to
be included in the random testing pool.
States have also increased schoolbus driver training
requirements. Rhode Island, for example, enacted a law
requiring that annual training for schoolbus drivers include
NHTSA's schoolbus driver in-service training series.
This is my fourth term serving as State legislator in the
Maine House of Representatives and my third term chairing our
Transportation Committee, and I can say that this past session
was the most active in terms of legislation addressing
schoolbus safety.
Just over a month ago, in mid-June, Maine passed two
specific bills focused on schoolbus safety. LD19 will now
require schoolbuses purchased after this year to be equipped
with a schoolbus crossing arm, and LD166 addressed the issue of
cars passing schoolbuses.
Initially there was simply interest in increasing fines for
violators, but we know that simply increasing the penalties
does not actually solve the problem. We engaged stakeholders,
including community members and local and State police, and
this working group identified that enforcement of existing laws
is the challenge because there is no way to identify a vehicle
when the busdriver is the only person to have witnessed the
violation.
Thus, the working group recommended allowing the use of a
traffic surveillance camera mounted on a schoolbus in
conjunction with a lighted traffic control device to improve or
enforce a violation in order to identify the violator. This
bill was very controversial, given our State's high regard for
privacy.
However, the testimony from grieving parents and community
members was powerful and convincing. Too many kids are being
hurt or killed while they are near a schoolbus.
Madam Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify
before the subcommittee on this important topic, and I look
forward to the subcommittee's questions.
[Mr. McLean's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Andrew J. McLean, House Chairman, Joint
Standing Committee on Transportation, Maine State Legislature, on
behalf of the National Conference of State Legislatures
Chairman Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished
members of the House Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, my name is
Andrew McLean, House chairman of the Maine Joint Committee
Transportation and co-chair of the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) Natural Resources and Infrastructure Committee. I
appear before you today on behalf of NCSL, a bi-partisan organization
representing the 50 state legislatures and the legislatures of our
nation's commonwealths, territories, possessions, and the District of
Columbia.
Madam Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to thank you
and the committee for your leadership on this important issue. Every
school day, more than 25 million children climb into 485,000 buses
around the country that take them to and from school and related
activities, according to the National Association for Pupil
Transportation. Thankfully, school buses are statistically the safest
way to transport school children, as school transportation-related
fatalities between 2008 and 2017 made up less than half a percent of
all fatal crashes. However, 61 children who were school bus occupants
died in crashes between 2008 and 2017 and this is 61 children too many.
States across the nation have responded to these tragedies with
laws that NCSL has determined fall into three distinct categories:
laws requiring seatbelts on school buses;
laws authorizing cameras mounted on stop-arms to cite
drivers that illegally pass a stopped school bus; and
laws making changes to requirements for school bus
drivers.
Overall, 35 states debated more than 250 school safety bills in
2018, and 33 states have considered more than 200 bills in 2019, thus
far. Contrast this to only 132 bills in 2014 and 173 bills in 2015 and
you can see there has been an increase in interest to legislate school
bus safety.
Seatbelts on School Buses
School buses are designed to protect riders through
compartmentalization, using structural safety features such as high,
energy-absorbing seat backs and closely spaced seats so children are
kept snug. However, these features don't necessarily protect children
the way seatbelts do during side-impact crashes or high-speed
rollovers, when passengers can be thrown from their seats.
In May of 2018, a school bus crash took the life of one student and
one teacher in Paramus, N.J. In response, New Jersey enacted
legislation (HB 4110) requiring lap-shoulder seatbelts instead of
solely lap belts. The new requirement applies to buses manufactured
beginning 180 days after the bill signing. In addition to New Jersey,
seven other states require seatbelts on school buses. These states
inlcude Arkansas, California, Florida, Nevada, and Texas which require
lap and shoulder belt and Louisiana and New York require lap. However,
the requirements in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Texas are subject to
appropriations or approval or denial by local jurisdictions.
Additionally, Iowa's Board of Education is pursuing an internal rule
[https://stnonline.com/news/iowa-preliminary-approval-lap-shoulder-
seatbelts-school-buses/] and has approved a preliminary requirement for
lap/shoulder seatbelts to be included in the purchase of all new school
buses.
Illegally Passing School Buses
Students boarding and exiting school buses are at risk of being hit
by motorists passing and failing to yield to stopped school buses. The
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that 97
pedestrians under the age of 18 were killed in school transportation-
related crashes between 2008 and 2017. Further, according to a survey
[https://www.schoolbusfleet.com/news/730974/national-stop-arm-survey-
counts-over-80k-illegal-passes-of-school-buses] by the National
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services, in
2018, more than 108,000 school bus drivers observed almost 84,000
vehicles illegally passing school buses in a single day. Thankfully,
most state laws require vehicles on both sides of a road without a
median to stop, and remain stopped, while school bus stop arms and
flashing red lights are deployed.
In 2014, Wyoming became the first state to require all school buses
(approximately 1,500) to be equipped with a camera system to capture
images of motorists illegally passing stopped school buses. Wyoming HB
5 required all school buses to be equipped with cameras by the 2016-
2017 school year and appropriated $5 million to pay for installation.
After feedback from law enforcement that some authorities were
reluctant to cite drivers for violations unless both the license plate
and driver's face could be clearly seen, Wyoming tweaked their law in
2019 to clarify that a recording of images produced by a video system
equipped on a school bus shall be prima facie evidence of the facts
contained in it. Further, Wyoming clarified that a recorded image
evidencing a violation shall be admissible in a judicial or
administrative proceeding to adjudicate liability for the violation and
that if the identity of the driver of a vehicle that violates this
section is unknown, the registered owner of the vehicle recorded by a
video system as provided in this subsection shall be fined $195.
Wyoming also added language to address privacy concerns, including
stipulating that recordings or images made from a video system shall be
destroyed within one year of the recording date.
Further, state laws concerning school bus stop arm cameras also
address how any revenue from violations is allocated while safeguarding
privacy. Illinois' law requires that proceeds from fines be divided
between a school district and municipality or county. It also states
that ``the compensation paid for an automated traffic law enforcement
system must be based on the value of the equipment or the services
provided and may not be based on the number of traffic citations issued
or the revenue generated by the system.'' In Virginia, the fine revenue
is allocated to the local school division where the violation occurred.
Washington directs fine revenue to school districts for school zone and
school bus safety projects, minus administrative and operational costs.
In Pennsylvania, violators are subject to a fine of $250, plus a
surcharge of $35. The surcharge must be deposited in the school bus
safety grant program account and the Pennsylvania Department of
Transportation must develop a competitive grant program using the funds
to increase school bus safety, education, and training in the state.
To help protect the privacy of drivers, Alabama's law requires that
images or video not include the face of the driver or passengers and be
destroyed within 90 days if there was no violation. Rhode Island's law
stipulates that images must be destroyed within 24 hours if no
violation is identified and within one year if there was a violation.
Overall, 21 states, including five enacted just this year--Alabama,
Arkansas, Connecticut, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Maine, Maryland,
Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode
Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West
Virginia, and Wyoming--explicitly allow local governments or school
districts to use cameras to capture images and issue tickets for
drivers who illegally pass stopped school buses. The laws in five
states--Indiana, Maine, New York, Tennessee, and Oklahoma--were enacted
in 2019.
In addition to making it illegal to pass a stopped school bus,
states have also moved to increase penalties for illegally passing a
stopped school bus.
Illinois now requires the revocation of a driver's license when a
driver illegally passes a school bus and the violation leads to a motor
vehicle crash resulting in death. Florida recently passed legislation
to allow a court to mandate that a driver who causes serious bodily
injury or death when passing a stopped school bus serve 120 hours of
community service in a trauma center or hospital that regularly treats
victims of vehicle crashes and to participate in a victims' impact
panel or attend a driver-improvement course relating to the rights of
vulnerable road users. It also sets the penalty at $1,500 for causing
serious bodily injury or death by illegally passing a school bus and
increases it to a six-point offense. Maryland increased the penalty for
illegally passing a school bus from $250 to $500. The law also requires
that Montgomery County report to the legislature the number of
violations recorded by school bus monitoring cameras after theeffective
date of the new penalty legislation.
In the fall of 2018, three northern Indiana children died, and
another was injured while crossing a rural highway to board their
school bus. Indiana enacted a bill in 2019 allowing the installation of
school bus stop-arm cameras. Indiana also took several comprehensive
steps to try and ensure the placement of school bus stops is safe
including:
Except when within the boundary of a city or town, when a
school bus is operated on a: (1) U.S. route or state route, the driver
may not load or unload a student at a location that requires the
student to cross a roadway unless no other safe alternatives are
available; and (2) when a school bus is operated on a street or highway
other than a U.S. route or state route, the driver shall load and
unload a student as close to the right-hand curb or edge of the roadway
as practicable.
On or before Sept. 1, 2019, and each Sept. 1 thereafter,
each school corporation, charter school, and accredited nonpublic
school that provides transportation for students must review the
school's school bus routes and school bus safety policies to improve
the safety for students and adults.
The state school bus committee, in consultation with the
department of education, shall develop and post on the department's
website, school bus safety guidelines or best practices. The guidelines
or best practices must include procedures to be taken to ensure that
students do not enter a roadway until approaching traffic has come to a
complete stop.
The department of education, in consultation with the
department of transportation, shall include on the department's
website, information on how an individual or school may petition to
reduce maximum speed limits in areas necessary to ensure that students
are safely loaded onto or unloaded from a school bus.
School Bus Drivers
Finally, I'd like to highlight how states have strengthened their
requirements for school bus driver testing, training, and penalties for
unsafe driving, failing a drug or alcohol test, or moving violations.
For example, New York enacted a bill (AB 208) that requires all
school bus drivers to take pre-employment drug and alcohol testing, as
well as be subject to random testing, with all drivers required to be
included in the random testing pool. The bill also extended the time
limit for consuming alcohol before operating a school bus from six to
eight hours for school bus operators. Connecticut recently increased
the penalty for DUI when driving a school bus, making this a new
offense. The new law includes longer mandatory prison terms, increased
maximum fines, and a 45-day license suspension.
States have also increased school bus driver training requirements.
Virginia recently changed (SB 557/HB 810) their requirements for
training school bus drivers. The training program for applicants
without a commercial driver's license must include: a minimum of 24
hours of classroom training and 6 hours of behind-the-wheel training on
a school bus that contains no pupil passengers. For applicants with a
commercial driver's license, they must receive a minimum of 4 hours of
classroom training and 3 hours of behind-the-wheel training on a school
bus that contains no pupil passengers. Behind-the-wheel training shall
be administered under the direct on-board supervision of a designated
school bus driver trainer. Rhode Island passed a law requiring that
annual training for school bus drivers include NHTSA's school bus
driver in-service training series. Indiana now allows a driver's
certificate of completion of the school bus driver safety education to
be revoked in certain instances, including when the driver endangers
the safe transportation of students.
And of course, states have also sought to ensure school bus drivers
are not distracted when driving. Georgia recently modified the ban on
cell phone use by school bus drivers to specify that phone use is
permitted if the phone is used in a way similar to a two-way radio in
order to communicate with school or public safety officials. Tennessee
expanded the state's prohibition of cell phone use by school bus
drivers, applying the ban to a wider range of portable electronic
devices beyond simply cell phones.
School Bus Safety in Maine
I'd like to take a quick minute and take off my NCSL hat and put on
my Maine transportation chairman hat. This is my fourth term serving as
state legislator in the Maine House of Representatives, and third term
chairing our Transportation Committee, and I can say that this past
session was the most active in terms of legislation addressing school
bus safety.
Just over a month ago, in mid-June, Maine entertained nearly a
dozen bills and passed two bills specifically focused on school bus
safety. LD 19 will now require school buses purchased after this year
to be equipped with a school bus crossing arm and LD 166 addressed the
issue of cars passing school busses.
Initially, there was interest in simply increasing fines for
violators, but we know that simply increasing the penalties does not
actually solve the problem. We engaged stakeholders, including
community members, and local and state police. The working group
identified that enforcement of existing laws is the challenge because
there is no way to identify a vehicle when the bus driver is the only
person to have witnessed the violation. Thus, the working group
recommended allowing the use of a traffic surveillance camera mounted
on a school bus in conjunction with a lighted traffic control device to
prove or enforce a violation in order to identify the violator. This
bill was very controversial given our state's high regard for privacy.
However, the testimony from grieving parents and community members was
powerful and convincing: too many kids are being hurt or killed while
on or near a school bus.
Next Steps
Finally, I'd like to end by noting that NCSL supports a continued
federal role in helping to set national performance and safety goals
with federal safety programs being expanded to incorporate emerging
safety issues, while respecting state sovereignty. However, NCSL
strongly opposes the use of federal sanctions or redirection penalties
to enforce federal safety standards as well as the use of federal
mandates that are enforced using ``reprogramming'' sanctions. States
stand ready to work with our federal partners to ensure that school
buses remain the safest way to transport school children.
Madam Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to testify before
the subcommittee on this important topic. If you or your staff have any
additional questions, please contact NCSL staff Ben Husch and Doug
Shinkle. We look forward to working with you and the members of the
subcommittee on this increasingly important safety issue.
School Bus Safety Laws
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. McLean.
Next, the chief administrator of the New Jersey Motor
Vehicle Commission, Brenda Sue Fulton.
Ms. Fulton. Thank you and good afternoon, Chair Norton,
Ranking Member Davis, members of the subcommittee.
I am here representing the New Jersey Motor Vehicle
Commission and Governor Murphy, and we are grateful for the
opportunity to speak on such an important topic.
Last year, as you heard, a schoolbus crash in Mount Olive,
New Jersey, tragically took the lives of East Brook Middle
School fifth-grader Miranda Vargas, and Paramus social studies
teacher, Jennifer Williamson, and injured dozens of children.
This crash broke our hearts and caused us to take a hard look
at how we keep our kids safe.
New Jersey is second to none in ensuring that children who
ride our schoolbuses are safe. Every one of our 23,000
schoolbuses are inspected at least twice a year with a review
of driver qualifications as well as vehicle safety.
Our Governor's School Bus Safety Task Force conducts an
additional 100 unannounced inspections. Unannounced inspections
have been particularly critical to help identify private
operators who have unlicensed or otherwise unqualified drivers
operating their schoolbuses.
We started requiring lapbelts on all schoolbuses in 1992,
and we remain one of only seven States that require belts on
all schoolbuses.
In 1996, we started requiring every bus to be equipped with
a crossing arm that swings out and prevents children from
passing directly in front of the bus. This was modeled after
Betsy's Law in Washington State.
In 2017, with the passing of Abigail's Law, all New Jersey
schoolbuses were required to have sensors in front and in back
to detect an object or small child below the field of view.
Every work night, the Motor Vehicle Commission generates a
report of any schoolbus driver whose license has been suspended
and transmits that report directly to the New Jersey Department
of Education for action.
But after the devastating loss of Jennifer Williamson and
10-year-old Miranda, we resolved to do even more. In the first
2 years of his administration, Governor Murphy signed eight
laws aimed at improving the safety of schoolbuses, drivers, and
supervisors. These laws now require the following:
One, all newly purchased schoolbuses must have three-point
belts;
Two, in the past, schoolbus drivers who accumulated 12 or
more points were scheduled for suspension. Under recently
enacted legislation, they are now scheduled for suspension if
they receive three or more moving violations in a 3-year period
or six or more points, and they must complete a defensive
driving course before being restored.
Three, local boards of education or the bus contractor that
provides the pupil transportation services are notified by the
department of education of suspensions within 1 working day and
must confirm within 1 business day that the suspended driver is
no longer operating a schoolbus.
Four, in addition to the commercial driver license
requirement for medical certification from a Federal medical
examiner every 2 years, schoolbus drivers age 70 to 74 must
provide evidence of a medical exam every year, and drivers age
75 and over much provide evidence of an exam every 6 months.
Five, the State is conducting a study of schoolbus
passenger safety.
And six, finally, at the local level schoolbus drivers and
schoolbus aides must now complete training biannually and
school district transportation supervisors must complete an
approved certification program at an institute of higher
education.
In some respects, we are fortunate that our Governor,
education commissioner, State legislators, and Members of
Congress have all pulled together to enact measures to make our
kids safer. But it has not escaped anyone's notice that too
many of these laws have names: Betsy, Abigail, Miranda. Too
many tragedies, too much loss.
If I could convey any message to our sister States and to
you, members of this committee, it would be this: do not wait
for another child to die before you take action.
I welcome your questions. Thank you for the opportunity to
testify.
[Ms. Fulton's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Sue Fulton, Chief Administrator, New Jersey
Motor Vehicle Commission
Good afternoon, Chair DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, Chair Norton,
Ranking Member Davis, and members of the Subcommittee.
I'm here representing the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission and
Governor Murphy, and we're grateful for the opportunity to speak on
such an important topic.
Last year, a school bus crash in Mount Olive, New Jersey,
tragically took the lives of East Brook Middle School fifth-grader
Miranda Vargas, and Paramus Social Studies teacher Jennifer Williamson,
and injured dozens of children.
This crash broke our hearts--and caused us to take a hard look at
how we keep our kids safe.
New Jersey's History of School Bus Safety
New Jersey is second to none in ensuring that children who ride our
school buses are safe.
Every one of our 23,000 school buses is inspected at least twice a
year, with a review of driver qualifications as well as vehicle safety.
Our Governor's School Bus Safety Task Force conducts an additional 100
unannounced inspections. Unannounced inspections have been particularly
crucial to help identify private operators who have unlicensed or
otherwise unqualified drivers operating their school buses.
We started requiring lap belts on all school buses in 1992, and we
remain one of only seven states that require belts on all school buses.
In 1996, we started requiring every bus to be equipped with a
crossing arm, that swings out and prevents children from passing
directly in front of the bus. This was modeled after Betsy's Law in
Washington State.
In 2017, with the passing of Abigail's Law, all New Jersey school
buses were required to have sensors in front and in back to detect an
object or small child below the field of view.
Every work night, the Motor Vehicle Commission generates a report
of any school bus driver whose license has been suspended and transmits
that report directly to the New Jersey Department of Education for
action.
But after the devastating loss of beloved teacher Jennifer
Williamson and 10-year-old Miranda, we resolved to do even more in New
Jersey.
New Measures
In the first two years of his administration, Governor Murphy
signed eight laws aimed at improving the safety of school buses,
drivers, and supervisors. These laws now require the following:
1. All newly-purchased school buses must have 3-point belts.
2. In the past, school bus drivers who accumulated 12 or more
points were scheduled for suspension. Under recently enacted
legislation, they are now scheduled for suspension if they receive 3 or
more moving violations in 3 years or 6 or more points, and they must
complete a defensive driving course before being restored.
3. Local boards of education, or the bus contractor that provides
pupil transportation services for a local board of education, are
notified by the NJDOE of suspensions within one working day and must
confirm within one business day that the suspended driver is no longer
operating a school bus.
4. In addition to the Commercial Driver License requirement for
medical certification from a federal medical examiner every two years,
school bus drivers age 70-74 must provide evidence of an annual medical
exam, and drivers age 75 and over must have an exam every six months.
5. The State will conduct a study of school bus passenger safety.
6. And finally, at the local level, school bus drivers and school
bus aides must now complete trainings biannually and school district
transportation supervisors must complete an approved certification
program at an institution of higher education.
Conclusion
In some respects, we are fortunate that our Governor, Education
Commissioner, state legislators, and members of Congress have all
pulled together to enact measures to make our kids safer.
But it hasn't escaped anyone's notice that too many laws have
names. Betsy. Abigail. Miranda.
Too many tragedies. Too much loss.
If I could convey any message to our sister states, and to you,
members of this Committee, it would be this: Don't wait for a child to
die to take action; do it now.
I welcome your questions.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate that moving testimony.
Dr. Poland, Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety,
National Transportation Safety Board.
Ms. Poland. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking
Member Davis, and the members of the subcommittee.
Thank you for inviting the NTSB to testify today regarding
schoolbus safety.
Schoolbus travel, as you have heard, is one of the safest
forms of transportation on our roads today. Children are safer
traveling in schoolbuses than in any other vehicle, but still,
improvements can be made.
Today I will focus my remarks on NTSB recommended
improvements related to occupant protection, driver oversight,
fire protection, and the safety of children in the schoolbus
loading zone.
Compartmentalization, the current form of occupant
protection on large schoolbuses, is a passive system that
performs well in frontal collisions. Unfortunately, in side-
impact collisions and rollovers, compartmentalization is
incomplete and provides insufficient protection.
Twenty years ago, we recommended that NHTSA develop
performance standards for schoolbus occupant protection systems
that account for all types of collisions and rollovers. In
2008, NHTSA published a final rule that established standards
for both lap and lap/shoulder belts if voluntarily installed on
large schoolbuses.
With the Federal regulation in place, some jurisdictions
are now equipping buses with this safety improvement. However,
there still is no Federal requirement for large schoolbuses to
be equipped with passenger lap/shoulder belts.
Additionally, more recent schoolbus crashes have emphasized
the need for change. Last year, following the catastrophic
schoolbus crash in Chattanooga, Tennessee, the NTSB recommended
that each State require passenger lap/shoulder belts to be
installed in new large schoolbuses.
Poor driver oversight resulted in unsafe schoolbus
operations in both the Chattanooga crash and another 2016 crash
in Baltimore, Maryland. In each case, the drivers continued to
operate schoolbuses unsafely with no remedial action being
taken even in the face of known driver safety issues.
Improving driver oversight can prevent crashes. In the
Chattanooga crash, the busdriver had about 5 months of
schoolbus driving experience during which he had accumulated
numerous complaints about his driving performance. There was no
systematic method for recording, tracking, or investigating
complaints of driver behavior.
In the Baltimore crash, the driver had a longstanding
seizure disorder, yet was allowed to continue driving the
schoolbus. We concluded that the driver understood his
diagnosis of epilepsy and intentionally hid this during his
medical examination.
Further, although Baltimore City Public Schools was
responsible for driver oversight, it failed to identify the
busdriver as high risk.
The NTSB has investigated several bus fires dating back to
the 1988 bus collision near Carrollton, Kentucky, that resulted
in 27 deaths.
More recently, in December 2017, a fire ignited in the
engine compartment of a schoolbus in Oakland, Iowa, and spread
into the bus' passenger compartment resulting in two deaths.
The bus was not equipped with an automatic fire suppression
system that would have delivered a fire suppressant inside the
vehicle's engine compartment, increasing the time to evacuate.
We issued recommendations to NHTSA to require the
installation of fire suppression systems in schoolbuses. We
also addressed similar recommendations directly to the
schoolbus manufacturers.
In addition, we recommended that NHTSA update the
requirements for flammability of schoolbus interior materials.
We know that more children are injured or killed in the
schoolbus loading zone than on the bus itself. Following our
investigation of a 2016 collision in which a child was fatally
struck while crossing the roadway to board his schoolbus in
Thief River Falls, Minnesota, the Board recommended that NHTSA
assess and update the guidelines on pupil transportation safety
to address pedestrian issues related to conspicuity and route
selection.
We are now investigating three additional loading zone
crashes in Indiana, Georgia, and Mississippi in order to
identify countermeasures for preventing or mitigating future
injuries and fatalities in the schoolbus loading zone.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide our
recommendations for improving schoolbus safety. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you have.
[Dr. Poland's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristin Poland, Ph.D., Deputy Director, Office of
Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety Board
Good morning, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman
DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee. Thank
you for inviting the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to
testify before you today regarding our investigations and safety
recommendations on school bus safety.
In 1967, Congress established the NTSB as an independent agency
within the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) with a
clearly defined mission to promote a higher level of safety in the
transportation system. In 1974, Congress reestablished the NTSB as a
separate entity outside of the USDOT, reasoning that ``no federal
agency can properly perform such (investigatory) functions unless it is
totally separate and independent from any other . . . agency of the
United States.'' \1\ Because the USDOT has broad operational and
regulatory responsibilities that affect the safety, adequacy, and
efficiency of the transportation system, and transportation accidents
may suggest deficiencies in that system, the NTSB's independence was
deemed necessary for proper oversight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 Sec. 302, Pub. L. 93-633,
88 Stat. 2166-2173 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB is charged by Congress with investigating every civil
aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in
other modes of transportation--highway, rail, marine, and pipeline. We
determine the probable cause of the accidents we investigate, and we
issue recommendations to federal, state, and local agencies, and other
entities, aimed at improving safety, preventing future accidents and
injuries, and saving lives. The NTSB is not a regulatory agency--we do
not promulgate operating standards and do not certificate organizations
and individuals. The goal of our work is to foster safety improvements,
through safety alerts, reports, and formal safety recommendations, for
the traveling public.
School bus travel is one of the safest forms of transportation in
the United States. Every day, nearly 600,000 buses carry more than 25
million students to and from school and activities. Children are safer
traveling in school buses than in any other vehicle.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See the NHTSA road safety webpage on school bus safety [https:/
/www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety], accessed July 10, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NTSB has a long history of investigating school bus crashes and
making recommendations to improve the safety of the system. However, we
continue to investigate school bus crashes that result in preventable
fatalities and injuries. In 2018, we completed a special investigation
report regarding selective issues in school bus transportation safety
following crashes in Baltimore, Maryland, and Chattanooga,
Tennessee.\3\ We also recently completed the investigation of a
December 12, 2017, school bus fire in Oakland, Iowa.\4\ We have made
recommendations regarding improving occupant protection, enhancing
driver oversight, and increasing pedestrian safety, as well as
emphasizing the need for crash-prevention technologies, fire-resistant
materials, and fire suppression systems on school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ NTSB. Selective Issues in School Bus Transportation Safety:
Crashes in Baltimore, Maryland, and Chattanooga, Tennessee [https://
www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/SIR1802.pdf]. NTSB/
SIR-18/02. Washington, DC: NTSB.
\4\ NTSB. School Bus Run-Off-Road and Fire [https://ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1901.pdf]. NTSB/HAR-19/01.
Washington, DC: NTSB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lap/Shoulder Belts on School Buses
School buses are one of the safest modes of transportation because
of their robust design and unique operating environment. School buses
are designed with a passive form of occupant protection, termed
``compartmentalization,'' which requires no action by the passenger and
functions by forming a compartment fore and aft of the bus occupant.
Compartmentalization is designed to contain passengers within their
seating compartments during frontal and rear-impact collisions, while
the seatback is designed to absorb impact energy and reduce occupant
injury. A key aspect of this occupant protection system is that
passengers remain within the compartment prior to and during an impact
so that they benefit from the energy-absorbing seat design. However,
for many years, we have recommended enhancements to school bus occupant
protection systems, particularly to address side-impact collisions and
rollovers in which compartmentalization is incomplete and provides
insufficient protection for occupants.
In 1999, we released a special investigation report regarding bus
crashworthiness.\5\ In this report, we issued two recommendations
requesting that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
(NHTSA) develop performance standards for school bus occupant
protection systems that account for frontal, side-, and rear-impact
collisions and rollovers, then require that newly manufactured school
buses install systems to retain passengers within the seating
compartments throughout the crash sequence for all accident
scenarios.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ NTSB. Bus Crashworthiness [https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-
studies/Documents/SIR9904.pdf]. NTSB/SIR-99/04. Washington, DC: NTSB.
\6\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-99-45 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/
Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-99-045] and -46 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/
Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-99-046].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2008, NHTSA published a final rule (with an effective date of
October 21, 2011) that upgraded the school bus occupant protection
requirements of various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards
(FMVSSs), including the requirement for lap and shoulder belts (rather
than lap-only belts) for all passenger seating positions on school
buses with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) equal to or less than
10,000 pounds; and the establishment of performance standards for seat
belts voluntarily installed by states or school districts on school
buses with a GVWR greater than 10,000 pounds (these vehicles are
referred to as ``large school buses'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ (a) See Title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 571,
``Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, Seating Systems, Occupant
Crash Protection, Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages, School Bus Passenger
Seating and Crash Protection, Final Rule.'' (b) The final rule
developed performance standards for both lap belts and lap/shoulder
belts on large school buses if the belts were voluntarily installed.
The rule requires higher seatbacks for all school buses, but does not
require that passenger lap or lap/shoulder belts be installed in large
school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now that there is a federal regulation defining performance
standards for large school bus passenger lap/shoulder belts, school bus
and seat manufacturers are designing large school buses with this
safety improvement. In addition, design improvements--such as flexible
seating systems--have reduced the impediments to equipping large school
buses with this key safety feature. States and local school districts
that have required or installed lap/shoulder belts in large school
buses report additional improvements beyond occupant protection,
including reduced driver distraction and improved student behavior.
However, to date, there is no federal requirement for large school
buses to be equipped with lap/shoulder belts, and most states do not
require them. For large school buses, NHTSA has continued to maintain
that compartmentalization, rather than lap/shoulder belts, is the best
way to provide crash protection.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See the NHTSA road safety webpage on school bus safety [https:/
/www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety], accessed July 10, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2012, a school bus transporting students to
Chesterfield Elementary School in Chesterfield, New Jersey, was struck
at an intersection by a Mack roll-off truck with a fully loaded dump
container, resulting in 1 bus passenger fatality, 5 serious passenger
injuries, and 11 minor passenger injuries. After being struck by the
truck, the bus rotated nearly 180 degrees and subsequently struck a
traffic beacon support pole. The fatally and severely injured
passengers were seated in the back half of the school bus, in the area
of higher impact forces and accelerations. The bus was equipped with
lap belts, but some students on the school bus wore them improperly or
not at all.
Although compartmentalization makes school buses extremely safe,
precrash, lateral, and rollover motions still expose unbelted
passengers to injury-producing components within the vehicle,
intrusion, movement out of the seating compartment, and ejection. Lap
belts can be beneficial in some circumstances, but injuries may still
result from upper-body flailing. As a result of our investigation of
the Chesterfield crash, we concluded that, in severe side-impact
crashes, properly worn lap/shoulder belts reduce injuries related to
upper-body flailing that are commonly seen with lap-only belts and,
therefore, provide the best protection for school bus passengers.
