USF Libraries
USF Digital Collections

Florida school bus occupant safety

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Florida school bus occupant safety final report
Physical Description:
1 v. : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
School children -- Transportation -- Safety measures -- Florida   ( lcsh )
School buses -- Safety measures -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre:
local government publication   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Additional Physical Form:
Also issued online.
Statement of Responsibility:
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
General Note:
"August 1993."

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of South Florida Library
Holding Location:
University of South Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 025513092
oclc - 666933257
usfldc doi - C01-00036
usfldc handle - c1.36
System ID:
SFS0032159:00001


This item is only available as the following downloads:


Full Text
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8 standalone no
record xmlns http:www.loc.govMARC21slim xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.loc.govstandardsmarcxmlschemaMARC21slim.xsd
leader nam 2200217Ia 4500
controlfield tag 001 025513092
005 20110909174753.0
008 100929s1993 flua b l000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00036
035
(OCoLC)666933257
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
LB2864
b .F667 1993
0 245
Florida school bus occupant safety :
final report /
prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research, College of Engineering, University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida.
260
[Tampa, Fla. :
University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research,
1993].
300
1 v. :
ill. ;
28 cm.
500
"August 1993."
5 FTS
530
Also issued online.
FTS
650
School children
x Transportation
z Florida
Safety measures.
School buses
Florida
Safety measures.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
1 773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.36
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
951
10
SFU01:002323495;
FTS



PAGE 1

Florida School Bus Occupant Safety Final Report Prepared by Center for Urban Transportation Research College of Engineering University of South Florida Tampa, Florida August 1993

PAGE 2

EXE CIJTlV E SUMMARY Introduction The Center for Urban Transportation Research {CUTR), I n response to a request by the Rorida Legislature, conducted a study that investigated the potential benefits t hat may be derived from t h e use of safety rest r aints in large Rorida school buses {gross vehicle weight greater t han 10,000 l bs.). To address this objective, existing literature was reviewed and evaluated to draw conclusions from the accumulated evidence In addition, two original analyses were performed: a safety cost-benefit analysis and a descr i ptive analysis of Rorida school bus accident data The results of this detailed investigation regarding Flo rida school bus occupan t safety is contained with i n this r eport and condensed in this executive summary The ability of safety restra i nts to reduce fata l it i es and serious injuries to vehic l e occupants when accidents occur has been recognized, resulting in mandatory safety restraint use in passenger cars i n all but a few states A few states, as well as several school districts around the country have recently enacted legislation or policies mandating the Installation and use of safety restra i nts in large schoo l buses as well. A l though safety restraints in automobiles have proven to be effect iv e life-saving and injury mitigating devices their ef!ectiveness in other vehicles such as heavy trucks, transit buses, and large school buses has not been proven Since safety restraints have proven to be very effective i n mitigating the number of serious i njuries and fatalities in passenger cers it i s frequently assumed that their ava il ability and use i n l arge schoo l buses wo uld produce the same benefit. Among the profess i onal community involved with school bus transpo rtation and safety however controversy exists regarding just how effective the provision of safety restraints and mandatory safety belt use laws would be In reducing fatalities and i njuries to occupants of large school buses. The debate is heated, and both sides of the issue make strong cases in support of their conv i ctions.

PAGE 3

Proponents of safety restraints in large school buses concede that the requirement of compartmentalization 1 i s effective at reducing fatalities and injuries, but argue that when combined with safety restra int use, fatal ity and injury rates could be reduced even further. They contend as well that requ i ring safety restraints in school buses will reinforce the habit of young children "buckl ing up when they ride with their parents and, as a ccinsequence, safety restraint usage will "carryover" into adulthood. Also, they believe that safety restraint use will improve on-board occupant behavior and decrease driver distractions, translating into possible avoidance of accidents. Lastly, proponents argue that the cost of installing safety restraints Qap-belts) is minimal, no more than $1,000 to $1,500 per large school bus. Opponents of safety restraints in large school buses argue that large school buses because of their weight and large size, distinct yellow color, well-known routes, governed operating speed, and unique safety design features (FMVSS 22&, 2213 and 2224), are inheren tly safer than automobiles, vans, aJJd light trucks and, consequently, do not need safety restraints tq improv e occupant safety. Opponents also contend that, in the case of serious accidents, safety restraints may actually increase the likelihood of injury and can imperil schoo l bus occupants in accidents Involving fire and relievers. Also, the argument has been put forth that if school bus drivers do not insist that children wear the safety restraints, the potential carryover'' effect will be lost and could cause the children 1 Compartmentalization, as set fonh in Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Statldard 222,requires tbllt seats must be spaoed no more tbJln 24 inches apart as measured from the seating reference point (point at which the huliWI torso and thigh pivot) and seat-back beight must be a minimum of 20 inches to the top of the sear back as measured from the seating reference point. Also, limitations are plaoed on the amount of seat-back deflection both forward and backward. By adhering to these specifications, a compartment is created which is intended to restrain the school bus occupant thereby limiti.og the severity of injuries i.o the event of an accident FMVSS 220. School Bus Rollover Protection (49 CFR 571.220)specifies performance requirements for the structural i.otegrity of the passenger compartment of school buses when subjected to forces that may be encountered in rollover crashes. FMVSS 220 applies to all school buses (Types A. B, C, and D). 3 FMVSS 221,School Bus Bndy Joint Strength (49 CFR 571.221)requires interior and exterior body panel joi.ots to prevent or reduce panel separation in a crasb. FMVSS 221 applies only to large school buses, those with gross vehicle weight ratings greater than lO,OOOibs. FMVSS 222, School Bus Seati.og and Crasb Protection (49 CFR 571.222) sets oocupant protection standards for passengers and establishes passive barriers to prevent or reduce injuries from the impact of school bus occupants against strucrures within the vehicle during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. Large school buses must mee t all the requirements of FMVSS 222; however, Type A school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight less than 1 0.000 lbs ., must meet all the specified requirements except the 20 inch maximum distance between the seating reference point and or passive barrier in front of it. ii

PAGE 4

to become desensitized to safety re straint usage and "carryover" the message that they do not have to wear safety restraints in other modes of transportation. Lastly, opponents are critical of the cost effectiveness of safety restraints, arguing that the funds that would be utilized for safety restraints would be better spent on other, more effective safety options such as improved driver training, higher seat-backs ("New York" seats), crossing control arms, increased enforcement of laws against passing stopped school buses, and adult school bus monitors. Statistical Safety Record of School Buses An analysis of the crash performance of large school buses in 1987 led the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to state that Poststandard5 large school buses are an extremely safe form of transportation when compared to other modes of transportation."6 NTSB's contention is supported by 1986 data pertaining to national occupant fatality and fatality rates by vehicle type compiled by the Transportation Research Board (rRB) committee that investigated school bus safety :7 It was estimated by the TRB committee that passenger cars had a fatality rate of 1.9 and school buses had a fataiity rate of 0.5 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, statisticaily making school buses four times safer than passenger cars on a vehicle-mile basis and acc6rdingly, many more times safer on a passenger-m ile basis due to the higher occupancy of school buses. The six years of comprehensive Florida school bus accident data that are available (1986 through 1991) ind icated that 0 .17 percent (1987}, 0.031 percent (1988}, and 0.11 percent (1991) of all Aorida motor vehicle fatalities involved persons on school buses.8 There were no recorded on-board Florida school bus related fatalities in 1986, 1989, and 1990. 'PoslSta!ldard refers to school buses manufactured for sale in the U.S. after the implementation of FMVSS 220,22l,and 222. Natio nal Transportation Safety Board. 1987. Safety Study -Crashwonhi11e$S of lArge Posmandard School Buses. Bureau of Safety Programs, Washington, D.C. 1 Transportation Research Board. !989 /mp roving School IJu.s Safety Special Report No. 222. National Reseax<:h Council, Washington, D .C. 8 Office of Management and Planning Services. 1992. Traffic Crash Data. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Tallahassee, F lorida iii

PAGE 5

Regardless of the methodology, school bus fatality statist ics, when weighed against fatality statistics for other modes of transportation, consistently support NTSB's statement that large school buses are an extremely safe mode of transportation. However, the earnest interest in ensuring the safe transport of school children furthers any proposed options being given serious consideration for improving F l orida school bus occupant safety Review of School Bu s Acci dent Studies Recognizing the need for and Importance of studying school bus accidents the Texas Transportation Institute (Til) a n d the Nat i onal Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) each conducted comprehensive stud ies that investigated "rea l -wor l d school bus accidents TTl's case by-case eval uation involved the analysis o f 13 school bus accidents that involved 19 fatalities.9 This analysis suggested that 12 of the 19 fatalities might have been prevented had safety restraints been availaible to those who were fatally injured and that an additional 4 deaths m i ght have been prevented had safety restraints been available or proper student disciplinary procedures exercised. m also assessed accident characteristics andjor injury patterns which might be related to the seat belt issue In all injury-producing [Texas) school bus accidents."10 This analysis produced insight into the impact modes which are relevant to assessing the effectiveness of safety restraints (rear-end, side, and frontal impacts and relievers) and rendered that approximately 46 percent of all fatal-injury-causing Texas school bus accidents were accounted for in either side impact or rollover collisions. Moreover, while rollover accidents represented a small share (6 percent) of all injury-causing Texas school bus accidents, they accounted for a much higher proportion of all fatal and i ncapacitating injuries to Texas school bus occupants, 15 percent and 1 8 percent, respectively This is important to emphasize because safety restra i nts generally are considered to improve occupant safety in accidents involving either a side impact or a rollover Hatfield. N.J and K.N. Womack. 1986 Safety Bells on School Buses: The Te:xas Experience Texas Transponation Institute, Te= A & M University, College Station. Texas. o Ibid. iv

PAGE 6

NTSB reviewed 43 accidents involving 1,119 unrestrained occupants "to evaluate the real -world performance of school buses built to the 1977 Federal school bus standards ."11 The objective of the study was to focus primarily "on events during the crash: how well did the bus perform; how did occupants sustain their inju ries if any; and how serious were the injuries."12 The Safety Board also examined the question of whether lap-belts are needed for occupants of large school buses manufactured for sale in the U.S. after April 1, 1977. Based on the evidence accumulated from the investigat ion, the Safety Board concluded that Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222 which provides for "compartmenta lization," worked well in the Safety Board-investigated crashes in protecting school bus occupants from injury In all accident types They also recommended that Federal safety standards not be amended to require that all newly purchased large school buses be equipped with safety restraints and that such actions (requiring safety restraints ) in terms of reduced fatalities and injuries to school bus occupants, has not been proven. School Bus Crash and Sled Tests In 1984, Transport Canada performed full-scale crash testing of three different-sized school buses to evaluate the effect that safety restraints might have on improving school bus occupant protection and to assess whether current Canadian school bus standards provided a sufficient level of occupant safety. Data were collected on the relative severity of injuries to occupants, both with and without safety restraints, and with three different seat spacings. The Transport Canada team concluded that "compartmentalization" affords occupants sufficient protection in frontal collisions and that the u tilization of lap belts may result in more serious head and neck injur ies to restrained school bus occupants. In 1967, the Univers ity of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) conducted three crash tests in which different impact modes a frontal, a rear -end, and a side impact (90) were fabricated "using research techniques and engineering methodology designed to "Nat ional Transponation Safety Board. 198 7 Op cit. 12 Ibid. v

PAGE 7

provide realistic and objective findings relating to school bus passenger safety."13 On the basis of the data gathered, the UCLA research team concluded that "the greatest single contribution to school bus passenger collision safety is the high strength, high back safety seat. Next in importance is the use of a three-point belt, a lap-belt or other form of effective restraint.'14 In 1972, UCLA conducted a second series of crash tests the Series II tests. The second series of tests involved two types of collisions, a head-on and a side impact (90"). The schoo l bus seat types, safety restraints anthropomorphic testing devices (A TO), and data gathering procedures were similar to those of the Series I tests. However, in addition to the similarities to the Series I tests a rearward-facing seat without a lap-belt and a seat positioned sideways were evaluated as well Based on the accumulated evidence, the UCLA researchers concluded, "For buses provided with safety seats having a performance profile comparable to the UCLA design, seat be lts pap-belts) will contribute a significant measure of safety, especially during severe upset collision exposures.'15 It is important to note that the Series I and Series II UCLA tests were conducted many years prior to the issuance of FMVSS 220, 221, and 222. In 1985, Thomas Built Buses, Inc., conducted three crash impact tests: a frontal impact into a fixed barrier, a right-side impact by a moving barrier, and a left-side im pact by a moving barrier. Based on the results of the crash impact tests, the Thomas Built research group concluded that compartmentalizati on" perfonns as It was designed in fron tal and side impacts. They also found that in the case of the side impacts, very little difference exists between the restrained and unrestrained ATDs relating to severity of head and chest in juries. '6 In 1978, NHTSA conducted a sled test program to evaluate the restraint performance of various production school bus seats designed to satisfy the requirements Severy et al 1967. School Bus Paswiger Protection. Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, Univel'$ity of California at Los Angeles, California. ,. Ibid. IS fbid. 16 Thomas Built Buses Inc. 1992. Sttu Btlts in School Buses. Informa tion compiled and dis seminated by Thomas Built Buses, Inc. vi

PAGE 8

of FMVSS 222.17 They concluded that the use of lap-belts did not reduce peak head accelerations but, in fact, actually caused an increase in them. They attributed these higher head accelerations to the fact that the contact point for the A TO's head is moved upward as a result of using the l ap-belt. Also, the results indicated that "compartmentalization" worked as i ntended and that there were no additional benefits that could be derived by using lap-belts. Alternative Seat and Restraint Systems To further investigate the issue of alternative seat and restra int systems for school buses, Transport Canada conducted a battery of tests that utilized five alternative seat types, each of wh ich incorporated a restraint system.18 The tests evidenced that contoured padded and less aggressive seats with lap-belts are not the panacea to increasing occupant safety. With respect to three-point restraint systems, the T r ansport Canada team concluded that they possess the necessary potential to increase occupant safety but that additional consideration must be given to testing and design before they can become a viable alternative school bus occupant safety option. However, the test results revealed that rearward-facing seats with lap-belts can significantly augment school bus occupant safety. The Transport Canada team stressed that continued research is required if rearward-facing seats are to become standard equipment on Canadian school buses. Uke their T r ansport Canada counterparts, the 1967 UCLA researchers also investigated the effectiveness of numerous alternative restraint systems and a single alternative seat system in conjunction with testing the effectiveness of lap-belts. Conclusions similar to Transport Canada regarding three-point restraint systems were reached by the UCLA team. UCLA test resu lts also established that restraint bars, gate bar lap restraints, armrests, airbags, and airseats do not have the capability to offer increased protection to school bus occupants. Collectively, the body of literature reviewed in compiling portions of this report provided contradictory and conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of safety Bayer, A.R. 1978. School Bus Passenger Sea/ and lAp Belt Sled Tests. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Depanment of Transportation, Washington, D.C. "Farr, G.N. l9&1.School Bus Seat De>elopmmt Study Traffic Safety and Standards and Research, Transport canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. vii

PAGE 9

restraints in large school buses and ra i sed the possibility that safety restraint use might result in harmfu l epidemio l og i cal consequences to schoo l bus occupants in certain accident types. Moreover, the studies reviewed within this report have been crit i cized on several occasions regard i ng their methodological soundness and the relevance of test results inferred (UCLA Series I and II tests) prior to the issuance of FMVSS 220, 221, and 2221n April 19n. Hence, a definitive conclusion regarding safety restraint use could not be reached based on the body of evidence reviewed. For further exp l anation, detailed information regarding these studies i s provided in Chapters Ill IV, and V of the report. Safety Cost Benent Analysis Even if the concl usion were reached that safety restraints are beneficial in terms of their ability to mitigate fatalit i es and injuries to school bus occupants, their installation and the installat i on of other safety investment options such as crossing contro l arms and external loud speaker systems i n large Aorida schoo l buses must involve weighing the costs aga i nst the overall potential benefits in abso l ute terms, i.e., a quantifiab l e number of lives preserved and injuries prevented or lessened by the i nstallation of each safety investment option. While the concept of placing a dollar value on the life of a child remains distasteful to most of the genera l public, current fiscal reality mandates that numerous public services and i nvestments ranging from roadway safety improvements, police and f i re protection, and large school bus occupant safety involve an i mplicit financial tradeoff between spending and the benefits to be garnered. Thus, it is requisite to determine the re l ative worth of each safety i nvestment option by calculating a quantifiable number of lives saved and injuries p r evented for a specified capita l outlay and un i t of t i me. This effort analyzed nine different safety i nvestment options for large Aorida school buses i n order to determine a quantifiable number of fatalities and injuries that might be reduced in an average year in F l orida for an annual capital outlay of $1,000,000 per safety investment option. The safety investment options evaluated in the safety costbenefit analysis (CBA) include: Lap-be lts Lap/shoulder belts (three-point restraints) Lap/dual shoulder belts (multiple-point or four-point restraints) Higher seat-backs ("New York" seats) viii

PAGE 10

Adult school bus monitors Electrically operated crossing control arms Dual stop signal arms External loud speaker systems Rearward-facing seats with a lap-belt The installation cost estimates for the nine safety investment options investigated in this report are only for newly purchased large school buses. The cost to retrofit large Florida school buses with the nine safety investment options was not explored. This is due, in part, to the considerable structural modifications requi red to properly retrofit lap belts and to install upper torso restraint systems (three-point and four-point safety restraint systems) in large school buses. With regard to upper torso restraints, the aisle and center seating positions of a school bus seat are not practical anchorage locations for upper torso belts (three-point and four-point restraint systems) other than the seat-back itself. Since FMVSS 222 places the maximum allowable strength of the seat-back at 16 inches above the seating reference point (SAP) to 2,400 pounds, it would be impossible for this same seat-back to provide an upper torso belt anchorage point approximately 20 to 22 inches above the SRP capable of withstanding 3,000 pounds of force without extensive deformation of the seat-back. Extensive seat-back deformatio n under toa d would drastically diminish the occupant protection upper torso belts are intended to provide to school bus occupants. The resu lts of the CBA indicate that higher seat-backs are the safety investment option that could offer the most benefits in terms of fatalities prevented and injur ies reduced to Florida school bus occupants. They have the potential to prevent up to 0.3 fatalities, 7 incapacitating injuries, 42 nonincapacitating injuries, and 104 possible injuries for an annual investment of $650,000. In addition, higher seat-backs are also highly cost effective; as mentioned above, for a annual capital expenditure of only $650,000, all 23,444 large school buses (public and private) operating in Aorida can be equipped with these devices. The annual fatality and injury reduction results for the nine safety investment options are summarized in Table 1. ix

PAGE 11

Table 1 Summary of Annual Fatality and lniiiJrV Reduction for Each Investment $1 Annual Investment The highec seat-back fatality and inju1'y reduction estimates 111 based on an annual expenditure of only $650,CXXI as opposed to the $1,000,000 (35,432 buses can be equipped for this a nnUli i n VMtmtnt 1 2 988 more than the total number of latge school buses i n operation} per yeat exp e nditure for the 01hec eight safety lt'!'Yestmen1 options. To ahow th e fatality and inju.ry reduction tttimate:a b&Md on an annual expenditure of $1,000,000 would be unrepceaentative of their potential effect on fatality and injury to Florida school btl$ occupants.. Note: thi s annual dollar amount ( $650,000) ia not reflective of the cost to retrofit existing l a rge tM.ISH with higher seat.-badrs. but 10 spedfy them as standard equipment when ordeting new schOOl busts, Descriptive Analysis of Florida School Bus Accldents The descriptive analysis of Florida school bus accident data is based on the supposition that i mpact mode (I.e., direction of impact) is directly related to the severity of injury sustained by Florida school bus occupants. To determine the potential effectiveness of safety restraints in large Florida school buses, two objectives were defined : (1) determine the frequency and distr i bution of accidents by four primary impact modes (frontal, rear-end, side, and rollovers) ; and (2) determine occupant injury severity by. the same four impact modes. The descriptive analysis of Florida school bus accident data does not provide convincing evidence that safety restraints are needed in large Florida school buses. Rather, the considerable number of Florida school bus occupants that were either uninjured or received minor or moderate in juries (44,220) simply reiterates that large Florida school buses are a safe mode of transportation. Moreover, based upon an extensive review of the accident reports, the availability of safety restraints to those Florida schoo l bus occupants who were fatally injured was rendered moot, since the nine fatalities most likely would have occurred even if the school bus occupants had been held in place by a safety restraint. The fact that only 9 (0.02%) fatalities (five of the fatalities were the X

PAGE 12

result of a single accident see review of Florida Traffic Accident Report #091952564 on page 117 of this report) and 202 (0.45%) incapacitating injuries were sustained by the 44,438 Aorida school bus occupants involved in the 4, 732 school bus accidents reported in the statewide accident database for the years 1986 through 1991 substantiates the effectiveness of the safety investment options already available on large Florida school buses and the reality that serious accidents involv ing school buses In Florida are infrequent. Conclusions and Recommendations tor Further Research Based upon an extensive revie w of pertinent litera ture the results of the safety cost-benefit analysis, and the resu lts of the descriptive analysis of Aorida school bus accident data, numerous conclusions were reached These include the following: No conclusive evidence exists pertaining to the effectiveness of safety restraints (lap-belts, lap\shoulder belts, and lap\dual shoulder belts) in large school buses, and the available research has not demonstrated a clear differentiation or superiority in the fatality and injury reduction potential between the three safety restr a int types. The marginal improvement in safety to Aorida school bus occupants associated with the use of the three safety restraint types results in their falling outside of the range of cost effectiveness that would provide a compelling basis for an investm ent recommendation. The results of the safety cost-benefit analysis indicate that higher seat-backs ("New York" seats) offer the greatest potential to prevent fatalities and reduce the inju ries sustai ned by Florida school bus occupants per dollar investe d ; all 23,444 large Florida school buses can be equipped with these devices for an annual capital outlay of only $650,000 (It should be noted that this dollar amount is not reflective of the cost to retrofit existing large buses with higher seat-backs, but to specify them as standard equipment when ordering a new school bus) To identify the possible problems associated with the installation and use of higher seat-backs ("New York seats) in large F lor ida school buses before any decision is made to le gislatively mandate the installation of these devices, investigation is recommended This may include sled or crash testing a xi

PAGE 13

demonstration project or isolated case study (Dade County, Florida, currently operates several buses with higher seat-backs), and the administration of comprehensive surveys to school districts and pertinent personnel in the states of 111inois, New York, and New Jersey (to date, the only states known to require 24-inch high seat-backs as measured from the SAP) to acquire relevant information regarding their operational experiences with these safety devices. The lack of empirical evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of safety restraints in large school buses emphasizes the important need for a comprehensive study to compare the fatality and injury rates among belted and unbelted school bus occupants to decisively determi(le their safety potential. The school districts and states that currently require safety restraint (lap-belts) installation and use provide an opportunity to collect, analyze, and compare the severity of injuries sustained by belted and unbelted school bus occupants. The compilation of these data over a multi-year period and the resulting empirical analysis may provide insight into the effectiveness of safety restraints Oap-belts) in large school buses. Comprehensive surveys should be administered to school districts and states that currently require the installation of safety restraints in large school buses to acquire data regarding their operational experiences with these devices, i.e., the issue of liability, seat belt use/compliance, maintenance costs, vandalism of belts, influence of safety restraints on student conduct, and other information. xii

PAGE 14

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xviii List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xxvi Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Chapter I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 INTRODUCnON, GOALS, AND PROJECT FRAMEWORK . . . . . . . 2 Objectives, Scope, and Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . 4 P r oject Overview and Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Chapter II . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 THE SAFETY RECORD OF SCHOOL BUSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Background and Current Status of Schoo l Bus Safety Standards . . . . 9 Effectiveness of FMVSS 222 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Off-board Fatalities and Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Chap ter Ill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 REVIEW OF SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT DATA . . . . . . . . . . 16 I NJURY CLASSIFICAT I ON SCALES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 ANSI Injury Classification Sca l e . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Multiple Abbreviated Injury Scale {MAIS) . . . . . . . . . 1 8 TTl SCHOOL BUS ACC I DENT INVESTIGAnON STUDY . . . . . . . 18 Case Study Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 General Analys i s Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 xiii

PAGE 15

NATIONAL TRANSPOR TATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB) STUDY . . . 24 NTSB Study Conclus ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Fatalit ies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Severe to Maximum Injuries (MAIS-4 or above) . . . . . 27 Serious Injur ies (MAIS-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Moderale Injuries (MAIS 2) . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 SYNOPSIS OF SCHOOL BUS ACCIDEN T INVESTIGA T IONS . . . . . 30 Chapter IV .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. . . .. .. .. .. . . 32 SCHOOL BUS CRASH AND S LE D T ESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 TRANSPORT CANADA CRASH TESTS . . . . . .. . . . . . 32 Experimental Narrat ive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Test Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Crit i cisms of Transport Cana d a Tests . . . . . . . . . . 35 UCLA CRASH TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Series I Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Experimental Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 UCLA Series I Test Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . 38 UCLA SERIES II TES T S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Experimental Narrative .............. .... . . . . . 39 : UCLA Series II Test Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 THOMAS BUILT BUSES INC. IMPACT TESTS . . . . .. . . . . 42 ExpE!rimental Narrative .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 43 Test Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 NATIONAL H I GHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NH T SA) TESTS ............. .. .. .. ...... ................... 46 Exper i mental Narrative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 NHTSA Conclus ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 SYNOPSIS OF CRASH TESTS AND SLED TEST . . . . . . . . . 50 ChapterV .......... .................... .............. .... 51 ALTERNATIVE SEAT AND RESTRAINT SYSTEMS . . . . . . . . . . . 51 TRANSPORT CANADA TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Test Procedure and Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Results of Sled T ests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 xiv

