Should school buses have and enforce seat belt use?

Yes

1 of 25

by Suzanne Mathews

• 

Write now Print Invite a writer™ Add to Favorites RSS Feed Contact this writer

Advocates have argued that mandating the use of seat belts on school buses would provide better protection for children. The opposition, on the other hand, has stressed several concerns surrounding this debate. One concern is that adding seat belts would interfere with the safety structures of compartmentalization such as changing the property of the seatbacks. Another concern would be the cost added to new buses. Further, it is believed by some; that children are unlikely to use the seat belts, and bus drivers repudiate the responsibility of enforcing the use of them. Consequently, taxpayers would be paying for unused seat belts. The concerns of the opposition may be legitimate. However, it is a known fact that using seat belts keep occupant's from being propelled out of their seats during a crash. Seat belts provide the best protection in moving vehicles; such as a school bus. Most importantly, seat belts help prevent or reduces head trauma injuries, injuries due to ejections, and even death.

Without a doubt, school buses have been evaluated as being the safest transportation on the road because of their visibility, large size and weight. Nevertheless, during the early 70s The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) was called upon by Congress to improve school bus safety. NHTSA, channeling their efforts to occupant safety, considered seat restraints or seat belts. However, it was believed children would not be compliant in using such restraints (SafeGuard 2009, p.3). With this consideration, NHTSA pursued a means of protection that required little or no effort on the part of the occupants. The solution, known as compartmentalization , was implemented as a standard by the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) in 1977, known as FMVSS 222.

The theory behind the FMVSS 222 standard is the provision of adequate protection by absorbing energy with little effort from the occupants. This was accomplished by decreasing the seat spacing and increasing the padding to the back of the seats, as well as, increasing the seat back height to twenty inches . However, in a ten year study during 1988 through 1997, the theory of compartmentalization only provides protection during low speed frontal or rear impact crashes involving small light weight vehicles. School bus accidents involving heavy trucks were not a factor during the ten year study. According to Elias (n.d), the ten year test confirmed that "115 fatalities occurred on large school buses, and the most significant factors of these test were the fatal crashes involving heavy trucks, (83% frontal impacts and 15% side impacts) driving at posted speeds of 55-60 miles per hour" (Elias, p.1). With these statistics, it further demonstrates that compartmentalization alone is not effective. Consideration should be given to the unusual, school bus accidents will and do happen not, only with small vehicles, but with heavy vehicles as well. School buses are no match against larger vehicles, such as heavy trucks. Without the protection of seat belts the occupants inside the school bus are at risk of serious head trauma and possibly death.

In May 2006, NHTSA addressed compartmentalization in their report Seat Belts on School Buses indicating "the crash forces experienced by occupants of buses are much less than that experienced by occupants of passengers cars," and that "through compartmentalization , occupant crash protection is provided by a protective envelope consisting of strong, closely-spaced seats that have energy-absorbing seat backs" (NHTSA, 2006). Yet, this would not be the case involving large vehicles; such as a truck-tractor semitrailer. An example would be the side impact crash that occurred near Mountainburg, Arkansas on May 31, 2001, where a truck-tractor semitrailer collided with a school bus causing the bus to rotate and later rolling over on its right side. One passenger on the bus received serious head injuries and three fatalities were reported, of the fatalities, one was partially ejected through the right side window. The evidence indicated the passengers in the back of the bus struck the ceiling, right side windows, and side wall during the impact. It was further reported by investigators that passengers possibly struck other passengers during lateral collisions. The reports prove that compartmentalization was not successful in containing the occupant. Seat belts would have prevented the occupants from striking each other and the school bus interior. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in a 2002 Highway Accident Report for the Collision Between Truck-Tractor-Semitr ailer and School Bus Near Mountainburg, Arkansas on May 31, 2001, recognized that the

[p]assengers seated on the left side of the bus in the rear were probably thrown forward and across the width of the bus towards the striking truck. They did not remain within their seating compartment during impact because compartmentalization , the current occupant protection strategy inside large school buses, only provides protection during frontal impacts. ...concluding that compartmentalization and impact with non-energy-surfaces within the bus contributed to the serious and fatal injuries sustained by these passengers (p.56).

Even with these conclusions; many continue to argue that seats belts would encumber the safety of occupant, by impeding emergency evacuation. In a Position Paper: Passenger Crash Protection in School Buses by The National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services (NASDPTS), it referred to "Carrollton, Kentucky where 27 occupants died due to fire and smoke inhalation and Alton, Texas where 21 occupants drowned in a bus that rolled on its side and became submerged in water" that unlatching seat belts would have required additional time, thus impeding their chances of escape resulting in additional fatalities (NASDPTS, n.d. p.9).

Both accidents while truly tragic suggest different types of factors and should be considered. The Carrolton, Kentucky accident resulted from a head on collision with a pickup truck driving at high rate of speed of 100 miles per hour, in which, the impact caused a gasoline fed fire. In the Alton, Texas accident the school bus was struck by a tractor trailer causing the bus to roll down a cliff into water. Questions should be raised on the possibility that the occupants were propelled from their seats causing them to hit the interior walls of the bus, rendering the occupants unconscious, or causing head trauma leaving them with little chance of survival. The opposition should consider the safety features of seat belts, and how they keep the occupant in their seat ultimately, preventing them occupant from hitting the interior walls of the bus; consequently, reducing head trauma.