Further, better student, parent, and school district education and
training may increase the use and proper fit of passenger seat belts in
school buses. Thus, we recommended that school districts provide
improved information to parents and students regarding the importance
of properly using seat belts on school buses.
Another large school bus crash that we investigated demonstrated
the safety benefit of lap/shoulder belts in protecting bus passengers.
On November 27, 2017, a school bus in Helena, Montana, was struck at an
intersection by a pickup truck towing a trailer.\9\ Following the
collision, the school bus departed the roadway, struck an electrical
equipment box, and overturned 90 degrees onto its right side. The bus
was occupied by the driver, an adult aide, and two student passengers.
All of the bus passengers were wearing lap/shoulder belts, and there
were only minor injuries as a result of the crash. We concluded that
the passenger lap/shoulder belts mitigated injuries in this side-impact
and rollover crash.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ NTSB. Intersection Collision and Rollover Involving School Bus
and Pickup Truck [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/
Reports/HAB1902.pdf]. NTSB/HAB-19/02. Washington, DC: NTSB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Chattanooga, Tennessee, bus crash that occurred on November
21, 2016, 6 students died and more than 20 others were injured when the
bus struck a utility pole, rolled onto its right side, and collided
with a tree. The Chattanooga school bus passengers were at risk due to
the precrash vehicle motions that threw them from their seating
compartments prior to the bus striking the utility pole. This rendered
compartmentalization ineffective during the rollover sequence.
Therefore, we have recommended that each state that has not already
done so require that passenger lap/shoulder belts be installed in all
new large school buses to provide the best protection for all their
occupants.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-18-9 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/
Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-009] and -10 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/
Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-010].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fire Protection on School Buses
We have investigated several bus fires and identified safety issues
regarding flammability, fire suppression, and emergency evacuation.
In 1988, a school bus operating as a church activity bus was struck
head-on by a pickup truck on Interstate 71 near Carrollton,
Kentucky.\11\ The bus's fuel tank was punctured during the collision
and a fire ensued, engulfing the bus. The bus driver and 26 passengers
were fatally injured, 34 bus passengers sustained minor to serious
injuries, and 6 passengers were uninjured. During our investigation, we
identified safety issues with, among other things, the federal safety
standards used in school bus manufacture, the flammability and toxicity
of school bus seating materials, and emergency egress on school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ NTSB. Pickup Truck/Church Activity Bus Head-on Collision and
Fire [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/
HAR8901.pdf]. NTSB/HAR-89/01. Washington, DC: NTSB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
All school buses in the United States are required to meet FMVSS
302 (flammability of interior materials), established by NHTSA,
specifying the fire-resistance requirements for materials used in the
occupant compartments of motor vehicles.\12\ Since its adoption in
1971, FMVSS 302 has remained essentially the same. All 27 fatalities in
the Carrollton crash resulted from smoke injuries, not from the
collision with the pickup truck. Thirty years later, we are still
addressing the adequacy of FMVSS 302 to prevent the rapid spread of
fire and smoke inside school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The standard (49 CFR 571.302 [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/
pkg/CFR-2011-title49-vol6/pdf/CFR-2011-title49-vol6-sec571-302.pdf])
specifies a horizontal burn rate of not more than 102 millimeters per
minute within 13 millimeters of the passenger compartment air space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FMVSS 302 is intended to reduce deaths and injuries caused by
vehicle fires; however, flammability testing under FMVSS 302 is
performed using a small-scale fire to represent a fire originating in
the passenger compartment from sources such as matches or cigarettes.
The test does not represent the most common causes of school bus fires,
most of which begin in the engine and can ignite after a crash. The
current standard for school buses remains less stringent than the
flammability standards applied in other modes of transportation under
USDOT safety oversight, such as aviation and rail, and is clearly
outdated.
Following our investigation of the April 2014 collision and
postcrash fire involving a truck-tractor double trailer and a
motorcoach that occurred on Interstate 5 in Orland, California, we
recommended that NHTSA revise FMVSS 302 to adopt the more rigorous
performance standards for interior flammability and smoke emissions
characteristics already in use for commercial aviation and rail
passenger transportation.\13\ In 2017, NHTSA publicly announced it was
pursuing a research effort, titled Test Procedures for Evaluating
Flammability of Interior Materials, and that final results were
expected to be published in June 2018; however, no results have yet
been published, more than a year after the deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ (a) NTSB. Truck-Tractor Double Trailer Median Crossover
Collision With Motorcoach and Postcrash Fire on Interstate 5 [https://
www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAR1501.pdf]. NTSB/
HAR-15/01. Washington, DC: NTSB. (b) NTSB Safety Recommendation H-15-12
[https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/
ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-15-012].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oakland, Iowa, bus fire occurred when a school bus backing out
of a driveway got stuck in a drainage ditch. While the driver was
attempting to drive the bus forward and back onto the road, a fire
ignited in the engine compartment and spread into and through the bus's
passenger compartment. The driver and 16-year-old passenger sustained
thermal injuries and died in the fire as a result of smoke and soot
inhalation.
The Oakland school bus was not equipped with an automatic fire
suppression system (AFSS). Typically, such systems deliver a fire
suppressant inside a vehicle's engine compartment when a fire sensor is
activated. An AFSS uses either thermal sensors to detect heat or
optical sensors to detect flame on specific ignition points or
flammable agents on or near the engine block. Following detection, the
system alerts the driver and automatically releases a water mist or
chemical (powder) suppressant. The systems can be installed during or
just after new manufacture, or retrofitted into buses already in
service. No national standards exist for AFSS installation or
performance; however, specifications have been defined for AFSS testing
as well as voluntary performance certification, both in the United
States and internationally.
In 2012, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act
(MAP-21) instructed NHTSA to research motorcoach fires and ways to
prevent them.\14\ This requirement, while directed at motorcoach fire
safety, has helped pave the way for the testing fire suppression
systems that have been shown to prevent or mitigate the spread of fire
into a passenger compartment and are now widely available and already
installed in some school buses. If the Oakland school bus had been
equipped with such a system, the system likely would have slowed or
stopped the growth and spread of the fire and its progression into the
passenger compartment. As a result of this investigation, we have
recommended that NHTSA require all new school buses to be equipped with
fire suppression systems that, at a minimum, address engine fires.\15\
Further, we have recommended that the USDOT require in-service school
buses to be equipped with fire suppression systems that, at a minimum,
address engine fires.\16\ Absent such requirements, we recommended that
school bus manufacturers install fire suppression systems that, at a
minimum, address engine fires as standard equipment on all newly
manufactured school buses.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Section 32704(a) of MAP-21, Public Law 112-141 [https://
www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PLAW-112publ141/pdf/PLAW-112publ141.pdf]
(July 6, 2012), directs the secretary of the USDOT to ``conduct
research and testing to determine the most prevalent causes of
motorcoach fires and the best methods to prevent such fires and to
mitigate the effect of such fires, both inside and outside the
motorcoach.'' Research and testing were to include automatic fire
suppression systems.
\15\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-19-4 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/Accident
Reports/Reports/HAR1901.pdf].
\16\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-19-3 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/Accident
Reports/Reports/HAR1901.pdf].
\17\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-19-11 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/Accident
Reports/Reports/HAR1901.pdf].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also found during the Oakland investigation that small
penetrations through the firewall protecting the interior of the bus
from the engine compartment were not blocked with fire-resistant
material. More importantly, the firewall did not prevent the spread of
fire from the engine compartment because the engine block's penetration
into the passenger compartment was covered only in fiberglass cowling,
which provided no fire protection or containment and acted as fuel
load. This resulted in a firewall gap and a direct pathway for the fire
to enter the passenger area. We concluded that the lack of a complete
firewall between the school bus engine compartment and the passenger
compartment led to the rapid spread of superheated gases, smoke, and
fire into the passenger compartment; and the interior components of the
bus were flammable when exposed to ignition sources greater than those
used in tests under FMVSS 302 and in fire block tests.
Even without a fire suppression system, if the Oakland school bus
had been equipped with a complete firewall or with fire-resistant
materials between the engine and the passenger compartment, the spread
of fire and smoke into the bus's interior would have been reduced or
slowed. As a result, the occupants would have been exposed to less
smoke and heated gas, and they would have had more time to evacuate the
bus, which might have prevented their fatal injuries. As a result of
this investigation, we recommended that NHTSA develop standards and
that school bus manufacturers ensure that, for newly manufactured
school buses--especially those with engines that extend beyond the
firewall--no hazardous quantity of gas or flame can pass through the
firewall from the engine compartment to the passenger compartment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-19-5 and -12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Oakland, Iowa, fire, along with other school bus fires reported
nationally and as shown in school bus fire demonstrations, illustrates
that once a school bus compartment is breached (even when an exterior
fire enters the bus), a fire spreads quickly, and smoke, toxic gases,
and heat make the interior untenable for occupants. On April 16, 2018,
as a training exercise, the Stafford County (Virginia) Public Schools
and the Stafford County Fire and Rescue Department held a school bus
fire demonstration. The fire department placed a hay bale in front of a
school bus and ignited it; the bus was fully engulfed in flames within
3 minutes.\19\ That demonstration led to another on October 27, 2018,
in Kansas City, Kansas, in which the National Association for Pupil
Transportation partnered with the Lee Summit Fire Department to show
the time it takes for flames to engulf a school bus and demonstrated
realistic evacuation scenarios. A bale of hay was set on fire inside
the open front door of one bus; by the 3-minute mark, the bus was
filled with smoke and temperatures had reached 900 +F to 1,000 +F.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ School Bus Fleet. School Bus Fire Demo Highlights Need for
Preparedness [https://www.schoolbusfleet.com/news/730179/school-bus-
fire-demo-highlights-need-for-preparedness]. June 19, 2018.
\20\ School Bus Fleet. School Bus Fire Demo Shows Importance of
Evacuation Training [https://www.schoolbusfleet.com/news/731812/school-
bus-fire-demo-shows-importance-of-evacuation-training]. October 27,
2018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two critical components of school bus safety are emergency training
for school bus drivers and passengers, and emergency drills involving
both drivers and students. Proper response in an emergency depends on
the quality of training, the types of drills (which should supplement
classroom instruction), and the frequency of refresher training and
drills.
School Bus Driver Oversight
Although the specific safety issues differed, the Baltimore,
Chattanooga, and Oakland crashes shared one common factor: poor driver
oversight by the school districts and contracted motor carriers, which
resulted in unsafe school bus operations. In each case, the drivers
continued to operate school buses unsafely with no remedial action
being taken, even in the face of known driver safety issues.
In the Chattanooga crash, the bus driver was speeding as he
transported students from the school to their drop-off locations. While
driving, he answered a cell phone call, which was still active when he
lost control of the bus and departed the roadway. We concluded that the
Chattanooga school bus driver's speeding, combined with his cell phone
use while driving, led to the crash. At the time of the crash, the
driver had about 5 months of school bus driving experience, during
which he had accumulated numerous complaints about his driving
performance. However, investigators found no record of disciplinary or
corrective training in the driver's file. The day of the crash was not
the first time the bus driver had exhibited unsafe driving maneuvers.
Shortly after the beginning of the 2016 school year, he began reporting
student disciplinary problems to Hamilton County Department of
Education (HCDE) school staff. As the school year progressed, the
problems between the driver and the students continued, and the driver
sent even more discipline referrals to school administrators, who told
him he should not be submitting so many. About a week later, the HCDE
and Durham School Services (Durham), the contract carrier for the
school district, received the first complaint that the driver was
intentionally trying to make students fall.
After the crash, our investigators found e-mails and letters from
parents and students about the bus driver's performance in the months
leading to the crash, which provided insight into how the driver dealt
with student behavioral issues during this period. Student passengers
who normally rode this bus told our investigators that when there was
excessive noise or when some students refused to sit down, the driver
would slam on the brakes or swerve, causing them to fall. No action was
taken to relieve the driver of duty, nor were definitive steps taken to
resolve the safety complaints. We concluded that Durham had no
systematic method for recording, tracking, or investigating complaints
of driver behavior, and that it was deficient in driver oversight.
Following this crash, the state of Tennessee enacted a law establishing
a program to monitor and oversee transportation services for local
education authorities, school districts, and charter schools.
We also have a long history of investigating crashes in which
drivers who failed to report their medical conditions were issued
medical certificates and were subsequently involved in fatal crashes in
which their medical condition contributed to the event.
On November 1, 2016, a Baltimore City school bus struck a private
auto and a Maryland Transit Administration (MTA) bus, killing four MTA
passengers and both bus drivers. Medical records from the school bus
driver's primary care physician document the driver's history of
seizures dating back to his childhood. Additionally, the driver
experienced several incapacitating medical events while on duty as a
school bus driver, including three incidents in the previous 5 years.
We determined that the Baltimore school bus driver was likely
incapacitated by a seizure due to his long-standing seizure disorder,
which resulted in the collisions with the car and transit bus.
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA) records showed that the
Baltimore school bus driver had repeated license revocations and
suspensions over several decades. He fraudulently obtained his driver's
license by providing documents with different name spellings or birth
dates to circumvent the MVA verification system. We concluded that the
Baltimore school bus driver understood his diagnosis of epilepsy and
intentionally hid this disqualifying medical condition and his use of
treatment medications during his medical examinations to prevent being
denied certification. Further, although Baltimore City Public Schools
(BCPS) was responsible for driver oversight, it failed to address
multiple deficiencies and to identify the bus driver as high risk.
Similarly, the MVA verification system failed to prevent the Baltimore
school bus driver from obtaining a driver's license through fraudulent
means.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration establishes
regulations for commercial driver licensing, including licensing school
bus drivers employed either by a local school district directly or by a
contracted motor carrier that provides student transportation services.
A person who operates a commercial vehicle in commerce must be
medically certified as physically qualified to operate the vehicle. The
Baltimore crash might have been prevented had a coworker or a BCPS
employee reported the driver to the MVA. We concluded that school
districts and their contracted student transportation service providers
would benefit from awareness training on federal and state commercial
driver fitness regulations and on the avenues available to report
drivers with medical conditions that may make it unsafe to operate a
school bus.
In the Oakland crash, the driver was found qualified for a
commercial driver's license during an examination on March 6, 2017, and
he held a medical certificate valid for 2 years. However, after the
examination, the driver's degenerative spinal condition worsened,
resulting in his inability to walk without a cane or a walker. The
driver understood his diagnosis of degenerative disc disease, had seen
a specialist, and was scheduled for back surgery 2 days after the
crash. The school district was also aware of the driver's condition and
that he was scheduled for surgery. When a school district, as an
intrastate motor carrier, identifies a physical impairment that could
affect a driver's ability to operate a school bus and could lead to a
crash or result in the driver's inability to safely render assistance--
such as an inability to walk without a cane or move quickly in an
emergency--the district should require the driver (even if he or she
has a medical certificate) to demonstrate physical ability or provide a
doctor's clearance for duty. Although school bus drivers undergo
federally required medical examinations and can be medically certified
for 2 years, their physical condition may change during the interval
between examinations and render the driver incapable of performing
critical emergency duties. As a result of the Oakland investigation, we
recommended that states revise their school bus driver requirements so
that all drivers must pass a physical performance test on hiring and at
least annually, and also whenever their physical condition changes in a
manner that could affect their ability to physically perform school bus
driver duties, including helping passengers evacuate a bus in an
emergency.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ NTSB Safety Recommendation H-19-6 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/Accident
Reports/Reports/HAR1901.pdf].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
School Bus Route and Stop Safety
Following our investigation of a 2016 collision in which a 7-year-
old was fatally struck by a pickup truck while crossing the roadway to
board his school bus in Thief River Falls, Minnesota, we recommended
that NHTSA assess, and if necessary, update, its guidelines on pupil
transportation safety to specifically address pedestrian issues related
to conspicuity and route selection.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ (a) NTSB. Fatal Pedestrian Collision with Minivan Thief River
Falls [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/
HAB1817.pdf]. NTSB/HAB-18/17. Washington, DC: NTSB. (b) NTSB Safety
Recommendation H-18-50 [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/
AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-
50].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are continuing to investigate collisions involving school bus
passenger loading and unloading. On October 30, 2018, three children
were killed and one seriously injured in Rochester, Indiana, when they
were struck by a pickup truck while they were crossing the roadway to
board their bus to school.\23\ The school bus had its warning lights on
and the driver had deployed the stop arm, but the pickup truck driver
did not stop on the 55-mph roadway. In addition to the Rochester crash,
we are also investigating two other crashes--one in Hartsfield,
Georgia, and one in Baldwyn, Mississippi--involving school bus
passenger loading and unloading where drivers did not stop for stopped
school buses with their warning lights on and stop arms deployed, and
struck children crossing the roadway. These two crashes resulted in the
deaths of two children and serious injury to another child.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NTSB. Crash between Pickup Truck and Children Boarding a
School Bus [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Pages/HWY19MH003.aspx].
NTSB/HWY19MH003 (preliminary). Washington, DC: NTSB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our investigations continue to focus on school districts' student
transportation policies, bus route planning and development, and safety
issues related to school bus loading and unloading on high-speed
roadways.
Crash Prevention Technology
We have advocated for collision avoidance systems in commercial
motor vehicles, including buses, for more than 20 years. Collision
avoidance technology mitigates or prevents crashes by detecting moving,
stopped, or stationary vehicles ahead. When appropriate, vehicles
equipped with automatic emergency braking systems apply brakes to
prevent or mitigate a collision.
NHTSA issued a final rule, effective in August 2015, requiring
electronic stability control systems on most truck-tractors and over-
the-road buses weighing more than 26,000 pounds; however, the
requirement does not apply to school buses. Even without this
requirement, though, some school bus manufacturers are beginning to
voluntarily install these systems in school buses. Our crash
investigations and industry research have shown that collision
avoidance systems significantly help prevent or mitigate the severity
of crashes and reduce the frequency of rear-end or loss-of-control
crashes, such as the one that occurred in Baltimore. In support of this
effort, last year we recommended that NHTSA require, and that all
school bus manufacturers install, collision avoidance systems with
automatic emergency braking as standard equipment in all newly
manufactured school buses.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-18-8 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/
Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-008] and -19 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/
Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-019].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion
Although school buses are extremely safe, more needs to be done to
ensure that our most vulnerable road users--our children--arrive at
school and home again safely. Our investigations have shown that
improved occupant protection, driver oversight, pedestrian safety, fire
protection, and collision avoidance technologies are needed to prevent
crashes, deaths, and injuries on the nation's roadways. Thank you for
this opportunity to discuss our recommendations for improving school
bus safety. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Dr. Poland.
Mr. Benish, president and COO, Cook-Illinois Corporation,
is testifying on behalf of the National School Transportation
Association.
You may proceed for 5 minutes.
Mr. Benish. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Norton, Ranking
Member Davis, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking Member Graves, members
of the subcommittee. Thank you for calling this hearing today
and the invitation to testify.
My name is John Benish, Jr. I am the president and chief
operating officer of Cook-Illinois Corporation based in Oak
Brook, Illinois.
I would like to also acknowledge my wife, Christine, who is
here with me today.
My dad, John Benish, Sr., started a company in 1958 with 75
buses. Today the company operates 2,200 schoolbuses, and we
transport over 100,000 children each day in the Chicagoland
area.
I started in the business as a teenager and have worked
nearly every position, including CDL-licensed driver, and
occasionally you will even see me driving one of our buses to
keep in touch with our drivers and our students.
I am here today on the behalf of the National School
Transportation Association, the trade association for private
schoolbus companies that provide schoolbus service under
contract. Private companies provide approximately 38 percent of
the Nation's schoolbus service.
I just became the new president yesterday at our annual
meeting in Austin, Texas.
We have a saying in our industry that we bleed yellow,
which signifies our commitment to safety for the children we
transport. Each day nearly 500,000 schoolbuses transport over
26 million students to and from school, more than intercity
transit, rail and aviation combined. According to DOT, the
schoolbus is the safest form of surface transportation, and
NHTSA states the schoolbus is the safest vehicle on the road.
Schoolbuses operate in road and highway environments where
approximately 37,000 fatalities occur annually. Schoolbus
transportation averages only four to six occupant fatalities
annually, which is .01 percent of the total fatalities.
We mourn with the entire school transportation community
and families when these rare instances occur and attempt to
learn from these accidents to ensure continued safe student
transportation.
Despite the unparalleled safety record of schoolbus
transportation, children remain vulnerable during the portion
of the trip when they are waiting at bus stops, crossing
streets, and loading and unloading from the schoolbus. DOT
statistics show an average of 22 students are killed annually
outside of the schoolbus compared to the average of 4 to 6
students who are killed inside the schoolbus.
Passing of stopped schoolbuses, illegal in all 50 States,
has reached epidemic proportions. Observational surveys
indicate an estimated 15 million vehicles illegally pass
stopped schoolbuses in a 180-day school year.
Sometimes pictures speak louder than words. So at this
point, I would like to ask you to view this short video clip of
an illegal passing incident that occurred with one of our
members in New Jersey last December.
[Video played.]
``Illegal Passing Video, Student Injury--New Jersey,'' Submitted for
the Record by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
[The video referenced includes graphic content.]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlhKsR8ZdXQ&feature=youtu.be
Mr. Benish. This child walked away with a few broken bones,
but sometimes illegal passing has tragic consequences.
Last October in Rochester, Indiana, three children from one
family were killed by an oncoming driver who failed to stop as
the kids were crossing the road to board the schoolbus.
These tragedies can be prevented. We believe this is the
most important issue facing the schoolbus transportation
industry, eclipsing all others. This is why we are
enthusiastically supporting the bipartisan bill introduced in
the House by Representatives Walorski and Brownley, the Stop
for School Buses Act.
I would like to ask for a revised support letter from
multiple additional associations to be inserted into the
record.
If we are serious about saving more children's lives, this
is the issue to tackle.
Regarding seatbelts in schoolbuses, we believe this issue
is most appropriately decided at the State and local level
closest to the funding streams for school transportation, and
where all ramifications of the decision to mandate schoolbuses
can be fully examined.
NHTSA has refused to mandate schoolbus seatbelts on large
buses at the Federal level due to the fact that it would force
more children into more unsafe modes of transportation. As
communities are compelled to make difficult budget decisions,
we stand with NHTSA on this issue.
We look forward to continued work with the committee toward
the common goal of keeping our children safe.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look
forward to answering any of your questions.
[Mr. Benish's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of John Benish, Jr., President and Chief Operating
Officer, Cook-Illinois Corporation, on behalf of the National School
Transportation Association
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Member Graves, and Members of the Subcommittee, on behalf of the
National School Transportation Association, thank you for calling this
hearing today and the invitation to testify. This Committee has a long
and distinguished record of promoting safety on our roadways, and
nothing is more important than keeping our children safe in the yellow
school bus going to and from school.
My name is John Benish, Jr. and I am President and Chief Operating
Officer for Cook-Illinois corporation headquartered in Oak Brook,
Illinois. Cook-Illinois is a family-owned and operated school bus
transportation company established in 1951. My Dad, John Benish Sr.,
joined the company in 1958. Beginning with 75 school buses, the company
has grown to be one of the largest family-owned and operated school bus
contractors in the nation operating over 2200 school buses and
transporting over 100,000 children each day in and around the Chicago
area. I started in the business as a teenager and have worked nearly
every position in the business, including as a CDL-licensed driver.
Occasionally you will even see me driving one of our buses to keep in
touch with the drivers and the students. For nearly 70 years our
company has provided superior service to the school districts we serve.
We are members of the Illinois School Transportation Association and
the Illinois Association for Pupil Transportation.
I am here today on behalf of the National School Transportation
Association (NSTA), the trade association for private school bus
companies that provide school bus service under contract. Private
companies provide approximately 38% of the nation's school bus service.
I have served on its Board of Directors for 10 years and just became
its new President yesterday at its annual meeting in Austin, Texas.
My family's business has been successful not just because we have
followed sound business practices, but because our focus has always
been on our communities and, most importantly, our precious cargo--the
children we transport to and from school every day. We have a saying in
our industry that we ``bleed yellow,'' which signifies our commitment
to the safety of the children we transport. School transportation is a
uniquely American industry, and it is part of our country's commitment
to a free public education. Each day, nearly 500,000 school buses
transport over 26 million school children to and from school--more than
inter-city and intra-city bus transportation, rail and aviation
combined.
While this hearing is focused on safety, I'd like to mention that
school buses are not only safe, they are also environmentally friendly.
They help ease congestion, save energy and reduce pollution by taking
an average of 36 cars off the road for each trip. Taken together this
represents 17 million fewer cars and a savings of 20 million tons of
CO2 each year. The technology of today's school bus is tremendously
improved, incorporating clean engine and emission reduction
technologies. Our company has been at the forefront of environmental
issues by powering our school buses using more costly but cleaner
alternative fuels over our history, starting with CNG, then propane and
four years ago, to bio-diesel. NSTA is committed to green
transportation through its Green Fleet certification program which was
established in cooperation with EPA and an annual Go Yellow Go Green
award which recognizes one company that has shown outstanding
leadership in environmental stewardship. I am proud to say that my
company won this award in 2016.
According to DOT statistics, the school bus is the safest form of
surface transportation. The website of the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration states, ``The school bus is the safest vehicle on
the road''. School buses operate in an array of road and highway
environments where approximately 37,000 fatalities occur annually
(National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 2017 FARS
data). In the midst of this environment, the school bus industry
averages only 4-6 occupant fatalities annually, which is 0.01% of the
total fatalities. NSTA mourns with the entire school transportation
community and families when these rare incidents occur and attempts to
learn from these accidents to ensure continued safe student
transportation.
This remarkable safety record is no small achievement and requires
vigilance and safe practices from the men and women that drive,
maintain, own, operate and manufacture our equipment, as well as the
men and women that enforce traffic safety laws on our Nation's roads
and highways. School buses are among the most regulated forms of
transportation in the country and rightly so given the precious cargo
they carry. School buses have unique design and safety features built
in as well as dedicated and specially trained drivers. The U.S
Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) play an important role in ensuring the vehicle,
operators and drivers are all safe, as well as the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) that investigates accidents, and all
50 States. All these elements contribute to ensuring school bus
transportation's extraordinary safety record.
Despite the unparalleled safety record of school bus
transportation, school bus riders remain vulnerable during the portion
of their trip when they are waiting at bus stops, crossing streets and
loading or unloading from the school bus. DOT statistics show an
average of 22 students are killed annually outside the school bus,
compared to an average of 4-6 students who are killed inside the school
bus. Passing of stopped school buses during loading or unloading,
illegal in all 50 States, has reached epidemic proportions. In the most
recent annual observational survey in 2018, 105,306 school bus drivers
in 38 States reported 83,944 vehicles illegally passed their stopped
school buses in ONE day. Based on these observations, an estimated 15
million vehicles illegally pass stopped school buses in a 180-day
school year. The problem is likely much worse, because this alarming
figure does not factor in illegal passing that may have been
experienced among the other 80% of the nation's school bus drivers who
were unable to participate in the voluntary national survey.
[www.nasdpts.org/StopArm/2018/index.html]
Sometimes pictures speak louder than words, so at this point I'd
like to ask you to view this short video clip of an illegal school
passing incident that occurred with one of our members in New Jersey
last December: [https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=rlhKsR8ZdXQ&feature=youtu.be] This child walked away with a few
broken bones, but sometimes illegal passing can have tragic
consequences. Last October, in Rochester, Indiana, three children from
the same family were killed by an oncoming driver who failed to stop as
the kids were crossing the road to board their school bus. These
tragedies CAN be prevented.
NSTA believes this is the most important school bus issue facing
the school transportation industry, eclipsing all others. This is why
we are enthusiastically supporting a bipartisan bill introduced in the
House and Senate by Congresswomen Walorski and Brownley, the STOP for
School Buses Act (STOP Act) (HR 2218), and Senators Young and Peters,
(S. 1254), to address this issue of illegal passing of school buses.
The bill directs DOT to review state laws, enforcement and penalties,
technology, driver education, distraction and all issues that are
impacting this illegal activity. It calls upon DOT to create a public
safety messaging campaign on the danger of illegally passing stopped
school buses. The bill does not predetermine any solutions but asks DOT
to do a full evaluation of all aspects of this issue and make best
practice recommendations. The bill has a growing list of cosponsors in
both chambers, is supported by our partners in the school bus industry,
the National Association of Pupil Transportation and the National
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation, national, State
and regional private bus and school bus associations across the country
and the National Education Association. I have attached these letters
of support at the end of my testimony. We look forward to working with
this Committee and the rest of Congress to see this bill enacted into
law as soon as possible or as part of a surface transportation
reauthorization bill. If we are serious about saving more children's
lives this is the issue to tackle.
I'd like to address another issue that is periodically debated here
in Congress and in the general public, and that is the issue of seat
belts in school buses. NSTA is aware of a bill introduced in the House
by Congressman Gottheimer in May, the Secure Every Child Under the
Right Equipment Standards Act (SECURES Act--HR 2792) in May to mandate
seat belts on school buses. NSTA believes this issue is most
appropriately decided at the State and local level closest to the
funding streams for school transportation and where all ramifications
of a decision to mandate belts can be fully examined as school bus
transportation is not funded at the federal level. Unfunded mandates
that increase costs of school buses often put States in the position of
reducing school bus service and giving less children access to the
safest mode of transportation to school. We know from DOT statistics
that children who travel to school by walking, bicycle, parents' or
friend's car, or driving themselves have crashes and fatalities at far
higher rates than in a yellow school bus, with or without belts. NSTA
believes as many children as possible should have access to safest mode
of transportation and service should not be reduced to fund new buses
with seat belts. NSTA does not support a federal mandate unless
accompanied by full funding to which public and private providers have
equal access. Lap shoulder belts are only appropriate consideration and
we do not support any requirement to retrofit as it could compromise
structural integrity of the bus.