PAGE 16

Contoured Padded Seat with Lap-Belt ......... ....... Less Aggressive Seat Back with Lap-Belt . . . . . . Rearward-Facing Seat with Lap-Belt .................. Three-Point Restraint System (lap/shoulde r belt) ...... ... Multiple-Po int Restraint System Qap/dual shoulder belt) .... Seat and Restraint System Results . . . . . . . . . . . . I nsta ll at ion Cost Estimates for Each Seat and Restraint Design .... UCLA TESTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . UCLA Alternative Restraint System Results . . . . . . . . . Restraint Bars . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gate-Bar Lap Restraint ............. ........... ........ Armrests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Airbag .......................... Airseat ........................................... Three-Po int Restraint System (lap-beltjshoulder harness) ....... SYNOPSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SEAT AND RESTRAINT SYSTEMS ...... Chapter V I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PROFESSIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL QUALITATIVE OPIN I ONS 53 53 54 55 56 56 58 60 60 60 6 1 6 1 62 62 63 63 65 AND OTHER CONSIDERA n ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 PROFESSIONAL MED ICAL SOCIETY OPINIONS . . . . . . . 66 SCHOOL BUS MANUFACTURERS OPIN I ONS . . . . . . . . . . 68 F r ontal I mpacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68 Rear -End Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Side Imp acts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Relievers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 STA T E L EGISLATURE DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION OPINIONS . . 70 State Legislatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 State Departments of Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 U.S. AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY OPINIQNS . . . . . 71 National Highway Traffic Safety Admin i stration . . . . . . . 71 Natlonai"Safety Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 National Transportation Safety Board . . . . . . . . . . . 72 Transport Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 NATIONAL PUPIL TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION OP I NIONS . . . 74 National School Transportation Association . . . . . . . . . 7 4 XV

PAGE 17

INSURANCE EXPER T OPINIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 OTHER ASSOCIATED CONSIDERAT I ONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 Carryover Effect . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Liab i lity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76 I nfluence of Safety Restraint Use on Student Conduct . . . . . 77 Operational Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78 SYNOPSIS OF FIND I NGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 Chap ter VII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 SAFETY COST-BENEFIT ANALYS I S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 RESULTS OF SAFETY COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . 90 Lap-Belts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Lap/Shoulder Belt and Lap/Dual Shou lder Belt Restraint Systems . 92 Higher Seat-Backs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 Adult School Bus Monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 E lectric Crossing Control Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 External Loud Speaker Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 Dua l Stop Signal Arms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Rearward -F acing Seats with Lap-Belt . . . . . . . . . . . 101 SAFETY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS SYNOPSIS ........ .......... 103 Chapter VIII . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA SCHOO L BUS ACCIDENTS .... . ... 110 IMPACT MODE DYNAMICS ............ ... .......... ... ...... 110 Frontal I mpacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Side Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111 Rear-End Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 Relievers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT DATA ............ 114 Incapacita ting Injuries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Fatel Inj uries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Nonincapacitating, Possible, and No Injuries . . . . . . . 119 ACCI DENT DATA ANA LYSI S SYNOPS I S .............. ....... ... 120 xvi

PAGE 18

Chapter I X . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDA TIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ...... 121 RECOM MENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH ................. 122 Higher Seat-Backs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 Rearward-Facing Seats with Lap-Belts . . . . . . . . . . 123 Airbags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 Electronic Proximity Sensors . . . . . . . . . . . 126 On-Board Adult Monitors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126 Collection of School Bus Accident Data . . . . . . . 127 Operating Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 CONCLUSIO N ......................... ..................... 127 APPENDIX A Federal Motor Veh i cle Safety Standards That Apply to School B uses . . A1 APPENDIX B Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rate Combination Tables Per $1,000,000 Annual Investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . B l APPENDIX C Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rate Combination Tables as Applied to All Large Public Florida School Buses . . . . . . . . . . . . C1 APP E NDIX D B i bliography 0 xvii 0-1

PAGE 19

Table 1 Table 2 Tab l e 3 Tab l e 4 Table 5 Table 6 Table 7 Table 8 Table 9 Table 10 Tab l e 11 Tab l e 12 Table 13 Table 14 LIST OF TABLES Summary of Annua l Fatality and Injury Reduction fo r Each Safety lnvestmen1 Option per $1, 000,000 Annual Investment ............. x Occupant Fatalities and Fatality Rates in the U S By Vehicle Type for 1986 ......................................... 7 Pupils Injured per 100 Million Pupil Mi l es Traveled, 19891 990: A Comparison of States . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Description of ANSI Injury Severity Code . . . . . . . . . . 17 Description of Multiple Abbrev i ated Injury Scale (MAIS) ....... ... 19 TTl Fatal Accidents Summary ............................. 22 Accident Severity Based on Occupan1 1 njury By Impact Mode, Texas, 1 975-1984 ................. . .................. 24 Total Bus Occupant Injuries By I mpact Mode Texas, 1975-1984 .......... .................... ....... 24 Injur i es Sustained by Fatally Injured and Surviving Occupants NTSB .......... ... ........ .... . ....... 29 Results of Transport Canada Frontal Crash Test .... . ...... ... 35 Results of UCLA Series II Head-On Crash Test .... ........ ... 41 Resu lts of UCLA Series II Side Impact Crash Test ...... ...... 42 Characteristics of Thomas Built Left and Right Side Impact Tests ... 44 HIC and Chest Acceleration Values fo r Thomas Built R i ghtand Left-S i de Impact Tests .............. ................. 45 xviii

PAGE 20

Table 15 Table 16 Table 17 Table 18 Table 19 Table 20 Table 21 Tab le 22 Table 23 Table 24 Table 25 Table 26 Table 27 Table 28 Results of NHTSA Sled Tests ........................... 49 Transport Canada HIC, Chest, and Head Acceleration Results . . 57 Transport Canada Installation Cost Estimates in 1992 U.S. Dollars ... 58 Safety Cost-Benefit Analysis Parameters .................... 84 Transportation Research Board Safety Investment Option Effectiveness and Usage Rates ....... ... ......... .. ....... 85 Average Florida Onboard and Off-board Fatalities and Injuries, 1986-1991 ........................... . ....... 87 Number of Large School Buses in Florida .............. . .... 88 Annual Florida Student Fatality and Injury Populations Addressed by Each Safety Investment Option ........ 89 Potential Lap-belt Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual investment, 5,008 buses) ................... 91 Potential Lapbelt Fatality and Injury Reductions ( installed in all large Florida school buses, 23,444) ....................... 92 Installation Cost for Lap/Shoulder Belt and Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Restraint Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Potential Lap/Shoulder Belt Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual investment, 2,187 buses) ................... 94 Potential Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual investment, 1,891 buses) ..... . . 94 Potential Lap/Shoulder and lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Fatality and Injury Reductions in all large Florida school buses, 23,444) ............ .................... ...... 95 xix

PAGE 21

Table 29 Table 30 Table 31 Table 32 Table 33 Table 34 Table 35 Table 36 Table 37 Table 38 Table 39 Potential Higher Seat-Back Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual inves tment, 36,432 buses) .................. 96 Potential Higher Seat-Back Fatality and Injury Reductions in all large Aorida school buses, 23,444} ............. 96 Potential Adult School Bus Monitor Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual investment, 261 buses) ............ 97 Potential Adult School Bus Monitor Fatality and Injury Reductions (all 23,444 large school buses staffed with adult monitors) ......... 97 Potential Crossing Control Arm Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual inves tment 15 ,776 buses) ........ .......... 98 Potential Crossing Control Arm Fatality and Injury Reductions (installed on all large Florida school buses, 23,444} ............. 98 Potential External Loud Speaker System Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual inv estment 18,717 buses) .......... 99 Potential External Loud Speaker System Fatality and Injury Reductions in all large Florida school buses, 23,444) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 Pote ntial Dual Stop Signal Arm Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual investment, 14,892 buses) ......... 100 Potential Dual Stop Signal Arm Fatality and Injury Reductions in all large Florida school buses, 23,444} ............. 101 Potential Rearward-Facing Seat with lap-Belts Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual inve stment 2,654 buses) . . 103 XX

PAGE 22

Table 40 Table 41 Table 42 Table 43 Table 44 Table 45 Table 46 Table 47 Table 48 Table 49 Table 50 Table 51 Table 52 Potential Rearward-Facing Seat with Lap-Belts Fatality and Injury Reductions (installed in all large Aorida school buses, 23,444) ....................................... 103 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Safety Investment Options Ranked According to Fatality and Injury Reduction Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 Summary of Annual Fatality and Injury Reduction for Each Safety Investment Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 F lo rida Large School Bus Accident Frequency Based on Impact Mode, 1988-1991 ............................... 115 Large Aorida School Bus Occupant Injury Severity By Year ....... 115 Large Aorida School Bus Occupant Injury Severity Based on Impact Mode, 1986-1991 ............................. 116 Summary of Potential Safety Restraint System Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual investme n t ) ........... 121 FMVSS That Apply to School Buses . . . . . . . . . . . A-ll Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Higher Seat-Back Injury Severity Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-11 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Adult School Bus Monitor Injury Severity Reduction ............. ........ B-Ill Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Dual Stop Signal Arm Injury Severity Reduction . . . . . . . . . . B-IV Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Crossing Control Arm Injury Severity Reduction . . . . . . . . . . B-V xxi

PAGE 23

Table 53 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to External Loud Speaker System Injury Severity Reduction . . . . . . . BVI Table 54 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shou lder Be l t Fata lity Prevention . . . . . . . . . BVII Table 55 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Appl ied to Lap/Dual Shou l der Belt I ncapacitating Inj ury Reduction ......... B-VIII Table 50 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Appl ied to Lap/Dual Shou l der Be l t Nonincapacitating I n j ury Reduction . . BIX Table 57 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as App l ied to Lap/Dual Shou lder Belt Possible Injury Reduction .............. B-X Table 58 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Fatality Prevention . . . . . . . . . . B-XI Table 59 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Incapacitat ing Injury Reduction . . . . . . B-XII Table 60 Variab l e Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Nonlncapacitating Injury Reduction ......... B-XIII Table 61 Variab l e Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Possible In jury Reduction . . . . . . B XIV Table 62 Variable Effect i veness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-XV Table 63 Variable Effect i veness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt I ncapacitating Injury Reduction . . . . . . . . . B XVI Tab l e 64 Variab l e Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Noni ncapacitating Injury Reduction . . . . . . . . B-XV II xxii

PAGE 24

Table 65 Table 66 Table 67 Table 68 Table 69 Table 70 Table 71 Table 72 Table 73 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Possible I njury Reduction ....................... B-XVlll Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention . . . B-XIX Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt I ncapacitating I njury Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-XX Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Nonincapacitating Injury Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-XXI Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Possible Injury Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-lO
PAGE 25

Table 74 Table 75 Table 76 Table 77 Table 78 Table 79 Table 80 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to External Loud Speaker System Injury Severity Reduction Onstalled for an annual investment of $750,000 in all large public Florida school buses 14 008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-VI Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Fatality Prevention (installed for an an annual investment of $7,700,000 in all l arge public Aorida school buses 14,008) ................................ C-VII Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Injury Reduction Qnstalled for an annual investment of $7,700,000 in all l arge public Florida school buses, 14,008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-VIII Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Nonincapacitating I njury Reduction (installed for an annual inves tment of $7,700,000 i n all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) . . . . . . . . C-IX Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Possible I njury Reduction (installed for an annual investment of $7,700,000 in all large public Aorida school buses, 14,008) ....................... ... C-X Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Fatal ity Prevention Qnstalled for an annual investment of $6,400 000 in all large public Aorida school buses, 14,008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C XI Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to lap/Shoulder Belt Incapacitating Injury Reduction (insta lled for an annual investment of $6,400,000 in all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-XII xxiv

PAGE 26

Table 81 Table 82 Table 83 Table 84 Table 85 Table 86 Table 87 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Nonincapacitating Injury Reduction Onstalled for an annual investment of $6,400 000 i n all large public Aorida school buses, 14 008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C XIII Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shou l der Belt Possible Injury Reduction Onstalled for an annual investme n t of $6,400 000 in all large public Florida school buses 14, 008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-XIV Variable E ffectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention (installed for an annual investment of $2 800,000 in all large publ i c Aorida school buses, 14,008) . . C XV Vari able Effectiveness and Usage Rates as App l ied to Lap-Belt Incapacitating Injury Reduct i o n ( I nstalled for an annual investment of $ 2,800,000 in a ll large public Florida school buses, 14,008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-XVI Variable E ffectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Nonincapacitating Injury Reduction Onstalled for an annual investment of $2,800 000 in all large public Florida school buses 14,008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C XVII Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Possible Injury Reduct i on (Installed for an annual investment of $2 800 000 in all large pub lic Florida school buses 14 008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . G-XVlll Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied t o Rearward-Fac i ng Seats with a Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention (installed for an annual investment of $5,300,000 in all l arge public Aorlda school buses 14, 008) . . . . . . . . C-X I X

PAGE 27

Table 88 Table 89 Table 90 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Incapacitating Injury Reduction Qnstalled for an annual investment of $5,300,000 in all large public Florida school buses 14,008) . . . C-XX Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Nonincapacitating Injury Reduction Qnstalled for an annual investment of $5,300,000 in all large public Aorida school buses, 14,008) . . c-xx1 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Possible Injury Reduction (installed for an annual investment of $5,300,000 in all large public Florida school buses, 14, 008) ....... ...... C-XXII xxvi

PAGE 28

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Position of Child When Struck by School Bus ( off-board U.S totals) 1984-1989 ........................ ......... 15 Figure 2 Children Kill ed by School Bus and Other Vehicle (off-board U.S. totals) 19841 989 ......... ........................ 15 Figure 3 I n juries Sustained by Schoo l Bus Occupants i n Texas, 1975-1984 ............................ ..... . . 20 Figure 4 Potential Lap-Belt Impact on School Bus Occupant Fatal i ties, NTSB ....................................... 27 Figure 5 Poten t ial Lap-Belt Impact on School Bus Occupant Severe to Maximum Injuries NTSB (MAIS-4 o r above) .... . .... 27 Figure 6 Potential Lap-Belt Impact on School Bus Occupant Serio u s Injuries, NTSB (MAIS3) ........................... 28 Figure 7 Potential Lap-Belt I mpact on School Bus Occupant Moderate Injur i es NTSB (MAIS-2) ......... ................ 29 Figure 8 T exas School Bus Occupant In j uries by Im p act Mode, 1 9 7 5-1984 ............................... ...... 31 F igu r e 9 Transport Canada Frontal Impact Seating Schematic ........... 34 F igure 1 0 Thomas Bu i lt Seating Schematic fo r Right-Side I mpact Test ........ 44 Figure 1 1 Thomas Built Seating Schematic for Left-S i de Impact Test . . .... 45 Figure 12 NHTSA Seating Schematic for Sled Test Crash Simulat i ons ... .... 48 Figure 13 HIC and Chest Accele r ation Values for Transport Canada Head-On I mpact Test ..... ...... ................. ..... 58 xxvii

PAGE 29

Figure 14 HIC and Chest Acceleration Values for Transport Canada Angled Impact Test .................................. 58 Figure 15 Florida School Bus Occupant I n jury Severity Reduction by Safety Investment Option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106 Figure 16 Florida School Bus Occupant Injury Severity Based on Impact Mode, 1986 ............................. .. 119 Figure 1 7 HIC and Chest Acceleration Values for Transport Canada Head-On Impact Test ................................ 124 F i gure 18 HIC and Chest Acceleration Values for Transport Canada Angled Impact Test ............................ ..... 124 xxviii

PAGE 30

FOREWORD The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), at the request of the Florida House of Representatives, conducted a study that investigated the potential benefits that may be realized by the use of safety restraints in l arge F l o r ida schoo l buses. The results of this detailed study are p r ovided in th i s report The following CUTR s t aff assisted i n compiling and preparing this report: CUTR D i rector : Gary Brosch Project Director: Thomas L Miller, Ph.D., Deputy Director for Training Pr inci pal Investigator: Michael R. Baltes, Research Associate 1

PAGE 31

Chapter I INTRODUCTION, GOALS, AND PROJECT FRAMEWORK Safety restraint use has long been considered an effective means of reducing fatalities and injuries on U.S. highways. Safety restraints were first introduced in the late 19th century to prevent horse-drawn buggy occupants from being ejected out of their seats on rough roads. As a result of the United States Air Force's research program on automobile crashes in the mid-1950's, several car manufacturers began offering safety restraints as optional equipment In passenger cars. By 1964, all car manufacturers, either voluntarily or as a direct result of compliance with state legislation, installed safety restraints in the front seat as standard equipment in passenger cars By 1966 about 30 states had laws r equiring front safety restraints in all automobiles sold in their states Even after safety restraints be9ame available to all persons who purchased new automobiles, however, relatively few embraced the idea of "buckling up." In July 1983, Florida, following the lead of other states, enacted child restraint legislation that made it a violation of the law not to have children under 6 years of age restrained with safety restraints or children under 4 years of age secured in child seats when traveling in an automobile. On July 1, 1986, Florida extended this requirement to the general public with the enactment of legislation mandating safety restraint usage by all automobile and pick-up truck drivers and front seat occupants According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 42 states plus Washington D.C., Puerto Rico, and the territories currently have some form of safety belt use law in effect As a result of mandatory safety restraint usage laws, the General Accounting Office reports that their use has increased from 11 percent in 1982 to 50 percent in early 1991. For the last 25 years more than 40,000 people annually have died as a result of traffic crashes in the U.S. Although airline crashes and train wrecks receive more media attention, the number of fatalities on the highways greatly exceeds those sustained in al l other modes of transportation combined. Data comp i led by the National Center for Statistics and Analysis (NCSA) reveals that in the U.S. in 1991: 6.1 million traffic accidents occurred, a rate of 1 every 5 seconds; 2

PAGE 32

severe or fatal in juries occurred at a rate of 1 every 88 seconds, down from 1990; minor or moderate injur ies occurred at a rate of 1 every 19 seconds. NHTSA estimates that nearly half of all traffic fatalities could be prevented annually if all front seat occupants wore safety restraints Also NHTSA estimates that between 1983 and 1990 safety restraints saved nearly 25,000 lives and prevented about 650,000 moderate to critical injuries. The ability of safety restraints to completely eliminate or to drastically reduce fatalities and serious injuries to occupants when accidents occur has been recognized, resulting in the mandatory use of safety restraints in passenger cars in all but eight states Although safety restraints in automobiles have proven to be very effective life-saving and injury-mitigating devices, their use in other vehicles, such as heavy trucks and large school buses, is still not mandated by law. Currently, no states require safety belt usage in heavy trucks or urban transit buses. A few states, as well as several school districts around the country, have legis lation mandating the installation and use of safety restraints in large school buses (those buses having a gross vehicle weight greater than 10,000 lbs.). If safety restraints have proven themselves to be very effective in mitigating the number of serious injuries and fatalities in passenger cars, where effectiveness estimates range from 29-88 percent', why has their use not been more prevalent in school buses? Controversy exists regarding just how e ffective safety restraints and mandatory safety belt use laws would be in reducing fatalities and incapacitating injuries to school bus occupants. The debate is rather heated, and both sides of the controversial issue make strong cases in support of their convictions. Proponents of safety restraints in large school buses concede that compartmentalization2 is effective at reducing fatalities and injuries, but argue that when combined with safety restraint use, fatality and injury rates could be reduced even further. Proponents contend as well that requi ring safety restraints in school buses will reinforce 1 General Aca>unting Office. !992.Safezy Bdt Use Laws SaW! Lives and Reduce Costs to Saciezy. ResoW<:es, Community, and Economic Development Division, Washington, D.C. l Companmental!zation, as set forth in Federal Motor Vehicle S.Uety Standard 222,requires that seats must be spaced no more than 24 inches apan as measured from the seating reference point (point a1 which the human torso and thigh pivot) and seat-back beight must be a minimum of 20 inches to the top of the se:u-back as measured from the seating reference point. Also, limitations are placed on the amount of seat back deflection both forward and backward. By adhering to these specific:uions, a companment is created which is intended to restrain the sebool bus OCC\lpant thereby limiting the severity of injuries in the event of an accident. 3

PAGE 33

the habit of young children "buckling up" when they ride with their parents and, as a consequence, safety restraint usage wiU "carry over into adulthood. Also, safety restraint use will im p rov e occupant behavior and decrease d river distractions, translating into possible avoidance of accidents. Lastly, proponents argue that the cost of installing safety restraints Qap-belts) is minimal, no more than $1,000 to $1,500 per large school bus. Opponents of safety restraints in large school buses express concerns about the ability of safety restraints to improve school bus occupant safety. They argue that large school buses, because of their size, distinct color, well-known routes, governed operating speed and unique safety design featu res, are inherently safer than automobiles and, consequently, do not need safety restraints to Improve occupant safety They also contend that, in the case of serious accidents, safety restraints may increase the likelihood of injury and can imperil school bus occupants in accidents involving fire and rollovers. Also, the argument has been made that if school bus drivers do not insist that children wear the safety restraints, the potential "canyover" effect will be lost and could cause the children to "carryover" the message that they do not have to wear safety restraints in other forms of surtace transportation. Lastly, opponents are critical of the cost effectiveness of safety restraints, arguing that the funds that would be utilized for safety rest raints would be better spent on other, more effective safety options such as higher seat-backs, crossing control arms, and adult monitors. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology The Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), at the request of the Aorida Legislature and as part of its mission to bring together the benefits of education and research to meet our changing transportation needs," conducted a study that inv estigated the merits of safety restraints in large Aorida school buses. To address this objective, existin g relevant literature was reviewed and eva luated to draw conclusions that could be reasonably inf erred from the accumulated evidence. Some studies had methodological limitat ions, missing data, o r large marg ins of error. This Informa t ion was collected from federal and state government agencies, university research institutes, professional societies, and school bus manufacturers. 4

PAGE 34

In addition to reviewing existing relevant literature, a safety cost-benefit analysis was performed utilizing Florida school bus accldent data for the years 1986 through 1991. Also, a descriptive analysis utilizing the same Florida school bus accident data was conducted to determine the number and frequency of school bus accidents and the severity of injuries to school bus occupants in Rorida. Project Overview and Framework The study was conducted in two phases. In Phase I, a comprehensive literature review was performed to more fully understand the myriad issues associated with school bus safety. Based on the substantial evidence accumulated in Phase I, Phase II was expanded into two components: Phase lla and Phase lib. Phase I resulted in the completion of the first six chapters of this report. Chapter I consists of the report's objectives, scope, and methodology as well as a profile of the project's framework. In addition, the viewpoints of opponents and proponents alike regarding the issue of safety restraints in large school buses are presented. Chapter II discusses the safety record of school buses in Florida compared to the nation, as well as all Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards that are applicable to school buses A review of two school bus accident investigations is presented in Chapter Ill. Analysis of these types of data is worthwhile in prov iding insight into accident circumstances, i.e., impact mode, in which safety restraints may have intensified or mitigated injuries to school bus occupants. Three school bus crash tests and a single sled crash test were reviewed. They were conducted by U.S. and Canadian agencies, school bus manufacturers, and university research centers for the express purpose of testing various safety restraint designs, seating designs, and other safety investment options for large school buses and are presented in Chapter IV. Safety restraints, primarily lap-belts, are not the only type of occupant restraint systems that can be installed in school buses. Other alternative seat and restraint systems can provide a viable safety alternative to the standard lap belt, and they are discussed in Chapter V. Published opinions of medical experts, education transportation administrators, school bus manufacturers, safety experts, and insurance experts were taken into account as were related issues such as the educational benefits of safety restraints and their impact on student conduct and are discussed in Chapter VI. Phase lla includes the remaining chapters of the report; Chapters VII, VIII, and IX. Chapter VII contains the results of a safety cost-benefit analysis. The safety cost-benefit analysis calculated, for a specific capital expenditure, the annual quantifiable benefits in 5

PAGE 35

absolute terms (potential prevention offatalities and reduction of injuries) associated with the use of nine different school bus safety investment options. Chapter VIII provides a descr i ptive analysis of Florida school bus accident data to determine if there is a benefit, based on the severity and frequency of injuries and accidents, for requiring safety restraint installation in large F l orida school buses. The fina l section, Chapter IX, is devoted to concl usions and recommendations for further research. Based on the recommendations at the end of Phase lla, it is yet to be determined if CUTR should proceed with Phase lib. If the recommendation is to proceed, it is anticipated that the following might be among those to be addressed: determine the safety potent ial and feasibi l ity of higher seat-backs and/or r earward-facing seats with and without lap-belts collection of school bus accident data l egislative and po l icy issues analysis financial plan for selected implementation strategies technical issues analysis information dissemination strategies 6

PAGE 36

Chapter II THE SAFETY RECORD OF SCHOOL BUSES An analysis of the crash performance of large school buses in 1987 led the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to condude that "Poststandard large school buses are an extremely safe form of transportation when compared to other modes of transportation... This statement is supported by 1986 data compiled by the T rans portation Research Board committee that investigated school bus safety pertaining to national occupant fatality and fatality rates by vehicle type, as summarized in Table 2. In 1986 as Table 2 makes clear, passenger cars had a fatality rate of 1 9 and motorcycles had a fatality rate of 48.4 per 100 million vehide miles of travel In contrast, school buses had a fatality rate of 0.5 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled, statistically making them four times safer than passenger cars and 97 times safer than motorcycles. Regardless of the methodology, school bus fatality statistics, when weighed against fatality statistics for all other forms of surface transportation, always support NTSB's deduction that school buses are an extremely safe form of transportation. For comparative purposes, Table 3 provides a breakdown by selected states of the number of pupils injured per 100 million miles of pupil travel. Table 3lllustrates that only 1.148 pupils i n Florida per 100 million pupil miles traveled in 1989-1990. Tabla 2 Occupant Fatalities and Fatality Rates In the U.S. by Vehicle Type tor 1986 V.otdtl)'p< -111 Vmidt Mila fhrwld Occlrpdlw Ferofitia pu Illllti4rtd F-11/IIMM V.otdtllllallawVd .";{;. MOIOI'cxclt'i,i .:. ,tt' A sst ::-; > .. t:;' l: ''18" 4 -" tk,. . .. $' ,_ . :> '; 'l>tf. :;$ 24,912 1 101,214 1.9 1 1 1:} .: {J,(/7" '!:. ({'; cit?t. fJ.HOB:>: '-: 0 1! 1:. .. .. ., s. , ,..,. "' . Souroe : Transport&tlon Research Board. 1989. Improving School Sus Safefy. Spedal Report 222. National Research Council, Washington D.C 1 Poststandard refers to school buses manufactured for sale in the U .S after the implementation of FMVSS 220,221, and 222. 'National Transponation Safety Board. 1987 Safety Study Crashworthiness of Large Poststandard School Busts. Bureau of Safety Programs. Washington, D.C. 7