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) in a 1999 Special Investigation Report concluded "current compartmentalization is incomplete in that it does not protect school bus passengers during lateral impacts with vehicles of large mass and in rollovers, because in such accidents, passengers do not always remain completely within the seating compartment." (SafeGuard, 2009, p. 5) Further, Elias (n.d.) in a similar study of Large School Bus Safety Restraint Evaluation reported "the test dummies did not override the seat back while they were restrained with a lap belt/shoulder belt...he further added, belted occupants consistently produced lower head injury criterion than...unbelted occupants" (Elias, p.8). The study further proves seat belts, compared to compartmentalization , is most effective in preventing occupants from being propelled out of their seats during a crash. Ignoring these studies, NHTSA, in a 2008 final rule 49 CFR Part 571.222, imposed a standard that installing seat belts on large school buses with a gross vehicle weight rate (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds is voluntary. In the same 2008 ruling; however, The National Coalition for School Bus Safety commented that seat belts in addition to compartmentalization would provide the best protection in a side and rollover crash, preventing the occupant from being propelled out of their set as well as preventing head trauma.

Some states have acknowledged the compelling studies presented by NTSB and currently New York, New Jersey, California, and Florida require seat belts on school buses. Additionally, 49 CFR Part 571.22 provides that "each State or local jurisdiction may decide whether to install seat belts on these large school buses". Nevertheless, the states do not currently mandate seat belt use on school buses, leaving that decision to each school district. Most school districts along with tax payer groups share their concerns of paying for seat belts that are not being used by the occupants. This was not a consideration when seat belts use was first mandated in passenger vehicles. On the contrary, the theory of using seat belts in passenger vehicles was to keep the occupants in their seats, whereby preventing the occupants from hitting interior walls, being ejected through a window, and preventing head trauma's. With the state laws, mandating the use of seat belts in passenger vehicles, the concept of using seat belts on school buses would be a familiar routine for children. In addition, the familiar routine of using seat belts would encourage positive passenger behavior in turn allowing the bus driver to concentrate on driving the bus which in turn provides additional safety to the occupant.

Despite the conclusive studies that seat belts would reduce the risk of head trauma and possibly death, the opposition continues to focuses on the societal benefits and as well as the estimated cost of $1,200.00 to 2,000.00 for the installation of seat belts on each bus. It is believed that the money would be better spent on safety training for the bus driver and the occupants. The additional safety training will not protect an occupant in accidents such as the Mountainburg, Arkansas accident. The safety training defeats the purpose "of protection that requires little or no effort on the part of the occupants" in that the occupant, to keep from being propelled from their seat, would have to be proactive during an accident. The likely hood that the occupant would have time to be proactive such as bracing for an impact would not be practical. Accidents cannot be predicted nor can the circumstances or type of an accident, therefore, in addition to compartmentalization , when the occupant is wearing a seat belt the occupant is prepared at all times without thought. A vehicle should be designed to protect in accordance to the ("Safety Act") (49 U.S.C. 30101 et seq.) the occupants against unreasonable risk of accident occurring because of the design, construction, or performance...." 49 U.S.C. 30102(a)(b). The design of compartmentalization alone is not effective as studies have shown during an "unreasonable risk of accidents" such as a roll over or side impact accident. The Safety Act also includes passenger vehicles, this being said, it should be considered that passenger vehicles, with their newer safety design, could cause more destruction to a school bus during an accident. With the new stronger designs in passenger vehicle, the opposition should promote the importance of using seat belts and how they provide added protection for the occupant without interfering with the compartmentalization . Moreover, mandating the use of seat belts keep the occupant securely in their seat thus, preventing head trauma.

School buses may be the safest transportation on the road and compartmentalization may provide protection in a low speed impact. In his studies, Elias (n.d.) provided clear evidence illustrating that thick padded seats and high seat backs do not prevent occupants from being propelled out of their seats during high speed or rollover crashes. NHTSA has continuously considered the merits of seat belt requirements. By increasing the seat back heights, NHTSA must have reason to believe that occupants are at risk of head trauma. It is hoped they will recognize the true benefit of mandating seat belts on school buses, in that using them would prevent serious head trauma (head trauma caused by striking the interior structure of the bus), prevent occupants from being ejected through a window, and reduce or prevent deaths.

References:

Department of Transportation. (2008). Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 49 CFR Part 571.222, Docket No. NHTSA-2008-0163: Occupant Crash Protection. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

Elias J.C. (n.d.). Transportation Research Center, Inc.: Large School Bus Safety Restraint Evaluation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Paper No. 346

National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Service. (1999). Position Paper: Passenger Crash Protection in School Buses An Update.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006). Seat Belts on School Buses. www. http://www.nhtsa.dot .gov

National Transportation Safety Board. (2002). Collision Between Truck-Tractor Semitrailer and School Bus Near Mountainburg, Arkansas on May 31, 2001. Highway Accident Report. NTSB/HAR-02/03, Washington, DC.

SafeGuard Premier. (2009). White Paper: Compartmentalization and the Motorcoach SafeGuard. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from http://www.safeguard seat.com /motorcoach/Compartm entalization%20and%2 0the%20Motorcoach%20 April%209,%2009_FINA L.pdf.

Learn more about this author, Suzanne Mathews.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.