It is quite noteworthy that the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the agency charged with keeping people safe on the
nation's roadways, has declined to mandate seat belts on large school
buses at the federal level due to the fact that it would force more
children into more unsafe modes of transportation as communities are
compelled to make difficult budget decisions. The latest pronouncement
was from 2011 when NHTSA denied a petition for rulemaking to mandate
seat belts on new large school buses. [https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=NHTSA-2011-0131-0001] In the Denial, NHTSA stated, ``We are
denying the petition because we have not found a safety problem
supporting a Federal requirement for lap/shoulder belts on large school
buses, which are already very safe. The decision to install seat belts
on school buses should be left to State and local jurisdictions, which
can weigh the need for, benefits and consequences of installing belts
on large school buses and best decide whether their particular pupil
transportation programs merit installation of the devices.'' NHTSA also
stated, ``We estimated that lap/shoulder seat belts would save about 2
lives per year and prevent about 1,900 crash injuries, of which 97
percent are minor/moderate severity (mainly cuts and bruises), assuming
every child wore them correctly on every trip.'' ``Under the described
conditions, the Agency estimates that the increased risk from students
finding alternative, less safe means of getting to and from school
could result in an increase of 10 to 19 school transportation
fatalities annually.''
NHTSA's statements show that the unintended effect of requiring
seat belts on large school buses could endanger more children (10 to
19) than it would potentially benefit (2). It is for these reasons that
NSTA stands with the nation's federal agency charged with ensuring
vehicle safety and believes seat belts on school buses should be
decided at the Federal level but should be a State and local decision.
I have also attached a link to a Louisiana School Transportation
Task Force report from 2017 which took an exhaustive look at this issue
and declined to mandate belts without funding or attendants [https://
goo.gl/rGscND] and a recent report from this Committee's counterpart in
Canada, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Transportation,
Infrastructure and Communities, on Bus Passenger Safety issued just
last month which declined to mandate seat belts on school buses.
[https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/TRAN/report-31/page-
57#9]
There are other issues that have come up over the last few years
that I will touch on briefly. Regarding driver training, NSTA
participated as a member of FMCSA's Negotiated Rulemaking Advisory
Committee on Entry Level Driver Training and supports its conclusions.
NSTA also supports efforts to assure that school bus drivers are fully
trained in school bus operations and emergency procedures. NSTA
supports periodic certification of driver physical fitness and periodic
evacuation training for drivers and students. NSTA believes sleep apnea
and other sleep disorders are being adequately addressed in driver
physicals and it is not necessary to create a separate prescriptive and
burdensome regulatory schematic for screening, testing and treatment.
NSTA generally supports the employer notification systems for drivers
that are currently operated by States but has concerns with
complexities with that being done at the national level, but wants to
work with the Committee on this issue. NSTA supports the CDL Drug and
Alcohol Clearinghouse Database as it will serve to provide operators
the necessary tools to identify drivers who should not be behind the
wheel.
NSTA consistently works with its Federal and State regulatory
agencies and legislative bodies towards common-sense initiatives to
improve pupil transportation safety. Whenever NSTA evaluates new laws
or regulations affecting school bus equipment, technology, operators,
drivers or practices, we evaluate them with the simple formula that
they must be proven to increase safety while keeping as many children
as possible in the yellow school bus. Well-meaning initiatives should
not have the unintended effect of reducing the availability of yellow
buses, thereby forcing more children into less safe modes of
transportation for their trips to and from school. We look forward to
continuing to work with this Committee towards the common goal of
keeping our children safe.
On behalf of the National School Transportation Association, thank
you for the opportunity to testify before this Subcommittee. I look
forward to answering any of your questions.
Attachments:
NSTA/NAPT/NASDPTS Letter in Support of STOP Act
National Education Association letter in Support of STOP
Act
National, State and Regional Private Bus and School Bus
Associations letter in Support of STOP Act
__________
nsta/napt/nasdpts letter in support of stop act
Dear Member of Congress:
The National School Transportation Association (NSTA), the National
Association for Pupil Transportation (NAPT), and the National
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services
(NASDPTS) request your help in addressing an important school bus
safety issue, illegal passing of stopped school buses.
Collaboratively, our three organizations represent the nation's
school transportation community, including all operators of school
buses both public and private and state regulators of school buses. We
are specifically requesting your co-sponsorship of the STOP for School
Buses Act of 2019 (H.R.2218/S.1254), introduced in the House by
Congresswomen Jackie Walorski (R-IN) and Julia Brownley (D-CA), and in
the Senate by Senators Todd Young (R-IN) and Gary Peters (D-MI). This
bipartisan legislation calls upon the Department of Transportation to
undertake a comprehensive review of all issues involved with illegal
passing of school buses and make recommendations to Congress on best
practices to deal with this pervasive, national safety problem.
The bill directs DOT to review state laws, enforcement and
penalties, technology, driver education, and distraction. It calls upon
DOT to create a public safety messaging campaign on the danger of
illegally passing stopped school buses. The ongoing efforts of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to study illegal
passing and develop safety countermeasures are recognized and
appreciated. We believe guidance from Congress will enable NHTSA to
broaden its efforts on all aspects of illegal passing and expedite best
practice recommendations.
School bus transportation remains the safest form of transportation
compared to all other modes, according to DOT statistics. Children are
70 times safer going to and from school in a yellow school bus than by
walking, biking, being driven by parents, or, especially, as occupants
of vehicles driven by teenagers. Despite the unparalleled overall
safety record of school bus transportation, school bus riders remain
vulnerable during the portion of their trip when they are waiting at
bus stops, crossing streets, and loading or unloading from the school
bus. Passing of stopped school buses, illegal in all 50 states, has
reached epidemic proportions. In the most recent annual observational
survey in 2018, 105,306 school bus drivers in 38 states reported 83,944
vehicles illegally passed their stopped school buses in one day. Based
on these observations, an estimated 15 million vehicles will illegally
pass stopped school buses in a 180-day school year. The problem is
likely much worse, because this alarming figure does not factor in
illegal passing that may have been experienced among the other 80
percent of the nation's school bus drivers who were unable to
participate in the voluntary national survey. [http://www.nasdpts.org/
StopArm/index.html].
Illegal passing can have tragic consequences. Last October, in
Rochester, Indiana, three children from the same family were killed by
an oncoming driver who failed to stop as the kids were crossing the
road to board their school bus. These tragedies CAN be prevented.
We look forward to your support of the STOP for School Buses Act.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,
Blake Krapf
President, National School Transportation Association
Barry R. Sudduth, CDPT, CSNT
President, National Association for Pupil Transportation
Michael A. LaRocco
President, National Association of State Directors of Pupil
Transportation Services
__________
national education association letter in support of stop act
July 1, 2019.
Hon. Jackie Walorski
United States House of Representatives, 419 Cannon House Office
Building, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Walorski:
On behalf of our 3 million members and the 50 million students they
teach, support, and protect, the National Education Association thanks
you for introducing the Stop for School Buses Act, H.R. 2218. We
applaud you for calling attention to something that has become all too
commonplace: the dangerous passing of stopped school buses that are
transporting students to or from school.
Your bill seeks to better-safeguard students by requiring the U.S.
Department of Transportation to take several steps, including:
Compiling existing laws and indicating their levels of
enforcement and penalties;
Reviewing existing public safety measures and programs to
prevent dangerous passing of school buses;
Recommending best practices for preventing dangerous
passing; and
Creating a public safety campaign to promote safe driving
when students are present.
By gaining a thorough understanding of the laws on passing stopped
school buses, analyzing which are more or less effective, and providing
a set of best practices and recommendations, we can do more to protect
our students and avoid tragedies like the one that occurred in Indiana
last year. The NEA is proud to support this legislation and, once
again, appreciates your attention to this important issue.
Sincerely,
Marc Egan
Director of Government Relations, National Education Association
__________
national, state and regional private bus and school bus associations
letter in support of stop act
Dear Member of Congress:
The national, regional and State school bus and bus associations on
this letter request your help in addressing an important school bus
safety issue, illegal passing of stopped school buses. We are
specifically requesting your co-sponsorship of the STOP for School
Buses Act of 2019 (H.R.2218/S.1254), introduced in the House by
Congresswomen Jackie Walorski (R-IN) and Julia Brownley (D-CA) and in
the Senate by Senators Todd Young (R-IN) and Gary Peters (D-MI). This
bipartisan legislation calls upon the Department of Transportation to
undertake a comprehensive review of all issues involved with illegal
passing of school buses and make recommendations to Congress on best
practices. The bill directs DOT to review state laws, enforcement and
penalties, technology, driver education, distraction and create a
public safety messaging campaign on illegal passing of stopped school
buses.
School bus transportation remains the safest form of transportation
over all other modes, according to DOT statistics. Children are 70
times safer going to and from school in a yellow school bus than by
walking, biking, being driven by parents in cars or teens driving
themselves. However, passing of stopped school buses, illegal in all 50
States, has reached epidemic proportions. In the most recent annual
one-day observational survey in 2018, 105,306 school bus drivers in 38
states reported 83,944 vehicles illegally passing a stopped school bus
in one day. Based on these observations, an estimated 15 million
vehicles will illegally pass stopped school buses in a 180-day school
year. [http://www.nasdpts.org/StopArm/]
Illegal passings can have tragic consequences. Last October, in
Rochester, Indiana, three children from the same family were killed by
an oncoming driver who failed to stop as the kids were crossing the
road to board their school bus. These tragedies CAN be prevented. We
look forward to your support of the STOP for School Buses Act.
Thank you for your consideration of this important issue.
Sincerely,
Alabama Motorcoach Association National Association of
Motorcoach Operators
Asian-American Motorcoach Association National School
Transportation Association
Bus Association of New York State New Jersey School Bus
Contractors Association
California Bus Association New York School Bus
Contractors Association
California School Transportation North Carolina Motorcoach
Association Association
Connecticut School Transportation Northwest Motorcoach
Association Association
Georgia Motorcoach Operators Association Pennsylvania Bus Association
Maryland Motorcoach Association Pennsylvania School Bus
Association
Maryland School Bus Contractors School Transportation
Association Association of
Massachusetts
Midwest Bus and Motorcoach Association Tennessee Motor Coach
Association
Minnesota Charter Bus Operator's The Greater New Jersey
Association Motorcoach Association
Minnesota School Bus Operators Association United Motorcoach
Association
Montana School Bus Contractors Association Wisconsin School Bus
Association
Motorcoach Association of South Carolina
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Benish.
President Anne Ferro, American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, you may proceed.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Chair Norton, Ranking Member Davis, thank you for the
opportunity to be here today with this distinguished panel to
speak on the important issue of schoolbus safety.
I am here on behalf of AAMVA, a tax-exempt, nonprofit
organization that develops model programs in motor vehicle
administration, law enforcement, and highway safety. Our
mission is to support the State and Provincial and Territorial
officials in the U.S. and Canada who administer and enforce
motor vehicle laws.
Our North Star is safety, safe divers, safe vehicles,
secure identities, and saving lives. With our members'
guidance, we develop programs to encourage uniformity and
reciprocity in the administration of these challenges across
State and international borders.
A good illustration of AAMVA's work is in our support of
our State members and their efforts to comply with national
laws governing commercial drivers, just one example. In that
role, the supporting role, we support and facilitate the
development of best practices on CDL testing. We facilitate an
understanding and communication on Federal requirements and
those changes that come about periodically, and we work on both
building and supporting and operating the IT applications and
networks across which CDL driver convictions, suspensions, and
other cancel actions are transmitted, otherwise known as CDLIS.
We rely heavily on our jurisdiction members to guide our
association's work, and we consider the DMVs and highway safety
agency members to be the experts in these areas.
So with this in mind and understanding we have got a very
distinguished panel of jurisdiction leaders at the table, far
more qualified to speak on their State-specific programs, I
have limited my written comments to several national programs
in which AAMVA may or may not or is currently involved: the
national employer notification system, the concept or I should
say the transmission of driver medical fitness data, and some
background in that written testimony on the Commercial Driver's
License Information System and network across which so much of
that travels.
I look forward to the committee's discussion and your
questions, and thank you again for the opportunity to join this
panel today.
[Ms. Ferro's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne Ferro, President and Chief Executive
Officer, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Introduction
Chairman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, thank you for the
opportunity to speak on the important issue of school bus safety and
protecting children. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the school bus remains the safest method of
transporting children to school by far. We must continue our efforts to
make that so in every way, including driver fitness.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) is
a tax-exempt, nonprofit organization that develops model programs in
motor vehicle administration, law enforcement, and highway safety. The
association also serves as an information clearinghouse in these areas.
Founded in 1933, AAMVA represents the state, provincial and
territorial officials in the United States and Canada who administer
and enforce motor vehicle laws. AAMVA's programs encourage uniformity
and reciprocity among the states, provinces and territories.
The majority of our members work directly with federal and state
safety partners, thus AAMVA relies heavily on its state members to
guide the direction of the association's work with respect to
commercial driver safety. They are, and always will be, the experts.
While Congress has established federal requirements establishing a
commercial vehicle operator safety framework, many of our state members
have implemented additional laws and regulations to fill additional
safety gaps, particularly regarding school bus operations. With this in
mind, and understanding our state members are more qualified to speak
on their state-specific programs, AAMVA will focus on the national
program efforts concerning an Employer Notification Systems (ENS) and
driver medical fitness with background on the Commercial Driver License
Information System (CDLIS).
Employer Notification System
In 2016, AAMVA developed a report [https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/
fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/registration/commercial-drivers-license/
396341/aamva-ens-design-and-best-practices-recommendations-ver-102.pdf]
entitled, ``Employer Notification System Design and Best Practices
Recommendations'' for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA). Under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA),
within 30 days of a conviction for any traffic violation, except
parking, a commercial vehicle operator must notify their employer,
regardless of the nature of the violation or the type of vehicle which
was driven at the time. If an operator's commercial driver's license
(CDL) is suspended, revoked, canceled, or if they are disqualified from
driving, the driver must notify their employer within one business day
following notice. Prior research has estimated that only 50 to 80
percent of commercial drivers actually self-report. As a result,
employers may unknowingly use a driver whose license is suspended.
The current regulatory requirement is for motor carriers to
annually check the driving history record of their drivers. As a
result, if a driver does not self-report, it could take up to 364 days
for the disqualifying event to be discovered. In the commercial motor
vehicle operations safety net envisioned under federal law and overseen
by FMCSA, employers are responsible for monitoring and taking action on
their employees. However, the availability of driver data for employers
could be improved to allow for real-time, automatic notification of
convictions or disqualifying events. This type of an effort would
entail additional federal investment in supporting states' efforts to
improve their safety systems and automated reporting through an
Employer Notification System (ENS).
In 2007, a pilot ENS program was conducted in Colorado and
Minnesota to assess the feasibility, costs, safety impacts, and
benefits of such a system; and to assess methods for efficient exchange
of driver safety data from existing state systems. This system allowed
motor carriers to register, with the driver's expressed permission, to
receive timely electronic notification of convictions and suspensions.
Other states have independently pursued their own ENS systems. FMCSA
provides [https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/
registration/commercial-drivers-license/405406/jurisdictional-ens-
implementation-final.pdf] an updated listing of Employer Notification
Services by state.
Congress supported efforts to establish an employer notification
system for commercial drivers by establishing section 32303 of the
Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21). That
section would permit employers to satisfy the requirements to check
their drivers' histories annually by ``receiving occurrence-based
reports of changes in the status of a driver's record from one or more
driver record notification systems that meet minimum standards issued
by the Secretary.'' For most states that would include continuing the
best practice of an annual driver history record as well.
At the request of FMCSA, AAMVA researched potential options on how
an ENS system might work in 2016. This included the following options:
Solution 1 --Each jurisdiction builds its own ENS using common
standards
Solution 2 --Build a national ENS that jurisdictions can
participate in.
Option 1 --Build a national ENS independent of the Commercial
Driver License Information System (CDLIS).
Option 2 --Build a national ENS leveraging the AAMVAnet network
and CDLIS.
The AAMVA membership discussed and analyzed the various options and
recommended that if a national ENS system were to be pursued and
developed, it utilize the existing networking capabilities of CDLIS.
While the membership discussed these as potential options, they did so
under the assumption that participation be voluntary and take into
account the numerous state-specific requirements of their driver
systems. There are also several private sector entities that specialize
in providing driver histories to the CMV industry who would be capable
of building such a solution.
CDL and Medical Fitness
With respect to medical fitness of commercial drivers, states rely
upon the federal oversight of ensuring driver fitness. One of FMCSA's
tools to do this is by setting standards for qualified medical
professionals and tracking them through the federal National Registry
of Certified Medical Examiners (NRCME). Medical examiners perform the
function of evaluating and qualifying a driver for duty. CMV operators
are required to have that evaluation performed and submitted in a
timely manner. The evaluation is conducted by a U.S. DOT certified
medical examiner who is required to submit qualification information to
the state driver's license agencies as a prerequisite for licensure.
This process is partially automated through the NRCME and eventually
will be fully automated so the record of medical fitness will be
submitted and accessed electronically by all parties, including
roadside enforcement.
In addition to facilitating driver testing standards, AAMVA's role
in support of CDL driver fitness is primarily one of enabling
confirmation and exchange of information that a driver has a valid
medical certification on record with the state of license. When
enabled, the exchange of this data among states will be made through
the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS). Under its
Medical Examiner's Certification Integration final rule, U.S. DOT-FMCSA
is working to make this an electronic process, but the system is
currently not fully available for the exchange of information between
medical examiners and state driver licensing agencies.
Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS)
CDLIS is a nationwide computer system that enables state driver
licensing agencies to ensure each commercial driver has only one
driver's license and one complete driver record. AAMVA's role as
operator of the CDLIS system is based upon a cooperative agreement with
the U.S. Department of Transportation's Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA).
State driver licensing agencies use CDLIS to complete various
procedures, including:
Transmitting out-of-state convictions and withdrawals for
commercial drivers
Transferring the driver record when a commercial driver's
license holder moves to another state
Responding to requests for driver status and history.
CDLIS was established under the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act
(CMVSA) of 1986 [https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/senate-
bill/1903] and is based on the Federal Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act (CMVSA) of Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) in 49 CFR 383
and 384 [https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/b/5/3].
Authorized users can report and access commercial driver
identification information, commercial driver's license information,
and driver history information needed to regulate commercial drivers in
the U.S. CDLIS enables the jurisdictions to satisfy the requirements of
federal laws and regulations related to commercial drivers [https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/registration/commercial-drivers-license].
The state driver license agency maintain records of the drivers
they license. A state will host databases, application programs, and
system software to support its CDLIS functions and maintain its
``pointer'' records on the CDLIS Central Site. ``Pointer'' records
consist of the driver's name, date of birth, social security number
(last 5 digits), driver's license number and state.
Authorized Federal and State government agencies and personnel may
also access CDLIS to utilize CDL-related information for compliance and
enforcement monitoring and analysis.
Third party service providers can access CDLIS on behalf of
employers of commercial drivers to obtain the list of jurisdictions
where the driver is/was licensed. Once the jurisdictions are
identified, the service providers must contract with the individual
jurisdictions to obtain additional driver data/information. Authorized
employers or third party service providers can retrieve the basic
identification data from the CDLIS Central Site. Based on this
information, the employers or third party service providers can make
inquiries to the jurisdictions they have contracts with to obtain
driver status and history.
Information on Mexican CDL holders is accessible by U.S.
jurisdictions. Jurisdictions can post convictions and withdrawals to
Mexican driver records via the FMCSA foreign convictions and
withdrawals database which as a gateway to CDLIS. The U.S. and Canadian
jurisdictions can also exchange driver status data within the
allowances of their data privacy laws.
AAMVA thanks the Committee for its consideration, the opportunity
to testify, and its continued dedication towards improving safety. We
stand as partners in this effort and look forward to continued dialogue
on how to improve safety for all road users.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, President Ferro.
Secretary-Treasurer Matthew Condron, Teamsters Local 384,
Norristown, Pennsylvania. Please step forward.
Mr. Condron. Chairwoman Norton, Chairman DeFazio, Ranking
Member Davis, members of the subcommittee, thank you for having
me here to testify today.
My name is Matt Condron, and I am the secretary-treasurer
of Teamsters Local 384 out of Norristown, Pennsylvania.
I also work as a member of the First Student National
Master Agreement Negotiating Committee for the Teamsters, where
I set up national contracting goals and policies for Teamster
schoolbus drivers across the country.
I am honored to be here today to convey the safety concerns
of the more than 30,000 schoolbus drivers, monitors, and
mechanics we represent. These hardworking men and women who I
have had an honor of representing for over 18 years need your
help to make their industry and their jobs safer.
Federal laws and regulations do almost nothing to help
schoolbus drivers. Once a schoolbus comes off the manufacturing
line, there are no Federal rules requiring it to be kept in a
safe working condition.
Many people are shocked to learn that the U.S. Government
plays almost no role in setting minimum standards for schoolbus
operations in our country. This is a recipe for disaster.
Private companies whose business is to make money or small
school districts strapped for cash are often left to decide
whether investing in safe drivers and new buses is a smart
financial decision instead of whether it is the right one. This
should never be just a dollars and cents calculation. It should
be based on what is safest for our children each and every
time.
In my view, many of these problems come down to the lack of
rules governing schoolbus operations across the country. The
privatized schoolbus industry gives us a perfect example of
this. Almost one-third of schoolbus operations in this Nation
are privatized, but there are no national standards dictating
what an unsafe or unreasonable bid by the private contractor to
do this work is.
Almost any bus company can come off the street and make a
bid to take your kids to school. Oftentimes this means that
small ``mom and pop'' bus companies who do not have the money
to invest in new buses or who do not pay the drivers enough to
keep qualified people in the driver's seat will come in and
offer way less than they should to do this work.
You may think that no school district would accept this
kind of offer, and I wish you were right, but in many cases,
school districts are forced by law to accept the lowest bid
they receive, and for cash-strapped school districts, saving
money anywhere they can, can be appealing no matter what the
long-term cost.
This practice also puts safe and responsible carriers who
are trying to do the right thing at a disadvantage. Unionized
carriers who are forced to take care of their buses and reward
safe drivers are punished for making those investments. They
are undercut by companies who do not invest in things that
every bus company should be forced to invest in, proper
maintenance of their buses, paying drivers a decent wage so
that good drivers will stick around from year to year, and
more.
Safety should not be open for competition. It should be
something that every school district has to invest in no matter
what.
So what can Congress and the Federal Government do to fix
this? You can make sure there are basic standards in place so
that no school district falls through the cracks.
When companies bid on a job, you should make sure they
actually have enough buses to do the work. When they do not,
kids are taken to school in overcrowded vehicles, sitting in
the aisles on top of each other, putting them in enormous
danger.
If there is a crash or even a sharp turn on a winding road,
you need to make sure that anyone bidding on a bus route has a
real maintenance program in place so that the kids are not
being taken to school on a bus with a broken stop sign, bald
tires, broken mirrors, brakes that have never been inspected or
worse.
You need to make sure that companies have real driver
training programs in place so that a driver who just got his
CDL and has never driven a day in his life knows the basics of
what to do and what not to do when there are 50 screaming
children in the back of their bus.
And most importantly, you need to make sure drivers get a
decent wage and real benefits so that good, safe drivers want
to do this job, and once they are here, they stay here. The
people we ask to drive our children to school are some of the
lowest paid professional drivers in this country. They make a
national median wage of $16 an hour and usually do not get to
work 40 hours in a week. They only get paid for 9 months a
year, unlike other school employees.
Many of them cannot afford to take a day off if they are
too sick to drive, and oftentimes they will be reprimanded or
fired if they do. Many drivers need to work multiple jobs just
to make ends meet. So they are exhausted when they show up to
drive their route.
Is that how you want someone who is driving your kid to
school to be treated?
The lack of Federal oversight of even the most basic safety
standards for schoolbus drivers puts us all at risk. It is time
for Congress to take the lead and drive up standards in this
industry so that no child is put in harm's way on their way to
school.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
[Mr. Condron's prepared statement follows:]
Prepared Statement of Matthew Condron, Secretary-Treasurer, Teamsters
Local 384, Norristown, Pennsylvania
Chairwoman Norton, Ranking Member Davis, Members of the
Subcommittee. My name is Matthew Condron, I am the Secretary-Treasurer
of Teamsters Local 384 out of Norristown, Pennsylvania, and I also work
under the Passenger Transportation Division of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters as a member of the First Student National
Master Agreement Negotiating Committee. I have represented school bus
drivers in Pennsylvania for over 18 years in both the private and
public sectors. Thank you for inviting me here to represent the safety
concerns of the over 30,000 school bus drivers, monitors, and mechanics
represented by the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Teamster
drivers and monitors are the first line of defense in making sure our
kids get to school and back home safely each day. Our International
Union works closely with many of the top school bus contractors to
ensure safe and fair working conditions across the country. Our
national and local contracts with these companies have all translated
into a safer transportation environment for students nationwide. But we
can't do it all ourselves. We need your help to hold bus contractors
and school districts who refuse to meet basic safety standards
accountable.
Maintenance, Inspections, and Procurement
Some of the harrowing stories you may hear about today could have
been directly prevented by stronger federal oversight and increased
safety measures on the physical buses being used in our country. In my
role as a school bus worker representative with the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, I have seen what works and what doesn't. At a
minimum, it takes well-resourced private contractors and well-funded
school districts to fulfill many of the responsibilities needed to run
a safe bus fleet. School buses are expensive. The maintenance they
require to be kept in good operating condition is expensive. The
prevalence of small ``mom-and-pop'' sized private contractors as well
as underfunded school districts that don't have the resources to meet
basic maintenance and procurement needs is a serious problem across the
industry. But even in areas where the funds are available, it's not a
guarantee of safe vehicles. Proper maintenance and procurement rules
need to be put into place, and they need to be actively enforced. Our
union has identified a number of ways to ensure that buses receive
proper maintenance and servicing. We have specific remedies outlined in
our contracts for when there is a failure or possibility of a failure
to meet these standards. But, we don't represent every school district
in the country. We believe that the federal government should take a
stronger role in setting a national floor for operational bus standards
so that all bus operators are using a fleet that meets a basic level of
safety.
Currently, the only federal rules for school bus equipment are
focused on the manufacturing of school buses. Once buses are being used
by a company or school district, there is no federal requirement that
those buses be maintained in safe, working order. Requirements for
ongoing maintenance of school buses are currently the responsibility of
individual states, and many times, the privatized school bus company or
school district themselves. Unfortunately, those maintenance standards
are often lacking. One driver, working for a small contractor in my
state of Pennsylvania was concerned about the thoroughness of the state
safety inspections, specifically the inspection of the brakes on his
bus. The wheels must be removed to inspect the breaks, so he put
aluminum foil on his lug nuts on the evening prior to the inspection to
make sure the wheel was actually being removed, and the brakes were
actually being inspected. When he returned to work the next day, the
new state inspection sticker was on his bus, while the aluminum foil
was still sitting on the lug nuts. While anecdotal, this experience is
enough for me to urge you to recognize the limits of our current
system.
Safety should also not be seen as a competitive advantage that can
be used by one bus contractor over another. Private contractors often
underbid one another by refusing to buy new buses for their fleet, or
by failing to budget for the actual cost of maintenance into their
contracts. We believe Congress can and should enact minimum contracting
and procurement standards which school districts and private
contractors must adhere to in order for any company they hire to be
eligible to engage in home-to-school transport. This should include
nationwide inspection and maintenance standards that prescribe
preventative and corrective maintenance programs. These programs should
be coupled with fines on privatized school bus companies, school
districts, and the state agencies charged with completing the
inspections if they fail to enforce these standards.
Fleet Size
Even under the most comprehensive of inspection regimes, buses will
sometimes break down. That's a fact of life. It is how these breakdowns
are handled that is another crucial step for safety. When a bus breaks
down, it must be taken out of service for maintenance and spare buses
must be utilized to cover scheduled routes. Contractors must have an
adequate number of spare buses in rotation in order to ensure that only
safe buses are put on the road. Without enough quality spare buses,
contractors and school districts are often left to put unsafe buses on
the road or double up on routes, putting children at risk in an
overcrowded bus. Policies should be put in place setting minimum number
of spare buses any school bus fleet must hold. We believe this number
should be at least 10-15% of the total fleet. That would drastically
reduce the risks posed to our students who are being forced to ride on
overcrowded or unsafe buses. Additionally, the age of a school bus
directly correlates to the cost of maintenance and rate of equipment
failure. Limiting the age of school buses on the road to an average
fleet age of 7 years and capping the age of any bus at 15 years would
help to prevent school districts and contractors from using unsafe
buses by pulling those vehicles most likely to break down out of the
equation entirely.
Manufacturing and Capacity Standards
There are currently no federal regulations limiting the number of
students who can be loaded onto a school bus at one time. School bus
manufacturers determine the maximum capacity of their vehicles, often
by assuming three students can fit on one bench seat, and then
multiplying that by the number of benches and adding any other seats on
the bus to that total. Three students on a bench may be appropriate for
young children, but it is wildly deficient for middle and high school
students. If older and larger students are loaded onto buses in numbers
meant for young children, it leads to unsafe situations like students
sitting on each other's laps or sitting in the aisles. In the event of
a crash, those students are at a much higher risk of injury than those
on a bus with an appropriate number of students.
Some districts and contractors have rightly taken it upon
themselves to lower the maximum capacity of their buses. But without
national rules enforcing these sorts of limits, it is another area that
can be ignored by bad actors. As many school districts look to run
their bus routes as inexpensively as possible, overcrowding is one of
the most preventable dangers our students face. Seat belts and other
pieces of technology aimed at safety become irrelevant if children are
forced to sit in the aisles.
Working Conditions and Retention of Qualified School Bus Drivers
While many preventable tragedies can be traced back to human error,
the causes of the error must also be closely examined. Many drivers
working for under-resourced contractors report being pressured to work
even when they are too sick to do so for fear of retribution or
discipline. We support a number of proposals to improve driver health
because they are morally right, and important for safety. This includes
treatment for those with sleep apnea and other conditions which may
impede a driver's ability to provide safe transportation for students.