PAGE 37

Table 3 Pupils Injured per 100 Million Pupil Miles Traveled 1989-1990: A Comparison of States Soutee : National Safety CounQI. 1991. Accidtmt FBCts, 1991 Edition. Chicago l l i noia 8

PAGE 38

In two studies, Gutoskie reports that in Canada for the period 1982 through 1985 motor vehicle occupants were approximately 16 times more like ly than school bus occupants to be injured in road accidents per passenger kilometer of travel,"3 and Farr concluded that a student is 8 times more liable to be injured while travelling to or from school in a vehicle other than a school bus. "4 In an analysis of California accident data, Ursell deduced that "school buses without seat belts are 16.2 times more safe than automobiles. "5 The exemplary safety record of school buses i n Aorida (only 9 fatalities and 202 incapacita ting injuries were recorded for the period 1986 1991 for school bus occupants in 4,732 accidents involving school buses), however, should not rule out future school bus safety improvements. Accidents involving school buses in Aorida continue to occur, and as long as one child is fatally or seriously injured, the pursuit of increased safety must be a constant process. Background and Current Status of School Bus Safety Standards In 1964, Congress instructed the General Services Administration (GSA) to develop minimum safety standards for automobiles procured by the federal government. Among the first standards developed by GSA were performance requirements for the strengthening of safety restraints and anchorage points. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966 (the Act), as amended, directed that federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) be developed for new motor vehicles (includ ing school buses) manufactured for sale in the U.S. The firs t standards issued under the auspices of the Act by the National Highway Safety Bureau, now the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), used the GSA standards as build ing blocks. These standards mandated the ins tallation of a lap/shoulder-belt combination in both front driver and passenger outboard seating positions and lap-belts 'Gutoskie, P .A. 1986.An AMiysis of Canadian School Bus Accident Records /982-IJ3 1984-85. Transport Canada, Ouawa, Ontario, Canada. Farr, G.N 1985. Sclwol Bus Safety Study Volunu! /.Traffic Safety Standards and Research Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. U rcell, C .R. 1977 A S t udy Re/aring to Star Belts for Use in Buses. Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas. 9

PAGE 39

only for all other seating positions as well as required minimum strength specificat ions for safety restraints and anchorage points In 1 974, Congress amended the Act (Public Law 93492) and directed NHTSA to develop m i nimum safety standards to incr ease the safety of specific facets of school buses manufactured for sale i n the U.S These included : emergency exi t s inter ior protection for occupants floor strength seat ing systems crashworthiness of body and frame vehicle operating systems windows and w i ndshields fuel systems Presently, there are a total of 33 FMVSS issued by NH TSA that are bin d ing on school bus manufacturers and carry the penalty of law. They are c lassi fied into three major subgroups: crash avoidance c r ashworthiness post-colli s ion protection These standards cover a w ide range of safety measures r e l ating to impr oved vehicle safety including windshield wiping and defrosting systems, hydrau lic brake systems, rearview m i rrors, b r ake hoses air brake systems hood latches headlamp concealment devices, and accelerator contro l systems among many others. A complete list ing o f all 33 FMVSS that app l y t o school buses i s provided in Tab l e 48 i n Appendix A. Of the 33 existing FMVSS that app l y t o school buses, three were developed by NHTSA that pertain specifica ll y to school buses: FMVSS 220 (rollover protect ion); FMVSS 221 (body and j oint strength}; and F MVSS 222 (occupant seat ing and crash protection) They wer e first published in The Federal Register from February th rough October 1975, in r esponse to the Congress i onal mandate of the Motor Veh ic le and Schoo l Bus Safety Amendments of 1974. The effective date as revised for the three new standards was April 1 19n. These school bus standards were developed w ith the c ommon goal of r educing 10

PAGE 40

the number of deaths and the severity of injuries that may occu r during and following a school bus accident. Accordingly, school buses manufactured for sale in the U.S. after Apri l 1, 1977, were required to comply with the following requ ir ements of these safety standards: FMVSS 220, School Bus Rollover Protection (49 CFR 571. 220) specifies performance requirements for the structural integrity of the passenger compartment of schoo l buses when subjected to forces that may be encountered in r ollover" crashes. Specifically, when a force equal to times the unloaded weight of the school bus is applied to the roof of the school bus's body structure through a force application plate the downward vert i cal movement at any point on the force appl i cation plate must not exceed 5Va inches In addit i o n each emergency exit must be capable of opening during the full application of the force and after release of the f orce except that an emergency exit l ocated I n the roof of the school bus is not required to be capable of opening during the application of the force. FMVSS 220 applies to all school buses (Types A, B, C, and D). FMVSS 221, School Bus Body Joint Strength (49 CFR 571.221) requ i res interior and exterior body panel joints to prevent or reduce panel separat i on in a c r ash. Specifically, each body panel joint shall be capable of holding the body panel to the membe r to which it is j o i ned when subjected t o a force o f 60 percent of the tensile strength of the weakest joined body panel. FMVSS 221 applies on l y to large school buses those with gross vehicle weight r atings greater than 10 000 lbs. FMVSS 222, School Bus Seating and Crash Protection (49 CFR 571.222) sets occupant protection standards fo r passengers and establishes passive barriers to prevent or reduce injuries from the impact of school bus occupants against structures within the vehicle during crashes and sudden driving maneuvers. Specifica l ly, the following requirements must be met: seats must not be spaced l ess 11

PAGE 41

than 20 inches apart and no more than 24 inches apart; seats must be forward-facing; seat-back height must be at least 20 inches; seat-back width must be at least 90 percent of the bench width; seat-back deflection must not exceed 14 inches or not deflect within 4 inches of another passenger or restraining barrier; the seat must not separate from the vehicle at any attachment point; the seat components must not separate from the seat at any attachment point under a specified rearward force; the seat must not deflect to within 8 inches of any part of another passenger seat; and, if the rear surface of another seat is not within 20 inches forward of any seating reference point, a restraining barrier within 20 inches of the reference point must be provided. Large school buses must meet all the requirements of FMVSS 222; however, Type A school buses, those with a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 lbs., must meet all the specified requirements except the 20 inch maximum distance between the seating reference point and seat-back or passive barrier in front of it. Collectively, the requirements of FMVSS 222 form the basis of the concept known as "compartmenta lization"; that is, they created a compartment that is intended to contain an occupant during and following a school bus collision. Compartmentalization, like an airbag, is considered passive protection because no action is required by an occupant to acquire protection. Passive protection is provided by the high-backed padded seats and their specified spacing. In addition to issuing three new safety standards that specifically relate to school bus occupant safety, FMVSS 105 (hydraulic brake systems), FMVSS 111 (rearview mirrors), FMVSS 217 (bus window retention and release), and FMVSS 301 (fuel system integrity) were amended concurrently with the issuance of FMVSS 220, 221, and 222 to further increase school bus occupant safety. As noted, each of the federal motor vehicle safety standards focuses on an important aspect of school bus occupant safety and is intended only as a minimum safety requirement. State and local governments and school districts may, if they see fit, improve upon the minimum standards by specifying additional safety equipment when 12

PAGE 42

they initially order or retrofit their school buses. NHTSA policy specifically states, "Nothing proh ibits a State or l ocal jurisdict ion from purchasing buses equipped with safety belts.''6 In addition to safety restraints, improvements may include a wide array of safety options such as external loud speaker systems, stop signal arms, roof escape hatches, crossing control arms, higher seat-backs, etc. Effectiveness of FMVSS 222 In 1980, Northrop et al. conducted a study for The Center for Environment and Man, Inc., that investigated the effectiveness of FMVSS 222.7 F rom the analysis of school bus accident data, Northrop et al. concluded that if (pre-April 1 1977) school buses met the standards set forth in FMVSS 222, in nonfatal school bus accidents "65 percent of the Injured passengers would receive no injury,"8 and "4 percent of the more severely injured passengers will have their injuries reduced at least one OAIS ( overall abbreviated injury scale]level."9 Moreover, Northrop et al. concluded that in fatal school bus accidents "17 percent of the fatal and injured passengers will receive no injury"10 and "29 percent of the fatal and injured passengers will have their injuries reduced at least one OAIS level (includes those reduced to No Injury)."" Northrop et al. therefore concluded: [S)eat-back padding higher seat-backs, closer seats stronger seat floor supports and seat frames, and the other requirements of FMVSS 222 are probably very effective (about 69 percent injury reduction) in the vast majority of school bus accidents, which usually involve minor damage to the bus, with at most a few passengers injured at the level of OAIS 1 or 2 [minor or moderate]. In the few violent school bus accidents NHTSA. !985. op ci1. 'Northrop e1 al. 1980.SralistiC41Eva/uarion oftht E/fteliveness of Ftdtral Moror Vehicle Saj.ryS1andard 222: School Bus Passenger Staling and Crash Proreclion. U.S Depanment of Transponation, Washington, D.C Ibid. 'Ibid. 0 Ibid. II Ibid. 13

PAGE 43

that produce fatalities, FMVSS 222 has lower effectiveness about 29 percent injury reduction. The Standard [FMVSS 222] has only limited effectiveness in . accidents involving rollover, crashes with trains, etc., where passengers are thrown into contact with each other and/or forcibly come into contact with broken glass, walls, roof, and other interior objects (which are not covered by the standard), or are ejected from the bus."12 From the evidence of its evaluation, the Transportation Research Board committee that investigated school bus safety concluded that ... the three school bus standards issued in 19n (FMVSS 220, 221 and 222) have been highly effective in reducing school bus passenger i n]uries ."13 Off-board Fatalities and Injuries The authors of this repcrt are acutely aware of the fact that a large number of fatalit i es in school bus related accldents do not happen on-board the school bus. They occur off-board before, during and after the l oading or unloading of the school bus. The literature i dentifies three types of accidents that happen in the schoo l bus l oading and unloading zones: pupils are struck by a vehicle passing the stopped school bus in violation of the school bus stop law pupils are struck by the school bus itself pupils are struck by a vehicle when the school bus is not in the vicinity at the time of the accident 02 Ibid. Transponation Research Board. 1989./mproving School Bus Safety. Special Repon No. 222. National Research Council. Washingt on D.C. 14

PAGE 44

The National School Bus Loading and Unloading Survey completed annually by the Kansas Department of Transportation (KDOn documents these totals. The survey is an accumulation of fatality records gathered from all 50 states and the District of Columbia that specifically address only the fatality accidents that involved school children in and around the loading or unloading areas of the school bus. On-board fatalities were omitted, as were pedestrian fatalities that occurred when the school bus was determined not to be in the vicinity of the accident at the time the accident occurred, as illustrated Figure 1 and Figure 2. F igure 1 Position of Child When SINck by School Bua (ollboard U.S. totals), 1984-1989 1984 1985 1986 1987 19$8 1989 Figure 2 Children Killed by School Bus and Other Vehicle (ollboard U.S. totals), 1984-1989 """""" ...... ............ CJ Chilctrerl ICIIIIocllby Vollldo Oltwt 1r1W1 Sd'looiiM The scope of this research project focuses only on those issues associated with safety on-board large school buses and not on developing programs and safety devices to protect children in the loading and unloading zones. Due to the disproportionate number of student fatalities and injuries that occur off-board the school bus, closer review and study should be given to the school bus unloading and loading zones in an attempt to further enhance the safety of Florida school children. 15

PAGE 45

Chapter Ill REVIEW OF SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT DATA The number of accidents involving school buses and the resulting injuries to school bus occupants as a proportion of all motor vehicle accidents in any given year is small. Nationwide, approximately 100 school bus occupants (drivers, non-pupils, and pupils) are fatally injured in school bus-related accidents each year out of the nearly 50,000 persons who are killed annually on America's highways. However, because a high percentage of the casualties are children, school bus accidents of any nature evoke public concern regarding the safety of school buses. Because of the significance of even one child being fatally injured, school bus accidents are a subject worthy of investigation. Findings regarding these accidents can be used to develop a better understanding of the effectiveness of safety restraints as well as other safety investment options for reducing the occurrence of death or injury to school bus occupants. Recognizing the need and importance of studying school bus accidents, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the Texas Transportation Institute (lTI) each conducted comprehensive studies of real-world school bus accidents . These analyses of real world school bus accidents have been performed to evaluate the effectiveness, or potential effectiveness, of safety restraints. The remainder of this chapter is devoted to presenting and discussing the results and conclusions of these two studies Before moving forward into a lengthy discussion of the features and conclusions of these two studies, a brief synopsis of the injury scales commonly used to categorize school bus occupant injur ies is provided to acquaint the reader with the subtleties of the injury coding schemes referred to in this section and throughout the ensuing chapters of this report. INJURY CLASSIFICATION SCALES Two standard methods for classifying the severity of injuries to school bus occupants, as well as all injuries from other motor vehicle accidents, have been 16

PAGE 46

identified In the literature: the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 1 scale and the Multiple Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS)2 The major characteristics of both injury classification scales are discussed in the succeeding pages. ANSI Injury Classification Scale The ANSI scheme codifies three levels of non-fatal injuries. They are listed in orde r of decreasing injury severity and are summarized in Table 4. Table 4 Description of ANSI Injury Severlty Code In Special Report the TAB Committee investigating school bus safety stressed three areas of possible contention that should be considered before the ANSI scale can be used for classifying injuries sustained by school bus occupants. They are as follows: National Safety Council. 1984. MQ/Iual On Classification of Motor Vthiclt Traffic Accidtnts. Chicago Dlinois. 1 Committee on Injury Scaling: Abbreviated Injury Scale, 1 985 Revision. American Assoc ia tion for Automotive Medicine. Arlington Heights, Illinois. Transponation Research Board. 1989 Improving School Bus Safety. Special Repon No. 222. National Research Council, WashinSton D.C. 17

PAGE 47

Not all states use the ANSI scale. For example, the state of California codifies accidents into three categories; A severe, B moderate, and C complaint of pain. There is not definitive proof that the reporting police officers applied the scale correctly when determining accident severity. The scale is limited because it is divided into only three categories of in jury severity. Multiple Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) The MAIS was first published In 1971 under jo int sponsorship of the American Medical Association, the American Association for Automotive Medicine, and the Society of Automotive Engineers. It came into widespread use by crash investigators with the publication of the MAIS manual in 1976 The MAIS scale is used to rate each injury a victim receives i n terms of its potential to result in death. For example, an MA I S of 1 represents minor injuries such as bruises and abrasions whereas 6 is a fatal injury. The MAIS injury severity scale is summarized in Table 5. TTl SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION STUDY In 1986, Hatfield and Womack reviewed Texas school bus accident data for the ten-year period 1975 through 1984. The data were gathered from Texas police accident reports. During this ten-year period, 12,669 accidents that invo lved school buses resulted in 19 fatalities (on-board), 160 incapacitating i njuries {A L evel), and 1 ,648 nonincapacltating injuries (B Level). An additional 2,356 possible i njuries (C Level) were recorded for school bus occupants during this period. A total of 8,516 accidents resulted In property damage only to the school bus. Figure 3 provides a graphic depiction of the injuries sustained in all the school bus accidents reported for the ten-year period in Texas. The ANSI severity scale was used for cod i fying the severity of injuries sustained by school bus occupants. The ANSI coding system was applied as defined in the Texas Department of Public Safety coding manual. 18

PAGE 48

6 9 Table 5 Description of Muhlple Abbreviated Injury Scale (MAIS) Maximum injury, imm
PAGE 49

Figure 3 Injuries Sustained by School Bus Occupants in Texas, 1975-1984 Case Study Results Fatal lmJtncapacitating 0 Nonincapacitating Possible The case study involved the analysis of 13 school bus accidents that produced the 19 school bus occupant fatalities under investigation. The information was taken directly from actual police reports filed by the on-scene inv estigating officers. The cause of death of the 19 fatalities and whether or not the reporting officers felt, based on accident circumstances, that safety restraints would have prevented the school bus occupant(s) from being fatally i njured or the severity of their injuries reduced are summarized in Table 6. The data for Table 6 were obtained from Appendix C of the TTl report. 20

PAGE 50

Taking into consideration the assertions provided by the on-scene investigating police officers, as well as their own case-by-case analysis of the accident reports, Hatfield and Womack suggested that 12 of the 19 fatalities might have been prevented had safety restraints been available to those who were fatally injured. In addition to the 12 lives that might have been saved, an 4 deaths might have been prevented had safety restraints been available or proper student disciplinary procedures exercised. Hatfield and Womack state, "While it is true that properly worn seat belts would have eliminated these injuries [in the 4 deaths], appropriate disciplinary measures would have had the same effect."4 In the remaining three cases that involved fatalities, the authors discerned that the effect of safety restraints, had they been available, could not be determined "based on the limited data available and the fact that real world collisions are extremely difficu l t to evaluate on the basis of laboratory tests or subjective opi nions."5 Kyser in a letter to the Director of the Texas Traffic Safety Section dated March 9 1987, challenged Hatfield and Womack s suggestion that the presence of safety restraints would have prevented six of the 19 deaths in two (accidents 5 and 12 in Appendix 0 of the TTl report) of the 13 accidents that they had investigated.6 On the basis of a personal on-site inspection of the more serious of the two accidents and personal communications with those who investigated the other accident in question, plus examining the physical evidence from this accident, Kyser commented, "There was absolutely no evidence that cou l d lead one to state that a l ap-belt would have lessened injury or [prevented] death in this [these] accident[s]."7 Hatfield and Womack in a memorandum dated Apri l 13 1987 conceded that the use of police officer synopses of school bus accidents for the distinct purposes of estimating the effectiveness of safety restraints in reducing school bus occupant fatalit i es was marg i nal at best.8 In addition, the TTl researchers acknowledged that data collected by Kyser and others would contribute to more valid estimates of the potential Hallield, N.J. and K.N. Wonuok. 1 986. Saftry Bells on Sclwol Buses: The TtxaS &ptritnct. Texas Transportation lnstiture, Texas A & M U n iversity, College Station, Texas. 'Ibid. Transponation Research Board. 1989. op cir. 1 Ibid 'Ibid. 21

PAGE 51

effectiveness of safety restraints on large school buses. However, even though Kyser questioned six of the 12 fatalities !hat the TTl researchers suggested might have been prevented had safety restraints been available, there were still six other fatalities that safety restraints may have prevented and four more that may have been prevented by the presence of safety restraints or by the exercise of appropriate on-board disciplinary procedures. Table 6 TTl Fatal Accidents Summary . SOurce: N.J. and K.N. Womack. 1986. on School BusltS: 1M Texas Exptm'ence. Ttxu Tranaportation Ttxu A & M Unlversi1y, College Station, Ttxa.t.. 22

PAGE 52

General Analysis Results Along with performing a case-by-case analysis of the 13 accidents that resulted in the 19 fatalities, Hatfield and Womack assessed "accident characteristics and/or injury patterns which might be related to the seat belt issue in all injury-p roducing school bus The 8,516 non-injury school bus accidents (property damage only) were excluded from this phase of the analysis as were children injured outside of the school bus. Hatfield and Womack make this point clear: It should be noted that this subset of the accidents does not include those cases when a child was injured outside of the school bus 0.e., as a pedestrian). While pedestrian/school bus accidents are a serious problem ... they cannot be used as evidence for or against the installation of seat belts on school buses.10 Tables 7 and 8 provide a summary of the findings of the Texas school bus accident data analysis In Table 7, the actual number of injuries is categorized by impact mode for all school buses. Further, in contrast, Table 8 depicts the actual number of school bus occupants who sustained injuries based on impact mode tor all school buses. By comparing Tables 7 and 8 one denotes that 46 percent of all fatal injury causing accidents were accounted for in either side impact or rollover collisions. Moreov er, while rollover accidents represented a small share (6%) of all injury causing school bus accidents, they accounted for a much higher proportion of all fatal and incapacitating injuries to school bus occupants, 15 and 18 percent, respectively. Conclusion In the case of the TTl study, the effectiveness of safety restraints on school buses could not be determined due to limitat ions in the data. However, Hatfield and Womack re iterated what is already widely known about school buses: they are an extremely safe form of surface transportation, since only 19 fatalities and 160 incapacitating in juries were caused in the 12,669 school bus accidents over the ten-year period of study. 'Ibid. '"Ibid. 23

PAGE 53

Table 7 Accident Severity Based on Occupant Injury by Impact Mode, Texas 1975-1984 SOurce: Hatfield, N .J a nd K. N Wo m ack 1986. Safl1y S.ftt on SchoOl BuMs: TM Texas &p!JMnce. Texas TranaportatiOf'l Institute. Texas A & M Univef'8ity, College Station. Texas. Table 8 Total Bus Occupant Injuries by Impact Mode, Texas, 1975-1984 Source : Hatfield N J an<1 K.N.. Womack. 1986. S.WI)' S<t on School 81/SQ : The T ex.u Eqrnce Texas Tranaportation lnatitute, Texas A & M Univtorsity, Col lege Station, Texas. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD (NTSB) ST\JDY I n the spring of 1984, NTSB reviewed 43 accidents (44 buses were i nvolved two buses collided with each other in Ft. Myers, Aorida) involving 1 119 unrestrained occupants "to evaluate the real world performance of school buses built to the 19n Federal schoo l bus standards. "11 The objective of the study was to focus pr i marily "on events during the crash : how well did the bus perform ; how did occupants sustain their 11 National T ranspona1ion Sa f ety Board. 1 987. Safety Study -Crash worthiness of lArge Pos tstandard School Buses. B u reau of Saf ety Progr ams Was hillg
PAGE 54

i njuries, if any; and how serious were the injuries '2 In addition to addressing the aforementioned objectives, the Safety Board also examined the question of whether lap belts are needed for occupants of large school buses manufactured for sale in the U.S after April 1, 1977. In perform ing the lap-belt effectiveness analysis, the NTSB team specifically tried to answer the following questions: What I njuries sustained by the unrestrained passengers would have been eliminated if they had been lap-belted? What i njuries wou l d have been sustained if the passengers had been l ap belted and held in place?13 In order to provide answers to these questions, the Safety Board team specifically "considered the body movements a lap belted passenger could make in the part i cu l ar accident and the passenger's relationship to crush and compartment deformation ."14 In a ll injury outcome and contact po i nts fo r 1,119 school bus occupants we r e eva l uated The 43 accidents under review were required to meet the f ollow ing three criter i a before the Safety Board would consider them for evaluation. These included: The school bus had to be o f the large variety, i.e a gross vehicle we ight greater than 10,000 lbs; the school b u s had to be a poststandard mode!, one manufactured after April 1 1977; and the school bus must have been occup i ed by school age ch i ld r en at the time of the accident. In addition to the above mandatory requirements, the Safety Board requ i red that at least one of the following criteria be met before the accident would be considered for evaluation. These included : the co lli sion speed must have been moderate in nature ( i njuries to passengers need not have occurred);. 11/bid. ' roid "loi d. 25

PAGE 55

the school bus overturned; or one or more of the school bus passengers was seriously injured or killed (the impact mode could have been of any variety). Because of the Safety Board's restricted workforce, it was not able to evaluate every accident that met or exceeded one of the above criteria. Thus, priority was given by the Safety Board to those accidents that involved side impacts and rollovers "since injury data are particularly lacking in these types of accidents, and these types of accidents have generated the most occupant protection discussion."15 NTSB Study Conclusions The Safety Board analysis of the potential effectiveness of lap-belts on fatalities and injuries of surviving school bus occupants in the 43 accidents invest igated is summarized in Figures 4 through 7. These figures illustrate the potential impact lap-belts may have had on fatally injured and moderate to severely injured school bus occupants The MAIS coding schematic, prov i ded previously in this section in Table 5, was used to show the net potential effectiveness of la p-be lts, in absolute terms, had they been available to the fatally injured and moderate-to-severely in jured school bus occupants. Fatalities Out of the. 13 school bus occupant fatalities investigated, the Safety Board suggested that the presence of lap-belts probably would have prevented only two of the deaths, made no difference in ten others, and their effect could not be determined for the single remaining fatality. Moreover, the Safety Board suggested that lapbelt use actually may have caused an additional three deaths to surviving school bus occupants because they (three occupants) would have been ejected with the seat lap-belted to i t) and crushed between the school and the tractor-trailer truck that struck the school bus head on (see accident case No. 14 in NTSB report), result ing in a probab le net effect of zero. Also, the Safety Board submitted that possibly one additional occupant may have been fatally injured had a lap-belt been used. The results of the Safety Boards suggested potential impact of lap-be lts on the 13 fata lly injured school bus occupants i s graphically summarized in Figure 4. I S Ibid. 26

PAGE 56

. Rgure 4 Potential Lap-Belt Impact on School Bus Occupant Fatalities, NTSB Effect could not be determined _...-r---COukl have been prevented Wo!Ad have maae no Change Severe to Maximum Injuries (MAI.S-4 or above) Out of the four surviving school bus occupants who were assigned this particular leve l of in jury, the Safety Board suggested that the presence of lap-belts may have reduced the injuries to severe or below (MAIS-3) for one occupant, made no difference in the inju ries sustained by two occupants, and worsened the injuries to the remaining occupant. Again, resulting in a probable net effect of zero. The results of potential lapbelt impact on MAIS-4 or above level injuries are recounted in Figure 5. Figure 5 Potential Lap-Belt Impact on School Bus Occupant Severe to Maximum Injuries, NTSB (MAIS-4 or above) wo .. ene
PAGE 57

Serious Injuries (MAIS-3) Out of the 24 school bus occupants identified in this category as having sustained serious injuries, the Safety Board estimated that eight occupants may have had their injuries reduced to moderate in nature, that injuries to 12 occupants may have been unaltered, that a sin g le occupant's injuries may have been elevated to MAI$-4 or above, and that the effect could not be determined for three occupants had lap-belts been wom by those who were categorized according to this particular level of injury Utilizing the Safety Board's extrapolations at best, the probable net effect would have been to lessen the injury severity for seven occupants {eight reductions, one increase). At worst, the probable net effect would have been to decrease the injury severity for two occupants {three could not be determine one increase). The results are illustrated in Figure 6. Figure 6 Potential Lap-Belt Impact on School Bus Occupant Serious Injuries, NTSB {MAIS-3) ENectcookl not be Redooed Injuries to MAIS-2 or below Made no change Moderate Injuries (MAIS-2) Out of the 58 occupants categorized as having susta ined this level of injury, the Safety Board suggested that 12 occupants may have had their injuries worsened to MAIS3, and for the remaining 46 occupants the potential impact of lap -be lts could not be determined. For nine of the occupants who sustained moderate in juries, the Safety Board suggested that the use of lap-belts might have had a beneficial effect on injury outcome. In the bes t case scenario, the injury severity may have been lessened for nine occupants, resulting in a probab le net effect of increasing the injur ies experienced by three school bus occupants. The results are reiterated in Figure 7. 28

PAGE 58

Figure 7 Potential Lap-Belt'lmpact on School Bus Occupant Moderate Injuries, NTSB (MAI5-2) Worsened outcome to MAI$-3 or abcwe 12 46 For the remalnlng school bus occupants who sustained minor or no injuries (1 ,020 at MAI$-1), the Safety Board submitted that overall it is not prepared to make the same injury outcome determinations as done for the higher level injuries It is unlikely that lap belt use wou ld have reduced the minor injuries:" 16 Table 9 summarizes all injuries sustained by the 1,119 school bus occupants involved in the 43 accidents investigated by the Safety Board. Table 9 Injuries Sustained by Fatally Injured and Surviving Occupants, NTSB I of OcoipanJs Minor or rwne Source: National Transportation Safety Board. 1987. Safety Study 01 lalgt Po!fStahdAITI School Suse$. Bureau of Safety Ptogramt, Wuhlngton D.C. "1/Jid. 29

PAGE 59

Based on the evidence accumulated from the investigation of the 43 school bus accidents, the Safety Board summed up its findings as follows: The Federal school bus safety standards, providing for "compartmentalization worked well in the Safety Board-investigated crashes to protect school bus passengers from injury in all types of accidents. The Board does not recommend that Federal safety standards be amended to require thaf all new large school buses be equipped with lap-belts for passengers. The safety benefits of such actions .. .in terms of reduced injuries for school bus passengers ... have not been proven." SYNOPSIS OF SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT INVESTIGATIONS The TTl study suggested that 12 of the 19 fatalities could have been prevented had safety restraints been in use at the time of the accidents Even taking into account the six deaths challenged by Kyser, another six children, relying on Hatfield and Womack's assertions, might have been saved had they been wearing a safety restraint. An assessment of the potential effectiveness of the safety restraints in mitigating injuries could not be determined decis ively by the Til researchers due to inconclusive data. Rather, the Texas school bus accident data reiterated a fact that is widely known: school buses are an extremely safe form of surface transportation. However, as alluded to previously, the TTl school bus accident investigation revealed that a significantly higher proportion of the accidents investigated that resulted in fatalities and incapacitating i njur ies were side impacts and ro llovers. This is important to emphasize because safety restraints generally are considered to improve safety in accidents involving either a side impact or a rollover. Figure 8 illustrates that 63 percent of the fatalities and 64 percent of the incapacitating injuries reviewed by TTl were caused in side impacts and rollovers, respectively. 17 I b id. 30

PAGE 60

. ; \ .. Figure 8 Texas School Bus Occupant Injuries by Impact Mode, 1975-1984 30 -1-___:: ::___:..J---1 Impact Mode The NTSB analysis of 43 accidents that involve d 44 large poststandard school buses suggested that lap-belts might have afforded further protection to occupants that sustained MAI S-3 and above injury levels. Regarding the occupants who were categorized as having sustaine d MAIS-2 level injuries, the substantial number of undeterm ined oases prevents one from in fe rring any -reasonable conclusion as to the effectiveness of lap-belts in the amelioration of injuries for these occupants. Moreover the fact that the 43 accidents investigated by the Safety Board were severe in nature perhaps ne gated the chances of any safety device contributing even marginally to oooupant safety. Due to the severe nature of the aooidents and the overrepresentation of aooidents i nvolv ing relievers, the findings of the NTSB study apply only to what might happen to betted occupants involved in conceivably the most severe school bus accidents. 31

PAGE 61

Chapter IV SCHOOL BUS CRASH AND SLED TESTS The intent of Chapter IV is to provide a general narrativ e of three school bus crash tests and a single sled crash test that investigated the effectiveness of safety restraints, primarily lap-belts, on school buses. The crash tests were performed by p r opelling the school bus(es) i nto a fixed object or a stationary o r moving veh i cle to evaluate the likelihood of injury to schoo l bus occupants by measuring the accelerations and gravitational forces on anthropomorphic testing devices (ATD) in the test veh i cle, i.e, the school bus(es) A description of the experimental methodo logy, results, published critic isms of the testing methodologies when available, and the concl usions reached by the particular research teams are contained here i n TRANSPORT CANADA CRASH TESTS In 1984, Transport Canada periormed full-scale crash testing of three different s ized school buses to eva l uate the effect safety restra ints might have on i mproving school bus occupant protection and to assess whether current Canadian schoo l bus standards prov ided a sufficient l evel of occupant safety. The buses tested were a conventional 56passenger, full-sized 1984 Canadian B lue Bird bus mounted on an International Harvester chassis with a gross veh i cle weight of 17,923 lbs ; a 22-passenger Thomas Minotaur bus mounted on a Ford chassis with a gross vehicle weight of 8,87 4 lbs.; and a 20-passenger Campwagon schoo l bus mounted on a 1984 Dodge Ram Van chass i s with a gross vehicle weight of 6 724 lbs. Since the latter two school buses had gross vehicle weights less than 10,000 lbs., they are required by FMVSS 222 if sold in the United States, to be equipped with safety restraints (lap-belts). In contrast, the 56passenger Blue B i rd school bus with an unloaded gross veh i cle weight greater than 10,000 lbs if sold in the United States, wou l d not be required to be equipped with safety restraints. Therefore the crash test resu lts of the conventional Blue Bird bus are of particu lar relevance to the objectives of this study. 32

PAGE 62

Experimental Narrative Data were coll ected on the relative severity of injuries to occupants, both with and without safety restraints and with three different seat spacings as depicted in Figure 9. Six anthropomorphic testing devices (A TO) were used, instrumented to measure head i njury criteria (H I C) chest acceleration and femur load values. The six ATDs we r e 5th percenti l e females, analogous to junior and senior high school students in age height, and weight. A T Ds i n seating positions 2, 3, and 6 were restrained and ATDs in seating positions 1 4 and 5 were unrestra i ned, as shown in Table 10. The bus crashed head-on i nto a concrete barrier at a speed of 30 mph. The Head Injury Criteria (HIC) and chest acce l erations were measured in order to ascertain the degree of the resultant head and chest injuries. The HIC is defined as a measure of the degree to which a head or head form is assaulted during a collision. It i s predicted by the following formu l a: where: a = axial acceleration ol the center of gravity of the head expressed as a mult i ple of g (the acceleration due to gravity) and t, and t, = any two points In time during impact If the H I C value exceeds 1000, it is assumed that the forces exerted on the head would be severe enough to cause lffe-threatening injury or possib l y death. If the resultant chest acceleration exceeds 60 g for a period of time greater than 0.003 seconds, it is assumed that serious in j ury to the occupant will occur. Test Conclusions Table 10 reveals that all recorded HIC values were less than the i njury threshold of 1000. Cal culations revealed, on average, that the three restrained ATDs sustained HIC values 3.15 times greater than the un r estra i ned ATDs ''These diffe r ences ," noted the 33

PAGE 63

Transport Canada r esearchers, "can be explained by the fact that the restrained dummies pivoted about the lap-belt, striking their heads severely on the seat-back in front."' They continued, "the dummy heads compressed the seat-back padding to such a degree that they hit on the steel structure underlying the padding ."2 Figure 9 Transport Canada Frontal Impact Seating Schematic t 29.2' I -------' 28.o I -------' 3$.5" I ................. t 31.7" I Not#: AJI .uotbock rhicbtess is J., 1 Fan, G.N. 1985 School Bus Safety Study-Volunu? I. Traffic Safety St
PAGE 64

Table 10 Results of Transport Canada Frontal Crash Test rr====r===r= ID.C 1 Data lost due to equipment maJfunction. Source: Fatr, G.N. 1985. School Bu.! SaMfy Study-Volume I. Traffic Safety Standards and Research, TraM.pOrt Canada. Ottawa. Ontario, Cat\adL The Transport Canada team concluded that compartmentalization affords occupants sufficient protection in frontal collisions and that the utilization of lap-belts may result in more serious head and neck injuries to restrained occupants in a frontal collision. Criticisms of Transport Canada Tests Weber and Melvin, in a memorandum entitled Memorandum to Colleagues Concerned About Child Passenger Safety,"3 relying on collective experience of over 20 years in the occupant protection field, questioned the relevance of the tests and judgments inferred by the Transport Canada researchers. They state, "We do riot agree with the interpretation of the results presented by the authors nor with the secondary interpretations that are being widely communicated to the public "4 They critiqued the study's merits on the following areas: Low HIC Threshold A HIC threshold of 1000 may be too conservative for children The elasticity of their skeletal structure may enable them to withstand higher HIC values than adults. 'Weber, K., and J.M. Melvin 1986. Memorandum to Colleag.us Concerned About Child Passenger Safety. Department of Meclwllcal Engineering and Applied Mechanics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan Ibid 35

PAGE 65

Size and Weight of ATDs The use of fifth-percentile female A ms was not representative of the height and we i ght of school age children The ATDs should have been more representative of children who are regularly transported on school buses Uninstrumented ATDs Because the unrestrained ATDs slid forward during collision, neck impact was encouraged with the seat-backs in front of them, causing lower HIC values to be recorded. As a result, greater damage to the neck may have occurred The unrestrained ATDs should have been equipped with a transducer to record the neck injuries ATD Upper Torso Rigidity The A ms used in the study were constructed with rigid upper torsos. Weber and Melvin state "this [ rigid upper torso] has the effect of transferring the entire upper-body bending motion to the only flexible unit, the neck."5 Resulting in a magnified and unnatu r al extension of the neck. In the same memorandum, Weber and Melvin state "We firmly believe that newly purchased large school buses should be equipped with lap belts to provide their occupants with protection s i milar to that available in the rear seats of automobiles ."6 UCLA CRASH TESTS Series I Test In 1967, Severy et al. conducted three crash tests in which different i mpact modes a frontal a rear-end, and a side i mpact (90} were fabricated "using research techniques and engineering methodology designed to provide realistic and objective findings relating 'Ibid. 6 Ibid 36

PAGE 66

to school bus passenger safety."7 Also, eleven (11) school bus seat types as well as a variety of occupant restraint systems were used to answer questions about their proper design, construction, and installation. A thorough treatment of these alternative restraint and seating systems studied in the Series I test can be found in Chapter V of this report. Experimental Narrative Three different accident collisions -a frontal, a rear-end, and a s ide impact were simulated using a 1965 Superior 60 passenger school bus (test vehicle) built on a GMC chassis with a gross vehicle weight of 17,500 lbs. The Identical 1965 Superior 60 passenger school bus was used in all three impact modes. In the frontal impact a 1944 Mack-Superior school bus with a gross vehicle weight of 17,500 lbs. struck the test vehicle squarely head-on. Both vehicles were traveling at a speed of 30 mph. In the rearend collis ion, the test vehicle was "stat i onary as though stopped on the highway for passengers "8 and was impacted by a 1960 Plymouth Savoy with a gross vehicle weight of 4,400 lbs. trave ling at a speed of 60 mph. The last collision involved the test vehicle being struck perpendicular to the rear axle by a 1966 Chevrolet Bel Air 4-door sedan with a gross vehicle weight of 4,500 lbs. traveling at a speed of 60 mph. The test vehicle was stationary at the time of impact The UCLA team focused on the following areas that cou l d cause injur i es to school bus occupants: location and type of impact structura l i ntegrity of the school bus vehic l e size seat design type of restraint type of safety glass occupant size standing versus seated occupants 7 Sev ery et al. 1 967 Sclwcl Bus Passenger Protection. Institute of Transponation and Traffic En ginee ri ng, U n iversity of California at Los Angeles. California. 8 Ibid 37

PAGE 67

Different ATDjseatfrestraint combinations were used throughout the nine rows of seats In the test veh i cle. The four ATDs used represented 5th and 95th percentile students in age, weight, and height.' The ages were 3, 6, 13, and adult, and the weights ranged from 32 to 200 lbs The heights ranged from 38 i nches for the three-year-old ATD to 72 inches for the adult ATD A total of 39 ATDs were used i n all three tests. Data were collected using a comprehensive array of i nstrumentation that included 61 e l ectronic transducers that were located in the ATDs, on the safety restraints, and on the test vehicles. In addit i on, 33 high-speed motion p i cture cameras and special photographic devices that were located within, around, and above the impact area. The electronic and photographic instrumentation was employed to assess the i njury-producing movements and forces exerted on the A TDs during collision UCLA Series I Test Conclusions On the basis ofihe data gathered, the researchers concluded that: seat-back height for all school buses should be at l east 28 inches; lap-type safety restra i nts wou l d provide additiona l protection to the school bus passengers seated in h i gh-back seats that have sufficient padding on the rear panels of its backrests; the cross-chest l ap-belt combination, when properly fitted, provides significantly more protection than does the use of a lap-belt only. Severy et al. concluded that ''the greatest single contribution to school bus passenger collision safety is the h i gh strength, high back safety seat. Next i n importance is the use of a three-point belt, a lap-belt or other form of effective restraint. "9 UCLA SERIES II TESTS in 1972, Wojcik and Sande conducted a second series of crash tests, the Ser i es II tests, to replicate and validate the findings in the Series I tests The second series of tests involved two types of collisions, a head-on and a side impact (90), absent the r ear ll>ld. 38

PAGE 68

impact collision. The school bus seat types, restraints, ATDs, and data gathering procedures were similar to those of the Series 1 tests. However, in addition to the similarities to the Series I tests a rearward-facing seat without a lap-belt and a seat positioned sideways were evaluated as well. Experimental Narrative In the head-on crash test, a 1969 Superior 60 passenger school bus was struck squarely in the front by a 1969 I nternational two-ton dump truck. Wojcik and Sandes relate, "A two-ton dump truck was selected because It is a vehicle large enough to generate significant deceleration forces in the bus during collision, and because of the height of its bumper and chassis, which are comparable with those of the school bus, to avoid override conditions."'10 Both vehicles were traveling at the same rate of speed (30 mph) at the time of the collision. The side impact test involved the identical school bus being struck perpendicular at the rear axle by a 1967 Ford four-door sedan traveling at a speed of 60 mph. The Ford tour-door sedan was chosen for the side impact because it represents a veh icle found in a typical mix of traffic. The school bus was static at the moment it was impacted on the side. Basically the identical seating and passenger seating assignments were used for each of the crash tests, so that conclusions could be inferred on the overall crash protection provided occupants by the numerous variations in protective seating Tables 11 and 12 summarize the results of the head-on and side impact tests. UCLA Series II Test Conclusions Wojcik and Sandes concluded, "For buses provided with safety seats having a performance profile comparable to the UCLA design, seat belts [lap-belts] will contribute a significant measure of safety, especially during severe upset collision exposures." Wojcik and Sandes contended that safety would increase even though the belted 13-yea r-old ATD sustained a head acceleration 12 g's greater than the unbelted 13-year Wojcik. C.K. and J.;. R. Sandes. 1972. School Bus Seal Remmnr and Sw A.nclwragt Systems Jnstitllte of Transportation and Traffic Engineers, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California at Los Angeles, California. 11 Ibid. 39

PAGE 69

old ATD (44 g's versus 67 g's) in a 30 mph head-on collision, provided that a UCLA designed energy absorbing seat with a 28-in. seat-back was used. With regard to rearward-facing seats, Wojcik and Sandes reported: Seats facing the rear of the bus provide[d] an opportunity to evaluate the performance of the UCLA seat design under crash deceleration conditions equivalent to those of a forward -facing seat undergoing a severe rear -end collision. 12 Wojcik and Sandes concluded, ''These seats [re arward-facing) performed exceptionally well with respect to this simulated rear-end collision exposure, by providing, without failure, complete protection to passengers seated on them."13 However, Wojcik and Sandes added that, "There appears to be no safety advantage for children to face rearward ."14 Commenting on the viability of seats facing sideways with the seat-backs positioned against the window walls of the school bus, Wojcik and Sandes related that this seating orientation: tend[s] to compromise the safety of the passengers unless strong, well padded armrests are provided to protect passengers from head-on and rear-end collision forces and a highback seat is provided to support the passengers heads against the forces of side-impact. 15 "lbi4. lbi4. Ibid. 40

PAGE 70

Table 11 ResultS of UCLA Series II Head-on Crash Test 6-yto.r-old JJ.ytor-old Soun::e: Wojcik, C.K. and LR Sandes. 1912. School Su$ Seat Restraint i!lnd Seat Anchorage Systems. l nttltute Of Transportation and Traffic EnginHrt, School of EnglnMring and Science, Untverslty of California at Lot Angeles.. Gall for n la. 41

PAGE 71

Table 12 Results of UCLA Sefles li Side Impact Crash Test lJytiJJ"o
PAGE 72

in the left-side impact test for three of the 50th percenti l e ATDs due to a cabl e being cut at i mpact and malfunct i ons in the test recording equipment. However, enough dat a were ava il able from the results of the l eft-s i de impact test to include in this report. Tab l e 13 summarizes the experimental characteristics of the r ight and left side impact tests. Experimental N arrative Both the r i ghtand l eft-side impact tests involved a 16-passenger 1985 M i notaur bus with a gross vehicle weight of 8,550 l bs. Since this bus had a gross veh i cle we i ght l ess than 10,000 pounds, it i s classified as a Type A schoo l bus. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, all Type A school buses sold i n the U .S. after April 1, 1977, are required by FMVSS 222 to be equipped with lap-belts The bus was impacted on its right s ide by a barrier moving at 30.8 mph and I mpacted on its left s i de by the same moving bar r i er at 30.4 mph. The barrier weighed 4 000 lbs A tota l of e i ght ATDs were utilized for each test Of those eight, six of the ATDs we r e instrumented and four were r estrained as Illustrated i n Figures 10 and 11. Test Con c lusions. For both s i de i mpact tests s i x of the eight ATDs were instrumented two with lap belts and four unrestrained The r emain i ng two ATDs were lap-be l ted only Results of the r i ght-side impact showed that seven of the ATDs susta i ned HIC va l ues l ess than the i njury threshold of 1 000 and chest accele r ation values l ess than 60 g (If the chest acce l eration value exceeds 60 g for a duration greater than 0.003 seconds, it is assume d serious I njury to the occupant will occur). The lone remaining unrestrained ATD in seat ing position 1 experienced an HIC of 67.5 and a chest acce l erat i on value of 97.6 g, exceed ing the 60 g limit fo r more than 0 003 seconds possibly result i ng in serious In j ury. The left side impact results were avai l able only for A TDs i n seating positions 4, 5, and 6 ATDs in seating positions 4 and 6 sustained tolerable H I C and chest acceleration va l ues ; that is, they were non injurious and nonl ife threatening in natu re. However, the A TO i n seating position 5 sustained an HIC of 79.9 and a chest acce l e r ation value of 75.6 again transcending the 60 g limit for more than 0 003 seconds, possib l y result ing i n serious injury or possibly death The HIC and chest acceleration values for both Impact tests are summar i zed in Tab l e 14. 43

PAGE 73

Table 13 Characteristics of Thomas Built Lett-and Right-Side Impact Tests Source : Thomu Built btt.. 1986. Thomat Bulk Bu.!uJs Side I mpact Crash TNIS. High Point, North Caro4ina: Thomaa Built Busea, Inc. Figure 10 Thomas Built Seating Scheinatlc for Right-Side Impact Test 44

PAGE 74

Figure 11 Thomas Built Seating Schematic for Lett-Side Impact Test Table 14 HIC and Chest Acceleration Values for Thomas Built Right and Left.Side Impact Tests BIC 8 6$.4 14.0 Source: Thomas Bullt Bu:S8:S, lnc-. 1988. Thoma$ Built Busts Sif:HIImtet Cra$h Tm. foigh POint, North Cardlna: Thomas Bui lt Busea, Inc Based on the results of the crash impact tests, the Thomas Built team concluded that "compartmentalization" performs as it was designed in frontal and side impacts. They also found that in the case of the side impacts, the r e is very little difference between the restrained and unrestrained ATDs relating to severity of head and chest injuries. 45

PAGE 75

Commenting on the results of the Thomas Built tests, the National Transportation Safety Board stated that: The Safety Board believes the Thomas Built Buses crash tests provide an indication of what can be expected from a 30 mph side impact involving a school bus transporting both lap-belted and unrestrained passengers. Since a belted dummy was seated beside an unbelted dummy during the test, test results do not necassarily provide an indication of the head or chest injuries to be expected if a small school bus transporting all lap-belted passengers is involved in a side impact, nor for that matter, what to expect if all passengers are unrestrained.'6 NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION (NHTSA) TESTS In 1978, NHJSA conducted a sled test program to evaluate the restraint performance of various production school bus seats designed to satisfy the requirements of FMVSS 222.17 Seats from different manufacturers, seat spacing, test velocity, lap belts and no lap-belts, and differing A TD sizes were manipulated to determine the effects o n restraint performance. The school bus seats were attached to a mechanical movable sled mounted on a track. Both belted and unbelted ATDs were placad on the seats. The sled was then rapidly accelerated or decelerated on the track The resulting forces exerted on various parts of the A TDs body the head, chest, and femurs were measured. Experimental Narrative As stated above, the NHTSA sled tests were conducted to determine the reaction of A TDs in simulated head-on or frontal impacts with and without lap-belts. A total of 45 sled crash test simulations were conducted, but only five of those compared belted and unbelted ATDs tests 37, 38 39, 40 and 41. Because comparisons of belted and unbelted ATDs were made in these five simulations, they were considered pertinent to the objectives of this study and are contained in the succeeding paragraphs. 16 Na1ional Transponation Safety Board. 1987.Safety Study Cro.shwonhinessof lArge Poststandard School &lses. Appendix J. Bureau of Safety Programs, Washington D.C. 17 Bayer, A.R. l918. School Bus Passenger Seal and Lop Belt Sled Tests. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transponation Washington, D.C. 46

PAGE 76

Simulation 37 utilized a seat manufactured by Wayne with and without safety restraints and with seat spacing of 20 inches. The impact speed was 14.9 mph. During collision, the ATD in seating position 1 impacted the front seat with its chest, resulting in a chest acceleration value of 21. Its head rotated over the front seat-back with a resultant HIC of 181. The researchers indicated that the lap-be l t seemed to cause the ATO in seating position 1 to exert substantial force on its neck as its head rotated over the front seat-back. The ATD i n seat ing posit i on 2 impacted the front seat-back with its ch in, but its head still rotated over the front seat-back resulting in a H I C of 155 and a chest acceleration of 23 Upon impact, the chests of the unbelted A TDs in seat ing positions 3 and 4 collided with the center seat, resu l t ing i n chest accelerations of 18 and 16, and their heads and necks rotated over the top of the seat result ing in HICs of 77 and 116, r espect i vely Simulation 38 utilized a seat with and w i thout safety restraints manufactured by Blue Bird Body Company The impact speed was 14 8 mph. The ATOs in seating positions 1 and 2 struck their knees on the front seat-back and their noses on the top of the front seat-back, resulting in H I C values of 226 and 156, respectively. The ATDs i n seating positions 3 and 4 exerted maximum knee force on the center sea t -back when the ATDs i n seating positions 1 and 2 were at rttaximum seat belt extens i on. Both A TOs i mpacted the center seat with their mouths and had negligib l e rearward rota tion of their heads, recording HICs of 259 and 233, r espectively. Chest acceleration values for all four A TDs were l ess than the 60 g limit. Simulation 39 empl oyed a seat manufactured by Carpenter with and without safety restraints and seat spacing of 20 inches. Impact speed was 14.9 niph. The A TO in seating position 1 struck the front seat-back w i th its head and neck, sustaining an HIC of 175, while the A TO in seating position 2 impacted the front seat -back with its ch i n, sustaining a HIC of 155. Corresponding chest accelerations were 27 and 30. The ATDs i n seating posi tions 3 and 4 impacted the center seat-back with their knees and chests Also their heads impacted on the top of the center seat-back. Resultant chest acceleration values were 17 and 13, whi l e the HIC values recorded were 107 and 87, respectively Simulation 40 utilized a Sheller-Globe seat with and w i thout safety restraints. A seat spacing of 20 Inches and an impact speed of 14 8 mph were employed. The ATDs in seating positions 1 and 2 struck their noses on the front seat-back. However, their heads d i d not rotate over the seat-back as in previous simulations. The resulting HIC values for 47

PAGE 77

the A TDs in seating positions 1 and 2 were 321 and 499, and the corresponding chest acceleration values were 15 and 19, respectively . Simulation 41 also utilized a Sheller-Globe seat with and without safety restraints Seat spacing of 20 inches was used. However simulation 41 differed from !he four previously mentioned simulations in !hat !he impact speed was increased to 19.8 mph The ATOs in seating positions 1 and 2 impacted the front seat-back with their knees and noses. HIC values of 44 7 and 465 were recorded Unrestrained ATOs in seating positions 3 and 4 hit thei r foreheads on the center seat-back, doing extensive damage to the center seat. The ATOs in seating positions 3 and 4 sustained HIC measurements of 201 and 184, and chest accelerations of 29 and 31, respectively. None of the resultant HIC and chest acceleration levels in any of the five simulations were severe enough to cause serious or fatal injury. The results of !he five sled crash tests are summarized i n Table 15. Also, a depiction of the sled crash test seating schematic is provided In Rgure 12. Figure 12 NHTSA Seating Schematic for Sled Crash Test Simulations 48