Unfortunately, in the current state of the industry, many drivers are
not able to even take a sick day and get properly diagnosed and treated
for illnesses for fear of harassment or job loss. Many drivers who work
for small contractors also earn significantly less per hour than
drivers who work for reputable contractors and are unlikely to be
covered by health insurance in the first place. Drivers without health
insurance may not be able to get diagnosed or treated for an illness
that directly impedes their ability to drive. The ability of a school
bus driver to maintain their own health must be considered as important
as the operational condition of the bus itself.
The pay and scheduling issues inherent with the school bus industry
also directly contribute to safety on the job. Low pay by many
companies leads to some drivers working two or more jobs to make ends
meet, leading to greater fatigue when they show up to drive their bus.
Scheduling issues are present an enormous hurdle. Many drivers aren't
able to work as many hours a week as they'd like because of the nature
of a school's schedule. They don't get paid for the time in between
their morning and evening routes, and they often don't get paid at all
when school is out of session. Even many safe and experienced drivers
who work for reputable, well-resourced contractors leave the industry
every year when they do not qualify for unemployment insurance in the
summer months and there is not enough summer work to go around. This
leads to high turnover in the industry, and new drivers, fresh out of
training, or without any quality training at all, are learning routes
as they go and building relationships with the students on the fly.
This leads to challenges in keeping track of students who the driver
just met, identifying obstacles outside the bus like a child walking
through the blind spot, and other issues that become much easier as the
driver gains more experience on the job.
Conclusion
I am pleased to be here to and help you understand the wide variety
of safety issues plaguing the school bus industry. The Teamsters are
committed to working with you to push forward meaningful, national
safety reforms that keep our nation's students and drivers safe. I look
forward to your questions.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Secretary Condron.
I am amazed to see that so many schoolbus drivers might not
even be in anybody's jurisdiction because they have been
privatized. This is something the committee has to look at.
I am going to begin with questions. First of all, we heard
many things that need to be changed and many helpful
suggestions from you. Now, remembering that we are Federal
authorities, this is the Congress, and much of the jurisdiction
lies in the States.
So I would like to ask each of you as my first question to
focus on the Federal Government, and I am looking for you to
indicate what priority do you think Congress should place.
Of the improvements that are needed, that the Congress
could implement, which would be your priority?
Many of you had a number of different kinds of things that
needed to be done. I am going to start with Mr. McLean and go
on down the line and ask you that first question.
What priority for the Congress?
Mr. McLean. Thank you very much for your question.
Generally speaking, we prefer, the States prefer a carrot
versus a stick. One of the great things about our democracy is
that we have so many laboratories of democracy. Different
States are exploring different solutions.
Ms. Norton. So you do not think there is something that the
Congress can do for a carrot or a stick?
Mr. McLean. I do think that there are several different
things that the Federal Government can do. One is research the
effectiveness of different solutions that States are exploring.
So one of the things that I mentioned in my testimony was
exploring the stop-arms. We are exploring the crossing guards.
There is very little data on what is actually going to
solve the problem of kids being hurt and killed on and around
schoolbuses, and so continuing with the research about
effective strategies is one way the Federal Government can play
a role.
Additionally, incentivizing safety programs within States
is a really important tool to incentivize different States.
Ms. Norton. I need to go down the line. ``Incentivizing''
is a very broad word.
Ms. Fulton?
Ms. Fulton. Thank you, Madam Chair.
From our standpoint, I would prioritize a notification
system that crosses States. You know, in New Jersey, our
drivers are driving in other States quite frequently.
Ms. Norton. Identification systems?
Ms. Fulton. Notification system. Let me give you an
example. If a New Jersey driver is convicted outside the State,
we do get notice that they have got a suspension, and we can
notify, but if a New York driver offends in our State, that
notice may be sent through the mail and may take a period of
time before New York finds out that the schoolbus driver was
convicted of something that put them over the number of points.
So we have gotten a lot of support from the American
Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, AAMVA, and I am
sure Ms. Ferro can speak to this, but while there are some ways
to cross States in terms of identifying a driver that should be
taken out of that driver's seat----
Ms. Norton. I am going to get all before my 5 minutes is
up. But that is a classic thing that the Congress can do. So I
thank you for that, Ms. Fulton.
Dr. Poland.
Ms. Poland. Thank you for the question.
The NTSB has long advocated for vehicle design aspects
dealing with crash prevention, stability control systems for
collision avoidance, automatic emergency braking systems,
occupant protection.
Everyone has talked about lap/shoulder belts, passenger
lap/shoulder belts, and then most recently talking about post-
crash events, so fire protection to----
Ms. Norton. Those are things that you think Congress and
only Congress can do?
Ms. Poland. Vehicle design aspects.
Ms. Norton. Yes, yes.
Ms. Poland. We focus those recommendations to NHTSA.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Benish? Because my time is going to run
out.
Mr. Benish. I would say one of the things which I mentioned
in my testimony is the Stop for School Buses Act, illegal
passing laws, and we do have a bill that is out there right
now, and as I mentioned, most----
Ms. Norton. And you say that the Federal Government can do
that?
Mr. Benish. Yes.
Ms. Norton. OK.
Mr. Benish. Like I said, the statistics, each day we figure
there are at least 80,000 illegal passes.
Ms. Norton. I'm just trying to get the priority.
Mr. Benish. Yes.
Ms. Norton. Ms. Ferro.
Ms. Ferro. Yes, ma'am. In support of Chief Fulton's comment
regarding oversight of drivers, resources, and tools to ensure
that States and companies have timely access to driver
convictions, suspension, cancellation data.
Ms. Norton. Thank you.
Secretary Condron.
Mr. Condron. Yes, just one thing that we do not want to
look for is there is a shortage of busdrivers generally across
this country, and legislation that would eliminate or diminish
the pool of drivers would be a detrimental issue on trying to
find who is taking these children to school.
But we agree that there should be a standardization. We
think the bidding process needs to be adjusted where all
schools can look at the safety aspects as opposed to accepting
the lowest bid.
And the other thing is we believe in certainly bus safety,
but the standardization of the safety rules across the country
so that every bidder is bidding the same.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Secretary Condron.
Those are very helpful suggestions as we prepare for the
next bill. It sounds to me that the Federal Government is way
behind, given those suggestions, on things we can do. So I
appreciate those suggestions, those recommendations from all of
you.
I am going to ask Mr. Davis, our ranking member, if he
could offer his questions at this time.
Mr. Davis. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thanks, again, to the witnesses. I enjoyed your opening
testimony.
Vic Zimmerman, he is the superintendent of the Monticello
School District in Piatt County, Illinois, and it is in my
congressional district, and he has been active in ensuring
children get safely to and from school. He had been
particularly focused on the role technology can play in keeping
our children safe when they exit the bus and cross the street.
In fact, this past January, his school district purchased
stop-arm cameras to report vehicles illegally passing a
schoolbus. I know though that he does not want to stop there,
and he is always looking for new technology to help keep his
students and our kids safe.
With that in mind, I want to start with Mr. Benish.
With that in mind, are there existing technologies that we
can better utilize to increase safety as children cross the
street in front of a stopped bus?
Mr. Benish. Well, what we are looking at right now is
illegal passing laws, making sure that we look at not only the
technology as far as radar. We discussed the other day that if
there is a stopped bus or something with yellows on, just like
you have a system where ambulances can go right through red
lights when they make them turn green, a system where that
would be hooked up to a bus that would talk to all of the cars
in the area, knowing that there is a slowing down and/or a
stopped schoolbus.
But we would also like to do creative public safety
messaging, and we also would like to do more technology as far
as training with the drivers.
Mr. Davis. OK. Anybody else want to take that question,
technology innovation?
Mr. Condron. Yes, I will add to that. A little technology,
it is available out there. A little story real quick is I had a
schoolbus driver with four first grade boys, and he let three
off at one stop, and the fourth one at the following stop. One
day the mom picked up one of the boys to take home herself.
So the busdriver is on his run. Instead of having three at
one stop he only had two, but unbeknownst to him, the second
stop the other one-stop kid got off with the other two. So he
pulls up to the stop to let three boys off when he only had
two, and three get off.
He goes to the following stop, and what does he find? He
secures the vehicle, and the mom is waiting for her son to get
off, and there is no child. Where is that child? The mom does
not know and the driver does not know that that child got off
at the previous stop.
We have technology out there. We can scan a bar code in
easily in any dimension, any store, anywhere. Why are we not
having a lanyard on a child or any child that scans it in when
he gets on the bus. He scans it when he gets off the bus.
Everybody knows where these children are. It is easy to check.
It helps the drivers. It helps the parents, and it helps keep
these kids safe.
And if there was some kind of fatality or accident, the
first responders would certainly know how many children, boys
and girls, and what their ages are on that bus so that they do
not have to chase shadows when they get there.
Mr. Davis. Thank you very much. Excellent advice.
So, Ms. Ferro, welcome back.
Ms. Ferro. Thank you.
Mr. Davis. Are there any existing barriers at the Federal
level that prevent States and local governments from adopting
innovative safety solutions?
Ms. Ferro. Ranking Member Davis, I am trying to position
that question in the context of AAMVA to see what that would be
in regard to.
From the perspective of motor vehicle administrators and
highway safety enforcement, they would be working closely on
any national programs with the Federal agency, and as I think
Chief Fulton indicated, structuring a program at the State
level.
Are you speaking to the technology, such as an employer
notification system?
Mr. Davis. No. I have kind of gotten beyond the technology
issues unless you have something else you want to add to my
previous question.
But I just want to know. You have got some experience
sitting at that witness table before, and are there any
barriers that you see at the Federal level that would stop
States and local governments from implementing some of the
suggestions we just heard from Mr. Benish and Mr. Condron or
any other innovative approach?
Ms. Ferro. Well, I really appreciate that question. I am
just not in a position to answer what would be a barrier at the
Federal level at this time.
Mr. Davis. How about you, Ms. Fulton?
Ms. Fulton. Thank you, Ranking Member.
We have not run into any barriers to strengthening the
protections for our own kids, other than what I mentioned which
is, you know, keeping track of what happens interstate.
Mr. Davis. OK.
Ms. Fulton. And keeping track of drivers outside the State.
Mr. Davis. Well, that is OK. I saved Mr. McLean for last
based upon who he is representing.
What barriers do you think exist? Because clearly, we see
in the panel others do not feel that there are any barriers to
State and local legislatures and local officers being able to
change and implement more safety standards.
Mr. McLean. I think one of the most significant barriers is
money, and so when we enact bills at the local level, we are
considering what local school districts and local cities and
towns have for a budget.
So every time we put a requirement on local cities and
towns, we have to incorporate any sort of fiscal impacts. So
that is a significant barrier at the State level that we have
to consider when passing these laws.
Mr. Davis. Right. I would ask you how we can fix it, but I
am out of time. So I yield back.
Ms. Norton. I must note that my very good friend, and he is
my good friend, asked the very opposite of the question I
asked, which is what the Federal Government can do and he wants
to know is the Federal Government in the way, and it looks like
there is more it can do than to get out of the way at least at
the moment.
Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking Member
Davis, for organizing this hearing.
As a father of three, I know how stressful it can be to
worry about our children's safety, and I applaud the efforts of
this committee to evaluate these safety measures today.
A question for Ms. Poland. As you mentioned in your written
testimony, an emergency braking system can serve to prevent and
mitigate collisions. Earlier this year, I joined my colleague,
Hank Johnson from Georgia, to introduce the Safe Roads Act to
require commercial motor vehicles to be equipped with an
automatic emergency brake, or AEB, system.
In 2015, in an agreement with the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, or NHTSA, the NTSB recommended that all
AEB come standard with all passenger vehicles to help mitigate
and avoid collisions.
Briefly, would you extend this same recommendation to
schoolbuses and/or commercial motor vehicles as my legislation
does?
Ms. Poland. The NTSB actually has recommended automatic
emergency braking for commercial vehicles and schoolbuses. Most
recently we recommended this technology for schoolbuses in our
Baltimore and Chattanooga special investigation report.
As you are emphasizing in the work that you are talking
about, automatic emergency braking provides a protection in the
last moments if there is a crash that is imminent and provides
that braking to mitigate the forces involved with the crash and
in some cases to avoid it.
The NTSB has been a long advocate for this type of
technology.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
Just switching gears slightly, crash avoidance and
mitigation technologies are critical to schoolbus safety. I'd
like to transition, however, to a safety issue that is too
often overlooked, the safety of the air our children breathe on
schoolbuses.
I am working with Senator Kamala Harris and colleague
Representative Jahana Hayes, a former educator from
Connecticut, to introduce the Clean School Bus Act to
accelerate the electrification of the Nation's bus fleet.
Over 25 million schoolchildren rely on the Nation's
schoolbus fleet to get to and from school daily. The tailpipe
emissions that they are exposed to in transit and while idling
in these buses are extremely toxic, especially if some of the
schoolbus yards are located in urban areas next to the
residential areas.
Madam Chair, I ask unanimous consent to enter into the
record the 2019 American Lung Association ``State of the Air
Report,'' which further highlights the toxicity of air in
heavy-duty diesel engines, including schoolbuses.
Ms. Norton. So ordered.
[The information follows:]
Report, ``State of the Air 2019--20th Anniversary,'' by the American
Lung Association, Submitted for the Record by Hon. Jesus G. ``Chuy''
Garcia
The report is retained in committee files and is available online
at http://www.stateoftheair.org/assets/sota-2019-full.pdf.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you.
This pollution negatively affects school attendance,
health, and test scores, a burden that also tends to fall
disproportionately on low-income students and students of
color, like those in the district I represent, Chicago
Southwest and Northwest Sides.
The Clean School Bus Act would provide grants to help
States replace diesel buses with electric buses to reduce
student exposure to tailpipe emissions and curb our
contribution to the climate crisis.
A question for Mr. McLean. As a former county commissioner
and State legislator, I understand the struggles that States
deal with to find funding for safety measures like these. Do
you believe that States and local governments would be
supportive of additional Federal grants to modernize and
electrify the schoolbus fleet?
Mr. McLean. I do. I think that is a perfect example of one
of the incentives that the Federal Government could use to
provide increased safety measures for kids on schoolbuses.
Mr. Garcia. Great. And back to Ms. Poland. In your
investigation of the Oakland bus fire, you noted that the
schoolbus engine designs often fail to mitigate the spread of
gases into the passenger compartment. That can exacerbate a
situation involving a fire.
But can you speak to whether or not these fumes can get
regularly into the passenger compartment even in the absence of
a fire?
Ms. Poland. Our investigation, of course, focused on the
post-crash fire in that event, and when there was that
significant fire in the engine compartment, how the incomplete
firewall led to the fire being able to spread into the
passenger compartment.
Mr. Garcia. Can you comment on the entrance of fumes into
the bus cavity?
Ms. Poland. The NTSB currently does not have a position on
that aspect.
Mr. Garcia. OK. Thank you.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Garcia.
Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Gallagher. Thank you.
Ms. Poland, Representative Krishnamoorthi and I have
introduced H.R. 2416, which is the SAFE TO DRIVE Act, which
would direct the Department of Transportation to use some of
the money that has already been appropriated for grants
combatting distracted driving to new grants for the same
purpose, but which would be easier to qualify for.
So my question is: to what extent does the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration see distracted driving,
especially from cell phone use, as affecting the safety of
schoolbuses?
Ms. Poland. So the NTSB has commonly looked at distraction,
and in fact, this has been an item on our ``most wanted list''
for many years. Distraction can come from a variety of
different forms, and we focused on distraction for schoolbus
drivers.
Of course, in all of the discussions that you are hearing
today, we think that oversight of the drivers is critical, and
that is dealing with the actions of the driver, including
medical fitness and some of the many other aspects, but also
there are technological solutions that if there is distraction
involved that we can mitigate the effects of a crash before
they happen or even make that crash less vulnerable to the
occupants inside.
Mr. Gallagher. And as you look at the data of just crashes
over--take your time period--has there been a consistent
primary factor that has contributed to schoolbus crashes over
the last several years or is each case just unique such that
you cannot establish a trend or is the sample size not large
enough?
Ms. Poland. So the NTSB typically investigates extremely
severe crashes that may not be representative of all crashes,
but obviously, there is a wide variety of causes, and that is
why we look at different recommendations to address those
countermeasures.
So you are hearing some of those today from proper
oversight of the drivers to technological interventions, to
also increasing the time to evacuate in post-crash events, such
as fires or water immersion.
Mr. Gallagher. And a final question for you or for anyone
on the panel who wants to take a swing. I mean, to what extent
do we think overall congestion on the roads, increasing
congestion, which obviously would vary regionally, locally, is
creating more safety concerns?
So, for example, I have a bill that would allow logging
trucks access to highways to get them off local roads, which I
view as not only an environmentally friendly thing, but a
safety thing, right? I mean, it is sort of easier to transit
than going around with a lot of roundabouts in northeast
Wisconsin, Green Bay, Wisconsin.
We also know that according to the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, getting on and off the bus, crossing the
street, waiting for the bus can put children in significant
danger. Schoolbuses operate on local roads, which include
intersections, crosswalks, curves, stop signs, and other
variations in the flow of traffic.
So in your expert opinion, would reducing congestion, in
general, but specifically reducing sort of large vehicles like
logging trucks, from local roads improve the safety of
schoolbuses?
Ms. Poland. So schoolbuses are large vehicles, and
typically in most crashes with passenger vehicles they fare
very well. Unfortunately in crashes with other large vehicles,
that is where we see the vulnerability, especially in side-
impact collisions and high-speed rollovers.
We also have to be very careful of unintended consequences
because the NTSB has investigated a number of commercial motor
vehicle crashes, especially in work zones where there may be
some sort of a vehicle that is not stopped for a queue that has
developed for a work zone.
So I guess I would encourage you to consider unintended
consequences and also technological solutions, such as we were
discussing earlier of forward collision avoidance and automatic
emergency braking for all commercial vehicles.
Mr. Gallagher. Interesting. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Fulton. Congressman, I would just add certainly NTSB is
the expert on statistics, but our tragic crash happened on a
highway so, you know, with a large vehicle striking a schoolbus
on a highway, a major highway.
Mr. Gallagher. Sure.
Ms. Fulton. So clearing the local roads would not have been
helpful in that situation.
I think, again, unintended consequences, there are a lot of
different ways to look at it.
Mr. Gallagher. Well, I certainly respect that. Unintended
consequences are part of the main reason that I am sitting on
this side of the aisle, but I appreciate all of your answers,
and thank you for the dedicated work that you do.
Ms. Norton. I am sure it was not unintended that you are on
that side of the aisle.
[Laughter.]
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Gallagher.
Mr. Malinowski.
Mr. Malinowski. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And Mr. Gallagher is always welcome to switch sides of the
aisle. We can talk afterwards.
Mr. Gallagher. And I would have to not respect unintended--
never mind.
Mr. Malinowski. Ms. Fulton, first of all, welcome as a
fellow New Jerseyan. I am happy to see you here and very
pleased to see the strides that New Jersey has been making in
improving schoolbus safety going forward, especially after the
tragic accident in Mount Olive, which happened in my district,
as you know.
I was able to meet Miranda's father and sister just a
couple of weeks ago when they came to Washington to advocate
for greater Federal involvement in preventing tragedies like
that bus crash from ever happening again.
In that context, I wanted to ask you to say a little bit
more about New Jersey's employer notification system. I think
you began to a little bit earlier.
As I understand, it was recently updated to better prevent
bad drivers from getting behind the wheel of a bus, and I
wonder if you could explain how the system works and some of
the changes that we have made.
Ms. Fulton. Yes. Thank you, Congressman Malinowski.
So we at the Motor Vehicle Commission, when a notice of
suspension is posted by courts or law enforcement to a driver's
license and that driver's license has a schoolbus endorsement,
a report is automatically generated, and we do this on a daily
basis, every business day, and for us Saturday is a business
day.
So 6 days a week we generate a report, anyone who holds
that schoolbus endorsement whose license has been suspended,
and that goes directly to the department of education, and then
the department of education was notifying operators.
The change in the law, first, shortens the time that the
employer has and the department of education. So department of
education has 24 hours to notify the operator, whether it is
the board of education or the private operator, that this
driver has been suspended.
And they must confirm within another 24 hours that that
driver is off the road, that the driver is not driving a
schoolbus.
And the second piece of the legislation is that we do not
just do that for suspensions or 12 points or over, which
generates a suspension. We are now required to do that if you
get six points or more or three moving violations in a 3-year
period.
So there are more stringent requirements, and the
notification has shortened. This is still relatively new, but
that is how it works.
Mr. Malinowski. And so let's move from that to the across
State lines issue. If somebody had an infraction, let's say
someone had the equivalent of six points in another State,
moved to New Jersey, what would happen and how soon would it
happen?
Ms. Fulton. Well, first, Congressman, if there is a notice
of suspension that comes from another State, we may get that
any number of ways depending on whether we have an agreement
with that State where we get something electronically or
whether we get it in the mail the way that we communicate with
some of our sister States.
So it may come in the mail, and that can take time. It has
to be managed manually.
The six points, now that is a new New Jersey rule, and we
have not yet gotten that to happen automatically, right? So
there is not an automatic trigger of six points that come in
from another State.
Now, I guess once it gets posted to the New Jersey driver's
license, then we are instate, and we can manage it. But the
real trick is getting notice from the other State. How long
does it take for a conviction that happens in Pennsylvania or
New York? How long does it take for that conviction to get
posted in New Jersey?
That is manual process many times.
Mr. Malinowski. So that just leads to the obvious final
question, which is whether a national ENS, employer
notification system, would be helpful.
Ms. Fulton. A national notification system would be helpful
for us for sure, and you know, I have referenced AAMVA before,
but we actually use AAMVA's existing system for other CDL
information. So that would be helpful.
Mr. Malinowski. Great. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Malinowski.
It may be that there is something that this committee can
do to make sure that that national system occurs. So I
appreciate those questions.
Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Ms. Poland, the NHTSA found that 97 pedestrians under the
age of 18 were killed in school transportation-related crashes
between 2008 and 2017. Do you know how many were struck by
vehicles going around the bus out of that 97?
The National Transportation Safety Board, do you all have
that? Does anyone have an idea?
Ms. Poland. Certainly there is data available on those
crash statistics. The NTSB accidents are a portion of those
numbers that you are looking at, and as I mentioned in my
opening statement, we have three ongoing investigations in
three different States where we are looking at what is
happening on those high-speed roadways.
Mr. Palmer. I have got several questions that I want to ask
about this, but I think it is important to know how many of
these fatalities were the result of people going around the bus
as opposed to the bus actually running over the child.
You have got both of those situations, and the reason I
bring that up is that in reading the testimonies here, Mr.
Benish's testimony pointed out that the passing of stopped
schoolbuses during loading or unloading, illegal in all 50
States, has reached epidemic proportions. A most recent annual
observational survey in 2018, 105,306 schoolbus drivers in 38
States reported almost 84,000 vehicles had illegally passed
their stopped schoolbus in 1 day.
That is incomprehensible to me that that many people are
that stupid or that unconcerned about the safety of the kids on
that bus.
And based on the observations, have you projected that out
over a 180-day school year? That is 15 million vehicles
illegally passing a schoolbus.
So I think it is important to know, Madam Chairman, how
many of these fatalities and injuries are because people are
passing schoolbuses, and I think we may need to take a look
particularly at the State level for those of you who are
involved with the State legislature, as the Honorable Ms.
Fulton and Mr. McLean, that the penalties ought to be much more
severe for going around a schoolbus when it is stopped.
I think it would be important to know what is going on with
that, and the other thing that I want to ask is that a number
of these accidents are in rural areas.
Any idea, Ms. Poland, about why so many of them are in
rural areas?
I mean, we had a lot of discussion about congested streets.
That is really not an issue out where I grew up, and I rode a
schoolbus when I was a kid. That was 1964, by the way.
Ms. Poland. Well, I guess it is unfortunate to report that
the National Association of State Directors of Pupil
Transportation Services yesterday put out the new statistics
for the last school year, and now they are reporting that there
is over 95,000 illegal passings in that single day, from 39
States that are reporting that information.
As I mentioned earlier, the NTSB is looking at three
crashes. All of those are in what you would classify as rural
areas from high-speed roadways, 55-mile-per-hour roadways.
And so our investigators are currently looking at a variety
of different countermeasures, including conspicuity, route
planning, and technological countermeasures to be able to make
recommendations to our Board to assist in this process.
Mr. Palmer. I want to get to some questions that will lead
to some solutions. OK? So what I am suggesting here is that we
look at these crash statistics, rural versus suburban, urban,
look at the number of vehicles that are going around
schoolbuses. I would like to know whether or not these are
rural incidents or in other areas.
In regard to these higher speed highways, where I currently
live, we have a highway where it is 55, but during certain
times of the day when kids are coming to school and when kids
are leaving the school, that speed limit is reduced to about 25
miles an hour.
And it may be that particularly in rural areas, you treat
this like you would a construction zone. Somebody brought this
up, Madam Chairman. I think it is a pretty good idea that maybe
during those times we do it like a construction zone. We notify
you ahead of time you have got to bring your speed down because
you have got schoolbuses operating in the area.
I know that is going to create some issues for transport
vehicles and things like that, but I will pay the extra cost
for a loaf of bread or a bottle of water, whatever, if it saves
the life of a kid.
One last thing, if I may, Madam Chairman. I am kind of on a
roll. I look at this, too, and this is something that I wanted
to ask Mr. McLean about, the legislative role in this, and Ms.
Fulton, too.
My concern is about the abuse of alcohol, and some States
have requirements for how many hours after a busdriver consumes
alcohol. That should also include recreational marijuana.
And the thing that concerns me is that there are commercial
drivers who lose their license, and in a lot of cases they
self-report. I think we need to have a database where if
someone applies for a license to drive a schoolbus, there is a
database that is searchable, and you can determine whether or
not someone has lost their license before we put them behind
the wheel of a bus carrying our kids.
What do you think about that?
I do not know that I want to make it a Federal law, but----
Ms. Norton. He is over time. So I wish you would take those
suggestions under advisement.
Mr. Palmer. I thank the chairman for her indulgence.
I yield back.
Ms. Norton. And I thank Mr. Palmer for his comments,
especially his notion about ways to make the penalties more
severe for passing of a schoolbus. That is something that we
need to look into, raising a Federal issue as to whether or not
we could do that, recognizing that most of these laws are
local.
And Mr. Palmer raised a number of issues. I think this was
raised before about studies that we need to do, statistics we
simply do not have. It seems to me we cannot pass another bill
without making sure that those studies and statistics are
mandated.
So I thank you, Mr. Palmer.
Mr. Cohen.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Madam Chair.
First, I would like to address my question to Ms. Fulton.
Thank you for the good work you have done in New Jersey.
You all seem to have been way ahead of the game and done super.
Why has New Jersey been able to make significant progress
toward improving schoolbus safety with three-point safety belts
when it has been so difficult in other States?
Ms. Fulton. Well, Congressman, I will be honest with you.
It makes a difference when the Governor and the members of our
New Jersey congressional delegation make it a priority,
continue to work actively educating the community, speaking out
about it and speaking to our State legislators.
We have had incredible support across the board from
Members of Congress and the Governor to say we are going to do
this.
Mr. Cohen. Who is your Governor?
Ms. Fulton. Governor Phil Murphy, and this has been
something that was important to him and important to our
Members of Congress, and they made it happen.
Listen. No one wants to wait for a tragedy, but when it
happens, you know, that is an opportunity where people in a
position to make a difference can choose to really----
Mr. Cohen. Were you part of the campaign to make it happen,
the lobbying effort?
Ms. Fulton. I was not. I do not lobby for legislation in my
position as motor vehicle commissioner. We provided----
Mr. Cohen. As an observer, do you recall who were the main
people against the bills?
Ms. Fulton. Against the bill?
Mr. Cohen. Yes. Was it----
Ms. Fulton. There was not significant opposition. You know,
there were questions about the additional cost, but the
additional cost of a couple thousand on a 54-passenger bus, it
is a cost for school districts, but there was a lot of support
from the school districts where they had had accidents to go
forward with it.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you, ma'am.
Ms. Poland, let me ask you as part of a special report
examining schoolbus safety, the NTSB clearly and unequivocally
recommended that all new large schoolbuses be equipped with lap
and shoulder belts. You probably remember that from my opening
statement. Everybody does. It is probably enshrined in
everybody's mind.
In addition, the American Academy of Pediatrics has a
longstanding position that new schoolbuses should be equipped
with seatbelts.
Why is it so important that this commonsense safety
equipment that has already saved thousands of lives in
passenger motor vehicles be placed in all large schoolbuses?
Ms. Poland. As I mentioned in my opening statement, we know
that schoolbuses are extremely safe, but they are vulnerable in
certain types of crashes, and over and over again we are seeing
children that are injured and killed in these types of very
severe crashes.
The technologies have changed over time. We initially
recommended occupant protection systems, but now we are seeing
that lap/shoulder belts are well designed and, in fact, in
certain circumstances we are able to study how they are
performing in crashes and finding that occupants are very well
protected in these new designs of lap/shoulder belts.
So that is why we came out with our recommendations to the
States to have new large schoolbuses be equipped with passenger
lap/shoulder belts.
Mr. Cohen. I kind of vaguely recall from when I sponsored
this as a State senator, which is like 20-odd years ago maybe,
that there was some discussion about the safety belts that the
seats are like perpendicular. They are at right angles, and
that they are stiff and they do not move, and it would hurt the
kids' necks if they were strapped in.
Is that an argument that has been made?
Ms. Poland. That is an argument that has been made, but
fortunately, the technologies have advanced so they are able to
protect an occupant that may be unbelted behind occupants that
are belted as well.