PAGE 78

Table 15 Results of NHTSA Sled Tests !11<4$pftd zo 14.9mph /4.8mph 14.9mph zo 14 8mph zo 19.8mph Soutct: Bayer, A.R 1978 School Bus Paasenger SHt and Lap Belt Sled T&m. National Kghway Ttatflc Saftty Admini$1t'atlon, U .S. of Transportation, Washington, D.C. NHTSA Conclusions The NHTSA team concluded that the use of did not reduce peak head accelerations but, in fact, actually caused an increase in them. Simple calculations substantiated this postulate. The average HIC value for the restrained ATDs was 278, and the average HIC value for the unrestrained ATDs was 157.5, a difference of 120.5. They attributed these higher head accelerations to the fact that the contact point for the A TO's head is moved upward as a result of using the lap-belt. Also, the results indicated that 49

PAGE 79

compartmentalization worked as intended and that there were no additional benefits that could be derived by using lap-belts. However, they did note that during rebound the use of lap-belts seemed to have a beneficial effect on occupant containment. SYNOPSIS OF CRASH TESTS AND SLED TEST The effectiveness of safety restraints in reducing fatalities and injuries to school bus occupants was based, in part, on the review of three crash tests conducted by Transport Canada, UCLA, and Thomas Built Buses, Inc. and a single sled crash test conducted by the NHTSA. The A TDs restrained by lap-belts in the crash tests and sled test had an average HIC of 294.1 and an average chest acceleration of 31.7. The unrestrained ATDs had an average HIC of 126.1 and an average chest acceleration of 30.6, well below the acceptable tolerance thresholds of 1000 and 60 g's, respectively. Regardless, the crash tests and sled test provided plausible evidence that safety restraints would be effective in frontal or head-on collisions. However, a limiting factor in making this assessment was the dearth of crash tests and sled tests available for review at the time of this study. Moreover, published criticisms revealed that the tests reviewed within this report had certain inherent methodological and testing procedural problems associated with them. With regard to side impacts and rollover accidents, several studies suggest that the presence of safety restraints might lessen the likelihood of death or injury to school bus occupants involved in these types of school bus accidents.18 11 Wojcik, C K. and L.R. Sandes. 1972.Sdloo/ Bus SMt and Restraint and Seat Anchorage Systems. Institute of Transponation and Traffic Engineers, School of Engineering and Applied Science, University of California at Los Angeles, California. Parr. G.N. 1981.Schaol Bus Seat Development Study. Traffic Safety Standsrds and Research. Transport Canada, Ottawa. Ontario, Canada. 50

PAGE 80

Chapter v ALTERNATIVE SEAT AND RESTRAINT SYSTEMS While high-backed and padded seats have been recognized as contribut ing the most to occupant safety in school buses, the use of safety restraints such as lap-belts has bB!ln noted as well. The intent of this chapter is to present an overview of the effectiveness of an array of seat types, seating adaptations and alternative occupant restraint systems as indicated in the two Transport canada tests and the Ser i es 1 UCLA test. TRANSPORT CANADA TESTS As earlier i n thi s report, Transport Canada performed its orig inal full-scale crash tests in 1984 on three different-sized school buses to determine the effects occupant restraint systems have on the enhancement of occupant safety. These tests demonstrated that the lap-belted A TDs experienced higher head and lower chest accelerations than the unbelted ones In some i nstances the belted dummies struck their heads so v i olently on the seat back in front that they 'bottomed out' on the steel frame underlying the padding in the seat-back. These results also showed that if restraint systems are to be affixed to school bus seats the complete seating system must be considered. To correct this shortcoming, Transport Canada conducted a series of tests that utilized five alternative seat types each of which incorporated a restraint system. These seat types i ncluded: contoured padded seat-back with lapbelt combination this seat design incorporated additional padding on the top and rear of the seat-back. less aggressive seat-back with lap-belt combination the top half of the seat back frame was altered to permit greater seat-back deflection when struck from the rear rearward-facing seat with lap-belt combination the seat was oriented to face the rear of the bus and the seat back was increased in height and reinforced with a f l at horizontal bar. -51

PAGE 81

threep o i nt system thi s seat design integrated a passenger car-type lap and shoulder belt restraint system. The seat frame structure was required to be reinforced by adding a center l eg and diagonal braces to the legs of the seat. mu l tip l e point system thi s seat comb i ned a harness-type restraint system that consisted of a lap-belt and two shoulder harnesses. Uke the three point system, the seat frame structure required considerable reinforcement. Also, an unmod i fied standard school bus seat affixed with manual lap-belts was tested for the purpose of providing an experimental control mechan i sm used to make simple comparisons with the five alternative seating systems. In devis i ng the alternative seat types, seven specific design parameters were followed, which included: design parallels as much as possible existing seats occupant restraint system integrates emergency locking retractors belts attach to the seat frame seats easi l y produced entry and exit from the seat made as effortless as possible for students seats capable of accommodating students varying from a six-year-old child to a 50th-percentile adult male restraint systems which abided by existing Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards 208, 209, 210 and 222 Test Procedure and Setup Two tests were performed for each of the five alternative seat types and an unmodified seat, for a total of 1 2 tests Each of the six seat and restraint pairings were tested in two impact modes: (1) a frontal or head-on collis ion and (2) an angled collision; 52

PAGE 82

that is 30" from the longitudinal axis. For both impact tasts, the peak acceleration was 30 g and the maximum impact velocity was 30 mph. Each test employed two seats and two A TDs. The seats were fastened to a 37mm inches) thick plywood board, which was mounted to the steel frame of the crash test sled. The seat spacing for each test was 660mm (26 inches) from the rear surface of the front seat-back to the front surface of the rear seat-back This provided a seating reference point (SRP) of approximately 533mm (21 inches). The SRP distance was determined by measuring horizontally forward from the hip pivot point of the ATD to the back surface of the front seat back. Two 5th-percentile female ATDs were used in each test. One ATD was positioned in the front seat and the other was positioned in the back seat. Emergency locking re t ractors (ELR) were employed on all restraint systems except the multi-point and unmod i fied seat. The ELR held the ATD firmly in the seat. The multi point and unmodified school bus seat employed manually adjustable lap-belts. I n both cases, the belts were buckled and calibrated to obtain a correct fit around the pe l vis and shoulders of the ATD. Results of Sled Tests Contoured Padded Seat with Lap-Belt The intent of this seating design was to substantially increase the volume of energy-absorbing foam in the head area of the seat in order to dramatically reduce the peak head acceleration. When the HIC and chest acceleration values for both impact modes were compared with the unmodified seat values, there were no significant differences. The HIC and chest acceleration values for the contoured padded seat in the head-on Impact test were 1082.0 and 71.6, and the HIC and chest acceleration values for the unmodified seat were 1116 .6 and 58.9, respectively. With regard to the angled impact test, the HIC and chest acceleration values ind icated that the contoured padded seat was not significantly different from the unmodified seat. The HIC and chest acceleration values for the contoured padded seat in the angled impact test were 1154.9 and 68.2, and the HIC and chest acceleration values associated with the unmodified seat for the same impact mode were 1181.4 and 79.8 Less Aggressive Sest Back with Lap-Ben The purpose of this seat design was to permit the top half of the seat back structure to deform upon impact thus allowing increased energy absorption for reduction of the head acceleration level. The seat design 53

PAGE 83

worked as intended, with a head-on impact peak head acceleration value of 114.9, which was much lower than the unmodified seat peak-head acceleration level of 199.8 for the same impact mode. Also, the peak chest acceleration was moderately lowe r for the less aggressive seat than for the unmodified seat, 48.6 and 58.9, respectively. The HIC values for the head-on impact mode for both the less aggressive and unmodified SB!l-tS were nearly ident ical. However, the H IC values for the angled impact test were notably different. The less aggressive seat had a measured H I C level of 1423 8, while the unmodified seat had an HIC level of 1181.4, a measured difference of 242.4. Rearward-Facing Seat with Lap-Belt -Of the five alternative seat configurations tested, the rearwa rd-facing design generated the best results. Thi s design utilized the same lap-belt system used In the contoured padded and less aggressive seats. The associated HIC and chest accelerations were substantially lower than the other seat designs tested, inc l uding "the unmodified seat, for both impact modes. Only the three point restraint system in the head-on Impact mode outperformed the rearward-facing design, yielding a slightly lower peak head acceleration value of 58.2 vs. 59.1. The initial Transport Canada sled tests in 1984 demonstrated that this particular seat design provided substantial protection to the A TD by reducing all head and chest acceleration and HIC levels to acceptable values. Since this seat concept seemed to hold promise, Transport Canada undertook an additional study to further investigate the merits of the rearward-facing seat with lap-belt concept under normal operating conditions. The following is a brief discussion of that study. Three school buses were modified by installing rearward-fac ing seats with lap-belts. The school buses were demonstrated in four school districts: (1) Surrey, British Columbia, (2) Kings County, Nova Scotia, (3) Toronto, Ontario, and (4) Cape Breton, Nova Scotia, for use during the 1987-1988 school year. The buses were operated on normal routes in order to ascertain the attitudes of students, drivers, teachers, parents, and school officials toward the rearward-facing seat orientation. Data were gathered from a variety of sources for eva l uation of the demonstrat ion project. Questionnaires were distributed to students 11-18 years of age who rode the demonstration buses on their regu lar routes and to parents of children under 11 years of age. In total, over 900 questionnaires were distributed with response rate of approximately 50 percent. 54

PAGE 84

Almost half of the students who responded to the questionna ires reported that they had problems With the demonstration buses. Twenty percent of the students reported the rearward seat orientation made them feel sick. Nine percent of the students reported the seat belts were uncomfortable, and another nine percent related that spacing between the seats was inadequate. Half of the questionnaires that were distributed to parents we re returned. This version of the questionnaire was intended to elicit informati o n about children ages 4 to about 10 or 11. Fifteen percent of the parents who responded related that their children experienced problems orienting to the rearward-facing seat. Eight percent reported that the primary problem was feeling sick on the bus. However, 75 percent of the parents favored the demonstration bus but expressed reservations that rearward-facing seats reduced the driver's ability to supervise the children adequately. Sixteen school bus drivers were interviewed either by telephone or in person to discuss student conduct, seat belt use, seat belt problems, and the ir overall attitude toward the demonstration bus. Student conduct on the buses hinged on the driver's threshold for noise, movement, and other improper conduct. The drivers reported that students on the demonstration bus behaved in the typical manner The drivers also related that a primary problem was that the height of the seat-backs caused a blind spot on the right side of the bus. Informa l discussions were held with small groups of children These informal discussions confirmed the results of the questionnaires. Younger students' attitudes were usually favorable towards the rearward seat concept, while older students did not like traveling backwards, felt less safe ridin g the bus, and had an avers ion toward the seat belts. Last, personal observations were made by researchers while riding on the demonstration buses. They confirmed the seat belt usage estimates given by the school bus drivers and the older students' complaints about the closeness of the seats, the cramped legroom, and the discomfort of the seat belts Qap-belts). Three-Point Restraint System (lap/shoulder belt) -The three-point restrai nt design incorporated a lap-belt and shoulder harness combination. There were no initial head contacts with the seat-back in front, but peak head accelerations did occur as the A TO's head struck the seat-back of its own seat, induced by sled braking. Even though 55

PAGE 85

this secondary impact caused a high head acce le ration l evel, the duration was less than 0.003 seconds. The HIC values for both the head-on and ang led impacts were less than the threshold of 1000. The chest acceleration values for both impact modes exceeded 60 g. The acceleration duration for the head-on impact did not exceed 0.003 seconds. However, the acceleration threshold for the angled impact did exceed the 0 003 limit Because the upper torso of the ATD was restrained, submarining (sliding u nder the belt) became a consideration. The sled test results indicated that the three-point restraint system did not cause submarining. The Transport Canada team stressed that if this particular design were to be Installed in school buses, it was crucial that the occupant be restrained at all times. If not, any inju ries resulting from an unrestrained occupant striking the seat-back would be more severe because of the increased seat rig id ity necessary for the three-point system to perform as intended. The researchers commented that three point restraint systems have the potential to improve occupant safety, but further consideration must be given to the design to reduce the chest acceleration values to tolerable levels. It would also be necessary to strengthen the floor of the school bus. Multiple-Point Restraint System (lap/dual shoulder belt) -The multiple-point restraint system was comprised of a lap-belt and two shoulder harnesses. The HIC values for both the head-on and angled impact tests were less than 1000, although the chest acceleration values for both impact modes exceeded the 60 g threshold for more than 0.003 seconds. In contrast with the three-point system, submarining was observed in the head-on and angled impacts. Farr concluded that the multiple-point restraint systems should not be given further consideration due to the inherent problems of submarining and because they were difficult and cumbersome to put on and adjust. Seat and Restraint System Results The resultant HIC and chest accelerations of each alternative seat crash test are shown in Table 16. For ease of comparative purposes, the corresponding HIC and chest acceleration values for each seat design in both impact modes are graphically depicted in F igure 13 and Figure 14 on page 58. Table 16 shows that both the three-point and multiple-point systems generated acceptable HIC levels in the head-on and angled impacts. However, chest accelerations for the three-point system exceeded the 60 g threshold for more than 0.003 seconds for the 30 angled impact and for the multiple-point system in both impact modes. 56

PAGE 86

Farr offered the following conclusions 1 regarding the frve alternative seat concepts: Typt The rearward-faCing seat was effective in reducing all injury leve ls to acceptable values. The upper torso on the three-point system reduced the HIC value to acceptable levels but did not imp rove the peak chest acceleration. However, if a three-point system were used, it would be impera tive that all occupants wear seat belts, since increased stiffness of the seat structure required for the three-point seat belts would cause additional I njury to unrestrained occupants in a collision. The two systems which used modified forward-f acing seats and lap belts were not effective in reducing HIC to acceptable levels. The mu ltipl e-point seat belt system was cumbersome to use and permitted submarining of the test dummy. The loca tion of the retractors on the lower seat frame must be re-examined to prevent possible damage by knee contact from the rear. Table 16 Transport Canada HIC, Chest, and Head Acceleration Results H1C 60 1 S8.2 9 17 6 58.9 199.8 1181 4 1 Value 60 g for mort than 0.003 M<:Ondt, thut, exOM
PAGE 87

Flgu,.13 H I C and Chest Acceleration Flgura14 HIC and Chest Accel eratio n Values fo r Transport Canada Head-On Impact Test Values f or Tranaport Canada Angled Impact Test 80 "'"" 70 c 60 50-40 1 30 ... .,. m ""' ... ......._ .. .... I ... -... c 6 20 10-0 l I I I I r 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 HlCValue 1: i u 80 70 -so-I .... ... ., ... I ..... ._ .... so 40-30 -'""' 20 1 0 0 I I I I 0 H I C Vat.IO Installation Cost Estimates for Each Sea t and Restr ai n t D esi g n Cost estima t es for ins t alla ti on of each seat des i gn i n a T ype 166 passenger (large) school bus in terms of 1992 U.S. dollars are shown in Tab l e 17. The data for the ori ginal Transport Canada cost est i mates were obtained from the Blue Bi r d Body Company in Fort Valley, Geo r g i a and were expressed i n Canadian dollars. The cost est i mates do not include any modificat i ons or p rovi sions t o the school bus beyond those listed in Tab l e 1 7. Transport Canada stressed that any additional costs are contingent upon the buyer manufacturer, and final seat type selected for ins tall ation. Table 17 Transport Canad a I n stal l a tion Cost Es t i m a tes In 1992 U .S. Dollars C... o{Otlvr C... of-S,.... T'*" C... T-C... hr66 -,.,_ -. .. -.. $172.76 58

PAGE 88

A letter dated November 12, 1992, from the Blue Bird Body Company that contained the requested cost estimate information for each seat design tested in the Transport Canada study included the Blue Bird body Company's current position on three-point restraint systems In school buses. The letter stated the reasons why Blue Bird Body Company does not offer as optional equipment lap/shoulder belt harnesses for large school buses: To the best of our (Blue Bird Body Company) knowledge, 3 point shoulder harness seat belts (FMVSS 209 Type 2) are required and used only at the front and outboard designated seating positions of passenger cars, light trucks, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. In these applications the upper torso restraint must be anchored such that the upper end of the upper torso restraint Is located within the acceptable range at the top of the seat as specified in FMVSS 21Q-Seat Belt Anchorages. This is accomplished by anchoring the upper torso belts to the side walls of the vehicle adjacent to the front outboard designated seating positions When considering Type 2 seat belts i n a large school bus, only the outboard seating positions are ad j acent to the side walls of the bus body. Prov i sions of anchorages for upper belts is possible for these seating positions by controlling the size or body sections and the spacing of seats to provide a side post or bow adjacent to each row of seat backs. FMVSS 210 requires the upper torso anchorage to have a strength of 3000 pounds, and therefore, securement of the anchorage to the body structure is necessary to meet the strength requirement. For inboard aisle and center seating positions of a school bus seat there are no obvious or practical anchorage locations for an upper torso belt other than the seat back itself. Since FMVSS 222-School Bus Passenger and Seating Protection limits the maximum allowable strength of the seat back at 16 inches above the seating reference point (SAP) to 2400 pounds, it would be i mposs i ble for this same seat back to provide an upper torso belt anchorage approximately 20 to 22 inches above the SAP capable of withstanding 3000 pounds of force without extensive seat back deformation. Extensive seat back deformation under load would drastically diminish the occupant protection the upper torso belt i s 59

PAGE 89

intended to provide. Also, provisions of a separate structural member behind a school bus seat would effectively be prohibited by the Seat Performance Rearward and Impact Zone requirements of FMVSS. For these reasons we [Blue Bird Body Company] do not know of a feasible means of providing Type 2 seat belts with upper torso belts for inboard and aisle seated passengers on school bus seats that must also conform to current FMVSS requirements 2 UCLA TESTS Uke their Transport Canada counterparts, the UCLA researchers also investigated the effectiveness of numerous alternative r estraint systems and a single alternative seat system in conjunction with testing the effectiveness of lap-belts. Features included: restraint bars gate-bar lap restraint armrests three-point restraint system airbag alrseat UCLA Alternative Restraint System Results Restraint Bars -This alternative restraint consisted of a padded swing-bar type hinge anchored to each side of the seat back ahead and swung down onto the pelvic area of the school bus occupant. The UCLA researchers summarized their findings as follows: Restraint bars may provide satisfactory protection to school bus occupants with respect to rear end collisions but only when properly mated with high seat-backs. Restraint bars provide adequate protection with r espect to frontal or headon collisions but do not provide protection against side impacts. Lett e r from Steve Mann. Specification Coordinator, Research and Development Department, Blue B ird Body Company, to the Center for U rban Transportation Researoh, November 12,1992. 60

PAGE 90

The UCLA researchers concluded, "The restraint bars of the type tested in these experiments are not recommended for school buses ."3 They continued, Although this device could be designed to provide some measure of protection for the forward impact (an d rear-end collision], it is of little value in a side impact ... and is an impractical solution, considering the advantages of seat anchored lap safety belts. Gate-Bar Lap Restraint The gate bar lap restraint system consisted of the same padded type bar utilized in the restraint bar system except that it was anchored to the aisle floor side and wall of the school bus instead of the seat-back ahead. No results were reported for this restraint design. Armrests -If armrests were added to post-April 1, 1977, school bus seats, true "compartmental ization" could be realized because of the increased lateral restriction provided to school bus occupants. Even though seats fitted with armrests were found to be difficult to enter, sit in, or exit, the UCLA researchers determined from the side impact crash tests that armrests did provide a significant improvement in occupant safety by preventing Individuals from being ejected laterally from their seats. The UCLA researchers stated, "As a minimum requirement, each school bus seat should have an armrest on the aisle side.''5 Although the UCLA resea rchers concluded that armrests provided occupants with significant lateral protection, they have certain inherent limitations. In addition to the difficulty of ingress/egress, they do not provide protect ion to occupants In rollovers and reduce the seating capacity from three to two occupants per seat if every passenger is to be provided an armrest. Therefore, armrests were not recommended as a viable alternative restraint system. 'Severy et al. 1961 .Scho ol Bus PossengtrProtection.lnstirute of Transportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles. California. /l>id. /l>id. 61

PAGE 91

Alrbag -The alrbag system investigated by the UCLA researchers had several functional problems associated with its use, illustrated by the following: Except under exceptional circumstances, they did outperform properly structured, properly padded high backed seats. The device would have to be concealed in such a manner as to be immune from the meddling nature of the school bus occupants. The high cost of electronic operation and maintenance made them prohibitive. Accidental firing could cause injuries Immediately after a collision airbags could seriously inhibit a prompt evacuation of injured or unconscious children due to the enormous volume they displace when fully inflated. No mention was made by t he UCLA researchers regarding how rapidly the airbags will deflate after i nflated. The UCLA team concluded that because of the numerous technical problems associated with the airbag concept "further research is recommended before a decision can be made concerning its practicality for school buses."6 Alrseat-The inflatable airseat, manufactured by Martin Air, prov ided an interesting var i ation on the standard occupant safety devices. The UCLA team reported the airseat was easily collapsible and, In some instances, could lessen injuries of occupants propelled against it. However, the researchers noted the airseat had several disadvantages. In a head-on collision, the researchers reported the airseat provided minimal restraint to occupants as well as insufficient restraint to those occupants thrown against its seat-back. During rear impacts, the airseat provided no substantial back support and resulted in the adult male A TO's body being flailed into a completely reclined position, causing hard impact of his head against the knees of the occupant to his rear Also, the airseat provided no substantial lateral restraint necessary for protection from a side impact even when the occupant was rest rained by a lap-belt. Lastly, the UCLA team questioned the durability of the airseat in the presence of mischievous school children Ibid. 62

PAGE 92

who might not be able to resist the temptation to rupture the seats. In light of numerous disadvantages, the researchers concluded that the airseat was not a feasible altemative restraint system for increasing school bus occupant safety. Three-Point Restraint System (lap-belt/shoulder harness) -The UCLA team reported that, in contrast no restraining device, the three-point system reduced by two-thirds the impact forces received by an unrestrained passenger. More importantly, the three-point system distributed the impact forces to the upper chest region of the occupant's body in a non-injury producing manner, distinguishable from the common head and chest injuries of unrestrained occupants sustained from direct impact structures inside the school bus. However, when the three-point restraint system's anchor point was located to the rear and substantially above the shoulder, the cross chest restraint strap passed across the throat in such a manner as to cause injury producing-forces of a "lacerative nature" to the throat in a side impact. To alleviate this caveat, the three-point system should have the anchor points built into the seat at shoulder level to prevent the belt from passing directly across the neck Even if the anchor points were built into the seat at shoulder level, considering the wide variation in student size and height, adjustments in anchor height would have to be provided over a wide range in order to accommodate the variance in student size and height Because of the of student size and height, the UCLA researchers concluded that "the potential gain in the use of cross-chest belts for school bus passengers is too questionable to warrant their further consideration."' SYNOPSIS OF ALTERNATIVE SEAT AND RESTRAINT SYSTEMS The Transport Canada tests evidenced that contoured padded and less aggressive seats lap-belts are not the panacea to increasing occupant safety. The high HIC and chest acceleration values associated with each design for both impact modes revealed they do not afford occupants more protection than seats mandated by FMVSS 222 that are already in use i n large school buses. With respect to three-point restraint systems, the Transport Canada team concluded they possess the necessary potential to increase occupant safety but additional consideration must be given to testing and design before they can become a viable alternative school bus occupant safety option. Similar conclusions regarding three-point restraint systems were reached by the UCLA team. They dismissed the systems safety potential based on numerous technical problems. 'Ibid. 63

PAGE 93

Multiple-point restraint systems do not offer a feas i ble solution e i ther, because of numerous techn i cal problems, submarining, and the taxing effort required by the school bus occupant to put on and adjust the belt properly UCLA test results established that restraint bars gate-bar lap restra i nts, armrests, airbags, and airseats do not have the capability to otter i ncreased protection to school bus occupants. Sled test by Transport Canada revealed that rearward-facing seats with lap belts can augment schoo l bus occupant safety. The HIC and chest acceleration values generated by the rearward-facing seats were well below the threshold cei l i ngs (see Figures 13 and 14). Also the additional study undertaken by Transport Canada to explore further the rearward-facing seat concept under normal operating conditions established that no application problems existed regarding the students' ability over a short period of t i me to become desensitized to the atypical seating orientation. However, the Transport Canada team stressed that continued research Is required i f rearward-facing seats are to become standard equ i pment on Canad i an school buses. 64

PAGE 94

Chapter VI PROFESSIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL QUALITATIVE OPINIONS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Accidents involving school buses are often followed by intensified public interest in the issue of safety restraint installation in all types of school buses. Those advocat ing the installation of safety restraints in nonType A (large) school buses are convinced that they can provide optimum student safety and that the costs associated with their installation are minimal, no more than $ 1,000 to $1,500 (lap-belts) per large school bus They also contend that safety rest rai nts will educate students about the im portance of buckling up" later in their adult lives and that student behavior will subsequently improve on-board the school bus, thereby causing fewer driver distractions which translates into fewer accidents. Safety restraint installation is supported not only at the grass roots level, but in many cases, by groups that are well-organized and established and are extremely effective and vocal i n promoting and gathering support for their convictions. Those opposed to the installation and use of safety restraints in large school buses are equally committed to their position. Opponents of safety restraint installation i n large school buses express concern that in the case of serious frontal accidents involving school buses, safety r estraints may increase the likelihood of injury and can im peril school bus occupants in accidents involving fire and rollovers. Also, opponents assert that the funds used to install safety res traints could be more wisely allocated on other, more effective safety investment options such as student safety education programs, higher seat-backs, and crossing control arms. Opposition has arisen from a diverse and broad segment of society and from the school bus industry. School bus manufacturers, state legislatures and departments of education, school transportation administrators and coordinators and U.S. and Canadian government agencies have all entered I nto the conflict over the installation and use of safety restraints in large school buses. The views and expert opinions held by the many individuals and organizations concerned with increasing the safety of children transported daily on large school buses should be given serious consideration, particularly when the issue is as controversial and im portant as the one under consideration in this rep ort. Therefore, the purpose of this chapter is to present the myriad views and expert opinions, both in support and opposition, regarding the is sue of safety restr a int installation in large school buses In 65