And, again, we have been able to study some of these
crashes when there have been onboard video camera systems that
are showing the outcome and seen that there is good protection
with these modern lap/shoulder belts in schoolbuses.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
The NTSB also recommended automatic emergency braking
technology. It is widely available. You also concur that that
should be part of the schoolbus?
Ms. Poland. Correct. So the NTSB is always advocating for
crash prevention. So technologies like forward collision
avoidance, automatic emergency braking, electronic stability
control, if they can activate at that last moment before a
crash happens, in some cases we can avoid the crash altogether.
In other cases, we can just lower the severity of that
crash, but it is very important for schoolbuses as well as all
vehicles.
Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
And those are the reasons which have been discussed here,
why Senator Duckworth and I introduced H.R. 3959, the School
Bus Safety Act, and we hope that we can have it included in
some measure as time goes on and pass it into law.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I yield back the balance of my
time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
I allowed Mr. Palmer to ask a question when it was slightly
out of time, but it was impossible given the time remaining for
the question to be answered.
So I invite those of you who do have answers to Mr.
Palmer's question to submit it in writing, and I will make sure
that those answers get into the record.
Mr. Balderson.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And I will assist that because Representative Palmer took
some of my questions talking about rural communities and the
impact of bus travel for those students.
I did have a stat here that 52 percent of the schoolbus
crashes do occur in rural communities, and that is done by the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration that was done.
Could all of you elaborate on some of the things, of any
recommendations that we can do to improve safety?
In rural communities and some of the areas that I represent
in Ohio's 12th Congressional District, I mean, there is one
county that is not in the district anymore, but right close
that has no four-lane roads. So it is all State route or gravel
roads, and a student is on that bus one way 2 to 2\1/2\ hours
for travel.
So I will ask the whole panel if there is anything, any
thoughts that you would have of safety concerns that have been
addressed for the rural communities since 52 percent of the
schoolbus incidents happen in rural communities.
The Honorable Andrew McLean, lead the way.
Mr. McLean. I am not sure I am in a position to say what
would help rural communities specifically. So I do not know
that I have suggestions for rural communities, but I do think
that allowing States to explore the solutions and having the
Federal Government permit the States to explore those solutions
is really important to figure out what the best solutions are.
You know, we are probably never going to eliminate all
accidents, but we need to figure out the best ways to reduce
the number of accidents.
Sir, I do not have specific recommendations.
Mr. Balderson. Does anybody have a suggestion? Honorable
Fulton.
Ms. Fulton. Well, Congressman, I do not know that this is
specific to rural communities, but in our State, rural and
urban communities both may have less resources at their school
board than the suburban communities.
But one of the things that is critically important for us
is the inspection from the State level of the schoolbus to
ensure that they are not allowing a lack of resources to lead
to the schoolbuses not staying maintained and not meeting the
standards.
And just as important, when we do those inspections, both
the announced and the unannounced, we check the driver records.
Are you sure that the drivers that you are putting behind the
wheel or does every one of them have a current medical
certification? Does every one of them have a current CDL with a
legitimate endorsement and no suspensions?
You would be surprised how often private operators are
often used when funds run low. We had 330 summonses in the
space of 1 year in our inspections where private operators, and
for the most part it was private operators, had failed to keep
those things current, and that leads to people behind the wheel
that are not qualified.
Mr. Balderson. Madam Chairman, I will switch gears for the
panel a little bit.
According to the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, the greatest risk to schoolchildren is getting
on and off the schoolbus. Have any States successfully
implemented reforms to better prevent these violations?
Mr. Condron?
Mr. Condron. I was just going to comment on the last
question on the rural busdrivers, if I may comment on that
question.
Mr. Balderson. You may comment.
Mr. Condron. Traditionally, on the coast, the east and west
coast, you do not see this much, but in the rural area you see
more they call it ``park-out,'' where the driver takes the bus
home with them. They do not report to a terminal or a yard. The
driver just gets in the bus and then goes on their route.
So in the rural areas, I think you probably would need to
make sure that the vehicles are inspected and up to date, a
little more oversight, and also that the driver is current in
their training on what is current in that area.
Mr. Balderson. OK.
Mr. Benish. I would like to comment, being one of the
busdrivers, and I do drive a bus and have had a CDL and driven
for over 25 years.
I think what Mr. Palmer said also, too, is more signage in
those areas, especially rural; making sure we put specific
speed limits down at certain times of the day to slow down just
as we do in a construction site in our slowdown.
And, again, as I mentioned in my opening statement, we do
have a new act out, the Stop for School Buses Act of 2019 by
Representative Walorski, and we want more public messaging,
especially for new drivers, and especially more talk about
distracted driving, which was involved in an accident in
Rochester, where exactly that happened. Three students were
killed this past year in rural Indiana, all from the same
family early in the morning.
Mr. Balderson. Thank you.
Madam Chair, thank you.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Balderson.
Mr. Payne.
Mr. Payne. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And, Ms. Fulton, it is good to have you here. I do not know
if you are aware of this, probably not, but before my time in
Congress, as the president of the city council in Newark, New
Jersey, I was in student transportation for 10 years. I started
out actually for one of the educational commissions, Essex
County Educational Services Commission, and started out as a
schoolbus monitor where I was out on routes in the morning
doing spot inspections and making sure children, parents if
they had problems with children being picked up, all of those
types of issues, and worked my way up to supervisor of
transportation, where I was responsible for 10,000 children on
schoolbuses a day, handling Newark Public Schools
transportation and special needs throughout Essex County of our
most vulnerable students, stretcher-bound children that were
paraplegic.
So this is really where I cut my teeth in public service.
So I'm really glad to see that we are here discussing these
issues. I also am proud that New Jersey is on the cutting edge
of safety.
And so I fully understand the need for safe schoolbuses and
commend you for your work to increase their safety.
My children, I have triplets, and in New Jersey they have
early school intervention where children go to school as early
as 3, and so my children were on schoolbuses in Newark at 3
years old. As a matter of fact, there is one of them taking
pictures of me right now. So he has made it pretty far.
So New Jersey is a leader when it comes to schoolbus
safety, requiring all schoolbuses to have the three-point
safety belts. Yet the Federal Government does not require that
all schoolbuses have them.
Can you explain how the three-point safety belts improve
bus safety?
And do you think it would be in the country's best interest
to have these belts required nationwide?
Ms. Fulton. Thank you, Congressman Payne.
And if I might use a moment to say I did not get a chance
to agree with my friend Mr. Condron from the Teamsters, but
schoolbus drivers are incredibly valuable and incredibly
underpaid for the responsibility that we give them.
Mr. Payne. I agree.
Ms. Fulton. So let me say that.
And then with that, in terms of the statistics on three-
point belts, we get all of our stats from the National
Transportation Safety Board. So to make sure I do not screw
that up, I am going to pass off to Ms. Poland----
[Laughter.]
Ms. Fulton [continuing]. And defer to her for the
information on that.
Ms. Poland. So the NTSB has looked at a wide variety of
crashes. I have investigated crashes in schoolbuses for over 20
years now, looking at schoolbus passengers, what happens during
crashes when there is just compartmentalization inside the
schoolbus, when it is lap only belts and when there are lap/
shoulder belts, and we have found that the recent advancements
in the design of the lap/shoulder belt has provided excellent
protection for the occupants inside the schoolbus in a variety
of different crashes, knowing that the baseline level, the
minimum performance for large schoolbuses right now,
compartmentalization is incomplete.
And many of these catastrophic crashes involve side impacts
and rollovers, which lap/shoulder belts provide that protection
for our occupants.
Mr. Payne. You know, I also was able to meet with Miranda's
father and her family several weeks ago, and I am wondering--
the laws that we have in New Jersey, are they really a good
foundation for the possibility of Federal laws across the
country?
And anybody that wants to weigh in, please feel free.
Ms. Fulton. Well, Congressman, we already have the laws,
and I feel perhaps my friend from Maine can weigh in on whether
the States feel. You know, we still are learning in terms of
how to execute some of these things and what is going to have
the greatest impact, but we will see.
Mr. Payne. Yes or no from anybody that wants to because my
time is running out.
Mr. McLean. And it is the position of NCSL that the Federal
Government should leave it to the States to explore different
solutions because there are different solutions for each State.
Ms. Poland. And speaking with a variety of people that have
implemented the lap/shoulder belts in various jurisdictions, we
are pleased to see that best practices are being shared amongst
this community because I think we are all in agreement here
that ultimately, we want the safe transportation of our
students to and from school.
Mr. Payne. OK. Thank you.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Payne.
Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate the witnesses giving us the opportunity to
listen to your expertise.
I come from a little bit different background. I was
actually a schoolbus monitor many years ago, but I also had the
privilege of serving my community in Duluth, Minnesota, as a
police officer.
One of the worst things we can do is respond to a crash of
a student getting on or off the bus, and it is just
unconscionable that we see drivers do this every single day in
this country. It is uncalled for.
I have been in a fully marked squad car, the second car
behind a stopped schoolbus. The light is on. The gate is out
right in front of me. That is unconscionable.
And so for me to see it, I have cited it. I have testified
in court. For me we are in this together. When we put our kids
at the end of the sidewalk or the corner, we expect them to
arrive safe to and from school.
And from my perspective, we talked about the greatest
concern is the crossing of the roads. Are we putting enough
emphasis in our driver's education classes in each of our
States? Because they are all a bit different.
Mr. McLean, what does your State require for driver's
education, total hours, and what do they put for this subject,
or do they not specify this subject?
Mr. McLean. I am not a motor vehicle administrator so I
cannot speak to the exact requirements, but we do have a pretty
rigorous system and process for a beginning license.
Mr. Stauber. No, you are talking about 16-year-old drivers
going through the driver's education?
Is there anybody that thinks that we could enhance our
driver's education? Because if the majority of it is happening,
the driver is not paying attention or what have you, it seems
to me, the educational component and the seriousness of
teaching our young drivers.
Mr. Benish.
Mr. Benish. Yes, that is something, again, with the Stop
for School Buses Act that we have proposed in my opening
statement about putting more education.
I recently had this discussion with my three teens about 2
months ago about stopping in and around a schoolbus, and
knowing that I own a schoolbus company and am a driver, it was
very interesting to hear the perspective from McKenzie, George
and Jack, what they did know and did not know about stopping
around a schoolbus.
They are brandnew drivers, and it was just plain scary.
Mr. Stauber. Yes, and I think that we have to actually
allow our States to adopt real strict educational parts of
stopping in and around schoolbuses, and by the way, I am a
cosponsor of the Stop for School Buses Act.
Mr. Benish. Thank you.
Mr. Stauber. For me, one driver on a schoolbus is too much,
one in this entire country because the safety of our kids is
paramount.
One of the things I wanted to talk about, Ms. Poland, you
talk about the restraints and what have you. Do you feel
comfortable saying that the restraints in a fire or water
emergency for young kids, especially in rural areas where you
are not going to get the help right away; do you feel
comfortable in putting that mandate forth for the entire
country?
Ms. Poland. That is a good question, and many people, of
course, are asking that question. I can just lend some of the
experience that we have had where we have looked at crashes,
very severe crashes, where there have been onboard camera
systems, and we have studied the evacuation and seen that the
passengers that have maintained consciousness during the crash
are able to self-evacuate.
So it is important for those students to be protected
during the crash to give them the best chance to be able to
self-evacuate.
If they are unable to be protected during that crash, then
of course the injuries may negatively affect their ability to
quickly and safely evacuate the schoolbus.
Mr. Stauber. Thank you very much.
And to the witnesses, I really appreciate we all want the
schoolbus and the kids and their safety. That is the utmost
importance, and you all are experts in your respective field.
So I appreciate this opportunity to listen to you, and together
we can increase, in my mind, safety exponentially using, I
think, some commonsense measures.
So with that I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Stauber.
Mr. Babin.
Dr. Babin. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate it.
And thank you, witnesses, for your expertise. I appreciate
you being here.
Ms. Poland, thank you for being here with us today. Each
and every member of this committee cares deeply about the
safety and the security of our school-age children, as we have
heard numerous of our Members say, and we want to ensure that
when they do get on the schoolbus to go to and from school that
they arrive safely at their destination.
However, I also want to make sure that our States and local
communities are allowed the flexibility they need to implement
proper regulations for their unique jurisdictions.
And with that in mind, how can Congress balance the need
for improved schoolbus safety without imposing a heavy-handed,
overregulating, one-size-fits-all approach for our States and
school districts?
Ms. Poland. Thank you for the queestion.
NTSB has made recommendations about vehicle design, and we
think it is important for the Federal Government to provide
that minimum level of vehicle design, including the crash
protection and occupant protection.
We have investigated many crashes where oversight of the
drivers is a concern. We recognize that there are minimum
standards at the Federal level, but much of that oversight
happens at the State and local level, and so many of our
recommendations have focused on that State and local level.
So, again, we think that those minimum standards should be
provided at the Federal level, but we do think it is important
and critical that the State and local levels can implement them
and many times exceed them, as you have heard today.
Dr. Babin. Exactly. I have a niece that was involved in an
accident in Beaumont, Texas, a charter bus, not a schoolbus,
and it was a terrible accident with some fatalities, and my
niece was injured.
I think they have implemented in the State of Texas
seatbelts because of that one accident.
Then a followup on that question, could you talk about some
of the recent actions that you have seen States and school
districts take in order to increase the safety of students
traveling to and from school on schoolbuses?
And I know we have talked about that already. You have
already hit on it a little bit, but if you would elaborate a
little further, I would appreciate it.
Ms. Poland. Yes, of course. So we are very pleased to see
so much movement on occupant protection. There are so many
States that are now looking at passenger lap/shoulder belts for
large schoolbuses, and we think that this is a critical move.
We are also seeing a lot of motion in the schoolbus
manufacturers where they are looking at some of the
technologies for preventing crashes, and they are implementing
these in some buses as standard equipment. So we also think
that that is also very critical for the crash avoidance aspect.
So there is a lot of movement. We are seeing a lot of
sharing of best practices, including some of the aspects that
do not necessarily address injuries and fatalities, but some of
the aspects of driver retention and distraction that may have
improved with some of the technologies and some of the
installations that we are talking about like lap/shoulder
belts.
Dr. Babin. Absolutely.
I will yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Madam
Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Babin.
Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have actually got a little bit of good news on this
subject here. We have in northern California the town of
Paradise, which had a horrendous fire almost coming up on a
year ago now, and we had one story of a local schoolbus driver,
Kevin McKay, who during this fire crisis without being told by
anyone decided to drive his schoolbus back into town to the
Ponderosa Elementary School in Paradise when the Camp Fire hit
town. His wife and family were already on the way to safety.
In coordination with the Ponderosa School principal, Mr.
McKay loaded 22 kids and several teachers onto his bus and took
them to safety. At one point, Mr. McKay literally tore off his
own shirt and gave it to the teachers who ripped it up and made
it into breathing masks because the bus was filling up with
smoke from the fire.
Well, thanks to the efforts of Mr. McKay and other
Ponderosa teachers, all the kids escaped Camp Fire without
major injury. So a really good piece.
Now, being California, as dangerous as the wildfires are
there and still will be, schoolbuses are under fire in another
way. California Air Resources Board, over the objections of
heavy vehicle users, decided to implement the installation of
the diesel particulate filters, refitting these existing buses
with these devices.
They can reach and exceed 600 degrees Celsius when the
engine is operating and have been prone to clogging with ash
and unburned fuel, which causes them to catch fire. These are
not isolated cases to buses. We have plenty of anecdotes with
trucks and other vehicles that have been forced to be refitted
with these devices.
Just like freight trucks, these, again, schoolbuses are
vulnerable to these issues and have caught on fire.
Now, being California is the largest population, it also
has the largest schoolbus fleet and also the largest number of
students of any State. So California usually has the most
restrictive regulations on schoolbuses as well. So CHP has to
inspect each bus every year, and the drivers themselves review
their own vehicles every 45 days.
So despite these regulations, these buses still catch on
fire because of the diesel particulate filter that was required
was not suitable to be used. That technology had not caught up
to what was a requirement on these buses.
Hundreds of thousands of vehicles were required to install
them anyway, no matter the cost. So I will throw this to Ms.
Poland.
The Federal Government does set a pretty low bar for
schoolbuses and typically allows States to increase those
standards as they see fit. Are you aware of any intervention
the Federal Government has made when States are endangering
students and implementing standards that are causing
schoolbuses to catch fire?
Ms. Poland. Our experiences with the schoolbus fires are
not related to the issue that you are bringing up, but some of
the countermeasures that we have recommended may ultimately----
Mr. LaMalfa. You have not heard of any cases of trucks or
buses that have been refitted with these filter systems
catching fire?
Ms. Poland. So our Oakland, Iowa, crash that we just made
public recently had a schoolbus fire, but in that case the
engine compartment caught on fire from overheating of the
turbocharger.
Of course, in that case, I also mentioned that there was an
incomplete firewall that allowed the smoke and fumes and fire--
--
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, that is one case there. Now, a turbo
that was coming apart or lost a bearing or something, that
could be something that would happen, but we are talking about
the diesel particulate filters that have been forced to be
refitted to many buses and trucks and lots of equipment in
California and maybe other States that have joined in that.
So is there any kind of protection from the Federal
Government over a regulation that is causing fires simply by
the fitting of this equipment?
Ms. Poland. The NTSB's position is on fire suppression
systems in the engine compartment and also on flammability of
the interior components. It would not address specifically the
cause of your fire, but may mitigate the consequences and
increase the time for passengers to be evacuated if those
systems were fitted with those countermeasures.
Mr. LaMalfa. Well, the Federal EPA is taking a look at how
States sometimes go beyond to the harm of consumers, to the
harm of the safety of buses on that. Would NTSB be looking more
at the possible harm in this case that fitting these devices on
untested, the technology not having made fully applicable in a
safety factor, would they look at, say, maybe that they should
not be fitted until they are more properly engineered?
Ms. Poland. If there was a circumstance where that was the
cause of a fire that the NTSB is investigating, I am confident
that we would look into that and certainly address
countermeasures that may be able to mitigate the consequences.
Mr. LaMalfa. Might be able to look at countermeasures. So
you have no statistics on how many fires have been caused by
the refitting of these vehicles with these filters?
Ms. Poland. No, sir, we do not.
Mr. LaMalfa. Have you actually heard of it? Have you heard
of this happening anecdotally yourself?
Ms. Poland. As I mentioned earlier, that has not been the
cause of any of our schoolbus fires nor our motorcoach fires.
Mr. LaMalfa. In general, trucks, buses, diesel vehicles
that have had these filters refitted to them?
Ms. Poland. Not that specific issue.
Mr. LaMalfa. You never heard of that.
Ms. Norton. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. LaMalfa. You never heard of that.
Ms. Norton. Mr. Katko.
Mr. Katko. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
And thank you all for being here today.
I will say at the outset I am a very proud sponsor of the
Stop for School Buses Act of 2019, and I am pleased that this
legislation includes a review of technologies to enhance
schoolbus safety. So I am very happy with that.
Mr. Condron, I just want to congratulate you on last
night's vote. It was very important for Teamsters, and I was
very supportive of that as well. So let's hope that moves in
the Senate. That is a very big vote.
Mr. Condron. Thank you.
Mr. Katko. Something you said and I believe Ms. Poland said
it. The most recent studies, that 95,000 people pass
schoolbuses with lights on illegally a day now. That is the
most recent study. That is really stunning to me.
And one of the things that the Stop for School Buses Act of
2019 includes is a review of technologies to enhance schoolbus
safety.
I am exposed to some of these in different settings of law
enforcement. I was a Federal organized crime prosecutor for 20
years. So I am aware of all of the emergent technologies. Let's
talk about a few of them.
I think there are some technologies out there that would
pay for themselves, and if you will indulge me for a second,
for example, if there is something mounted outside the bus
which shows it can take a picture of these cars' license plates
as they are passing and then they are subsequently fined, and
you have got 95,000 cars doing this a day, those very quickly
pay for themselves.
So I do not know if that is something you are
contemplating, but something that is going to absolutely get to
the distracted driver, because I think that is a big part of
it, and something that absolutely gets to the lack of respect
for these warning signs.
And I think we need to take the gloves off with these
knuckleheads that are doing this because recent statistics
showed in a 10-year study or whatever it was that 90-some-odd
children were killed as pedestrians, not on the bus, in
different accidents, you know.
Getting off a bus or getting on, as you have noted, is the
most dangerous time. So I would like to hear what you think
about that possible proposal. I know it is being used in other
applications. For example, there is technology out there that
as the car goes by, you can take a quick picture of it and you
can tell right away whether its registration has expired or
not, and they get sent a ticket.
I mean, why can we not do something similar with buses? If
we had that, I think it would pay for itself. So I would like
to hear from you and some of the others.
Ms. Poland. So the NTSB has looked at some aspects
revolving around the schoolbus loading zone, including the
route selection, in order to minimize the exposure in these
circumstances and also conspicuity.
We have three investigations that are ongoing right now
where we are exploring a variety of these technologies that can
aid in the loading zone in preventing or mitigating these
injuries and fatalities.
Our investigators are looking at a variety of different
aspects, and I guess I will open it up to some of our State
partners here at the table because we are also exploring that
there may be some barriers at the State level for some of the
technological interventions that you are talking about.
Mr. Katko. There may be, but I know some of these
technological innovations have gone into practice, and I think
it cannot go unnoticed that the distracted driver component is
quite serious, and it seems to be getting much worse.
So statistics up until they were updated once today had it
in 60-something thousand per day. Now it is at 95,000. That is
a gigantic increase in a short period of time, and that is
indicative of an escalation of the distracted driver or the
person who just disregards it, but I think it is time to take
the gloves off with them.
Mr. Benish, do you want to add anything?
Mr. Benish. Well, we can get you a State-by-State schoolbus
illegal passing law breakdown, and some States do have and have
enacted the taking a picture of licenses and so on, and some
States have made it more severe.
Unfortunately, as you just mentioned, taking the gloves off
is needed because it is just not preventing them to do that.
So, again, with the Stop for School Buses Act, and we
appreciate the support, we need more signage. We need more
signage. We need more education for new, young drivers, and
obviously distracted driving is a huge problem, especially in
trucking and in school-busing. That is where we see now
obviously more accidents on the road, and that has definitely
had something to do with it.
But we have to make it a lot more severe, and we have to do
a lot better job making our presence known about stopping for
schoolbuses.
Mr. Katko. Yes, I understand that there are a lot of other
components. I am just focusing really on the stopped schoolbus.
That is an epidemic when you have that many cars a day
disregarding it or not seeing it.
So does anybody else want to add anything to that?
Mr. McLean.
Mr. McLean. Yes. Thank you very much.
Just very briefly, so we just enacted a bill to allow
cities and towns to put stop-arm cameras on their schoolbuses.
We believe that this is a really critical issue because it goes
to the enforcement.
Our State police believe that increased fines do not
actually solve the problem, but the enforcement does, and the
stop-arm cameras will allow the prosecution of violators of
that law.
Mr. Katko. Right. I guess that is what I am talking about.
I mean, not increasing the fines as much as saying every single
person that passes, you are going to get a picture of the
license plate, and they are going to get smacked.
Mr. McLean. Correct.
Mr. Katko. That might help.
So thank you very much.
I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Katko.
Mrs. Miller.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you, Chairwoman Norton and Ranking
Member Katko.
And thank you all for being here today.
I am happy we can come here today to talk about solutions
to address the schoolbus safety. I am a mother and a
grandmother, and I would like to say that safety of children is
of the utmost importance and should be our first priority with
our kids.
Dr. Poland, do you know what percentage of schoolbus
crashes are classified as large buses?
Ms. Poland. I do not have a specific statistic, but the
majority of schoolbuses that are on our roads today are
classified as large schoolbuses.
Mrs. Miller. OK. In Charleston, West Virginia, one of our
school districts held a demonstration on a new safety lighting
system that illuminates the paths students take to the bus in
the dark. It has been extremely helpful to the students and
other drivers on the road.
Have you noticed a trend in the amount of off-the-bus
accidents at night?
Ms. Poland. It has been a longstanding trend that more
students are injured and killed in the loading zone than on the
bus itself.
Of course, we know that schoolbus operation changes
throughout the year. So sometimes it is in low-light
conditions, and of course, with these crashes that we are
looking at in the three States that I mentioned earlier, 55-
mile-per-hour roads, low-light conditions.
There are a variety of countermeasures that our
investigators are looking at, and we are looking forward to
bringing those recommendations to our Board in the near future.
Mrs. Miller. Is there anything that you think Congress can
do to work on this issue?
Ms. Poland. I think there are a variety of aspects, and
certainly having this hearing is one of them because our State
partners have a variety of countermeasures that they are
already implementing, and so we are looking to those successful
cases when we are investigating these types of crashes to see
what the best practices are and what are proven technologies to
be able to reduce the injuries and fatalities in the schoolbus
loading zone are.
Mrs. Miller. In 2010, I was in our State legislature, and a
mother, grandmother came to me and my officemate. Her 6-year-
old granddaughter had been killed, run over getting off a
schoolbus, and of course, she was heartbroken.
And it took us quite a while to get legislation through to
at least double the fines, and it has been an ongoing thing to
try and change the laws as we go.
But the heartache and, I mean, we have developed quite a
strong relationship with this grandmother through it all, and
the little girl would be turning 16 now. It just breaks your
heart.
And I know one of the biggest problems that we have in
schoolbus safety is the people who are ignoring the schoolbus
unloading stop lights. Currently Indiana has taken measures to
address the placement of schoolbuses that are operated on a
U.S. route or State route. From my understanding, the driver
may not load or unload a student at a location that requires
the student to cross a roadway unless no other safe
alternatives are available.
Have you all seen other States take steps to improve
unloading safety, any of you all?
Mr. McLean?
Mr. McLean. Can you repeat the question?
Mrs. Miller. On State routes, the State of Indiana has
issued a law that you cannot load or unload a student at a
location on a 55-mile-an-hour highway if they have to cross it
unless there is no other alternative.
Mr. McLean. We have not. I do not know any specific issues
around routing. We have been dealing with issues on and around
loading and unloading zone.
Mrs. Miller. But never across a highway where they have to
cross over?
Mr. McLean. Not that I know of.
Mrs. Miller. I know in driving myself, when I see a
schoolbus on this side of the road and it is two lanes over
here and two lanes over here and stuff in the middle, and they
are stopped. A lot of people just keep going here, and it is
extremely difficult to get that child across the road.
Have there been any other best practices implemented to
keep kids safe in loading and unloading zones, particularly in
those unsafe traffic areas and dangerous neighborhoods?
Mr. Benish?
Mr. Benish. Dangerous neighborhoods, yes, especially in the
city of Chicago they do have certain areas where they have
chaperones and/or people in the neighborhood that will help out
with that.
But getting back to your original question, the
suggestions, according to what I have heard from the State of
California, a driver has to physically walk off the bus with
the student with a sign and walk them to the side of the street
in that instance.
And I guess over the past 30 or 40 years, it has been very
successful, and they have had a really low frequency of
accidents with that.
Mrs. Miller. So they do not have like a helper on the bus
that would get off and do it?
Mr. Benish. It is actually the driver, according to what I
have heard.
Mrs. Miller. Wow. OK. Thank you.
I yield back my time.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mrs. Miller.
Mr. Westerman.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for your testimony today.
I live in a large rural district back in Arkansas where bus
transportation is a big issue. I had the opportunity to serve
on a school board which was the first elected office that I
held, and then in the State legislature where we dealt with a
lot of school-related policy.
You know, as we look at the impacts of what we do with bus
safety and bus transportation, it, I think, probably has a
disproportional impact on rural schools because so much of
their budget goes to transportation with the longer routes and
the additional buses that they have that sometimes are not
fully utilized.
So, Mr. Benish, I think you mentioned something about cost,
and I might have heard, I think, Mr. Condron mentioned
something about cost effectiveness. And obviosuly, when we are
talking about schoolbuses, safety outweighs cost, but cost has
to be a consideration because schools just do not have the
funding to go out and purchase all of the latest and greatest
equipment that is there.
One thing, and the gentleman asked questions earlier about
air quality, and I know that there is some really clean bus
technology out there, not electric buses, but compressed
natural gas buses, and an issue that I saw with that from the
local level and on the State level was a lot of schools would
really like to put in CNG buses, and the cost of a new CNG bus
is the equivalent to the cost of a new diesel bus, but you have
to have this elaborate CNG charging station that is a large
capital investment for schools. So they often cannot afford the
upfront capital investment so that they can take advantage of
the low operating cost with CNG buses.
This is, you know, 10 or 12 years ago when I was working on
these issues. What is the safety as far as compresssed natural
gas versus diesel or conventional gasline bases? Are there
differences in the safety in a crash test or with air quality?
Mr. Benish. CNG buses were introduced about 10 years ago
and really just never caught popularity due to exactly what you
are saying as far as the cost. They are quite expensive, and
the fueling stations I have heard run anywhere from $200,000 to
$300,000.
There has to be with compressed natural gas, which we did
run some of this in the 1970s, you do have to make some
modifications to your shop and to your yard due to the
explosiveness, obviously, of a gas.
The new diesel engines that are out there today are
actually pretty clean. So somebody told me the other day that
the air coming out or coming into a diesel or coming out of
diesel is cleaner now than it is going in. So there has been a
lot of cleanup.
You do not see a big puff of black smoke anymore in yellow
schoolbuses.
We also run some propane buses at home, and we have two
electric schoolbuses on order, which we should get sometime
this fall.
So there is technology that is out there, but as far as the
air quality inside the bus and as far as the diesel emissions,
there has been some DERA funding that is out there that has got
a lot of those older buses off the road. So it is effective and
the buses today are definitely way cleaner than they were 10
years ago.
Mr. Westerman. So when I was on going back to the school
board, we would purchase a few buses every year and kind of
rotate new buses through the fleet. So after a while you get
older buses that do not have the latest technology on it.
As kind of advice to schools, is it better to wait and
spend more money on the new bus with the latest safety gear or
to invest that money in your old equipment putting the safety
gear onto it?
Mr. Benish. It is probably like a bus-by-bus feature. What
we talked about today is stability control, is now to be
standard pretty much in all schoolbuses. Emergency braking and
those kind of things, technology is right in the forefront and
should be on most schoolbuses in the very near future.
So I guess if you can afford it and for the safety of the
children and the newer bus, it would probably make a better
practice to buy a newer bus nowadays.
Mr. Westerman. And you were talking about the tremendous
amount of classes of stock schoolbuses. How do you educate the
public more to know, you know, when there is a bus stopped with
the lights flashing and the arm out that means stop?
And I say that just from practical experience. Within the
last couple of months I was driving on a road in my district.
It was a very wide, nice road, two lanes of traffic each
direction, with a turning lane in the middle, 65-mile-an-hour
speed limit, and I started meeting a schoolbus on the far side
of the road slowing down to stop. So I stopped in a 65-mile-an-
hour zone, and I think I got passed four times, and the kids
were getting off on the other side of the road.
It was not necessarily any danger for those children who
were getting off on the other side of the road, but still, you
know, people just ignored that stopped schoolbus.
And plus it was kind of a safety issue with me stopped in a
65-mile-an-hour zone with cars coming up behind me real
quickly.
So how do we educate the public and do a better job of that
because it is basically just on when you take your driver's
test.
Ms. Norton. Someone can answer, but the time has expired.
Is there any ansawer?
Ms. Poland. So the NTSB is focusing on route selection, and
then with our continuing investigations, we are looking at
other countermeasures because three of our investigations are
very similar to that circumstance, except the students were
crossing the high-speed oncoming roadway, and so we are looking
at countermeasures to try and address that issue specifically.
Mr. Westerman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Westerman.
And I want to welcome Chairman Cummings who asked
permission to sit with us at this hearing and ask questions.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
On January 11th, 2017, Congressman Steve Cohen and our
former colleague, Congressman Jimmy Duncan, and I wrote to our
previous chairman asking that the committee convene a hearing
on schoolbus safety, but he did not answer our request.
I want to thank Chairwoman Norton and Chairman DeFazio for
your focus on this critical issue and for convening today's
hearing.
On November 1st, 2016, six people were killed in Baltimore
in my hometown when a schoolbus crashed into a car, then struck
a pillar in a cemetery, and finally collided head on with a
public transit bus.
The National Transportation Safety Board investigated this
crash and a crash in Chattanooga, Tennessee, and adopted a
report on May 22nd, 2018, addressing these two accidents.
The report stated, and I quote, ``Although the specific
safety issues differed, the crashes shared one common factor,
poor driver oversight by both the school districts and the
contracted motor carriers, which resulted in unsafe operation
of schoolbuses,'' end of quote.
The report found that the driver of the Baltimore
schoolbus, quote, ``repeated license revocations and
suspensions over several decades,'' end of quote. It had also
uncovered instances in which the driver fraudulently obtained
his license as well as numerous moving violations.
In addition, the driver had medical conditions, including a
history of seizures that should have disqualified him from
driving a schoolbus.
In March 2017, the NTSB recommended that the Baltimore
Public Schools request a performance audit of the
transportation department and then take corrective actions to
improve internal controls.
NTSB also recommended that the Maryland State Department of
Education review the State regulations to clarify disqualifying
conditions and require notification to the State department of
education regarding all drivers who are determined to be not
qualified to drive a schoolbus.
NTSB also made several recommendations to the Maryland
Motor Vehicle Administration.
Dr. Poland, what is the status of the recommendations you
made to the Baltimore City School System and to the State of
Maryland?
Ms. Poland. So those early and urgent recommendations have
certainly been updated. We received correspondence from
Baltimore City Public Schools about the performance audit and
based on the correspondence and their actions, we have closed
that recommendation with an acceptable action.
There is another recommendation as you mentioned to
Baltimore City Public Schools that they take corrective
actions, and that recommendation is still open while they
continue to do those corrective actions, and that is an
acceptable status.
The recommendation to the Maryland State Department of
Education addressing the COMAR, the Code of Maryland
Regulations, is in a status of open--acceptable response. So
Maryland has communicated with us that they are working on that
recommendation, and they are in the process of implementing it,
and we found that acceptable.
Mr. Cummings. According to a report in the Baltimore Sun
from March 2nd, 2018, the results of the order of the Baltimore
School System showed, and I quote, ``an accumulation of
errors,'' including, quote, ``a systemic absence of leadership
over an extended period of time,'' end of quote, and a failure,
quote, ``to provide due diligence over the systems,'' end of
quote, that were in place.
Have steps been taken to address these findings and to
implement corrective measures that will ensure no more
individuals are able to drive schoolbuses with disqualifying
conditions in Maryland?
Ms. Poland. Maryland is currently working on implementing
that, and I think importantly from that investigation, because
we were able to share that on a nationwide level, other States
are looking at those recommendations and examining their own
systems to ensure that in other States they are having
appropriate reporting and the action is being taken at the
local level to remove drivers that are unsafe for a variety of
reasons, as you mentioned.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Cummings. We
appreciate your attending.
Are there any further questions from members of the
subcommittee? Yes, Mr. LaMalfa.
Mr. LaMalfa. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I would like to just follow up where I left off on the last
question. Ms. Poland ran out of time.
Have you heard of anecdotes or instances of diesel vehicles
being refitted with these filtration systems and catching fire
because of them? You know, whether it is trucks, buses, farm
equipment, you know, I can answer that on my own, but I would
rather hear yours.
Ms. Poland. Sure. So as I mentioned earlier, our ongoing
investigations and our previous investigations do not deal with
that specific cause.
My background is biomechanical engineering. We have experts
at the NTSB that are experts in fire safety and some of these
post-crash fires. So we would be happy to take your question
back to see if there are some of our subject matter experts
that are more familiar with your question.
Mr. LaMalfa. OK. It may not necessarily deal with crashes
per se, but just are you getting that feedback?
So all right. And I would like to follow up on what Mr.
Cummings was talking about as well. You know, we hear a lot of
talk about technology coming to save the day here, but it
really comes down to there is a human factor of those driving
the buses and the people driving the cars.
And so I think the focus we are going to have the most
success is, indeed, how do we tighten that up. He was talking
about qualifications for busdrivers, and I wondered do we have
anything close to a 50-State standard on who is eligible, what
their record is, what their physical capabilities are for
vision, for being able to help students in situations?
And I would like to also follow that. I think Mr. Benish
commented on it. Is there a 50-State standard or do all States?
You said in California, and I am used to it, that if a child is
going to cross the road, there is a whole lot of difference
between letting kids off on the edge of the road and they go
this way, but if they are to be crossing the road, you have got
red lights. You should be stopping cars. We hear that they are
not.
But if the driver is also getting out, the driver is the
adult in this case, and they are the one who should be trained
and making sure that there are actually no cars coming when
they make that commitment to go across the road and the other
lane to the other side.
So do we have a 50-State standard on the driver getting out
with the sign or something to prevent the kid from just running
across, the driver being the adult, before they cross that
other lane to the other side of the road?
And do we have a standard of, you know, my previous thought
there on drivers in general?
Mr. Benish. Currently I do not think there is a standard
across 50 States to do that. It is just in California, what I
understand.
Mr. LaMalfa. It seems like that is the sensible thing
because, again, the driver is the adult and all of that.
I would like, Ms. Poland, if you have stats, too, on when
you talk about collisions with children by cars. Are the vast
majority of them on crossing the roadway or is it happening on
the safer side where they are getting out and just going away
from the road?
I would think that it is going to be the vast majority are
going to be the crossing the road, and if we are, you know,
enforcing on that better, then I think we can have a lot more
success.
Maybe it is the driver getting out as a 50-State standard,
and just regular drivers, you know, people who have been
driving a while, have not taken the test in a while, whatever,
I think we need to have a really great emphasis on the
difference between a flashing yellow light on a bus and a
flashing red light.
You know, there are so many holdups in traffic, and if they
do not take the bus seriously, you know, if people do not stop
for a flashing yellow light when there are no kids present.
Once the traffic is stabilized, and this is again where more
driver training needs to be in place. They should not flick the
red light on and start doing things until traffic is maybe calm
and there is a break in that. It is about an inconvenience,
making drivers mad, and all of this stuff because driver rage
is a big part of a lot of things.
But there needs to be that finesse there of the yellow
light to get things calmed down, and then the red light when
you're actually going to have students.
I know I gave you a few things to think about there, but
that seems to me to be where the success is going to be. And we
hear a lot about technology saving the day. We have got to have
top-notch drivers and our people on the road, our car drivers,
need to be a little more cognizant of the difference between
yellow light is OK, slow down. Red light you have got to stop,
and the drivers differentiating.
Go ahead. Please comment and I will stop.
Ms. Poland. As you mentioned, this is a multifaceted
approach for schoolbus transportation safety from the human
performance of the schoolbus driver and the drivers on the road
around it to those last-minute, technological interventions
that can prevent a crash, to protecting the occupants if a
crash does happen.
So I certainly appreciate your comments, and that is
something that we will consider as we move forward on our
loading zone crashes.
Mr. LaMalfa. Yes. Again, those stats I mentioned, if we
could get those stats maybe for the committee or at least for
my office on are these crossing the road statistics by and
large. Is it more 50-50? And is it while the bus is still there
or are kids getting hit even after the bus has left?
Something like that would be very instructive on what we
need to look at.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Ms. Norton. I appreciate those questions. Perhaps you can
get those statistics to the committee itself that the gentleman
just asked for so that we can put them in the record. They
would be very important.
Ms. Poland. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Norton. Are there any further questions of members of
the subcommittee?
[No response.]
Ms. Norton. Seeing none, I want to thank each of the
witnesses today for really very helpful testimony. Each and
every one of you gave not only helpful information to us, but I
must tell you I think homework for us.
When I came into this hearing before I heard your
testimony, I did not have what I would call an agenda. You have
given me one now because of the detail of your helpful
testimony.
I ask unanimous consent that the record of today's hearing
remain open until such time as our witnesses have provided
answers to any questions that may be submitted to them in
writing or that Members have already asked and I have asked to
be submitted.
I also ask unanimous consent that the record remain open
for 15 days for any additional comments and information
submitted by our Members or witnesses to be included in the
record of today's hearing.
Without objection, so ordered.
If no other Members have anything to add, the subcommittee
stands adjourned. Thank you for attending.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
----------
Prepared Statement of Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in
Congress from the State of Texas
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
It is with great appreciation that I thank the Chairwoman for
holding this hearing today, as it allows us to review school bus
safety.
Everyone should care about school bus safety because it transports
our precious children. Today, I am eager to hear from the witnesses on
the issues surrounding school bus safety and how we, in Congress, can
assist in improving school bus safety.
In my district, the school districts have implemented safety
initiatives to protect our children. They are purchasing new school
buses that have new technology including auto-braking and back-up
cameras. To put parents' minds at ease, Lancaster Independent School
District purchased ``Safe Stop'' software that includes an app usable
by parents. When a child boards or exits a school bus, he or she swipes
his or her ID card, which registers whether the child is on the school
bus or not. Safe Stop tracks the location of each child riding a school
bus. The ability for parents to know the location of their child has
given parents peace of mind.
The Dallas Independent School District spent $2 billion for a new
camera system for all their school buses. The camera system consists of
interior and exterior cameras to know what is happening in and around
the school bus to increase safety.
Safety is key. This includes the safety of transporting our
children to and from school. I am ready to work with my colleagues in
examining ways we can help improve school bus safety.
I look forward to hearing the testimony and solutions from all the
witnesses today.
Thank you. I yield back.
Statement of Hon. Jackie Walorski, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Indiana
Thank you, Chairwoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, Ranking Member Rodney
Davis, and members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Subcommittee on Highways and Transit. I appreciate the opportunity to
provide written testimony for this important hearing entitled
``Examining the Federal Role in Improving School Bus Safety.''
On October 30, 2018, three siblings in my district were tragically
killed by an oncoming driver who failed to stop as the kids were
crossing the road to board their school bus. Illegal passing of school
buses happens at an alarming rate every day in America. Every driver
has a responsibility to exercise caution when students are present, and
that includes never passing a school bus that is stopped with red
lights flashing or its stop arm extended.
In the most recent annual one-day observational survey, 105,306
school bus drivers in 38 States reported 83,944 vehicles illegally
passed a stopped school bus in one day. Based on these reported
observations from 2018, it is estimated that 15 million vehicles pass
stopped school buses in a 180-day school year, even though it is
against the law in all 50 states. These startling statistics show that
we need to do more to help local school systems figure out what tools
are available to improve student safety and prevent dangerous, illegal
passing of school buses when children are present.
In response to these troubling events, Rep. Julia Brownley and I
recently introduced H.R. 2218, the Stop for School Buses Act, which
will help our states and local communities take the most effective
actions to prevent illegal passing of school buses and ensure students
are safe when traveling to and from school. The bill does not pre-
determine any one solution but directs the U.S. Department of
Transportation to:
compile illegal passing laws in all states, including
levels of enforcement and penalties;
review existing public safety measures and programs to
prevent illegal passing of school buses;
issue recommendations on best practices for preventing
illegal passing;
evaluate the effectiveness of various technologies that
may help prevent illegal passing incidents;
review driver education materials in all states to
determine whether more information about illegal passing should be
provided to drivers;
research connections between illegal passing of school
buses and other safety issues; and
create and execute a public safety messaging campaign to
promote safe driving when children are present and highlight the
dangers of illegal passing.
The tragic loss of young Hoosiers in bus-related crashes last year
was a reminder that life is precious and that we all need to work
together to keep children safe. The Stop for School Buses Act will help
state and local governments determine the best solutions to improve the
safety of students and prevent illegal passing of school buses. I look
forward to working with this subcommittee as well as the full
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to advance the Stop for
School Buses Act, and I appreciate the opportunity to submit this
testimony for the record.
Statement of the National Safety Council, Submitted for the Record by
Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
Thank you for holding this important hearing, ``Examining the
Federal Role in Improving School Bus Safety,'' and for allowing the
National Safety Council (NSC) to submit comments for the record.
NSC is a 100 year-old nonprofit organization with the mission of
eliminating preventable deaths at work, in homes and communities, and
on the road through leadership, research, education and advocacy. Our
more than 15,000 member companies represent employees at more than
50,000 U.S. worksites. Last Congress, NSC supported Representative
Cohen's, ``School Bus Safety Act,'' and will continue to support this
critical legislation until it becomes law.
As you know, motor vehicle crashes are the leading cause of death
for children in the United States.\1\ From 2008 to 2017, there were 264
school-age children killed in school transportation-related crashes.\2\
Sixty-one were occupants of school buses, 100 were occupants of other
vehicles, 97 were pedestrians, five were pedal cyclists and one was
another non-occupant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.nhtsa.gov/road-safety/school-bus-safety
\2\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812712
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seat belts save lives and reduce serious injuries by half.\3\ In
2017, seat belts saved almost 15,000 lives.\4\ There is no question
that seat belts play an important role in keeping passengers safe, but
most students on school buses travel without this important safety
protection. The National Safety Council supports all school buses being
equipped with three-point belts so that children are appropriately
protected each and every ride.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/seatbelts/facts.html
\4\ https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/
812691
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most school buses operating today only include a seat belt for the
driver and are not provided for the passengers. However, since 2002,
lap and shoulder belts have been made available on school buses, and
some school systems do in fact use passenger seat belts.\5\ Congress
should act to require this important protection on all school buses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ http://www.nasdpts.org/Documents/NASDPTS%20POSITION%20PAPER
%20PASSENGER%20LAP%20SHOULDER%20BELTS%20FINAL%20FEB%202014.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the school bus loading zone can be dangerous. All 50
states have laws prohibiting drivers from passing a stopped school bus,
yet each day in the United States, it happens tens of thousands of
times with virtually no consequences. Incorporating technology on buses
to record these violations and allow for the prosecution of violators
would deter others from taking the same potentially deadly actions. NSC
urges Congress to require the incorporation of these technologies in to
school buses.
Report, ``A Continuous Video Recording System on a Lap-Belt Equipped
School Bus: Real-World Occupant Kinematics and Injuries During a Severe
Side Impact Crash,'' by Kristin Poland et al., Submitted for the Record
by Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
A Continuous Video Recording System on a Lap-Belt Equipped School Bus:
Real-World Occupant Kinematics and Injuries During a Severe Side Impact
Crash
Kristin Poland
Thomas H. Barth
National Transportation Safety Board
USA
Kristy B. Arbogast
Mark R. Zonfrillo
Children's Hospital of Philadelphia
USA
Richard Kent
University of Virginia
USA
Paper Number 15-0253
abstract
A loaded truck-tractor semitrailer severely impacted the side of a
lap-belt-equipped large school bus in which 30 students, age 5 to 11
years, were riding. The crash investigation obtained on-board video and
audio from the school bus recording system, which had four active
cameras that recorded at 15 frames per second. A total of 55 minutes 39
seconds of video and audio was obtained, including over 15 minutes
after the bus came to final rest. Qualitative descriptions of occupant
motion during the crash sequence were documented based on the time
sequence of vehicle motion, including kinematics of lap-belted
pediatric occupants, occupant-to-occupant interactions, and occupant-
to-vehicle interactions. Further, quantitative measurements of occupant
motion were performed by tracking visible body regions such as the head
or center of the pelvis using commercially available motion analysis
software. Occupant injuries were coded using hospital medical records
and according to the Abbreviated Injury Scale 2008 manual.
Injury severity was higher in the rear of the bus near the region
of impact, maximum intrusion, and maximum lateral accelerations. The
injury severity scores (ISS) ranged from 1 to 6 in the front of the bus
and from 1 to 57 at the rear, including the one student seated at the
rear of the bus who was fatally injured. Head injuries included several
mild to moderate traumatic brain injuries. Lateral head translations
and velocities were evaluated. The lateral head displacements toward
the impacted side in the front of the bus were similar to those in the
rear during the initial impact, but the head displacements for
occupants in the rear of the bus were greater during the secondary and
tertiary rebound motions toward alternating sides of the bus. Lateral
head velocities relative to the bus interior were generally almost
twice as high in the rear of the bus as in the front. In addition, the
magnitude of whole body pediatric occupant motion in the absence of
injury was notable. Further, loss of consciousness negatively affected
occupants' ability to self-evacuate, even when subjects regained
consciousness.
The qualitative and quantitative descriptions represent the first
time that lap-belted school bus pediatric occupant motion during a
crash has been documented from continuous onboard video recordings.
This unique data source allows the rare correlation of occupant
kinematics with crash severity and injury outcomes in living humans.
introduction
Pediatric biomechanics is a critical area of research to ensure the
protection of these vulnerable occupants. Key data has been gathered
from research through academic and industry partnerships. [1]
Government programs, such as the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) and
Crash Injury Research (CIREN), generate critical databases, crash
reconstructions, and associated research. Although a significant amount
of real-world information for a large number of crash types and
scenarios has been obtained in the past, there is still limited
information available about real-world pediatric occupant kinematics
and interactions with seats, restraints, and interior systems during
the impact sequence.
Seat and restraint designs are developed using anthropomophic test
devices (ATD), which have biofidelity limitations, including seat
positioning differences between the ATD and a human. [2] Further,
pediatric ATDs are often scaled from adult ATDs and suffer from a lack
of information establishing range of motion and injury thresholds. [3]
Human volunteer research partially addresses the differences between
ATDs and humans, but this research is conducted in sub-injurious
settings. [4, 5] Naturalistic driving studies have the potential to
provide information on a range of event severities as long as the
appropriate data can be collected. [6] Accident reconstructions in
conjunction with post mortem human subject (PMHS) testing address
injurious crash levels, but pediatric PMHS testing is extremely rare
[7] and does not include muscle response.
The objectives of this analysis were to document pediatric occupant
injuries, qualitative observations from the continuous onboard video
system, and quantitative measurements from the onboard video of
occupant kinematics during the crash phase. The results present a
unique data source to study the real-world movement and associated
injuries of pediatric occupants.
methods
In this crash, a loaded truck-tractor semitrailer severely impacted
the side of a lap-belt-equipped large school bus occupied by the driver
and 30 students, age 5 to 11 years. (See Figure 1.) The school bus was
equipped with a continuous audio and video recording system
manufactured by Seon Design, Inc. The system had four active cameras,
which recorded at 15 frames per second. The videos began prior to
student loading of the bus and continued through the bus trip to the
point of the collision and after. A total of 55 minutes 39 seconds of
video and audio was obtained, including over 15 minutes after the bus
came to final rest. The continuous video system captured useful data
prior to, during, and after the crash.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 1. The crash scene diagram.
Vehicle and Occupant Descriptions
Each of the four camera positions was individually labeled, by the
Seon Design, Inc. video system, as ``Step'', ``Front'', ``Mid'', and
``Rear'' according to their location and orientation. Figure 2 shows a
still image with four frames from each of the four onboard video
cameras prior to the loading of the school bus. (By statute, the NTSB
is prohibited from releasing onboard video and audio recordings that
show occupants.) All four camera views were evaluated for the entire
recorded duration to describe the motion of the school bus and the
occupants using both qualitative and quantitative methods. During the
precrash phase, qualitative descriptions of the driver's actions,
communications, the vehicle motion, and any relevant video overlay
information, such as ``RT'' indicating the right turn signal was
illuminated or ``BRK'' indicating that the brake was applied, were
documented based on the crash timeline. In addition, qualitative
descriptions of each visible occupant's belt use, seating position
prior to impact, position at final rest, whether the occupant was
ejected from the seat compartment, occupant-to-occupant interactions,
occupant-to-vehicle interactions, and state of consciousness postcrash
were documented based on the timeline developed for the vehicle motion.
Figure 2. Still images from the onboard video system showing the four
camera views prior to the occupants loading onto the school bus. The
four camera views, starting in the upper left corner and moving
clockwise, are ``Step'', ``Front'', ``Rear'', and ``Mid''. Text
detailing the row numbers is overlayed on the images for clarity.
Further, quantitative positions and velocities of the school bus
and the visible occupants were calculated. The process to estimate the
dynamic school bus motion history has been described previously. [8]
Briefly, a model of the camera was developed and calibrated. In an
iterative process, each video frame from the camera was matched to a
synthesized video frame, including known landmarks outside the bus,
generated by the camera model. When the frames matched, the bus
position and orientation was established. For the quantitative occupant
motion, the ``Front'' and ``Mid'' cameras provided the clearest view of
the occupant motion and were the source of this documentation. The
basic method to calculate the occupant motion required the calibration
of the visible occupant space within the two-dimensional recorded video
frame. ProAnalyst Professional Edition (Version 1.5.6.5) was used to
calibrate the local occupant seating coordinate system, based on
interior bus dimensions measured from the three-dimensional laser scans
of the school bus, and to track the occupants' (or interior surfaces')
motion.
The ``Front'' camera was centered in the middle of the school bus
interior. As a result, the perspective calibration was used in
ProAnalyst, using four points representing the base and top of the
windows on each side of the bus in a position closely matching the
occupant's initial seated position. Row 2 and row 3 were calibrated.
Seat spacing and seat width were used to verify the calibrations. The
``Mid'' camera was offset toward the driver's side of the bus looking
toward the passenger side of the bus. The perspective calibration was
implemented again for row 7, using four points representing the base
and top of the windows on both sides of the bus in a position closely
matching the tracked occupant's initial seated position. For row 6,
because the top of the windows were not visible in the camera view, the
perspective calibration was used but the four points represented the
base of the windows and the base of the seat pan on both the driver and
passenger side of the bus. The perspective calibration was adjusted to
most closely match the tracked occupant's motion within a seat row. As
a result, there were multiple calibrations defined for both row 6 and
row 7. Seat spacing and seat width were used to verify the
calibrations. The motion in the local occupant seating coordinate
system was then transformed into the bus body coordinate system.
Positions and velocities were calculated relative to the bus body
coordinate system.
The videos documented student loading onto the bus, the use of seat
belts for most students, and occupant positions throughout the bus
trip. These continuous recordings helped establish an accurate seating
chart, including occupant age and gender, preimpact position, and the
level of restraint for most of the students.
Injury Coding
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) scores were assigned and injury
descriptions were summarized for all occupants who received medical
attention. Copies of medical records and digital radiographic images
were reviewed to confirm injuries. Standard AIS coding rules were used
based on the most recent AIS manual. [9] Injuries were summarized using
several metrics: the traditional International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) code with categories of uninjured, minor, serious,
or fatal; the comprehensive AIS score; and the total Injury Severity
Score (ISS) ranging from 0-75. Individual injuries by ISS body region,
AIS code, and injury description were listed for each school bus
occupant that received treatment and for the fatally injured occupant.
[10]
Given the availability of the on-board video system, observation of
loss of consciousness (LOC) was used to help determine the concussion
diagnoses. Occupants were given the diagnosis of concussion if there
was probable or certain LOC on the bus and no intracranial hemorrhage,
or if a final concussion diagnosis was confirmed in the medical record
(regardless of whether the passenger experienced LOC). Concussions were
not coded if the patient had LOC with any intracranial hemorrhage.
results
Qualitative Observations from Continuous Video System
The continuous video system confirmed that the bus driver was not
distracted by a cell phone or other portable electronic device and that
he had both hands on the steering wheel during the left turn maneuver
just prior to the collision. The driver consistently used the turn
signals to indicate a transition from one lane to another and to
indicate motion into the left turn lane prior to the collision. The
driver also applied braking in preparation for this left turn. Further,
it was apparent that the driver perceived the impact threat, though too
late, because he turned his head toward the oncoming truck. The onboard
videos and associated audio recordings showed that the driver
encouraged seat belt use at the beginning of the trip and that he did
not appear to be distracted by students just prior to the collision.
The continuous recordings also documented student loading onto the
bus, the use of seat belts for most students (some views were partially
obscured, including the seating position of the fatally injured
occupant), and occupant positions throughout the bus trip. These data
helped investigators establish an accurate seating chart, pre-crash
occupant positions, and the level of restraint for most of the
occupants. Pre-crash video and audio documentation showed that the
driver's attentiveness to passenger safety and seat belt rules was a
factor in the number of students who properly wore and adjusted their
seat belts.
The most beneficial data obtained from the onboard video system
were related to the crash sequence and the post-crash environment. The
four interior cameras remained in place and functional throughout the
crash event and continued recording for over 15 minutes after the
initial impact.
Crash Sequence and Post-crash Events as Determined from Video Systems
Impact occurred at 15:55:03 and the bus came to final rest almost
10 seconds later. During the motion to final rest, the bus yawed
approximately 180 degrees and experienced two large roll events. The
first non-occupant to enter the school bus was an adult female who
entered the bus at time 15:55:28 through the open rear emergency exit
door and provided assistance to occupant 10D about 15 seconds after the
bus came to final rest. She continued to provide assistance to the bus
occupants until the end of the video recording, which stopped at
16:10:07. The first uniformed officer boarded the school bus about 3
minutes and 22 seconds after the bus came to final rest and emergency
medical services arrived about 8 minutes and 22 seconds after the bus
came to final rest.
Seating Chart and Injuries
The seating chart established based on the continuous onboard video
system is shown in Figure 3. All occupants are marked with the ICAO
code. For those occupants with medical records, the maximum AIS level
and the ISS score are also documented. In addition, occupant gender and
age are listed. Seating positions were labeled based on the seat row
(1-11) and the seat position (A-F from left to right as viewed from the
back). The area of impact (AOI) is shown on the chart. Additional
details on the injury documentation are included in the NTSB's Highway
Safety Report--Commercial Vehicle Onboard Video Systems. [11]
Figure 3. The school bus passenger seating chart, with ICAO injury
level, MAIS injury level, ISS score, and demographic information.
Belt Use
Belt use was visible for twenty-two occupants and of those, seven
appeared to wear the lap belt loosely or slightly loosely (1D, 2C, 4D,
5C, 7D, 8D, and 8F), as determined by the visible tension in the belt
and the motion of the occupant during the crash sequence. There were no
observations showing a lack of belt use, however, belt use was not
visible for eight occupants (3D, 3E, 4F, 5A, 5F, 10C, 10D, and 10F) due
to the obstructions of the seatbacks and the occupant's seating
distance from the onboard cameras.
Occupant Position Relative to Seat Compartment Post-crash
Twelve occupants were ejected from their seat compartment during
the crash sequence (1C, 1D, 2C, 2D, 3C, 3D, 4D, 5A, 5C, 9C, 10C, and
10D). All of these occupants, except occupant 5A, were initially seated
along the aisle and most were ejected into the aisle post-crash despite
wearing the lap belt. Occupant 5A was ejected into the aisle and then
backward into seat row 6, on the driver side of the bus. Belt use was
not visible for occupant 5A due to the camera positions and
obstructions from the seatbacks. Other occupants (7C, 7D, 8C, and 8D)
were not considered to be ejected from the seat compartment but it was
noted that the occupants' heads and upper torsos flailed outside the
seating compartment into the adjacent seating compartment across the
aisle during the crash sequence.
Occupant-to-Occupant and Occupant-to-Interior Impacts
There were nineteen documented instances of occupant-to-occupant
impacts, 16 of which involved an impact of an occupant's head with
either another occupant's head or other part of their body. All of the
documented occupant-to-occupant contacts occurred for occupants in rows
2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9. Generally, the occupants impacted other
occupants within the same seating row, but in rows 5/6 and 8/9, impacts
occurred between occupants originally seated in different rows. For
example, occupant 5A's right torso was impacted by occupant 6D's head
as occupant 5A traveled into the seat row behind and occupant 6D
flailed in that direction. In rows 8/9, occupant 8F's body was pushed
upward and rotated backward over the seatback such that occupant 8F's
head impacted the chest and pelvis of the occupant seated directly
behind (9F). (Occupant 8F's head also continued back and contacted the
seat pan near occupant 9F's seating position.) Occupant 8F was lap
belted and observations from the video showed the belt visible on the
occupant's thighs. Occupants in row 1 interacted with each other but
specific impacts between occupants were not noted. Occupants in row 10
were generally not visible due to the camera positions and the
obstruction from the high seatbacks.