PAGE 95

addition to presenting views and expert opinions espoused by both sides of the issue other considerations such as the potential carryover effect," liability, improved student conduct, and the results of suNeys that identified the operating experiences of various state and local government entitles that have installed safety restraints (lap-belts) in large school buses are presented PR OFESSIO N A L MEDI CAL SOC I ETY O P INIO N S Many professional medica l societies are actively supportive of safety restraint installation in large school buses. The Transportation Research Board committee that i nvestigated school bus safety (referred to hereafter as the TRB committee), the Wellington Body Company, I nc., and the National Coalition for Seat Belts in School Buses identified several professional medical societies that advocate safety restraint installation in school buses. These included the following: American Medical Assoc i at i on Physicians for Automotive Safety American Academy of Pediatrics Society for Adolescent Medicine American College of Emergency Physicians Amer i can Association of Oral and Maxillofacia l Surgery American College of Preventive Med i cine In 1984, the American Medical Association stated that it supports l egis l ative action to promote the availability of effective seat belts in all school buses in the United States 1 The American Academy of Pediatrics ho lds the position that "seat belts should be requ i red on all newly manufactured school buses regard l ess of their size and number of pupils transported."2 The American College of Preventive Medicine supports the immediate installation of seat belts in new school buses as immediate preventive action to protect the health of children "3 The Society of Adolescent Medicine stated that the 1 "Our Position on Belts is . "l98S.National Schocl Bus Repon. Advoca t e and opponent positions assembled and disseminated by the Wolfmgton Body Company, Inc. Exton, Pennsylvania 'Ibid. 1 National Coal i tion for Seat Belts in School Buses. 1986 Third Edit ion Report. Skokie, Illinoi s 66

PAGE 96

Society's "primary concern is the health and welfare of youth [and] strongly supports the use of seat belts when riding in school buses.'.. The American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery stated it "endorse[s], advocete[s] and counsel[s] the use of safety restraints .. .in all motor vehicles with compartments for the carriage of passengers, including school buses.''5 In addition to identifying those professional medical societies that advocate the installation of safety restraints in school buses, the Wolfington Body Company, Inc., taking a neutral and unbiased position, devoted equal treatment to those professional medical societies that oppose or are neutral regarding the issue of safety restraint installation. These inc luded: American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons American College of Preventive Medicine National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitione rs American Association for Automotive Medicine The American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons states that it ... strongly endorses the development and introduction of passive protection systems as an adjunct to a safety belt law ."6 The American College of Preventive Medicine states that it has "thoroughly investigated this and finds the lack of good data a barrier to a formal position ."7 And, the National Association of Pediatric Nurse Associates and Practitioners states that it ... does not have a position on this issue. There is no activity within the [organization] to develop a position on this issue ..e The American Association for Automotive Medicine states that it ... does not have an official position on seat belts in school buses ."11 'Ibid. Ibid Ibid. Ibid Ibid /llid. 67

PAGE 97

SCHOOL BUS MANUFACTURERS OPINIONS In a report published in 1987 for the California Highway Patrol, Booze, Allen, and "solicit[ ed] information from organizations that have examined lap-belts on school buses ... (and] structured discussions with school bus manufacturers (and others ] .. were conducted."'" The discussions with school bus manufacturers included eight major manufacturers. The personnel contacted and interviewed were "high-level representat ives in engineering, sales, and corporate affairs"'' who were asked about their knowledge regarding lap -be lt effectiveness i n frontal impacts, rear-end impacts side impacts, and relievers The major schoo l bus manufacturers solicited in cluded the following: American Transportation Company Blue Bird Body Company Carpenter Body Works, Inc Crown Coach Incorporated Gillig Corporation Superior Coach International Thomas Buses, I nc. Wayne Corporation Frontal Impacts With regard to frontal impacts, school bus manufacturers uniformly stated that lap would not be beneficial in this type of accident. "12 Typical comments included in the report regardin g lap-be lt use in frontal impacts were that they could contribute to 10 Booze, Allen, and Hamilton. 1987. Sch<>cl Bus StoJ Belt Study Submitted to the California Highway Patrol Motor Carrier Sect i on, Sacramento, California. II fbid Ibid. 68

PAGE 98

abdominal injuries"1 3 and "would be of less value lor this type of accident [frontal] than for any other accident type. "14 RearEnd Impacts In accidents involving rear-end impacts, school bus manufacturers stated that ... lap-belts would not be beneficial for this type of accident [rear-end] and in some instances the lap-belt could increase accident [injury] severity."15 Side Impacts With respect to lap-belt effectiveness in side impacts, Booze, Allen, and Hamilton report that responses were mixed for the manufacturers and some of the respondents [manufacturers] felt that there were insufficient research to draw concluslons. "16 They continued, respondents felt that little change in head and neck injuries wou l d occur between belted and unbelted students. Almost every respondent had a different thought concerning lap-b elts."17 Rollovers In accidents in which the school bus rolled over, Booze, Allen, and Hamilton state that "the majority of respondents felt that lap-belts would help reduce injuries in rollov er accidents. The belt would protect students from the side and roof of the bus." '8 However, the researchers make it clear that the ... frequency of occurrence is extremely low for this accident type ."19 I) Jbid. "Ibid .. Ibid. "Ibid. 17 Ibid. Ibid. 19 Ibid. 69

PAGE 99

S TATE L E GI SLAT U R E DEPARTME NTS OF EDUCATIO N OP I NIONS Many individual state l egislatures and departments of educat i on have taken strong posit i ons in opposition to the installation of safety restraints in large school buses The following are brief descriptions of these positions State Legisl a t u res On March 25, 1 983, a total of nine persons (four students) were fatally injured in a school bus accident in Jonesboro, Arkansas. Because of th i s tragic accident the Arkansas Legislature conducted a study to determine if safety restraints should be installed i n Arkansas school buses. In its final report, the Arkansas Legislature concluded: It appears that based on the costs, the lack of data ind i cat i ng a great fatality decl i ne with the installat i on of seat bel ts themselves, and the outstanding safety record of schoo l buses in gene r a l the issue of seat belts in schoo l buses could be left as a decision to be made by i ndividual schoo l districts and shou l d not be mandated by the l egis l ature.20 I n 1984, the Minnesota Legislature, after several fatal school bus accidents, created a committee to investigate further the i ssue of school bus safety The comm i ttee recommended against the i nstallation of safety restraints in large schoo l buses. In light of the state legislatures that have stated definitive positions i n opposition against the installation of safety restraints in large school buses, the New York Legi slative Commiss i on on Critical Transportation Cho i ces recommended that all school buses manufactured after July 1, 1986 for use in New York State be equipped with safety restraints (lap-belts).21 The New York State law that required newly purchased large school buses to be equ i pped with safety rest r a i nts took effect June 30, 1987. 20 Arkansas Legislative Council. 1984. Ftasibilitycf Requiring Scheel Districts to Install Stat Belts en Scheel Buses Linle Rock, Arkansas. New York State Legisla tive Commission on Critical Transpona t ion Choices 1985. School Bus Safety in New York Statt ... Childrenat Risk? Albany, New York. 70

PAGE 100

The State of New Jersey also adopted similar legislation earl i er this year (1992) which requires large school buses purchased for use in New Jersey Stele be equipped with safety restraints. State Departments or Education The Maryland Department of Education in a rep ort entitled Concerns About Seat Belts on School Buses" stated that: ... after careful consideration of the many aspects of this issue, the Maryland State Department of Education concludes that seat belts would not enhance the safety of pup ils on school buses to any appreciable degree and may, in fact, present hazards to the safety of the children being transported."22 In 1983, the Alaska Department of Education issued a resolution regarding its position on the use of safety restraints in school buses after a thorough investigation by a committee consisting of school bus company representatives and school transportation officials. The resolution states: The Alaska School Bus Safety Committee Is agreed in its opinion that no legislative or regulatory action be taken in the Stete of Alaska to require seat belts on school buses until an authoritative body of test data has been produced showing conclusively that the overall safety of the ridership on pupil transportation buses is significantly enhanced. 23 U S AND CANADIAN GOVERNMENT AGENCY OPINIONS National Highway Traffic Safety Administration The principle transportation safety organization for the United States, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), neither advocates nor mandates the "Maryland State Department of Education. 1985. Concerns About StaJ Belts on School Buses. Annapolis. Maryland. "Alaska State Department of Education. 1983. School Buses and Sear Belts: A Discussion. Juneau. Alaska. 71

PAGE 101

installation and use of safety restraints in large school buses NHTSA's position reads as follows: NHTSA believes that the occupant protection required in school buses manufactured alter April 1, 19n, plus the inherent safety of a highly recognizable vehicle that travels on a regular route, provide a high level of safety. There is insufficient data available to demonstrate whether safety belts would increase occupant protection. The number of school bus occupant deaths and serious injuri es is so low that assessing the extent to which safety belts could either prevent deaths or injury, or cause is not feasible.24 National Safety Council The National Safety Council (NSC) considers compartmentalization as the best p roven method of providing crash protection on school buses. They will not support safety restraints on school buses until further research and testing demonstrate their benefrts. NSC's position states: The Council recommends that until further research and testing demonstrate that pupils will be safer by the installation of seat belts in school buses, the Council believes that passive protection provided by compartmentalization as required by the current (19n) federal standard on school bus seating and crash protection protects seated pupil passengers in school buses with gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR) greater than 10,000 pounds (large].25 .:. National Transportation Safety Board The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), an independent U.S. Federal agency responsible for investigating accidents and other matters pertinent to transportation safety, reviewed the crashworthiness of large school buses built to meet "'Na1ional Highway Traffic Safe
PAGE 102

FMVSS issued in April of 1977 that apply to school buses. The NTSB research team concluded that: Based on the findings in this study, the Safety Board does not recommend that States or school districts allocate funds to retrofit or order large post standard school buses with lap -belts for passengers. The Safety Board also does not recommend that Federal school bus safety standards be amended to require that all new large school buses be equipped with lap-belts for passengers. The safety benefits of such actions, both in terms of reduced injuries for school passengers and in seat belt use habit formation, have not been proven. 26 Transport Canada In 1984 Transport Canada (the canadian equivalent of the U.S. Department of Transportation) concluded after extensive testing to determine the effectiveness of safety restraints in three different sizes of school buses that "compartmentaliza tion" works as intended, and that the use of safety restraints Oap-belts) might result in heightened head and neck injury in severe frontal collisions that might otherwise have been avoided. With regard to their findings, the Transport Canada researchers state: The passive occupant protection of the seating system (known as compartmentalization), requ ired by Federal regulations since 1980 (1977 in the U.S.) functions as intended during frontal impacts and provides excellent protection for occupants. 21 u National Transponation Safety Board 1987 Safety Study CrashworrhiMss of LArge Posmand4rd School Buses. Bureau of Safety Programs, Washington, D.C. "Parr. G.N 1985.School Bus Safety Study-Volume I. Traffic Safety Standards and Research, Transpon Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 73

PAGE 103

NATIONAL PUPIL TRANSPORTATION ORGANIZATION OPINIONS National School Transportation Association The National School Transportation Association (NSTA) supports compartmentaliza tion until documented proof exists that safety restraints offer more protection fo r riders. Their position states: NST A believes that compartmentalization containing children within a structurally reinforced passenger compartment of fully padded high-back seats and crash barriers is preferable to any form of containment that relies upon the use of safety belts or other similar restraining devices. 28 INSURANCE EXPERT OPINIONS The National Association of Independent Insure rs is concerned about the potential liabilities created when school buses have safety restraints 29 In the absence of Federal legislati on mandating school bus safety restraint installation, they are unsure about is sues such as enforcement (making sure that students use the belts), ensuring that the restraints are property worn (so that they do not cause rather than prevent injuries), vandalism to the mechanisms (so that the bus is equipped with non-function ing safety restraints), obstructions to students walking through the vehicle, and escape from buses involved in rollovers and post crash fires. They have, therefore taken no definitive position on the issue. OTHER ASSOCIATED CONSIDERATIONS Carryover EHect tt has tong been confirmed by psychologists that repetitive stimuli i nfluence behavioral conditioning. They contend that Individuals, students in this situation, exposed to the same stimuli for endured periods of time, i n this case 13 years (K-12), will develop National School Transportat ion Association. 1984. "National School Bus Report. NatiotuJI School Bus Report. Special Edition : Spring. Springfield, Virginia. "Devlin, Charles. 1983. "Seat Belts in School Buses: The Controversy Reoccurs Castoways. 74

PAGE 104

and display more cond i tioned and anticipated behavior. Advocates of the i nsta ll ation of safety restraints in school buses are confident that children subjected to the habitual use of wearing safety restraints in school buses will cont i nue to "disp l ay or carryover" th i s learned behavior to other vehicles I n 1986, Gardner et al. published a report for the National Highway Traffic Safety Adm i nistration that focused on the Issue of habit formation or carryover effect of safety restraint usage to veh i cles o t her than be l t equipped school buses.30 To c l arify carryover effect refers to students l earning a behavior and developing a habit in one context, such as daily safety restraint use on a school bus, and transferring or carrying over the learned behavior to another context, such as riding in automobiles. An attempt to measu r e carryover effects by Gardner et al. resulted in an inconclusive" finding. Gardner et al. state: Occasional or supervised belt use did not l ead to clear demonstrations of habit behavior. The mere presence of belts on buses did not appear to be sufficient to lead to habitual bus belt use l et alone transfer to car belt use behavior. Older students reported that regular belt use on some routine bus trips did not even lead to their reported use on other bel t equipped buses.3 Gardner et at. relate that other factors appear to be more important than occasional or supervised use to habitualize stude n ts They relate: Parent car rules and attitudes, mandatory State car belt use l aws and classroom education programs [and other ca r companions ] appeared to play more dominant roles in students' car belt use than bus-be l t carryover effects.. .. As mo r e States enact mandatory car belt use laws, more students will already use car belts, and hence, fewer will remain to be effected by any possible carryover effects. 32 "'Gardner et al 1986.School Bus Safety Belts Thtir Use, CarryovtrEjfects and Administralivelssues Office of D ri ve r and Pedestrian Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D C. Ibid. n Ibid. 75

PAGE 105

Uablllty The question of liability is a concern raised by States and school districts investigating the instailation and mandatory use of safety restraints in school buses. The question of exactly who Is liable Is difficu l t to determine. Uability has the potential to be decided differently for each group involved (drivers, driver supervisors, fleet supervisors, school boards, school districts, and insurance carriers). Uability is potential cost that is unknown. Addressing this issue, Thomas Built Buses lnc. ,33 identified four major areas of potential liability. They are as follows : A child i s not wearing the seat belt and is injured in a bus accident; A child is not wearing the seat belt properly (belt too loose or tight) and is injured during an accident; A child is injured by tripping over a belt or is hit by a belt; A child is not wearing the belt because it does not operate properly (vandalized earlier in the day), and I s in j ured in an accident. The National Coalition for Seat Belts in School Buses presented a compelling narrative on the issue of liability. In a letter addressed to the National Coalition for Seat Belts in School Buses dated July 1985, a Texas litigation firm offered the following argument: Of all the red herring resorted to, to avoid putting seat belts in school buses, the liability aspect has got to be the most fraudulent I would recommend you contact a local plaintiff's attorney to give a talk to the school board to explain that how a school board's failure to instail seat bells may give rise to substantial liability, and actually installing seat belts and adopting a program to insure their use would go a long way toward avoiding not only injuries but liability. 3-4 "SLat Bells in School Buses. 1992.Jnformation compiled and disseminated by Thomas Built Buses, Inc National Coalition for Seat Belts in School Buses. 1986. op cit. 76

PAGE 106

The Texas Transportation Institute survey of Texas school districts did not project increased liability resulting from the installation of safety restraints in their school buses.35 Hatfield and Womack state : For the most part, the increased lia bility for the provision of safety belts was not found to be an issue of critical importance to Texas' schools at this time.... (For] five districts, however, the liability issue was viewed as a significant problem in the event that belts on buses are mandated. 36 The evidence provided in the preceding paragraphs indicates that a government entity, State, school district or otherwise, runs the chance of l itigation whether or not safety restraints are installed in school buses. To sidestep the I ssue of liability, the New York School Bus Safety Belt Law contains a clause absoMng the State from liability in the event a child Is injured because his or her safety restraint was not fastened. Available evidence is inadequate to conclusively determine if the presence or non-presence of safety restraints in school buses leads to the increased chance of litigation. Influence of Safety Restraint Use on Student Conduct Advocates and opponents of the installation of safety res traints in large school buses both agree that proper and consistent discipline is critical to the safety of transported students. Students riding out of position {standing) create a distraction for the driver. In traffic, one momentary distraction might mean the difference between a near miss and a crash. Students ridi ng out of position also represent a danger to themselves and to other student passengers. I n crash situations students rid ing out of position are not protected by "compartmentalization in post-1977 school buses. They are susceptible to crashing into unprotected areas within the bus They may also crash into and unnecessarily injure other student passengers. For these reasons, every effort must be employed to control the behavior of transported students Regarding the issue of improved student conduct caused by the presence of safety restraints, Garner et al. noted that: Hatfield N.J. and K.N. Womack. 1986. Safety Belts on School Buses: The T=s Experience. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University College Station. Texas. "Ibid. 77

PAGE 107

Many school administrators and drivers in the study ... reported positive effects of a belted bus program on student on-board bus conduct, i.e., improved student discipline and reduced driver distractions. Belts on buses did not lead to significant long term vandalism and mischief involving the belts.37 In short, school bus passenger conduct was reported as improving with safety restraint use. Students belted into their seats are not physically able to move about and negatively interact with other students aboard the bus. And, more importantly, they are unable able to protrude their heads and limbs out of the school bus windows Operational Experiences Stud i es and expert opinions regarding the effectiveness of safety restraints in preven ting fatal it ies and reducing the severity of injuries sustained by school bus occupants are of considerable importance ; however, the operational experiences of governmental entities that have i nstalled safety restraints In large school buses must also be given consideration. The TAB committee sent surveys to 24 school districts (16 responded) around the nation that "have operated Type I [lar ge) school buses equipped with lap-belts."38 Presented below is a brief synopsis of the TAB committee's findings for five of the responding school districts. The Fairfax County, Virginia school distr ict stated that: ... [while] seat belts may improve passenger behavior and ... the use of seat belts as weapons is only a minor problem, vandalizing of the seat belts and theft of the buckles have been major problems. Hundreds of belts have already been replaced, over 500 in the last two months 39 "Gardner e1 al 1986. Op cit "Transportation Research Board. 1989 Improving School Bus Safety. Special Report No. 222. Na tional Research Council Washington, D.C. Ibid. 78

PAGE 108

The TAB committee noted that "the Skokie, Illino i s schoo l district reported no Instances of seat bel ts being used as weapons, or to trip other students. No mention was made of seat belt defects or of students' vandalizing belts or buckles. ,J The Comsewoque, New York school d i strict reported that "although seat bel ts tend to i mprove student behavior, some belts have been vandalized [fewer than 3 percent]."41 The Board of Education for West Orange, New Jersey reported that "95 percent of all students use their seat belts and that use of seat belts has improved student behavior. Seat belts and buckles have not been used to trip other students, nor have they been used as weapons. Since ins t allation i n 1983, only one belt has been vandal i zed ... 2 The Marana {Arizona) Unified School District reported that "no mechanical problems were reported with seat belts, and vandalism was considered a very minor problem with only one seat belt having been vandalized. "43 A letter sent to the School Transportation Director by Robin Leeds, Executive Director of t he Connecticut Operators of School Transportation Association, illustrated some of the operational hazards experienced by Deep River, Connecticut after they installed lap belts on 11 new school buses: In actuality, this week's inventory of the buses showed that of the 781 pairs of seat belts tha t started the year, there are 522 operable pairs l eft: 259 pajrs of seat on all 11 new buses have been destroyed. Some belts were cut out entirely with knives or scissors, but most of the damage occurs to the buckles and latches The mother of one student returned seven buckles that her chi l d had broken off and taken home.44 .. Ibid. U /bid. ,, Ibid Ibid. ""Operators Fault Findings on Seat Belts. 1981.School Transponation Dirtaor7(14). 79

PAGE 109

The New York Association for Pupil Transportation in its analysis of the third annual survey of New York school districts found some of the results represented a ''trend worth noting." Subsequently, the "tre nds worth noting" were published in the March 14, 1990, edition of the School Transportation Director: Districts report ing seat belt related injuries increased 460 percent since last year's survey. Repair costs and down time on seat belt equipped buses are increa sing. Down time is up 53 percent from 1989. The number of injuries reported as a result of seat bel t misuse indicates that there is a need for increased inst ruction in the proper use of seat be lts. 18.8 percent of responding districts with seat be l t equipped buses reported a total of 341 Injuries caused by seat belts (a 69. 1 percent increase in the number of injuries over the last year) Most commonly reported are: used as a weapon, resulting in cuts, bruises and stitches i n the head area, metal spl inters, and tripping by tied-together belts, resulting in bruises and broken limbs. 5. 7 percent of districts responding reported seat be lts helped prevent injury in collision type accidents. Of those districts, 81.3 percent indicated the driver was the person helped. 45 SYNOPSIS OF FINDINGS In short, evidence provided by the literature weighs against the installation of safety restraints in large school buses as a means of increasing student safety. The 1986 study conducted by NHTSA, however, suggested that the use of safety restraints in large school buses may improve student behavior, thus contributing to increased safety. The operational experiences of the various school districts reviewed in this report partially supports NHTSA's postulate. Further research and study should be given to substantiate or refute NHTSA's conclusion. However, the tradeoffs in terms of students vandalizing ''"New York Finds Increase in Seat Belt Related Injuries, Repair Costs. "1990.School TransportaJionDirector 10(5). 80

PAGE 110

the safety restraints (resulting in increased maintenance costs and school bus downtime), the occasional use of the safety restraints as weapons against other students, etc., must be given serious consideration before any decision is made to legislatively mandate the installation of safety restraints of any configuration and/or design in large Florida school buses 81

PAGE 111

Chapter VII SAFETY COSTBENEFIT ANALYSIS The potential reduction in fatalities and injuries to school children from the insta llatio n of safety restraints in school buses has become an issue in Florida, as it has in many other states and indiv idual school districts around the country. Presently, the Federal government requires safety restraints to be installed only for the driver of school buses having a gross vehicle weight greater than 10,000 lbs. Moreover, lap-belts are required by FMVSS 222 to be installed as standard equipment in Type A school buses having a gross vehicle weight less than 10,000 lbs for both driver and passengers. Since the smaller Type A school buses are required by FMVSS to be equipped with lap-belts, consideration will be given only to the costs and benefits (reduction in fatalities and injuries) of installing safety restraint systems for passengers compared to the costs and benefits of installing other safety investment options for large school buses. Despite the substantial and unequ ivocal evidence in the literature support ing the effectiveness of safety restraints in reducing fatalities and injuries in crashes involving automobiles, t their effectiveness or potential effect iveness in reducing fatal and serious injury to school bus occupants cannot be determined conclusively. The 1967 UCLA crash tests suggested that safety rest raints would afford school bus occupants additional protection in side Impacts and in both collision and non-collision rollover accidents provided the evacuation process is perfected.2 However, evidence provided by 1 Campbell. B.J. 1986.17te Ef!ectivtness of Rt'Qr-SetJJ LopBelts in Crash Injury Reduction. Highway Safety Research Center, University of Nonb Carolina, Hill, Nonb Carolina; campbell, 8.1. 1979. Seat Belts Etfectiven=. "International Symposium on Seat Belts Held in Tokyo, Huelke, D .F. 1981. "Effectiveness of Occupant Restraints in Reducing Serious Injuries and Fatal ities Presented at the International Symposium On Occupant Restraint, Toronto, Canada; Magbsoodloo, S., et a!. 1989. "A of the Impact of Restraining Systems on Passenger Safety." Journal of Safety Rest4rch 20(3): 115-ZS;McGee, D.L.,and P. Rhodes. 1989. "Estimating Trends in the Effectiveness of Sea t Belts in Saving Lives, 1975-1985. Statistics in Medicine 8(3):379-85; Evans, L. 1986. "The Effectiveness of Safety Belts in Preventing Fatalities." Accide111 Analysis & Prevt11Iionloumall8(3):229-41;Kerwin, E.M.,et al.l985. "Se at Belt Effectiveness in Injury-Producing Accidents: The Colorado Matched Pairs Study." University of Colorado School of Medicine, Presented at the American Public Heal!h Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D C; Frazier, R.G. 1961. "Effectiveness of Seat Belts in Preventing Motor Vehicle Injuries New England Journal of Medicine 264:12S4.Partyka, S.C. 1988 "Belt Effectiveness in Fatal Accidents. DOT HS 807 285. 'Severy et a!. 1967. Sclwol Bus Passenger Protection. Institute of Transportation and Traffic Engineers, Unive,. ity of California at Los Angeles, California. 82

PAGE 112

Transport Canada indicates that safety restraints might actually increase injuries in frontal collisions. 3 As alluded to in previous chapters, actual "real world" school bus accident data are inadequate to resolve the controversial debate due to the small number of fatalities and injuries nationwide among school bus occupants. No matter how potentially beneficial in terms of reduced and injuries to school bus occupants the installation of various safety restraint types and other safety investment options such as crossing control arms and external loud speaker systems in large school buses may be, the costs must be weighed against the overall potential beneffls In absolute terms, i.e a quantifiable number of lives preserved and injuries prevented or lessened annually by the installation of each safety investment option. Method Nine different safety investment options for large school buses are analyzed in order to determine a quantifiable number of fataiities and injuries that might be reduced in an average year for an annual capital outlay of $1,000,000 per safety investment option. The safety investment options evaluated In the cost-benefit analysis (CBA) include: lap-belts lap/shoulder belts {three-point restraints) lap/dual shoulder belts (multiple-point or four-point restraints) higher seat-backs ("New York" seats) adult school bus electrically operated crossing control arms dual stop s i gnal arms external loud speaker systems rearward-facing seats with a lap-belt Each safety investment option was analyzed using several parameters. These included: 'Farr, G.N. 1985 School Bus Safety Study Volume I. Traffic Safety Standards and Research, Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 83