There were also nineteen documented instances of occupant-to-
interior impacts. Nine of these involved an impact of the occupant's
head onto a passenger side window or sidewall structure (2F, 3E, 4F,
5F, 6D, 7D, 8D, 8F, and 9F) and one other involved an impact of the
occupant's head with a driver side window and sidewall structure (3A).
All of these occupant-to-interior impacts were sustained by occupants
seated against the sidewall or in a position without other occupants
between them and the sidewall, except in row 8 where both occupants on
the right side of the bus impacted the sidewall. The other occupant-to-
interior impacts involved impacts onto the seat pans and the aisle-side
edges of the seatbacks.
Loss of Consciousness and Head Injuries
Loss of consciousness (LOC) was observed in seven occupants (3E,
6D, 7C, 7D, 8D, 8F, and 10C). The state of consciousness was unknown
for three other occupants (8F, 10D, and 10F) who were not visible post-
crash. The other twenty occupants were conscious post-crash. Of those
occupants with an observed LOC, only occupant 6D remained unconscious
at the end of the video recording. (Occupant 10C was documented with a
LOC but was the fatally injured occupant.) In addition, recorded audio
discussions between the adult female and emergency medical responders
indicate that occupant 10F was conscious at the end of the recording.
Head injuries were documented on the medical records for twelve
occupants (2F, 3E, 6D, 7A, 7C, 7D, 8D, 8F, 9C, 10C, 10D, and 10F)
including six who were diagnosed with only a concussion (3E, 7A, 8D,
8F, 9C, and 10D). All seven occupants with an observed LOC had a
documented head injury. As expected from the dynamics of the bus, the
majority of the head injuries were seen in occupants seated in the back
half of the bus. For the two front seated occupants with head injuries,
the sustained injuries were less severe. For example, occupant 2F was
diagnosed with a head injury that was not further specified and
occupant 3E was diagnosed with a concussion with LOC. In the back half
of the bus, the head injuries were more severe, especially for
occupants in rows 6, 7, and 10. Occupant 6D's head injuries included
cerebral contusions, a cerebral hematoma, a subdural hemorrhage, a
mastoid fracture, and a skull fracture. Head injuries to occupant 7C
included a cerebral subarachnoid hemorrhage and left and right
intraventricular hemorrhages. For occupant 7D, head injuries included
comminuted basilar skull fractures on the left and right sides, a
temporal bone fracture, and left and right cranial nerve VII palsy.
Interestingly, the head injuries to occupants in rows 8 and 9 were
limited to only concussions and minor lacerations. Yet occupants in row
10 again experienced severe head injuries. Occupant 10C, who was
fatally injured in the crash, sustained bilateral cerebral edemas,
multiple cerebral subarachnoid hemorrhages, and a skull fracture.
Occupant 10F sustained a cerebral subdural hematoma.
Evacuation
Nineteen occupants self-evacuated out the front loading door (1A,
1C, 1D, 1F, 2C, 2D, 2E, 2F, 3A, 3C, 3D, 4D, 4F, 5A, 5C, 5D, 5F, 7A, and
9F). Eighteen of those self-evacuated in 60 seconds or less, from the
time the bus came to final rest. Another four occupants were assisted
out the rear emergency exit door (8C, 8D, 9C, and 10D). Occupants 3E,
6D, 7C, 7D, 8F, 10C, and 10F remained on the bus at the end of the
video recording. Occupant 10D was the first occupant removed from the
school bus with assistance by the adult female at 15:55:33, which was
about 20 seconds after the bus came to final rest. Occupant 1D was the
first to self-evacuate out the front loading door at 15:55:43, 30
seconds after final rest. Occupant 7A was the last to self-evacuate out
the front loading door at 15:58:12, almost 3 minutes after final rest.
Occupant 8C was the last occupant removed with assistance before the
video recording ended, at 15:58:39, about 3.5 minutes after final rest.
Injury Factors in Self-Evacuation: None of the occupants with an
observed LOC were able to self-evacuate. Most occupants with a LOC
regained consciousness during the period of the video recording but
only occupant 8D was evacuated off the bus with assistance. The
remaining occupants with an observed LOC were on the bus at the end of
the recording, which was almost 15 minutes after the bus came to final
rest.
Five occupants sustained pelvis and/or lower extremity fractures as
a result of the crash (4F, 7C, 7D, 8F, and 9C). The sustained pelvic/
lower extremity fractures were a closed left ankle fracture for
occupant 4F, a right pubic fracture for occupant 7C, a pelvic ring
fracture at the anterior iliac spine for occupant 7D, a right talus
fracture for occupant 8F, and pelvic fractures at the sacral spine and
at the right ramus through the pubic symphysis for occupant 9F. Of the
occupants that sustained a pelvic/lower extremity fracture, three also
experienced a LOC and a documented head injury (7C, 7D, and 8F). In
addition, occupant 9C sustained a concussion without LOC, as discussed
above. Only occupant 4F sustained a lower extremity fracture without a
head injury or LOC and this occupant was able to self-evacuate 48
seconds after the bus came to final rest.
Spinal injuries were rare. (The driver, although not a focus of
this paper, sustained a cervical spine sprain, or whiplash, and a
lumbo-sacral spine strain.) Occupant 3D sustained a cervical spine
sprain (whiplash) and occupant 10D, the fatally injured occupant,
sustained a cord laceration with fracture and dislocation at C7-T1.
Except for the fatally injured occupant, the minor spinal injuries did
not affect evacuation.
Occupant Kinematics
Using the ``Front'' camera, the head positions of occupants 2C, 3C,
and 3E and the pelvis position of occupant 3C were tracked in the bus
based coordinate system. The lateral position versus time history can
be seen in Figure 4, where the lateral centerline of the bus is zero
and motion toward the driver side is in the positive direction. The
lateral distance from the bus centerline to the sidewall was 1.17m and
is labeled on the graph.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 4. The lateral (y axis) head position of occupant 2C, 3C, and 3E
and the lateral pelvis position of occupant 3C.
Using the ``Mid'' camera, the head positions of occupants 6D, 7A,
7C, and 7D and the pelvis position of occupant 6D and 7D were tracked.
The lateral position versus time history can be seen in Figure 5.
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Figure 5. The lateral (y axis) head position of occupant 6D, 7A, 7C,
and 7D and the lateral pelvis position of occupant 6D and 7D.
The position of the ``Mid'' camera did not remain stationary
relative to the bus interior during the impact sequence. This relative
motion between the camera and bus interior may have resulted from
deformation at the floor and sidewall, camera orientation changes, or a
combination of the two during the impact sequence. In an effort to
document this relative velocity, four points fixed on the bus interior
were tracked. The left sidewall experienced the least deformation and
would, ideally, provide the best estimate of the camera velocity but
since this sidewall moved out of the camera view for a portion of the
impact sequence, points on the left sidewall were not tracked. Instead,
the aisle-side position of seat 6C was used as a surrogate for the
camera velocity since that seat was attached to the left sidewall and
the floor underneath and experienced the least deformation of the
interior points visible in the ``Mid'' camera.
Using this correction for the ``Mid'' camera, the maximum intrusion
into row 7 was approximately 0.48m during the first 0.13 seconds with a
recovery of 0.12m during the next 0.13 seconds. Similarly, the maximum
velocity of the right sidewall in row 7 was 2.41 m/s and the maximum
velocity of the aisle-side point on seat 7D was 3.50 m/s at 0.13
seconds. Note that these velocities are lower bounds on possible
velocities because the calculation is limited by the video frame rate.
Maximum displacement could have occurred between frames and not
captured until the subsequent frame, 67 milliseconds later, which would
reduce the calculated velocity.
Although the bus motion involved both translation and rotation, the
initial occupant motion was predominantly lateral with some
longitudinal components. Since the camera orientations were
perpendicular to the lateral plane, motion in the lateral direction was
well quantified. Table 1 summarizes the lateral head velocity at impact
or immediately prior to impact along with a snap shot of the
qualitative description of the occupant motion [12] at that time,
during the initial motion toward the passenger sidewall. Note that all
the velocities are negative indicating motion toward the passenger side
of the bus.
Table 1.--Lateral head velocity immediately prior to or at the estimated
time of the head contact from the video observations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lateral
Head Qualitative
Occupant Time (sec) Velocity Description of
(m/s) Occupant Motion
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2C 0.267 -2.96 Torso reaches
maximum
articulation
onto seat 2D
with back
nearly
horizontal
across aisle,
shoulders are
completely
obscured behind
the seatback of
row 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3C 0.133 -3.04 Upper body is
fully
articulated
across aisle,
occupant 3C's
head on seat 3D
(behind row 2
seatback)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3E 0.133 -0.98 Head shifts
towards window
and sidewall
moves towards
head due to the
impact, face is
either making
contact or
about to make
contact with
lower portion
of window
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6D 0.133 -4.21 Occupant 6D
flails
completely to
the passenger
side, head
impacting
sidewall below
window
(sidewall was
deforming
toward occupant
6D)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7A 0.133 -5.43 Head of occupant
7A impacts the
posterior hips
of occupant 7C
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7C 0.133 -5.34 Occupant 7C's
head near or in
contact with
left postero-
lateral aspect
of 7D's torso
------------------------------------------------------------------------
7D 0.133 -0.13 Occupant 7D's
head remains in
essentially the
same position
relative to the
camera as
before the
impact but due
to the sidewall
intrusion, the
head and right
shoulder are
now in contact
with the
passenger side
sidewall
------------------------------------------------------------------------
discussion
This onboard video recording analysis utilized first of its kind
data to describe the qualititative and quantitative kinematics of
pediatric school bus occupants during a crash and related their
movement to crash dynamics and injury outcomes. Being able to visualize
living human movement in a crash setting provided insight into the
magnitude of excursion capable from a restrained occupant, the
flexibility without injury that children demonstrate, and the temporal
nature of concussion.
Injury severity was highest for occupants in rows 6-8 and also in
row 10. Likely, injuries were greatest in rows 6-8 because that was the
region of impact and the area of maximum intrusion along the right
passenger sidewall. In row 10, accelerations were the greatest in this
region due to the dynamics of the bus as it pivoted about the front
axle as a result of the side impact near the passenger side rear axle.
These high accelerations likely resulted in the severe injuries for
occupants in row 10.
The injury severity score (ISS) varied from 1 to 6 in the front of
the bus. In the rear of the bus, the ISS ranged from 1 to 57 and
included several mild to moderate traumatic brain injuries. Lateral
head translations toward the point of impact in the front of the bus
were similar to those in the rear during the initial impact, but the
head translation for occupants in the rear of the bus was greater
during the secondary and tertiary rebound motions toward each side of
the bus. Lateral head velocities were generally higher in the rear of
the bus except for occupant 7D who essentially did not move relative to
the ``Mid'' camera. Instead, the sidewall intruded directly into his
seating compartment and impacted his head and right shoulder before he
began to flail toward the impact point. In the front of the bus, the
lateral velocities of occupants' heads ranged between -0.98 and -3.04
m/s, but in the rear of the bus the maximum lateral velocities of
occupants' heads were almost twice as high, ranging from -0.13 to -5.43
m/s.
Further, the magnitude of whole body pediatric occupant motion in
the absence of injury was notable. For example, occupant 8F bent
backward over the top of her seatback such that her head impacted the
chest and pelvis of the occupant (9F) seated directly behind her. Her
head continued downward, impacting the seat pan of seat 9F, as well.
Her thighs were still restrained by the lap belt, which had slid down
during her vertical translation and backward rotation. Despite this
extreme hyper-extension, occupant 8F did not sustain any spinal
injuries and her torso injuries consisted of only a lung contusion to
the right middle and lower lobes and a right 7th rib fracture.
LOC had a noticeable effect on the ability for occupants to self-
evacuate. Occupants with an observed LOC were not able to self-
evacuate, even if they regained consciousness post-crash. Obviously,
maintaining occupants' consciousness during the crash is critical to a
timely evacuation, especially for post-crash environments that may
involve water immersion or fire. Impact onto intruding sidewall and
window surfaces, along with upper body flailing enabling occupant-to-
occupant impacts, was likely the main cause for the occupants' LOC.
Reducing the upper body flailing could be accomplished with greater
upper body restraint, such as with a properly adjusted lap/shoulder
belt. [13] Reducing the severity of impacts onto sidewall and window
structures could be accomplished with school bus performance standards
that address passenger protection for sidewalls, sidewall components,
and seat frames, as first recommended by the NTSB in 2001. [14]
Other injuries, such as pelvic or lower extremity fractures, did
not appear to negatively impact evacuation, if the injury was sustained
by an occupant without a head injury or LOC. Spinal injuries, which may
also reduce the ability to self-evacuate, were rare in this crash.
The study was limited by the resolution of the camera system and
the frame rate, which was relatively low given the dynamics of the
crash. The calculation of the vehicle dynamics was also limited due to
the lack of a forward-facing camera. In addition, due to the high
seatbacks on the school bus, occupants were not visible at all times
during the crash sequence. Further, because concussions were not coded
if the patient had LOC with any intracranial hemorrhage, the estimated
number of concussions may be conservative. (For example, there may have
been other occupants who had concussion and did not experience a
visible LOC, but there was insufficient medical record documentation of
symptoms or diagnosis). Additionally, there was variability in the
available medical records for injured patients (for example, detail of
radiographic imaging and reports and medical record documentation). As
a result, some injuries may have not been captured. Similarly, there
may have been occupants who did not seek medical attention, but who may
have had minor injuries (for example, contusions, lacerations, and/or
mild sprains).
The qualitative and quantitative descriptions represent the first
time that lap-belted school bus pediatric occupant motion has been
documented from onboard video recordings. The correlation of occupant
kinematics with crash severity and injury outcomes was also unique.
Ultimately, research using onboard video data from school buses can be
a basis for a multidisciplinary approach to improving occupant safety.
conclusions
The documentation of real-world lap-belted pediatric occupant
kinematics in a severe side impact crash based upon video and audio
recordings combined with medical records provides unique information to
evaluate realistic pediatric occupant kinematics and provide data
unable to be found elsewhere to evaluate ATD biofidelity. This
information also provides unique insight into injury mechanisms and
outcomes.
The continuous video system offered the first such documentation of
lap-belted children involved in a severe side impact collision. The
videos further highlight differences in occupant kinematics across a
range of collision severities, which were evident when contrasting
occupant motion in the front of the bus with occupant motion in the
rear of the bus. Because of the length of the school bus and the center
of rotation at the front axle, the crash was much more severe for rear-
seated occupants than for those seated in the front of the bus.
references
[1] Partners for Child Passenger Safety. ``The State of Child Occupant
Protection Interim Report 2003'', The Children's Hospital of
Philadelphia Center for Injury Research and Prevention, 2003.
[2] Bohman, K, Stockman I, Jakobsson L., Osvalder A., Bostrom O.,
Arbogast K.B. 2011. ``Kinematics and Shoulder Belt Position of Child
Rear Seat Passengers during Vehicle Maneuvers.'' In Proceedings of the
2011 Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, October
2011.
[3] Seacrist, T., Balasubramanian, S., Garcia-Espana, T.F., Maltese,
M.R., Arbogast, K.B., Lopez-Valdes, F.J., Kent, R.W., Tanji, H.,
Higuchi, K. 2011. ``Kinematic Comparison of Pediatric Human Volunteers
and the Hybrid III 6-Year-Old Anthropomorphic Test Device.'' In
Proceedings of the 2011 Association for the Advancement of Automotive
Medicine, October 2011.
[4] Seacrist, T., Samuels, J., Garcia-Espana, F., Arbogast, K.B.,
Mathews E.A., Balasubramanian, S., Maltese, M.R., Longhitano, D., St.
Lawrence, S., 2012. ``Kinematic Comparison of the Hybrid III and Q-
Series Pediatric ATDs to Pediatric Volunteers in Low-Speed Frontal
Crashes.'' In Proceedings of the 2012 Association for the Advancement
of Automotive Medicine, October 2012.
[5] Seacrist, T., Locey, C.M., Mathews, E.A., Jones, D.L.,
Balasubramanian, S., Maltese, M.R., Arbogast, K.B., 2014. ``Evaluation
of Pediatric ATD Biofidelity as Compared to Child Volunteers in Low-
Speed Far-Side Oblique and Lateral Impacts.'' Traffic Injury
Prevention, 15, S206-S214, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC, June 2014.
[6] The SHRP 2 Naturalistic Driving Study (NDS), Strategic Highway
Research Program, Transportation Research Board (TRB) of the National
Academies, http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/
Pages/The-SHRP-2-Naturalistic-Driving-Study-472.aspx, accessed on March
9, 2015.
[7] Lopez-Valdes, F.J., Forman, J., Kent, R., Bostrom, O., Segui-Gomez,
M. 2009. ``A comparison between a child-size PMHS and the Hybrid III 6
YO in a sled frontal impact.'' In Proceedings of the 2009 Association
for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, October 2009.
[8] Horak, D. T. ``Estimation of Vehicle Speed and Trajectory Based on
Video from a Vehicle-Mounted Camera,'' Collision. The International
Compendium for Crash Research, Volume 4, Issue 2, 2009, pp.18-25.
[9] Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM). The
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) 2005--update 2008. Barrington, IL:
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine, 2008.
[10] NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 2013. ``Injury Coding
Factual Report.'' In NTSB: Docket Management System, HWY12FH008, http:/
/dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/, DC: NTSB.
[11] NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 2015. ``Commercial
Vehicle Onboard Video Systems'', Safety Report NTSB/SR-15/01.
Washington, DC: NTSB.
[12] NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 2013. ``School Bus
Video Documentation Group Factual Report.'' In NTSB: Docket Management
System, HWY12FH008, http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/, DC: NTSB.
[13] NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 2013. ``School Bus
and Truck Collision at Intersection Near Chesterfield, New Jersey,
February 16, 2012'', NTSB/HAR-13/01. Washington, DC: NTSB.
[14] NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board). 2001. ``Collision of
CSXT Freight Train and Murray County School District School Bus at
Railroad/Highway Grade Crossing, Conasauga, Tennessee, March 28,
2000'', NTSB/HAR-01/03. Washington, DC: NTSB.
Appendix
----------
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Andrew J.
McLean, House Chairman, Joint Standing Committee on Transportation,
Maine State Legislature, on behalf of the National Conference of State
Legislatures
Question 1. Opponents of seat belts on large buses assert that the
installation of seat belts will not only make buses more expensive to
manufacture, but that they'll also reduce the seating capacity on
buses. Congressional Research Service (CRS) estimates that seat belts
will reduce seating capacity on an average of 16 to 33 percent. The
NTSB, however, has indicated that compartmentalization is not enough to
prevent injuries on school buses.
How do you think we should prioritize manufacturing costs and
seating capacity, when measured against the safety of school children?
Answer. This is not an area that the National Conference of State
Legislatures (NCSL) has a policy position on. Further, I unfortunately
also do not have significant expertise in this area however, generally,
this dynamic highlights the need for dedicated funding for a seat-belt
mandate, as school districts with tight budgets are unlikely to be able
to afford yet another mandate that increases costs and the number of
needed school bus drivers, while decreasing the utility of each school
bus.
Question 2. NHTSA concurs that compartmentalization is the optimal
option for safety, while NTSB recommends that states enact laws
requiring the use of three-point seatbelts on school buses. How do
these differing stances from both safety agencies help us to optimize
the safety features on school buses?
Answer. Again, this is not an area that NCSL has a policy position
on. In my view, the differencing stances from NHTSA and NTSB make it
difficult to assess the proper policy path forward. They both rightly
highlight the still evolving understanding of school bus seat belts,
and the difficulty of assessing costs and benefits, particularly if
seat belt requirements may impact the ability to quickly exit school
buses in certain situations. Additionally, if seat belts would reduce
seating capacity on school buses and increase costs for states and
school districts, states may be more reluctant to enact mandates for
school buses and instead pursue policies encouraging, not mandating,
their installation or staying silent on the issue.
a. Would you say this helps or hurts the legislative framework at
the state level?
Answer. NCSL and state legislatures look to NHTSA and NTSB for
guidance and best practices for many traffic safety issues. Both
organizations are known for their rigorous research and data
collection, which sometimes leads to new recommendations and/or a
general consensus on the best policies and interventions to increase
safety. Given the lack of consensus between NHTSA and NTSB, states may
be less inclined to move forward with three-point seat belt
requirements for school buses. However, the weight of NTSB's
recommendations may influence some policymakers to move forward with
seat-belt requirements.
Question 3. Do you forecast the need for federal mandates regarding
seat belt use on school buses?
Answer. NCSL does not forecast the need for a federal mandate on
school bus seatbelt requirements. States are best equipped to adopt
seat belt requirements or laws encouraging their installation, given
the significant and long-standing state role in funding school systems
and working with school districts. NCSL does support a continued
federal role in helping to set national transportation safety goals as
well as that safety programs should be expanded to incorporate emerging
safety issues while respecting state sovereignty. We urge Congress and
USDOT to provide additional flexibility to states so as to ensure all
states gain full access to federal funding for transportation safety.
One alternative approach could be to incentivize states to achieve your
desired outcomes with regard to the installation of seat belts on
school busses. Such an incentive structure, similar to other existing
federal grants aimed at improving transportation safety, could help
promote state action on this issue while ensuring and adhering to
principles of federalism.
Additional question from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. forwarded
to the National Conference of State Legislatures by the
National Transportation Safety Board
Question 4. Are these types of laws (not requiring school districts
to provide bus service to students) commonly seen in state
legislatures?
Answer. This is common in many states. Most states do not have a
statutory requirement to offer bus service to regular education
students. However, there are a few notable exceptions to this, which I
have detailed below:
Massachusetts requires free public transportation for
students only if they are in grades K-6 and only if they live more than
two miles from the school they are entitled to attend.
Louisiana requires public school boards to provide free
transportation for students who live more than one mile from school.
However, statute allows districts to stop providing this transportation
for ``economically justifiable reasons''.
Minnesota School boards are required to provide
transportation to and from school, or to provide board and lodging, for
all students who live two miles or more from schools. School boards are
required to provide equal transportation for nonpublic school students.
Nebraska State Statute 79-611 requires public schools to
provide transportation or pay reimbursement to parents in lieu of
transportation for students who live four miles or more from school.
New Hampshire Districts are required to provide
transportation to all pupils in grades 1 through 8 who live more than 2
miles from the school
New York Requires all non-city districts to provide
transportation for pupils enrolled in kindergarten through grades 8 who
live more than two miles from the school they attend and for pupils
enrolled in grades 9-12 who live more than three miles from the school
they attend up to a distance of fifteen miles.
Ohio requires bus service to students in grades
kindergarten through eighth living more than two miles from their home
assigned school.
Connecticut requires school districts to provide
transportation for all school-age children whenever it is ``reasonable
and desirable''
Wyoming provides transportation to all primary and middle
school pupils (K-8) who live more than 1.25 miles from their school.
In other states, statute allows districts to provide student
transportation where ``reasonable'' or ``practical'' and given funding
constraints. These statutes commonly include requirements for the
administration of school bus programs such as riding times, driver
requirements, and distance between a student's home and the bus stop.
Most states allow schools to charge fees for bus transportation.
Additionally, several states (Connecticut, Delaware, Florida,
Idaho, Iowa, Louisiana and Ohio) require transportation services for
charter school students. I've also included the list of relevant
statutes in the attached document.
__________
attachment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Policy or Statute
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AL The county board of
education shall consolidate
schools wherever in its
judgment it is practicable
and arrange, if necessary,
for the transportation of
pupils to and from such
consolidated schools,
subject to the provisions
of this title.
Alabama law only requires
county school districts to
offer school bus
transportation for
students.
Statute: Section 16-8-13
[http://
alisondb.legislature.state.
al.us/alison/CodeOfAlabama/
1975/16-8-13.htm]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK School districts in the
state of Alaska are not
required by state law to
offer bus transportation to
regular education students.
School districts may
provide student
transportation.
Statute: AK ST Sec.
14.09.010
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AZ No Statutory requirement for
transportation.
``In absence of statute
mandating that a school
board provide
transportation, board has
no duty to do so except,
perhaps, in the rare
circumstance where failure
to provide the
transportation would
deprive a child of even
minimal education'' Opinion
from State Attorney
General.
Statute: A.R.S. Sec. 15-922
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AR No relevant statute.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA Does not require districts
to transport students who
live far from school.
Instead, state law allows
the district governing
board to provide pupil
transportation ``whenever
in the judgment of the
board the transportation is
advisable and good reasons
exist therefor.''
Generally, the state grants
districts discretion over
which students they will
transport and how many
school bus routes they will
operate.
Statute: ARTICLE 1. General
Provisions [http://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
faces/
codes_displaySection.xhtml?
lawCode=EDC§ionNum=3980
0.] [39800-39809.5]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO State statute: The board of
education of a school
district may furnish
transportation:
(a) To and from public
schools of the district for
any reasonable
classification of resident
pupils enrolled in the
schools of the district;
The general assembly finds
and declares, however, that
the provision by school
districts of transportation
for pupils is not required
by the constitution as a
part of a thorough and
uniform system of free
public schools and that any
school district which
provides transportation may
pay the costs incurred in
doing so through any means
authorized by the general
assembly pursuant to this
title.
Statute: 22-32-113
(Transpiration of Pupils)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CT State law requires school
districts to provide
transportation for all
school-age children
whenever it is ``reasonable
and desirable''. In
general, this requirement
is limited to
transportation to public
and certain nonprofit,
private schools located
within the school district.
The only out-of-district
transportation school
districts must provide is
for students attending
state technical high
schools and district-
designated regional
agricultural science and
technology centers.
Statute: CGS Sec. 10-
220(a)). State Policy Page
[https://www.cga.ct.gov/
2012/rpt/2012-R-0085.htm]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DE Districts may develop school
transportation plans.
Statute: DE ST TI 14 Sec.
508
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FL No state requirement, school
districts may provide
transportation.
Statute: F.S.A. Sec.
1006.22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GA No requirement, however the
statute outlines procedures
for the State Board of
Education to provide
standard transportation
costs.
Statute: Ga. Code Ann., Sec.
20-2-188
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HI Transportation not required
by statute, however the
Department operates a bus
service for students who
reside outside a certain
distance from a school (for
an additional cost). State
does require additional
fees.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ID Statute: ``To afford more
equal opportunity for
public school attendance,
the board of trustees of
each district, including
specially chartered school
districts, shall, where
practicable, provide
transportation for the
public school pupils within
the district, and pupils
resident within adjoining
districts annually agreed
to in writing by the
districts involved, under
conditions and limitations
herein set forth. Nonpublic
school students may be
transported, where
practicable, when the full
costs for providing such
transportation are
recovered. In approving the
routing of any school bus,
or in the maintenance and
operation of all such
transportation equipment,
or in the appointment or
employment of chauffeurs,
the primary requirements to
be observed by the board of
trustees are the safety and
adequate protection of the
health of the pupils.
Nothing herein contained
shall prevent any board of
trustees from denying
transportation to any pupil
in any school bus operated
by or under the authority
of said board, upon good
cause being given, in
writing, to the parents or
guardian, or either of
them, of such pupil. No
board of trustees shall be
required to provide
transportation for any
pupil living less than one
and one-half (1\1/2\) miles
from the nearest
appropriate school. A board
of trustees may require
pupils who live less than
one and one-half (1\1/2\)
miles from the nearest
established bus stop to
walk or provide their own
transportation to such bus
stop.''
Statute: ST Sec. 33-1501
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IL Per Section 29-3 of the
School Code, only certain
types of school districts
are required by law to
provide free transportation
services. Specifically,
community consolidated
districts, community unit
districts, consolidated
districts and consolidated
high school districts, and
combined school districts
(if the combined school
district includes any
district that was
previously required to
provide transportation)
shall provide free
transportation for pupils
residing at a distance of
one and one-half miles or
more from any school to
which they are assigned for
attendance maintained
within the district.
Statute: 105 ILCS 5/29-3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN A 2015 Indiana Supreme Court
Decision found that public
schools are not
constitutionally required
to bus students to and from
school.
Statute: Title 20. Education
Article 27. School
Transportation Chapter 9.
Use of School Buses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IA No requirement however the
state does have guidelines
for riding time and
distance.
Statute: Title VIII--Chapter
43--Pupil transportation
[https://www.legis.iowa.gov/
docs/iac/chapter/
281.43.pdf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KS No requirement.
Statute: State regulations
included in 91-38-1 [https:/
/www.ksde.org/Portals/0/
School Bus/Regulations/
ManualDecember2017.pdf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6655KY Boards of education may
provide transportation from
their general funds or
otherwise for any pupil of
any grade to the nearest
school to the pupil's
residence within the
district if the pupil does
not live within a
reasonable walking distance
to such nearest school of
appropriate grade level.
Statute: 158.110
Transportation of pupils
[https://
apps.legislature.ky.gov/law/
Statutes/
statute.aspx?id=3441]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
6621LA ``Each city, parish, and
other local public school
board shall provide free
transportation for any
student attending a school
of suitable grade approved
by the State Board of
Elementary and Secondary
Education within the
jurisdictional boundaries
of the local board if the
student resides more than
one mile from such school.
This requirement shall not
apply to any student
attending a nonpublic
school''
``No parish or city school
board shall eliminate or
reduce the level of
transportation services
provided to students as
required by the provisions
of this Section except for
economically justifiable
reasons approved in
accordance with the
provisions of this
Subsection by the State
Board of Elementary and
Secondary Education.''
Statute: LSA-R.S. 17:158
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ME ``The superintendent of
schools in a municipal
school unit shall, with the
approval of the school
board, provide
transportation for
elementary school students
and public preschool
students a part of or the
whole distance to and from
the nearest suitable
elementary school. The
municipality may provide
transportation for
secondary level students.''
Statute: Sec. 5401.