PAGE 113

the annual capital outlay amount estimated annual maintenance costs service life span of the safety investment options residual value at the end of the service l ife span an appropriate discount rate The parameter figures utilized in determining the benefits of each safety investment option are identified in Table 18. Table 18 Safety Cost-Benefit Analysis Parameters __ SJ.ll3.26 SJS IS The potential reduction in fatalities and injur ies (benefits) was derived in two ways. First, the benefits to be gained by the installation of each safety investment option were determined by applying the identical effectiveness and usage rates utilized in the CBA performed by the TRB committee that investigated school bus safety (referred to hereafter as the TRB committee). The TRB committee effectiveness and usage rates are identified in Table 19. Second, since the TRB committee effectiveness and usage rates are based more on conjecture than fact a sensitivity analysis was performed using variable effectiveness and usage rates (applies only to safety restraints) ranging from 10 to 100 percent. By performing the analysis in this manner, it demonstrated what parameters are 84

PAGE 114

critical in determining the relative worth of each safety investment option. An example of the vacillation in quantifiable benefits associated with numerous effectiveness and usage rate combinations for lap-belts is provided in Table 41 on page 105. Table 19 Transportation Research Board Safety Investment Option Effectiveness and Usage Rates 0.20" Source: Tr8tls;portation Reseateh Boaf. 1989. tmpt'OVing SchOOl s:p.sa1 Rtpott No. 222 .N&tlonaJ Safety CouneU, Washi ngton, D .C. School bus monitors, the only human safety investment option warrant no capital and maintenance costs and require only annual operational costs. The other safety investment options (school bus equipment) involve annual capital lunds as well as annual operational and maintenance costs A service life span of 15 years and no residual value were assumed for each safety investment option A discount rate of seven percent was used. The sensitivity of costs/benefits to selection of a particular discount rate is an area of considerable debate. The discount rate is defined as a percentage figure usually expressed as an annual rate representing the rate of interest money can be assumed to earn over the period of t i me under analysis.'o4 For example, if the Aorida Legislature, upon recommendation from the Department of Education, decides to allocate lunds for Installation of electr i c crossing control arms on large school buses, it loses the opportunity to "invest" this money elsewhere. The rate at which this money can be invested American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. 1977. A Manual on User Benefit AMiysis of Highway and American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. 85

PAGE 115

elsewhere is known as the "opportunity cost of capital. Therefore, selection of the discount rate must be sensitive to the opportunity cost of capital." Depending on the specifics of a particular analysis an unsuitable discount rate can lead to erroneous conclusions. To alleviate possible debate concerning the choice of a seven percent (7%) discount rate, a sensitivity analysis was performed on each safety investment option using discount rates of four percent (4%) and 10 percent (10%). Due to the negligible fluctuation in quantifiable benefits, the sensitivity analysis allayed concerns that seven percent (7%) is not an appropriate discount rate for use in this study. The CBA was performed in constant dollars, not in current dollars. By conducting the CBA in this fashion, all dollar amounts are assumed to remain at a constant level over the chosen service life span, thus alleviating each safety investment option from inflat ionary pressures. Had current dollars been embraced for the analysis, a higher discount rate that is indicative of the full current market rate of interest would have been applied. The on-board passenger fatality and injury severity data ut ilized in the CBA were obtained from the State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. The data were extracted from the Statewide Traffic Accident Management Information System (STAMIS) database. This database includes data compiled from traffic accident reports submitted to the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles by all law enforcement agencies inve stigating traffic crashes in the state. Analysis of these data revealed that for the six-year period of study (1986-1991), the only years comprehensive data we re available, 1.5 fatalities, 34 incapacitatin g (A-level) injur ies, 209 non incapacitating (B-Ievel) in juries and 515 possible (C-Ievel) injuries occurred on average per year in the state of Florida to children traveling on large school buses. For additional review of the i njury coding stratagems, refer to Chapter Ill of this report. The off-board fatality and injury severity data were acquired from the School Transportation Management Section of the Aorida Department of Education. These data revealed for the same period of study that 0.66 fatalities, 1 incapacitating inj ury 1 3 nonincapacitating injuries and 3 possible injuries occurred on average each year to children in the school bus loading and unloading zones. The on-board and off-board average fatality and injury severity ra tes for the six-year period of study are summarized in Table 20. 86

PAGE 116

Table 20 Average Florida On-Board and Off-Board Fatalities and Injuries, 1986-1991 The formula below is presented to facilitate understanding by the reader of the quantitative d erivation of the total number of large school buses that can be equipped with a particular safety in vestment option for a capital expenditure of $1,000,000 per year per safety investment option. The installa tio n costs, maintenance costs, and the num be r of buses that can be equipped will vary for each of the safety investment options. The service life span (when applicable), the discount rate, and the total number of large school buses (see Table 18) will remain constant throughout the CBA. where: N = __ _,t,'"'"ooo---",ooo __ I [ d (1 ] (1+dt-1 +M N = number of school buses that can be equipped and maintained lor a $1,000,000 Investment per year l = Installation cost per bus d annual discount rate n = service lWe span ol safety investment option M = annual maintenance cost per bus 87

PAGE 117

Table 21 Number of Large School Buses In Florida 23.4444 Aggr.g&tet for l arge &ehool busn i:n Florida were obtained from the School T rantpottatlon Management Section of the Florida Oepanmtm of Education. b Thlt prtvate latge SChOOl but aggl'tlgite il bued on an estimate provided by the Sctlool Transportatlon Management Secdon of the Aorida O.partment of Education. The exact numbef of latgt private school bUMS in Flol'ida ;. unknown. Each of the nine school bus safety investment options addressed in the CBA focuses on a particular population of student fatalities and injur ies. For example, stop signal arms are intended to prevent students from being struck by a vehicle other than the school bus in the loading and unloading zones. They will not allay the number of fatalities and injuries sustained on-board the school bus during a crash, as will safety restraints, nor will they protect students who are struck by the front of their own school bus, as is the intent of the installation of crossing control arms. The data in Table 22 identify the various student populations and the average number of fatalities and injuries that each safety investment option addresses The derivation of the quantitative annual impact the inst allation of var ious safety restraints will have on the possible reduction of fatalities and injuries was performed by using the following formula: y = (K)( U)(R)(N) T 88

PAGE 118

where: y quantifiable reduction in and injuries = total number of fatalnies K u R N T = percent of safety restraint usage = fatality and injury mitigation effectiveness percent number of school buses that can be equipped and maintained for $1 ,000,000 per year = total number of large school buses in Rorida Table 22 Annual Florida Student Fatality and Injury Populations Addressed by Each Safety Investment Option Utilizin-g data from the School Bus Loading and Uttloadit1g Sui'Wy compiled b y the Kansat Otpl.l'tn'Wnt of T ransportatio n It was that twottlirda of all student pedestrian fatalities and Injurie s ate caused by childr e n being atruek and k itled by the front of their own schoo l bus. Similarly, utiliz ing loading and unl oading rone fatality and i njury data it wu determined that approximatety o ne -third ot all rtudtnt pedtttrlan fataliUet and i n J ucit1 are caua.d by student& being Wuc:k and killed by a vehlcl9 other tnan the &Chool but. 89 1 .98 $1 $

PAGE 119

By substituting the average number of fatalities (K) with the average number of incapacitating injuries, non incapacitating injuries, and poss i b l e injuries and the appropriate effectiveness rate (R), the quantitative impact of the various safety restraint systems on the reduction of fatalities and injuries can be calculated. The computation of the quantitative annual impact of the other safety investment options on the possible reduction of fatalities and injuries was determine by using the following formula: y = (K)(R)(N) T where: Y = quantifiable reduction In latalttles and Injuries K e total number of latalttles R = fataltty and I njury mitlgation effectiveness percent N = number of school buses that can be equipped and maintained for $1,000,000 per year T = total number of large school buses In Florida Again, by following the substitution procedures outlined above, the quantitative annual i mpact on fatality and injury reduction of each safety investment option can be determined. RESULTS OF SAFETY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS Lap-BeHs I nformation obta i ned from the B l ue Bird Body Company conveyed that the cost of factory installation of lap-belts on 39-inch-wide seats in large school buses is approximately $22 per seating position or $1,500 per large school bus. For an investment 90

PAGE 120

of $1,000 ,000 per year, 5,008 (21%) large school buses i n Florida could be equipped and mainta i ned with l ap belts The TRB committee estimated that l ap-be lts could potentially reduce fatalities and injuries by up to 20 percent.5 Also, the same TRB committee estimated that so percent of the student passengers cou l d be expected to wear the lap-belts.6 Applying the same fatality reduction estimate and assumed percent of usage postulates as the TRB committee up to 0.032 fatalities that occur i n large school buses could be averted each year in Florida (one fatality prevented every 31 years). Exercising the same inferences lap-belts potentially could reduce up to 0. 73 incapacitating injuries, 4.5 nonincapacitating injur i es, and 11 possible in j uries each year i n Florida. The results are shown in Table 23 Table 23 Potential lap-BeH Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual Investment, 5,008 buses) For an annual investment of approximately $4,700,000, all 23,444 large school buses in F lorida could be equipped and maintained with lap-belts Th i s undertaking could potentially save up to 0.15 fatalities annual l y (one life saved approximately every 7 years). Similarly 3.4 i ncapacitating injuries 20.9 nonincapacitating injuries and 51.5 possible injuries could be prevented or lessened per year. The results are shown in Tab l e 24. Transponat ion Research Board. 1989 improvi n g School Bus Safety. Special Repon No 2 22. National Research Council, Washington D .C. 6 Ibid. 91

PAGE 121

Table 24 Potential Lap-Belt Fatality and Injury Reductions (Installed In all large Florida school buses, 23, 444) Lap/Shoulder Belt and Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Restraint Systems No data concerning a fatality and injury percent reduction figure could be found in the literature for lap/sh o u lder and lap/dual shoulder belt restraint systems I n large school buses. Neither restra int system's effecti veness In reducing fatalities and injuries was investigated by the TAB committee. I n 1987, Transport Canada tested both the l ap/shoulder belt and lap/dual shoulder belt restra int systems in a simulated crash environment utilizing a moveable mechanical sled 7 No fatality and injury percent reduction figures were reported in the Transport Canada study for either restraint system (the Transport Canada test is reviewed extensively in Chapter V of this report) From the sled test results, the Transport Canada researchers were able to draw similar conclusions for both restraint systems. They noted that: head contact with the seat in front was el iminated maximum H IC values were below 1000 for both the angled and frontal collision simulations Drawing from the of the Transport Canada study that investigated lap/shoulder belt and lap/dual shoulder belt restraint systems, it can be logically inferred that restraint systems that provide an occupant with upper torso restraint in conjunction with pelvic restraint will reduce fatalities and injuries, particularly Inju ries to the face and head area, to a greater extent than a restraint system that only provides an occupant with pelvic restricti on, as is the case with lap-belts. Therefore, if la p -be lts are assumed by the TRB committee to be 20 percen t effective when worn by 50 percent of schoo l bus occupants, then it is reasonable to assume that lap/shoulder belt and lap/dual shoulder belt rest raint systems could be more effective in reducing fatalities and injuries sustained 1 Farr, G N. i981 .School Bus SeaJ De-elopmmt Study. Traffic Safety S tandards and Research. Transport Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 92

PAGE 122

by school bus occupants, perhaps as much as 40 percent and 50 percent effective, respectively Uke the TRB committee's effectiveness rates, the effectiveness rates of 40 and 50 percent are based solely on conjecture. No conclusive effectiveness estimates are readily available. Installatio n cost estimates per large school bus for the lap/shou lder belt and lap/dual shoulder belt restraint systems were obtained from the 1987 Transport Canada study. 8 The original insta llation cost estimates were acquired by Transport Canada from the Blue Bird Body Company in Fort Valley, Georgia. The dollar amounts in the Transport Canada study were converted to U.S. dollars. A personal communication with G.N. Farr, the listed author of the Transport Canada study, and a representativ e from the Blue Bird Body Company confirmed that the in stallation costs reported in the study are accurate. After the Canadian dollars were converted to U.S. dollars, they were adjusted for inflation to arrive at a representational 1992 installation cost estimate for both restraint systems. The estimated 1992 insta llation costs are summarized in Table 25. Table 25 Installation Cost for Lap/Shoulder Belt and Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Restraint Systems S4.64J.94 For an annual investment of $1,000,000, 2,187 (9%) large school buses could be equipped and maintained with lap/shou lder belts and assuming lap/shou lder belt restraint systems are 40 percent effective and will be worn 50 percent of the t i me, up to 0 028 fatalities (a single life saved roughly every 36 years), 0 634 incapacitating i nj ur ies, 3.9 nonincapacitating i njurie s, and 9.6 possible injuries could be avoided each year The results are shown in Table 26 lbid 93

PAGE 123

Tabla 26 Potential lap/Shoulder Belt Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual investment, 2,187 buses) -=;o=;;=;oo;=;== If 1,819 (8%) large school buses could be equipped and maintained with lap/dual shoulder belt restraint systems for a $1 ,000,000 annual investment and assuming lap-dual shoulder belt restraint systems are 50 percent effective and will be wom 50 percent of the time, up to 0.03 fatalities (one life preserved approximately every 33 years), 0 66 incapacitating injuries, 4.05 nonincapacitating injuries, and 10 possible injuries could be avoided each year. The results are reiterated in Table 27. Tabla 27 Potential lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual Investment, 1 ,891 buses) The annual cost to equip and maintain al123,444 large school buses in Florida with lap/shoulder belt restraint systems is approximately $10,700,000, and the annual cost to equip and maintain all large school buses in Rorida with lap/dual shoulder belts is approximately $12,900,000. If all large school buses in Florida where equipped with lap/shoulder belt restraint systems, up to 0.3 fatalities (one life saved about every 3.3 years), 6.8 incapacitating injuries, 41.8 nonincapacitating injuries, and 103 possible injuries could be averted each year. Similarly, if lap/dual shoulder belt restraint systems where insta lled in ali large Rorida school buses up to 0.4 fatalities (one life saved about every 2.5 years), 8.5 incapacitating injuries 52.2 nonincapacitating injuries, and 129 possible injuries could be prevented each year. The results are shown in Table 28. 94

PAGE 124

Table 28 Potential Lap/Shoulder Belt and Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Fatality and Injury Reductions (Installed In all large Florida school buses, 23,444) IF""'=-=Higher Seat-Backs For an annual investment of $1,000,000, 36,4321arge school buses (12,988 more than the total number of large schoo l buses currently operating in Flor ida) can be equipped with 24-in ch seat-backs ("New York" seats) instead of the standard 20inch seat backs as measured from the seat in g reference point (SAP) currently used in large Florida school buses (the SAP is the point at which the human torso and thigh pivot). According to the Blue Bird Body Company, higher seat-backs would cost app roximate ly $250 to insta ll per large schoo l bus. According to the TAB committee these devices do not require an ann ual expenditure for maintenance. The TAB committee estimated higher seat-backs could be as much as 20 percent effective in reducing fatalities and injuries sustained by school bus occupants. 9 Utilizing the TAB committee effectiveness estimates higher seat-backs could red uce up to 0.466 fatalities (one life saved approximately every 2.1 years), 10.6 incapa citating injuries, 65 nonincapacitating injur ie s and 160 possible inj u ries each year in Aorida. The results are indicate d in Table 29. 9 Transportal ion Research Board. 1989. cp cil. 95

PAGE 125

Table 29 Potential Higher Seat-Back Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual Investment, 36,432 buses) To equip the entire large school bus fleet in Florida with 24-inch seat-backs as measured from the SRP would cost approximately $650,000 annually. Such a venture could reduce 0.3 fatalities (one life saved approximately every 3.3 years) 7 incapacitating injuries, 42 nonincapacitating injuries, and 104 possible injuries per year The results are noted in Table 30. Table 30 Potential Higher Seat-Back Fatality and Injury Reductions (Installed In all large Florida school buses, 23,444) Adult School Bus Monitors The TRB committee suggested that monitors on school buses are 25 to 75 percent effective in preventing or reducing fatalities and in juries, both on-board and off-board the school bus.10 Therefore, a monitor program budgeted at $1,000,000 per year could stafl261 (1%) large school buses in Florida with adult monitors (assuming $3,825 .00 per monitor per school year hired at the rate of $4.25 per hour (minimum wage), work i ng 5 hours per day, 180 days per year) If 261 large buses are staffed with monitors, 0 006 to O.Q18 fatalities could be avoided each year (on-board and off board) utilizing the TRB effectiveness rates of 25 to 75 percent. At 25 percent effective, one life can be saved every 167 years and, at 75 percent effective, one life can be saved every 55 years. 0 Ibid. 96

PAGE 126

Similarly, for an annual investment of $1,000,000, adult school bus monitors oould prevent 0.09 to 0.3 incapacitating injuries, 0.58 to 1.8 nonincapacitating injuries, and 1.44 to 4 3 possible injuries per year. The results are presented in Table 31. Table 31 Potential Adult School Bus Monitor Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual investment, 261 buses) If each of the 23,444 large school buses in Florida were to be staffed with adult monitors it woul d cost approximately $89,673,300 annually. A statewide program of that magnitude could potentially save 0.54 to 1 .61ives (one life preserved approximately every 1.85 and 0.625 years, respectively) and lessen 9 to 26 incapacitating injuries, 53 to 158 nonincapacitating I njures, and 130 to 389 possible injuries per year The results are reoounted in Table 32. Table 32 Potential Adult School Bus Monitor Fatality and Injury Reductions (all 23,444 large school buses staffed with adult monitors) "' ,;; ln/1117 S'beruy. : '.'; 'St ::y :', ''. ;.';:,;' ,_ $i;ftty .ll'rwelll < . F--...in 08 N?-"t .,. . .... -;. )> "' .. '{ ' If' 1.6 } t o" ::: 'z 6"'( .' "' 5J;.f]58 r "\ {Jd 'f1; -- , .... Electric Crossing Control Arms The installation oost of electrically,actlvated crossing oontrol arms (Florida pe rmits electric operation only) is approximately $350 per large school bus, according to the Blue Bird Body Company. Assuming that an electric crossing oontrol arm can be purchased and installed for $350 per large school bus and maintained at an annual oost of $25 per year, approximately 15,766 (67%) large school buses in Aorida can be equipped and maintained with electric crossing control arms for an annual investment of $1,000,000. 97

PAGE 127

If these devices are 5 to 25 percent effective i n reducing fatalities and in juries 11 (as assumed by the TRB committee) that occur when children are struck by the front of their own school bus, they could possibly prevent 0 0148 to 0.074 fatalities (one life every 68 to 14 years, respectively), 0.02 2 1 to 0.111 incapacitating in juri es 0.0289 to 0.145 nonincapacitating injuries, and 0.067 to 0.333 possible injuries each year. The fatality and injury reduction estimates are reiterated in Table 33. Table 33 Potential Crossing Control Arm Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual Investment, 15,n& buses) All 23,444 large school buses operating in Aorida can be equipped with electric crossing control arms tor about $1,487,000 annually. Equip p ing all large schoo l buses with these device could potentially reduce 0 022 to 0.11 fatalities (one life approximately every 45 to 9 years, respectively) 0.033 to 0.164 incapacitating injur ies, 0 0429 to 0.214 nonincapacitating injuries, and 0.1 to 0 5 possible injuries eac h year. The results are repeated in Table 34. Table 34 Potential Crossing Control Arm Fatality and Injury Reductions (Installed on all large Florida school buses 23,444) "''W'!j% . };F .ilw#ssmt ()pdM FJlcillfll . ..., .va.u.,...,... iftri"' -1" >.:::: 1J" <9; J' .o.m ,o.w . ( <>t<4>o. s:t< ,, '<>*"#-" ;-,';,; <' mi ;J -)It 1!$ "" < H.-&& ,. ., II Ibid. 98

PAGE 128

External Loud Speaker Systems External loud speaker systems, allowed as optional equipment on large Florida school buses, can be installed for approximately $250 per large school bus, according to the Blue Bird Body Company. The purpose of external loud speaker systems is to allow the driver to warn children in the loading and unloading zones of impending danger when attempting to cross the street. Assuming an annual maintenance cost of $15 per year per school bus, approximately 18,717 (80%) large school bus can be equipped and maintained with these devices at an annual cost of $1,000,000. When properly used and maintained, external loud speaker systems are assumed by the TAB committee to be 20 percent effective 12 in reducing off-board fatalities and injuries. Utilizing the TAB committee effectiveness rate, these devices could potentially prevent up to 0.035 fatalities (one life saved roughly every 29years), 0.05 incapacitating injuries, 0.07 nonincapacitating injuries, and 0.16 possible injuries each year. The reduction in fatality and injury results are shown in Table 35. Table 35 Potential External Loud Speaker System Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual Investment, 18,717 buses) S4rl1-()looioo r Jtft<'l' -,_,: -, "'""' #-o/$i:-' ' .>(li2 ,_ _,.. . .;'$ -:;,9> --; ": : .1''<:{ (ClH''"" --., -, .:;s i!if..iuu'i'!l!fliii'!&t.'""";":v?/ r\t', "' v .. v :t.' .-.-. ..,.., _&; ... U; ;-, .;,;s..ti' c. W i ; The cost to equip and maintain the entire large Florida school bus fleet with these devices would cost approximately $1,250,000 annually. An investment of this magnitude could reduce 0 044 fatalities (one life saved approximately every 23 years), 0.07 incapacitating injuries, 0.09 nonincapacitating injuries, and 0.2 possible injuries per year. The results are recounted in Table 36. 12 Ibid 99

PAGE 129

Table 36 Potential External Loud Speaker System Fatality and Injury Reductions (Installed In all large Florida school buses, 23,444) Dual Stop Signal Arms According to B lue Bird Body Company, dual stop signa l arms (required in Florida) can be installed on la rge school buses for approximately $475 per school bus. Utilizing an installation cost of $475 and an assumed annual maintenance cost of $15 per year per school bus, about 14,892 (64%} large school buses in Florida can be equipped and maintained with dual stop signal arms for an annual expenditure of $1,000,000. The TRB committee assumed stop signal arms could be up to 30 percent effective i n r3ducing fatalities and injuries to school children in the school bus load ing and unloading zones.13 The TRB committee did not state in its analysis whether the 30 percent effectiveness rate applied to dual stop signal arms or single stop signal arms. Nevenheless, by applying the 30 pe rcent effectiveness rate assumed by the TRB committee to dual stop signal arms up to 0.042 fatalit ies (one school bus occupant saved app roximate ly every 24 years), 0.063 inca pacitat ing, 0.082 nonincapacitaling, and 0.2 possible injuries could be prevented each year. The results are shown in Table 37. Table 37 Potential Dual Stop Signal Arm Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual Investment, 14 892 buses) Ibid. 100

PAGE 130

For approximately $1, 575 000 annually, all 23, 444 large school buses in Florida could be equipped with dual stop signal arms. This expenditure could potentially save up to 0.07 fatalities (one life saved approximately every 14 years), 0.1 incapacitating i njuries, 0.13 nonincapacitating injuries, and 0.3 possible injuries per year. The results are displayed in Table 38. Table 38 Potential Dual Stop Signal Arm Fatality and Injury Reductions (Installed In all large Florida school buses, 23,444) Rearward-Facing Seats with Lap-Belt The concep t of school bus seats positioned so that school bus occupants travel in a rearward-facing manner has been contemplated on several occasions as a possible Improvement to occupant safety The 1972 UCLA Series II tests that investigated rearward-facing seats without lap-belts reported that: there appears to be no safety advantage for school children to face rearward ; other factors, such as increased passenger monitor problems and the greater probability of mot i on sickness, make consideration of rear-facing seats additionally unattractive. 14 Dissimilar conclusions regarding the feasibility of rearward-fac ing seats with lap belts in large school buses were reached by Transport Canada. '5 Sled test results revea l ed that rearward-facing seats with lap-belts can prov ide increased safety to school bus occupants. Both H IC and chest acceleration values were considerably lower than "Wojcik, C K and L.R. Sandes 1972.School Bus StaJ Restraint and Seal Anchorage Systems. Institute of Transportation and T r aific Engineers, Schoo l of Engineering and Applied Science, University of Clli forn.ia at Los Angeles, California. Bunch et al. 1 989 84ckground Paper on S c hool Bus Occ upant Protection in CQJIOiJa. T raffic Safety Standards and Research T ransport Canada Ottawa, Ontario Canada. 101

PAGE 131

the other seating designs tested by the Transport Canada team (for a review of the alternative seat designs tested by Transport Canada, refer to Chapter V of this report). Farr, reiterating the potential gain afforded by rearward-facing seats with a lap-belt stated, "the rearward-facing seat was effective in reduc ing all injury levels to acceptable values."18 In addition to performing a sled test, the Transport Canada researchers further investiga ted the concept of rearward-facing seats with a lap-belt by conducting a demonstration project. From the results of the demonstration project, the Transport Canada researchers were able to surmise that although "the re were some complaints of students feeling ill because they were facing rearwards ... they overcame the problem in a few days. The students seemed very adaptable to the rear-facing concept."17 No percent effectiveness figure, expressed in terms of a potential reduction in fatalities and injuries, for the rearward-facing seat with a lap-belt concept is identified in the literature. The TRB committee suggested that forward -facing seats with a lapbe lt are 20 percent effective when worn by 50 percent of school bus occupants. Drawing from the results of the Transport Canada tests in 1987 and utilizing the TRB committee's effectiveness rate as a base, rearward-facing seats with a lap-be lt could be 20 to 55 percent effective in reducing fatalities and injuries sustained by school bus occupants. The 55 percent effectiveness figure was assumed, based on the fact that the rearward facing seats with a lap-belt resulted in considerably lower HIC and chest acceleration values the other seating designs tested by Transport Canada, outperforming even the three-po i nt and multiple-point restraint systems. The TAB committee's lap-be lt usage rate of 50 percent was utilized. For an annual Investment of $1,000,000 2,654 (11%) large school buses in the state can be equipped and maintained with rearward-facing seats with lap-belts, assuming an i nsta llation cost of $3,113.26 and an annual maintenance cost of $35 per large school bus. The installation costs were obtained from the 1987 T ransport Canada study. The identic al procedures were followed for estimating installation costs as performed for the lap/shoulder belt and lap/dual shoulder belt restraint systems. The maintenance costs are assumed to be the same as the forward-facing seat with a lap-belt. I nstallat io n of "Fan, G.N.l987. op cit. 11 Ibid. 102