Transportation [http://
legislature.maine.gov/
statutes/20-A/title20-
Asec5401.html]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MD No requirement found.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MA Requires free public
transportation for students
only if they are in grades
K-6 and only if they live
more than two miles from
the school they are
entitled to attend.
Statute: Massachusetts
General Law Chapter 71,
Section 68 [https://
www.nps.org/sites/
northbridgeps/files/pages/
school_committee_transporta
tion_policy_-_eeaa.pdf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MI School districts are NOT
required by law to
transport regular education
children. Michigan Compiled
Law (MCL) 380.1321 outlines
the obligations of the
school district IF its
board of education elects
to provide transportation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MN School boards are required
to provide transportation
to and from school, or to
provide board and lodging,
for all students who live
two miles or more from
schools. School boards are
required to provide equal
transportation for
nonpublic school students.
Statute: 124D.03 ENROLLMENT
OPTIONS PROGRAM.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MS No requirement for service,
however regulations and
rules in Section 37-41-1,
Mississippi Code of 1972,
as amended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MO Students living more than
three and one-half miles
from school must be
provided transportation
service. All students can
be transported by local
board decision (167.231,
RSMo)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MT No requirement but imposes
guidelines on Bus
transportation State
Reimbursement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NE State Statute 79-611
requires public schools to
provide transportation or
pay reimbursement to
parents in lieu of
transportation for students
who live four miles or more
from school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NV No requirement found.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NH Districts are required to
provide transportation to
all pupils in grades 1
through 8 who live more
than 2 miles from the
school to which they are
assigned. Districts may
provide transportation to
kindergarten pupils, pupils
in grades B through 12, or
to pupils residing less
than 2 miles from the
school to which they are
assigned, when providing
transportation is
appropriate, or when the
district has been directed
to furnish transportation
by the Commissioner of
Education.
(RSA 189:6) [https://
www.sau70.org/uploaded/SAU/
transportation_files/
The_Duty_To_Transport_Stude
nts-NH.pdf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NJ Transportation shall be
provided to public school
students who reside remote
from their assigned school
of attendance, nonpublic
school students who reside
remote from their school of
attendance and meet the
eligibility criteria of
N.J.A.C. 6A:27-2.2, and
special education students
who reside remote from
their assigned school or
who require transportation
services in accordance with
their individualized
education program (IEP).
Statute: 6A:27-1.4 Students
who shall be transported
[https://www.nj.gov/
education/code/current/
title6a/chap27.pdf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NM No requirement.
Bus routes shall be
established by the local
school district. No school
bus route shall be
maintained for distances
less than:
(1) one mile one way for
students in grades
kindergarten through six;
(2) one and one-half miles
one way for students in
grades seven through nine;
and
(3) two miles one way for
students in grades ten
through twelve.
New Mexico 22-16-4 [https://
www.lawserver.com/law/state/
new-mexico/nm-statutes/
new_mexico_statutes_22-16-
4]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NY Requires all non-city
districts to provide
transportation for pupils
enrolled in kindergarten
through grades 8 who live
more than two miles from
the school they attend and
for pupils enrolled in
grades 9-12 who live more
than three miles from the
school they attend up to a
distance of fifteen miles.
New York Section 3635
Education Law
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NC No Requirement.
Each local board of
education is hereby
authorized to acquire, own,
lease, contract and operate
school buses for the
transportation of pupils
enrolled in the public
schools of such local
school administrative unit,
and of persons employed in
the operation of such
schools in accordance with
rules and regulations
adopted by the State Board
of Education. The State
Board of Education shall be
under no duty to supply
transportation to any pupil
or employee enrolled or
employed in any school.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ND No requirement. Rules and
regulations regarding
school transportation in
North Dakota Code 39-21-
27.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OH In all city, local, and
exempted village school
districts where resident
school pupils in grades
kindergarten through eight
live more than two miles
from the school for which
the state board of
education prescribes
minimum standards pursuant
to division (D) of section
3301.07 of the Revised Code
and to which they are
assigned by the board of
education of the district
of residence or to and from
the nonpublic or community
school which they attend,
the board of education
shall provide
transportation for such
pupils to and from that
school except as provided
in section 3327.02 of the
Revised Code.
R.C. 3327.01 [http://
codes.ohio.gov/orc/3327.01]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK No requirement. Any school
district maintaining a
school may provide
transportation with the
approval of the State Board
of Education.
210:30-5-1. District
operation and management
[https://sde.ok.gov/sites/
ok.gov.sde/files/Rules-
Ch30Sub5Transportation.pdf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OR No requirement. Some
policies on school district
policies and charter
schools.
ORS 338.145 [https://
www.oregonlaws.org/ors/
338.145]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PA No requirement, exceptions
for charter schools.
Penn Department of Education
Policy [https://
www.education.pa.gov/
Documents/Teachers-
Administrators/Pupil
Transportation/Pupil
Transportation Frequently
Asked Questions.pdf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
RI No statutory requirement,
however the state is
creating a statewide
student transportation
system which will include
mandatory participation
from school districts.
State Information Page
[https://www.ride.ri.gov/
StudentsFamilies/
AdditionalResources/
StudentTransportation.aspx#
1817596-background-
information]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SC No requirement found.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SD No requirement. Some rules
for safety and regulation
in Chapter 13-29 School
Buses and Transportation Of
Students
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TN Boards of education may
provide school
transportation facilities
for children who live more
than one and one half (1\1/
2\) miles by the nearest
accessible route from the
school to which they are
assigned by the board of
education and in which they
are enrolled.
49-6-2101 [https://
law.justia.com/codes/
tennessee/2010/title-49/
chapter-6/part-21/49-6-2101/
]. Power of boards to
provide transportation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TX No requirement--schools only
required to provide
transportation as required
by Federal law.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
UT No requirement--The
Superintendent shall
determine transportation
eligibility for elementary
students (k-6) and
secondary students (7-12)
in accordance with the
mileage from home,
specified in Subsections
53F-2-403(1) and (2), to
the school attended by
assignment of the local
school board.
R277-600-4. Eligibility.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VT No requirement found.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VA No requirements but numerous
safety and regulatory
provisions in 8VAC20-70-80.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WA No requirement found.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WV No requirement. County
Education Boards are
authorized to:
Provide transportation
according to rules
established by the county
board, as follows:
(1) To provide at public
expense adequate means of
transportation:
Statute: Sec. 18-5-13.
Authority of boards
generally.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WI A school district may, but
is not required to, provide
transportation to a pupil
who lives less than two
miles from school and not
in a UHT area, if the
pupil's parent or guardian
requests such
transportation. The school
district may charge for the
cost of the transportation.
State Information Page
[https://dpi.wi.gov/sms/
transportation/public-
school-questions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
WY The Wyoming Board of
Education provides
transportation to all
primary and middle school
pupils (K-8) who live more
than 1.25 miles from their
school.
Wyoming Statutes Title 21.
Education Sec. 21-3-131
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Hon. Sue Fulton,
Chief Administrator, New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission
Question 1. You are here representing the state of New Jersey, one
of only eight states that requires seat belts on school buses.
Can you speak to the concern about the reduction of school bus
services?
Answer. I have heard concerns from school boards and the New Jersey
State Department of Education, as well as from other states, that it is
difficult to hire school bus drivers given the low pay and minimal
hours. However, I have not heard the same concerns about the modest
additional cost of requiring seat belts for new buses.
Question 2. Do state laws requiring seat belts on school buses seem
like a common-sense safety measure to you?
Answer. Based on the safety studies I've seen regarding use of seat
belts, yes, I believe that requiring them in school buses is a common-
sense solution.
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Kristin Poland, Ph.D., Deputy
Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety
Board
Question 1. Dr. Poland, last year for the first time NTSB issued
the recommendation that large school buses be equipped with lap/
shoulder belts stating that ``compartmentalization'' does not offer
adequate occupant protection in side-impact and rollover collisions.
For decades, school buses have relied on compartmentalization to
protect students in the event of a crash, and NTSB has not formally
called for the use of lap/shoulder belts until now.
Can you describe how NTSB came to the decision to formally
recommend the use of lap/shoulder belts on school buses? How do you
account for any displaced riders?
Answer. In 1999, the NTSB recommended that the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) develop performance standards for
school bus occupant protection systems that account for all types of
collisions and rollovers. At that time, there were a variety of designs
attempting to enhance compartmentalization on school buses but there
were no requirements or standards establishing a minimum performance
criteria. In 2008, in response to our recommendations, NHTSA published
a final rule that established standards for both lap and lap/shoulder
belts, if voluntarily installed, on large school buses. Now that there
is a federal regulation defining performance standards for large school
bus passenger lap/shoulder belts, school bus and seat manufacturers are
designing large school buses with this safety improvement and we have
seen benefits in these systems in our crash investigations.\1\ In
addition, design improvements--such as flexible seating systems--have
reduced the impediments to equipping large school buses with this key
safety feature. Although NHTSA was unable to require lap/shoulder belts
for all passenger seating positions in new large school buses, we
believe the states can implement this safety improvement, which is why
we made the specific recommendation that each state that has not
already done so require that passenger lap/shoulder belts be installed
in all new large school buses to provide the best protection for all
their occupants.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NTSB. School bus roadway departure [https://ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/HAB1606.pdf] NTSB/HAB-16/06.
Washington, DC: NTSB. Intersection Collision and Rollover Involving
School Bus and Pickup Truck [https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/
AccidentReports/Reports/HAB1902.pdf]. NTSB/HAB-19/02. Washington, DC.
\2\ NTSB Safety Recommendations H-18-9 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/
Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-009] and -10 [https://www.ntsb.gov/
investigations/AccidentReports/_layouts/ntsb.recsearch/
Recommendation.aspx?Rec=H-18-010].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large school buses equipped with passenger lap/shoulder belts at
all seating positions will not affect total ridership on school buses
with the advancement of flexible seating systems.
Question from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Kristin Poland, Ph.D.,
Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation
Safety Board
Question 2. Dr. Poland, your written testimony noted that design
improvements have reduced the impediments to equipping large school
buses with seat belts. One of the primary concerns with installing seat
belts on large school buses is the potential impact on seating
capacity. Keeping in mind that the majority of large school buses have
to accommodate small, elementary age students all the way up to kids in
high school, capacity is a critical issue.
With improvements in seat belt design, such as flexible seating
systems, do we still face the same risk of reduced seating capacity
when equipping school buses with seat belts?
Answer. Flexible seating systems enable a large school bus equipped
with passenger lap/shoulder belts to seat an equivalent number of
elementary, middle, and high school aged students as a bus equipped
with only compartmentalization as the occupant protection system.
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to Kristin Poland,
Ph.D., Deputy Director, Office of Highway Safety, National
Transportation Safety Board
Question 3. In 2018, the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) issued an investigative report containing a series of safety
recommendations following two fatal school bus crashes in 2016. This
report uncovered a number of safety issues including poor management of
unsafe school bus drivers, and recommended a number of safety measures
including three-point seat belts on all new large school buses.
The implementation of such safety recommendations, however, is
often carried by the states. And at this time, only eight states have
enacted laws requiring seat belts on school buses.
Can you provide insight on the importance, if any, of streamlining
federal, state, and local laws to maximize school bus safety?
Answer. School buses are the safest form of transportation for
students. It's important that federal, state and local laws are
streamlined to ensure that a consistent safety message is communicated
about school bus occupant safety. Our investigations have shown that
improved occupant protection, driver oversight, pedestrian safety, fire
protection, and collision avoidance technologies are needed to prevent
crashes, deaths, and injuries on the nation's roadways. The federal,
state, and local governments all play a role in ensuring school bus
travel continues to be the safest forms of transportation on our roads
today.
Question 4. Is rulemaking on the part of NHTSA, FMCSA, NTSB, or
other transit and safety agencies considered effective if states are
slow to adopt those rules, if at all?
Answer. While the NTSB does not have regulatory authority, our
interactions with the states and the school bus associations
representing the states have shown that school transportation safety is
a high priority in all locations.
Question 5. California state law doesn't require school districts
to provide bus service to students. Is there any concern that laws like
these create inequity when transporting children to school?
a. Are these types of laws commonly seen in state legislatures?
Answer. The NTSB has not made recommendations regarding how
states provide transportation to students, but we do recognize that
children are safer traveling to and from school and school-related
activities on school buses than in any other vehicle.
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL), most states do not have a statutory requirement to offer bus
service to regular education students. NCSL has identified nine states
that require school districts to provide transportation to at least
some students. It also identified and additional seven states that
require transportation services for charter school students.
Questions from Hon. Doug LaMalfa to Kristin Poland, Ph.D., Deputy
Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety
Board
Question 6. Is the National Transportation Safety Board aware of,
or investigating, fires in any type of a diesel vehicle that resulted
from the vehicle's diesel particulate filtration system?
Answer. The NTSB is aware of the diesel particulate filtration
system on some school buses but is not aware of specific fires nor are
we investigating any fires resulting from the vehicle's diesel
particulate filtration system.
Question 7. How many and what percent of the injuries and
fatalities involving children riding school buses occur when the child
is crossing the road? How many and what percentage occur at the bus
stop?
Answer. The NTSB is continuing its investigation into the 2018
Rochester, Indiana school bus loading zone crash. In this crash, the
school bus was stopped to pick up students at the designated location
when a pickup truck traveling south struck the four children, who were
crossing the roadway in the early morning darkness. Three of the
children were killed and one was injured. In addition, two other
similar crashes in Hartsfield, Georgia and Baldwyn, Mississippi are
also being investigated to further support the findings in Rochester,
Indiana.
Data concerning school bus loading zone crashes will be included in
the final Board report for those investigations. In addition, NHTSA
does maintain data related to school bus crashes and published a report
``School-Transportation-Related Crashes'' in July 2019 with its latest
information, including pedestrian fatalities in school transportation
related crashes.
Questions from Hon. Gary J. Palmer to Kristin Poland, Ph.D., Deputy
Director, Office of Highway Safety, National Transportation Safety
Board
Question 8. How many injuries/fatalities from a vehicle driving
around a stopped bus occur in rural areas? In suburban areas? In urban
areas?
Answer. The NTSB is continuing its investigation into the 2018
Rochester, Indiana school bus loading zone crash. In this crash, the
school bus was stopped to pick up students at the designated location
when a pickup truck traveling south struck the four children, who were
crossing the roadway in the early morning darkness. Three of the
children were killed and one was injured. In addition, two other
similar crashes in Hartsfield, Georgia and Baldwyn, Mississippi are
also being investigated to further support the findings in Rochester,
Indiana.
Data concerning school bus loading zone crashes will be included in
the final Board report for those investigations. Although NHTSA does
maintain data related to school bus crashes and published a report
``School-Transportation-Related Crashes'' in July 2019 with its latest
information, including pedestrian fatalities in school transportation
related crashes, that report does not differentiate between rural,
suburban and urban areas.
Question 9. How many bus drivers are disqualified each year?
Answer. The NTSB does not track this information.
Question 10. Should states establish a searchable database listing
disqualified drivers?
Answer. Although the NTSB has not made a specific recommendation
regarding this type of database, we have previously recommended methods
to identify fraudulent drivers. For example, we recommended that the
state of Maryland continue its facial recognition program beyond 2019
to help prevent driver license fraud. (H-18-11) More specifically, we
recommended that the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration:
Process all current commercial driver's license holders through
the facial recognition software system to detect those drivers
who may hold fraudulent licenses. (H-18-13).
These recommendations are currently both classified Open--
Acceptable Response.
Question 11. How many incidents involving other motor vehicles
involved distracted driving? (vehicles striking a child, etc.)
Answer. Eliminate Distractions is on the NTSB's Most Wanted List of
transportation improvements in 2019-2020. While distraction has been
addressed in school transportation investigations, it is also a problem
in many highway crashes. The NTSB's fact sheet related to distractions
in highway crashes is attached to this response, for reference.
__________
attachment
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Questions from Hon. Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr. to John Benish, Jr.,
President and Chief Operating Officer, Cook-Illinois Corporation, on
behalf of the National School Transportation Association
Question 1. Your testimony expresses support for state and local
level decision-making on seat belt mandates for school buses. The
National School Transportation Association (NSTA) concurs that unfunded
mandates will increase the manufacturing costs of school buses, and may
even lead to the reduction of school bus services in many areas.
In the eight states that have enacted seatbelt laws, can you
provide examples of how they've had to curtail bus service in any of
their school districts?
Answer:
Arkansas, AR Code Sec. 6-19-117, effective 1/1/18, contingent on
funding
California, Cal. Veh. Code Sec. 27316, effective 7/1/04
Florida, Fla. Stat. Ann Sec. 316.6145, effective 12/31/00
\\ Iowa, 281 IAC Chapter 44, effective 10/2/19
Louisiana, LA Rev Stat Sec. 17:164.2, effective 6/30/04, contingent on
funding
Nevada, NRS 386.837, effective 7/1/19
New Jersey, N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 39:38-10, effective 2/21/19
New York, N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Sec. 383(5), effective 7/1/1987
Texas, TX TRANSP Sec. 547.701, effective 1/1/18
\\ On September 10, 2019, Iowa's Legislative Rules Committee
validated the State Board of Education's rule to require three-point
seat belts on all new school buses manufactured on or after October 2,
2019.
For several of these states, the effective date just occurred, so
it too soon to determine if a seat belt mandate has the unintended
consequence of curtailing school bus service in those states. Further,
the ebb and flow of student census and school budgets makes it
difficult to draw a direct line from the number of buses serving a
school to the cost of seat belts specifically. A better measure would
to review school districts that have implemented seat belts to better
determine how they been affected by the cost.
One data point comes from the state of Texas. In 2007 the state
enacted H.B. 323 (2007 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 259), to require three-
point seat belts on school buses aged 2010 or newer, however this
mandate was contingent on funding. In 2017, the State's legislature
introduced and enacted subsequent legislation amending the 2007
requirement to be an unfunded three-point seat belt requirement, TX
S.B. 693 (2017 Tex. Sess. Law Serv. Ch. 908). This new mandate
permitted local school boards to vote to defer this requirement in a
public meeting as a result of lack of funding. Then, in November 2018,
State Senator Bob Hall introduced TX S.B. 79, which seeks to repeal the
2017 three-point seat belt requirements--as his constituency found the
equipment mandate to be unattainable under their allocated
transportation budget. Thus far, no Texas school boards were able to
pass a referendum for a public vote to suspend the requirement.
Another example is from Alabama. From 2007 to 2010, the state
conducted a study on seat belts on large school buses. The survey
identified that more school bus pupil fatalities occur outside of
school buses either in or near loading zones, than inside the school
bus. So, if funding were to be spent on school bus safety, ``[I]t
appears more lives could be saved by investing in enhanced safety
measures in loading/unloading zones. These treatments are likely more
cost effective than seat belts[.]'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Report to the Alabama Governor ``Alabama School Bus Seat Belt
Pilot Project,'' from the University Transportation Center for Alabama,
pg. 8, http://utca.eng.ua.edu/files/2011/08/
Pilot_Project_Summary_Report1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2016, Louisiana conducted a study on seat belts on large school
buses. Similar to Alabama conclusions, Louisiana's study notes that
more child-aged student fatalities occur outside the school bus, than
inside. As such, the Louisiana study advises that policy-making should
focus on educating motorists, parents, school bus drivers, and school-
aged children on how to proceed around a stopped school bus.\2\
Louisiana enacted school bus seat belt requirements in 1999, however
the equipment mandate is contingent on funding from the state. To date,
the legislature has not provided funding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Report to the House and Senate Committees on Education of the
Louisiana Legislature, ``Response to Senate Resolution 122 of the 2016
Regular Session,'' from the Louisiana Department of Education, Data
Analysis section, p. 2, https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/nsta/43161/
SR-122-Final-Draft-R-1-5-2017-Transportation-Report.pdf
Question 2. What should Congress' role be, if any, to ensure that
school districts aren't vulnerable to a reduction of bus service?
Answer. Most state and local budgets do not realistically earmark
funding for new school bus equipment mandates. Therefore, the cost of
these mandates usually is borne by the local taxpayer. We strongly
believe that decisions requiring state and local funding streams should
appropriately be made at the state and local level so that all
ramifications of the decision, especially any reductions in school bus
service, can be evaluated. If federal funds were to be made available
for new equipment mandates, they should be equally accessible to
private school bus contractors, as well as to public school district
operators.
Question 3. Lastly, may I ask your response to assertions from NTSB
that compartmentalization alone is not enough to protect against side
impact or rollover collisions?
Answer. NSTA notes that NTSB is an independent federal agency
tasked with investigating accidents and determining causation factors,
and making safety recommendations based on those investigations. It is
not a regulatory agency. NSTA respects the important role that NTSB
plays and responds thoughtfully to recommendations they present to
NSTA. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the
regulatory agency with statutory authority to promulgate regulations
pertaining to vehicle and highway safety. In that process, NHTSA is
required to analyze any proposed regulation in light of the overall
safety record and experience of the industry subject to regulation and
the travelling public it serves. In 2011, NHTSA was presented with a
petition to mandate seat belts in large school buses. The agency denied
that petition, citing:
``For large school buses, we have determined there is not a
safety problem warranting national action to require the
addition of lap/shoulder belts to these vehicles. Large school
buses are very safe due to their greater weight and higher
seating height than most other vehicles, high visibility to
motorists, and occupant protection through
compartmentalization.'' \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See, e.g., NHTSA, 49 CFR Part 571, Final Rule, Docket No.
NHTSA-2011-21596, https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2011/08/25/
2011-21596/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-denial-of-petition-
for-rulemaking-school-buses
NHTSA also goes on to specify that ``our analysis shows that a
National lap/shoulder belt requirement for large school buses could
result in an increase of 10 to 19 student fatalities annually in the
U.S. A State or local jurisdiction . . .'' \4\ NHTSA has not reversed
its position since 2011, and NSTA looks to them for ultimate guidance
on school bus vehicle safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to DOT statistics, school bus transportation remains the
safest form of transportation to-and-from school over all other forms
of transportation, including walking, biking, driving in parents' cars
and teenagers driving themselves. On average, four to six students are
killed annually inside a yellow school bus, while an average of 800
children are killed going to school in other ways. It is this data that
drives NSTA's belief that as many children as possible should have
access to the safest form of transportation.
Questions from Hon. Gary J. Palmer to John Benish, Jr., President and
Chief Operating Officer, Cook-Illinois Corporation, on behalf of the
National School Transportation Association
Question 4. How many injuries/fatalities from a vehicle driving
around a stopped bus occur in rural areas? In suburban areas? In urban
areas?
Answer. Unfortunately, this specific of data is not currently
available at a national level. While the National Association for State
Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS) conducts annual
surveys of stop arm violations, only 39 out of 50 states participated
in 2019, and data is strictly based on school bus driver observations
over the course of a one-day period.\5\ However, under provisions of
the STOP for School Buses Act of 2019, these data points would be
identified, acquired, and reviewed. The current level of school
transportation data highlights the need for a greater emphasis on data
acquisition and creating a clearinghouse for this data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Annual Survey on ``National Stop Arm Violation Count'' by the
National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation
Services, http://www.nasdpts.org/stoparm/. See also July 24, 2019
``Annual NASDPTS Illegal Passing Survey Press Release'', https://
nasdpts24.wildapricot.org/resources/Documents/
2019%20NASDPTS%20Illegal%20Passing
%20Results%20Press%20Release-7-24-19.pdf
Question 5. How many bus drivers are disqualified each year?
Answer. Once again, this is difficult, at best, to determine an
exact number, or an estimate, as most disqualifying events occur and/or
are adjudicated at the local level. Be advised that ``disqualifying''
events could take place under employer policy and procedure directive,
non-compliance with state or federal requirements, or through an
adjudicated result. Unfortunately, this data is not readily available
at the national level. It should be noted that the FMCSA Drug and
Alcohol Clearinghouse is coming online in January 2020, and will begin
to provide data on disqualified drivers due to drug and alcohol
violations.
Question 6. Should states establish a searchable database listing
disqualified drivers?
Answer:
a. In states where this is already required, our members have
found it to be highly useful
b. Concerns about costs associated with program participation
i. Costs mitigated by insurances premium reductions
Several of our members operate in states where participation in an
Employment Notification System (ENS) is required, and they have advised
that these programs are highly useful. We are supportive of promoting
ENS systems, and note its contribution to increased safety measures for
school transportation operators. We do remain concerned regarding the
efficiencies and costs to employers of participating in a national ENS
system.
Question 7. How many incidents involving other motor vehicles
involved distracted driving? (vehicles striking a child, etc.)
Answer. Unfortunately, there is no clear data at the national level
on this point. Once again, the STOP for School Buses Act seeks to
acquire and provide the number of these incidents that occur and are
tracked. Right now, we can only speculate that a majority of illegal
passings may occur as a result of distracted driving. Other reasons
include, a lack of fundamental understanding of how to traverse around
a stopped school bus and ignorance of applicable traffic laws. With
regard to ignorance of appropriate traffic laws governing the passing
of a stopped school bus, we believe there should be a particular
emphasis on young drivers in mandated driver training, to ensure that
they are made fundamentally aware of these rules and regulations. The
STOP Act directs the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to look at
distraction driver training, daylight savings time changes, bus stop
locations and other issues impacting the illegal passing issue.
Additionally, the STOP Act directs DOT to produce a public service
campaign to bring awareness to drivers on how to proceed when
approaching a stopped school bus.
Question from Hon. Peter A. DeFazio to Anne Ferro, President and Chief
Executive Officer, American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
Question 1. Ms. Ferro, your written testimony describes AAMVA's
analysis of the feasibility of a national employer notification system
(ENS) to provide real-time updates to employers of a driver's status.
Under current regulations, school bus drivers are required to self-
report moving violations and other factors which could jeopardize their
commercial driver license status, but it's estimated only 50 to 80
percent of drivers actually self-report.
Would a national ENS be effective in closing the gap on school bus
drivers who do not self-report driving violations and other
disqualifications to their employers?
Answer. Under the current commercial motor vehicle operations
safety net in federal law and overseen by FMCSA, employers are
responsible for monitoring and taking action on their employees. AAMVA
encourages Congress to retain employer responsibility for ensuring the
safe operation of their fleet. Current federal law permits employers to
satisfy their annual driver history obligations by ``receiving
occurrence-based reports of changes in the status of a driver's record
from one or more driver record notifications systems that meet minimum
standards issued by the Secretary.'' The Congressional directive to
provide better data for safety employment considerations increasingly
trends towards the timeliness, availability, and sufficiency of data.
An Employer Notification System (ENS) would assist in the timeliness of
available safety data for employment purposes and help close the gap on
failures to self-report.
While school districts participating in an ENS system may close the
gap on self-reporting, the level of participation may have an impact on
each jurisdiction's ability to effectively leverage such a program.
FMCSA cites [https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/
registration/commercial-drivers-license/405406/jurisdictional-ens-
implementation-final.pdf] 19 states that already provide easy, periodic
access to driving records. Congress should consider the implications of
requiring employer participation in an ENS. With regard to requiring
state participation, flexibility in administration of ENS programs is
advantageous in that each state is familiar with their internal
information technology architecture, and is positioned to more
effectively assist employers in their oversight responsibilities.
Consideration of a national ENS may require costly and extensive
modifications to existing state systems and networking capabilities to
ensure a similar level of accountability. It is the recommendation of
the AAMVA membership that if a national ENS system were to be pursued,
it utilize the existing networking capabilities of the Commercial
Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) which is already an
available platform for exchanging state commercial driver information.
Question 2. What recommendations do you have for the development of
a national ENS to ensure its success?
Answer. In 2016, AAMVA developed a report [https://
www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/registration/
commercial-drivers-license/396341/aamva-ens-design-and-best-practices-
recommendations-ver-102.pdf] entitled, ``Employer Notification System
Design and Best Practices Recommendations'' for the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA). The recommendations from this
member-based resource are detailed in Section 4 of the report and
includes recommending building a national ENS by leveraging CDLIS. The
member working group also recommended that the system should provide
jurisdictions with the capability to opt-in or opt-out of sending the
driver history record (DHR) to the motor carrier or employer. This
report contains numerous other recommendations and best practices for
different ENS models.
Question from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton to Anne Ferro, President and
Chief Executive Officer, American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators
Question 3. Ms. Ferro, Federal regulations for commercial driver
licenses require applicants to be medically certified by a registered
physician and subsequently renew their certification up to every two
years. However, Federal regulations exempt publicly-employed school bus
drivers from having to obtain this medical certification, but state
laws may still require a medical exam.
Are there any states that permit school bus drivers to operate
without a medical certification as part of their CDL?
Answer. The application of medical fitness requirements varies
depending on the operating oversight of the school district and/or
driver. With this in mind, the school districts themselves, or their
representative association, may be better qualified to speak on the
medical oversight of their drivers. While most school bus drivers are
expected to operate on an intrastate or localized route and be subject
to state and local requirements for operation that are excepted from
federal medical fitness requirements, it is feasible that school
districts administer or require their own medical fitness programs.
While state requirements may provide initial insight, a more
comprehensive outlook on applicable medical fitness requirements may be
available from individual school districts that have very different
geographical and regulatory considerations.
Question 4. Is there any benefit to exempting publicly-employed
school bus drivers from needing a medical certification as a
prerequisite of the CDL?
Answer. The review and consideration of medical fitness information
is an important part of safe operational oversight of commercial
vehicles. With regard to school bus operation, it is not clear how
public employment would entail different safety or fitness
responsibilities than private employment.
States currently rely upon federal oversight of ensuring driver
fitness. The federal government established standards for qualified
medical professionals and requires physician registration with the
National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners. These examiners
perform the essential function of evaluating and qualifying a driver
for duty. Good work is currently underway with respect to inclusion of
medical information on the driver record, and AAMVA encourages Congress
to continue supplying federal and state authorities with the resources
needed to integrate this information in the driver record. One such
avenue for these improvements is leveraging the Commercial Driver's
License Program Improvement (CDLPI) grant program.
[all]