PAGE 132

rearward-facing seats with lap-belt s in 2,654 large school buses could potentially reduce up to 0.0169 to 0.0466 fatalities (one life saved approximately every 60 to 21 years, respectively), 0.38 to 1.06 incapacitating injur ies, 2.37 to 6.5 nonincapacitating inju ries, and 5.8 to 16.03 possible inj u r ies per year in Florida. The results are shown in Table 39. Table 39 Potential Rearward-Facing Seat with lap-Belts Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual Investment, 2 654 buses) If rearward-facing seats with a lap-belt were to be insta lled and malntained in all Florida large school buses it would cost approximately $8,900,000 annually. Such an endeavor could potential ly prevent up to 0 15 to 0.4124 fatalities (one life preserved roughly every 6.6 to 2.4 years, respectively), 3.4 to 9.34 incapacitating Injuries, 20 9 to 57.4 nonincapacitating injuries, and 51.5 to 141.6 possible injuries each year The results are shown in Table 40. Table 40 Potential Rearward-Facing Seat with lap-Belts Fatality and Injury Reductions (Installed in all large Florida school buses, 23,444) StfWy 6ro4D...-q-. it \f ..... .. 4/.S-' 0 ., ... -' F-. ., I nrf"' --* tt414.Widha-..: ,. >.....-' ..... ,...,,, """ ._ _,. :._" 7 .... "' i tJtZ;' ,, ; ; ljJ ;: :' .,:St.5ii.f M'1, >W SAFETY COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS SYNOPSIS Based on the results of the CBA the installation of safety restraints in large school buses was not positive and somewhat unanticipated, given the weighty evidence that 103

PAGE 133

occupants benefit greatly from the use of safety restraints in passenger cars '8 This may be explained by the following reason : the inherent safety of l arge Aorida school buses is symptomatic of a low vehicle accident rate pe r mi l es traveled and a low base rate of fatai and serious injur i es among those occupants i nvolved in these accidents Therefore the potential benefits (prevention of fatalities and reduction of injuries) from the installation of safety restraints in large school buses or tor that matter the installation of any other safety investment option, cannot be expected to be great. In i n terpret ing the results of the CBA, two methodo logi cal caveats should be taken into consideration by the reader. The most serious problem i s the uncertainty regarding the percent effectiveness figures for the nine safety investment opt i ons under analys i s An attempt was made to sidestep this problem by basing calculations on the same effectiveness rate assumptions used by the TRB committee.1 9 Th i s lack of concrete evidence conceming the effectiveness of safety restra i nts and other safety i nvestment options for large school buses emphas i zes the i mportance of this i ssue. There i s a need for a comprehensive study to compare the fatality and injury rates among belted and unbelted school bus occupants to decisively determine their safety potential. In addition, a comprehensive study should be conducted to determine the protective effect of other currently availab l e and feasible safety investment options for large school buses This may become a reality as more school districts and states equip school buses with safety restraints and other safety investment options. Second, in trying to gauge the likely error in derived annual quantifiable benefits resulting from a specific parameter selection a sensitivity analysis was conducted with reference to three i mportant parameters: the discount rate usage rates effectiveness rates As n oted earlier, the use of discount rates of four percent (4%) and ten percent (10%) had a negligible effect on quanti fi ab l e benefits. However, the use of effectiveness "The Urban Institute 1991 The Costs of HighwayCrashts Office o f Safety and Traffic Operations Research and Design, Federal Highway Administration, Mclean, V i rginia Transponation R ese arch Board. 1989. op cit. 104

PAGE 134

and usage rates (applies only to safety rest raints) ranging from 10 to 100 percent i llustrated that the quantifiable benefits derived from each safety investment option are very "sensitive to these particular parameters. For example, in Table 41, if lap-belts are assumed to be 60 percent effective when worn by 50 percent of school bus occupants, up to 0.0961 fatalities might be prevented. Moreover, if lap-belts are assumed to be 60 percent effective when worn by 60 percent of school bus occupants, up to 0.1538 fatalities could be prevented per year for an annual Investment of $1,000,000 In contrast, if lap-belts are assumed to be 20 percent effective when worn by 20 percent of school bus occupants, up to 0.0128 fatalities can be prevented every year (one life saved approximately every 78 years) for the same annual investment. Tab les 49 through 69, contained In Appendix B provide a breakdown by safety investment option (per $1,000,000 annual investment) the injury severity reductions generated by the variable effectiveness and usage rate combination sensitivity analysis. In addition, a listing of the injury severity reductions utilizing variable effectiveness and usage rates that can be expected to result by each safety investment option if they are installed in and on all public sector operated large school buses (14,008) is provided in Tables 70 through 90 in Appendix C. Table 41 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention 0.1 O .J/JJ The graphs In Figure 15 depict, utilizing the upper limit of effectiveness for each safety investment option, the potential reduction in fatalities, incapacitating injuries, nonincapacitating injuries and possible injur ies afforded by each safety in vestment option 105

PAGE 135

per $1,000,000 annual investment. By comparing the figures, it is immediately apparent that the use of higher seat-backs i n large school buses offers the most safety protection to school bus occupants per dollar invested. F igure 1 5 F l or ida S c ho o l Bus O c cupant Inj ury S ev e rity Reduction by Safety Investment Option Lap-Belts Three-point restrai nt M u l tiple-restrain t Higher Aduh school bus Crossing control arms Dual stop s i gna l arms Extema l loud speak err : Rearward facing seats w Three-point restraint Multip l e-restraint Higher Adult schoo l bus Crossing control Dual stop signal Extemal loud speaker Rearward-facing seats 0 Three-point restraint Multiple-restraint Higher Adult school bus Crossing contro l Dual stop signal ExtemaJ loud speaker Rearward-lacing seats 0 Three-point restraint Multiple restraint Higher Adul t school bus C r ossing contro l Dual s t op signal Extemalloud speaker Rearward-facing seats 0 2 10 30 Fatality Prevention Incapacitating Injury Reduction 4 6 8 Nonincapacitating Injury Reduction 20 30 40 50 Possible Injury Reduction 60 90 120 106

PAGE 136

The next table, Table 42, shows each safety investment option's rank according to its potential to prevent fatalities and reduce injuries sustained by Florida school bus occupants. To clarify Table 42 for the reader, a brief explanation follow s In terms of potential fatality prevention for a specified annual outlay of capital, higher seat-backs received the highest rank (#1) and adult school bus monitors received the lowest rank (#6). This was determined by comparing the actual number of fatalities prevented and injuries reduced by each safety investment option per dollar invested. For example higher seat-backs will potentially prevent the greatest number of annual fatalities (0.3), and therefore they were ranked number one (#1 ). In determining the overall rank, each safety investment options rank for each in jury severity level was aggregated, i.e., higher seat backs received the highest rank (#1) for each injury severity level. This resulted in an aggregate of four (4) for h i gher seat-backs. The lower the aggregate, the higher overall rank each safety investment option received. To simplify, the aggregate for higher seat backs equals four (4), the smallest aggregate, thereby giving these devices the highest overall rank (#1). In contrast, dual stop signal arms received the la rgest aggregate (30), thereby giving them the lowest overall rank (#8). In conclusion, the researchers determined using results obtained from the CBA that higher seat-backs are the safety inv estment option that could offer the most benefits in terms of fatalities prevented and inj uries reduced per year per dollar invested. Similar conclusions were reached by the TAB committee. Higher seat-backs have the potential to prevent up to 0.3 fatalities, 7 incapacitating injuries, 42 nonincapacitating injuries, and 104 possible injuries per year per $650,000 annual investment. In addition, higher seat backs are also highly cost effective; for an annual capital expenditure of only $650,000, all 23,444 large school buses in Florida can be equipped with these devices. The results of the CBA are summarized in Table 43. 107

PAGE 137

-.. E Gl 0 II. .... .. c 0 tl :I i a: i!' ::! :I 'E'. c .. " ('10 ..,-Glal "' co -C .. 0 .Q -;;: "' i .lO: c .. a: .., c :: .2 Q, 0 -c < E = > c ::;: Gl "' Ill ;;: .. J I l .... .s

PAGE 138

Table 43 Summary of Annual Fatality and Injury Reduction for Each Safety Investment Option Safely lm
PAGE 139

Chapter VIII DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENTS Tile analysis conta i ned in this section is based on the supposition that impact mode (i.e. direction of i mpact) I s directly re l ated to the severity of in jury sustained by school bus occupants. To determine the potent i al effectiveness of safety restraints i n large Florida school buses, two objectives were defined: determine the frequency and distribution of accidents by impact mode; and determine occupant injury severity by impact mode Tile analysis of F l orida school bus accidents utilized data obtained from the State of Aorida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles for the years 1986 to 1991 (the only years comprehensive data were available) Tile data were extracted from the Statew i de Traffic Accident Management Information System (STAMIS) database. TI'Iis database includes accident data compiled from traffic accident reports submitted to the State of Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. While there are many poss i b l e impact modes (the State of Florida classifies 35) in which to determine potent i al safety restraint system effectiveness, the literature and our analysis of accident frequency make it clear that four i mpact modes are relevant to determining potential safety restraint effectiveness. TI'Iese include : frontal impacts side impacts rear -end impacts rollovers IMPACT MODE DYNAMICS Frontal Impacts A school bus passenger not wearing a safety restraint in a frontal impact would have a tendency to slide forward and str ike the seat-back ahead with the upper torso and knees. Due to "compartmentalization," Farr explains, "this results in the forces being 110

PAGE 140

spread more evenly over the upper torso." I n contrast, an occupant r estricted by a restraint system Oap-belt) woul d bend forward Oackknife) and str ike the top of the seat back ahead with the head face, and chest, thereby i ncreasing the forces exerted on t h e head, face, and chest. Fa rr conc l udes from the 1985 Transport Canada crash test "In general, the resu lts ind i cated that the belted dummies experienced h i gher head and lower chest accelerations than did the unbelted ones "2 Farr exp l a i ns: In the l arge bus [those buses having a gross vehicle we i ght greater than 10,000 lbs ] all dumm i es experienced HIC values of less than 1000 but the restra i ned ones experienced values approximately 3 t i mes g r eater than those for the unrestrained ones This difference can be exp l a i ned by the fact that the restrained dumm i es' heads struck the seat backs in a manner that d i d not permit effic i ent energy absorption by those seat backs Sharp pea k s in the head acce l erat i on traces indicate that the dummy heads compressed the seat-back padding to such a degree that they bottomed out" on the steel structure underlying the padding in the seat.3 Si d e Imp acts Numerous conclusions regarding the effectiveness of safety restraints in side impact coll i sions ha v e been reached. Thomas Built Buses concluded that in the s i de i mpact tests, compartmentalization appears to wor1< ... and seat belts [lap-belts ] would not make any significant difference one way or another as far as head or chest i njuries .''4 Without the presence of any other l ateral support such as an aisle armrest, an occu pant r estrained by a lap belt might be ben t over s i deways and suffer abdom i nal i njuries Ursell states that: During s ide i mpacts, passengers sitting against the side wall of the bus facing forward with seat belts [lap belt) fastened might actually be better 1 Farr, G .N. 1985. School Bus Safel)' Study Volume l Traffic Safe
PAGE 141

off than those sitting next to the aisle. The aisle passenger has no aisle support whatsoever and will simp ly pivot about the belt line and bend out into the aisle area until he strikes the passenger across the aisle or seat across the aisle.5 During side impact collisions, safety restraint use will assure that the passenger remains in the seat, provid i ng the belt's integrity is not compromised or worn too loosely by the occupant. Assuming the occupant is not seated in the direct impact zone, safety restraints might prevent the occupant from sustaining further i njury by not permitting him or her to be thrown out of the seat in a side impact collision. Rear-End Impacts Inadequate data are available regarding the ram ificati ons of safety restraint effectiveness i n rear-end impact collisions. In rear-end impact collisions, seat-back height not safety restraints, constitutes the crit i cai element of passenger protection because the passengers' energy is absorbed through contact with the seat-back. Severy et al. point out that: For the rear-end collision, lap-be lted passengers respond slightly differently from unbelted passengers, but this factor was not nearly as important as was the height of the seat-back. Lap-belts should not be used for low seat-back units because their use substantially increases the highly adverse forces to the spinal col umn resulting from whiplash and they virtually assure severe head or neck Impacts with the low backrests ahead. 6 Severy et al., however, made their statements ten years before FMVSS 222 was enacted. Adams, reinforcing Severy et al. 's view on proper school bus seat-back height, states "The height and contour of the top front of the seat-back must be such that the neck and Ursell, C.R. 1977. A Study Relating to StaJ Belts for Use in Buses. Soulhwest Research Institute, San An!onio. Texas. 6 Severy et al. 1967. School Bus Passenger Protection Institute of Transponation and Traffic Engineering, University of California, Los Angeles California. 112

PAGE 142

lower back of the head are adequately supported during impact "7 Since 1967, there have been no fu ll-scale rear-end impact crash tests or sled test simulations that investigated school bus seats that conform to FMVSS 222. It is uncertain how school bus seats with a seat-back height of 20 inches (or higher) as measured from the seating reference point would perform under testing situations. Rollovers Addressing passenger dynamics during rollover accidents, NTSB stated: .. .lap-belted passengers seated away from the side on which the bus comes to rest gains some measure of protection, since they will not be flung to that side and sustain the ground impact ; lap-belt use will not protect passengers seated on the near side, however. 8 In the NTSB investigation of 43 school bus accidents, relievers accounted for a higher percentage of school bus passenger injuries than non-relievers, but no t to the degree an t icipated by the study team. The Safety Board explained, ... nearly 86 percent of all the school bus passengers involved in rollover crashes were either uninjured or received only minor inj u ries. Discussing the expected events during a rollover accident, NTSB reported that: .. .lap-belted passengers will be free to strike one another dur ing the rollover and to hit the windows, side walls, and seat-backs during the rollover. Contacts with flying objects, such as broken glass, books, and lunch pails, also will not be prevented by lap-belt use. If the roof crushes at their seating position, lap -belt use will be of little benefit, and may, in fact, increase chance of injury.9 'Adams, L. l91S.School Bus PengtrStoJ Testing. U.S. Depanment ofTr:ansponation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administr.uion, Washington, D C. National Transportation Safety Board. 1987. Safety Study Crashwonhiness of lArge Poststandord School Buses. Bureau of Safety Programs, Washing t on, D.C. 9 Ibid. 113

PAGE 143

UCLA researchers Wojcik and Sandes, commenting on the effectiveness of safety restraints in rollover accidents, stated, "This does not mean that lap-belts would be of substantial assistance where collisions include bus upset, providing extrication processes can be perfected to allow rapid evacuation of a fully loa ded, overturned bus."10 In sum, available research on frontal and rear-end impact collisions does not produce a discerning result favorable to safety restraint installation in large school buses. Research on side impact collisions, however, appears to indicate that installation of lap belts would be slightly beneficial, contingent upon the occupants not being seated in the direct impact zone during an accident. In rollover collisions, available research tends to be based more o n conjecture !han fact. Deductions favoring lap-belt use in rollover accidents are grounded on !he benefits of diminishing 'tossin g about" and eliminating partial and, in rare instances, full e j ection of passengers. ANALYSIS OF FLORIDA SCHOOL BUS ACCIDENT DATA Florida school bus accident data reinforce !he widely known fact that school bus accidents that res u lt i n fatal or serious injuries to bus occupants are rare events. In the six-year period of study there where 4,732 accidents invo lving large school buses in Florida that resulted in 9 fatalities {five of the fatalities were the result of a single accident) and 202 incapacitating Injuries to school bus occupants. There were a total of 44,438 school bus passengers involved in these 4, 732 recorded accidents. In Table 44, !he frequency of accidents by frontal impact, rear-end impact, side impact, and rollover are identified. As reported in Tab le 44, 63 or 1.3 percent of all school bus accidents In Florida during the six-year period of study were frontal in nature. Table 44 also illustrates !hat a higher proportion of accidents involving school buses in Florida were eithe r rear-end or side imp act collisions 1,482 {31.3%) and 1,334 (28.2%), respectively. School bus accidents that resulted in roll overs constituted the smallest proportion of all accidents possibilities. Of the 4,732 reported accidents between 1986 and 1991 only 15 {0.32%) involved an overturned school bus. 1 0 Wojcik, C.K . and L.R Sandes 1912.Sclwol Bus Sta1 RestraiTU and Seot Ancho rage Sysr
PAGE 144

Table 44 Florida Large S chool Bus Acci d ent Frequenc y Based on Im pa ct Mode 1 986-1991 Table 45 p r ovides a freq uency d i stribution of the level of injury seve r ity sustained by schoo l bus occup ants i n the 4, 732 accidents that i n volved school buses. Over the six year period of study 9 (0.02%) fatalities, 202 (0.45%) i ncapacitating injuries (Al evel), 1 25 1 (2.8%) nonincapacitating inju r ies (BI evel), 3 ,091 (7%) possib l e inju r es (C Ieve l ), and 39,878 (89 7%) no injur i es (none) were reported A tota l o f 7 (0.015%) In j uries sustained by schoo l bus occupant s were of unknown s e verity. The categories of injury severity are descr i bed in detail in Chapte r Ill of this r epo rt In Tab l e 46 the distr i but i on o f fatalities, i ncapacitat ing i n jur i es, non i nca p acitating injuries pos s ibl e in j u ri e s and no injury (non e ) are I d e ntifi e d a ccording to Impact manne r for the six-year period of study beginn i ng with 1986 an d e n ding with 1991 These d ata represent the actu a l number of school bu s occupants that susta i n e d a p articular level of injury as dete rmined by one of the fou r i mpact mod es. The figures for side impact collisions were de r ived by using the aggregate of an g l e and sideswipe impacts as provided b y the STA MIS d a taba s e l1ri"'7 s...rit? 1r:apadri>Mg ; (" Pqs slbtt ll!Ji,e ' ' u ........ TOfGI Table 45 Larg e Flortda School Bus Occupant I n jury Sev erity by Year 19116 1961 111811 19119 1990 11191 :'"'" :;:h , ... >': .. ' ;. t t':i'' ';\'" 1 ; > -1: ;, 5l "t:.1' ;t'a ,;;: ;'-:>,J. > >, n ' '&cl'> "'" 17 29 33 1 9 J7 47 ';; 1 63f,;1 :.:.J ', .29.!;) ;, 1 :.:r1t r e U ( ';13S C !>. ) ; ,p; '/2 i ,. 499 S43 363 4S4 '!76 4S6 ':S,97 6 t-{, t.m 6.8i8J f 7,(1:16 ... 6.7til ; 1' . 0 2 0 2 0 3 6 .6ss < 7598 .,, -7,4 3 1 . 7 ;/74 ., MU' I ,;7 ,416 I < M 1 1 5 TOfGI 202 (0.4S%1 3 09 1 (7%) 39.$78(89 'l'lll 7 (O.OJS1o) ., iu)J8(100") .

PAGE 145

Table 46 Large Florida School Bus Occupant Injury Severity Based on Impact Mode, 1986-1991 lncapacHating Injuries By comparing the figures in Tables 44 and 46, one finds that frontal impact collisions rep resent the second smallest number (63 or 1 3%) of all injury-producing school bus accidents, but account for a d is proportionate number (11.15 to 1 ratio) of incapacitating injuries to school bus occupants Rollover accidents represent the smallest proportion {15 or 0.32%) of all injury-producing schoo l bus accidents, but account for the second highest proportion (9.375 to 1) of injuries to school bus occupants. In contrast, rear-end and side impact collisions account for 1,482 (31.3%) and 1,334 (28.2%) of all injury-producing schoo l bus accidents, respectively, but result in the smallest proportion (1 to 1 and 1.81 to 1, respectively) of incapacitating injuries sustained by school bus occupants. Fatal Injuries The nine reported deaths of school bus passengers were the result of three school bus accidents. Due to this small number of accident cases, it was possible to obtain and review the actual accident reports for each of the three accidents. Excerpts were taken from the accident report narratives to better judge whether or not the deaths could have been prevented had safety restraints been available. The dynamics of the three accidents are recounted in the succeeding paragraphs. On August a, 1987, in Levy County, Rorlda five school bus passengers where fatally i njured in a single accident that i nvolved a side impact collision. The school bus 116

PAGE 146

was struck in the left front by a 1985 Ford truck traveling at an estimated 40 mph. The accident narrative states: V[ehic l e]-1 [a 1985 Ford truck] was northbound on CR.C-337 V[ehicle]2 [school bus] was westbound on CR.C-32. V-1 failed to stop for posted stop sign. V-1 and V-2 collided in the intersection. V-1 struck the left front of V-2 with the right front of V-1. After impact V-1 rotated counterclockwise and struck the rear of V-2 as it was traveling northwest. V -2 struck an embankment with its front. V -1 traveled approximately 65 feet to final position of rest facing south. V -2 traveled approximately 79 feet to final position of rest. 1 1 Due to the violent nature of this acc i dent, it i s doubtful that a safety rest r aint system of any design would have made a difference to the outcome. A personal communication with William Schroyer of the School Transportation Management Section of the Florida Departmen t of Educat i on on November 3, 1992, reinforced the opinion that the damage to the school bus was so severe that a safety restraint system of any type would not have altered the tragic result. On November 2, 1988, in Miami Beach, Florida, a single school bus occupant was fatally i njured as a result of the schoo l bus being backed into by a 1979 Ford t ruck. The narrative contained in the traffic accident report states : Vehicle #1 [school bus] was westbound on 1000 block North Shore Drive. Vehicle #2 [1979 Ford truck], facing north, was attempting to back out of a private driveway at 1075 North Shore Drive. The right rear corne r of veh i cle #2 struck the right side of vehicle #1, penetrating to the interior of vehicle #1.12 Due to penetration by the 1979 Ford truck into the interior of the school bus, it is doubtful whether safety restraints could have prevented the schoo l bus occupant from being fatally injured. 11 Florida Traffic Accident Repon #091952564 Florida Traffic Accident Repon # 112866868. 117

PAGE 147

On October 14, 1991, in Miam i Aor i da, two students and one adu l t subsequently died when the i r school bus was struck squarely in the windshield by a tire rim and brake drum assemb l y that had detached from a veh i cle traveling in the opposite direction The reporting officers traffic accident narrative states: Vehicle #1 (a 1986 Mack truck] was traveling westbound on S .R. #836 in the second lane from the concrete barr i er wall Veh i cle #2 (a private school bus] ... was traveling eastbound on S.R. #836 in the third lane from the concrete barrier wall It appears that the l eft front wheel bearing on vehicle #1 d i sintegrated, causing the left front tire rim and brake drum to separate. The left front tire rim and brake drum from vehicle #1 separated from the sp i nner, and bounced off the westbound portion of the roadway over the concrete barr i er wall into the eastbound portion of the roadway. The t i re rim and brake drum then bounced off the eastbound portion of S.R. #836 into the path of the oncoming vehic l e #2. The tire rim and brake drum crashed i nto the front windshie l d of vehicle #2; as it entered it shattered glass and crumpled the roof of vehicle #2 upward. After the tire rim and brake drum entered vehicle #2, it crashed into the first, second, and third seats on the right s i de of vehicle #2. Two (2) students were killed instantly These studentS occupied the first and second aisle seats on the right s ide of vehicle #2. The tire rim and brake drum then c r ashed into an adult sitting in the third alsle seat and a student beside her. Both were crit i cally i njured. The tire rim and drum came to rest on top of the last two victims.13 Two weeks after the i ncident, the adu l t exp i red as a resu l t of the inj uries susta i ned in the accident. It is the opin i on of the researchers that safety r estraints of any configuration and/or design, had they been available, would not have prevented these fatalities given the nature of the acc i dent "Florida T ra ffic Accident Repon #153704 1 5 1 1 8

PAGE 148

Nonincapacitating, Possible, and No Injuries In frontal impact collisions, 96 percent of the Florida school bus occupants were either uninjured or received minor or moderate injuries. In side impact collisions, 99 percent of the Florida school bus occupants were either uninjured or received minor or moderate injuries In rear-end impact collisions, 99 percent of the Florida school bus occupants were either uninjured or received minor or moderate injuries. Lastly, in the rollover accidents, 97 percent of the Florida school bus occupants were either uninjured or received minor or moderate injuries. The graphs in Figure 16 reiterate the above statements. Figure 16 Florida School Bus Occupant Injury Severity Based on Impact Mode, 1986-1991 Frontal Impact RearEnd Impact 600 i 25.000 i 20.000 J:" 400 15.000 I 200 110.000 z 5,000 z 0 0 .r l i ;,. li : .. .. ;!:-c l5 " If i .g t i 0 i I z l!. i Side Impact Rollovers 15. 000 150 10. 000 0 ;:-100 " I 5 ,000 I z 0 z 0 li go :!' .. ;!:-: .. ... If -a .. ,l;j >!) :-.g lll i -g i. l!. i .2 z: 119

PAGE 149

ACCIDENT DATA ANALYSIS SYNOPSIS An analysis of all injury and non-injury producing school bus accidents in Florida between the years 1986-1991 were investigated to determine if there was an obvious need for instal lation of safety restra ints in large school buses. An attempt was made to determine whether or not the fatal and nonfatal injuries sustained by school bus occupants could have been prevented or lessened had safety restraints been available. In short, the data do not provide conclusive proof that safety restra ints are needed in large school buses in the state of Aor ida. Rather, the large number of school bus occupants that were either uninjured or received minor or moderate injuries simply reiterates that school buses are a safe mode of surface transportation. Moreover, the availability of safety restraints to those school bus occupants who were fatally injured was rendered moot, since the nine fatalities most likely would have occurred even if the school bus occupants had been belted. The fact that only 9 (0.02%) fatalities and 202 (0.45%) incapacitating injuries we re sustained by the 44,438 school bus occupants involved in the 4 732 school bus accidents confirms the effectiveness of the safety investment options already available on large Aorida school buses and the reality that serious accidents involving school buses are extremely rare occurrences. 120

PAGE 150

Chapter IX CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Based upon an extensive review of pertinent literature, the results of the safety cost-benefit analysis (CBA), and the results of the descriptive analysis of Florida school bus accident data, it was concluded that requiring the installation of safety restraints of any configuration andjor design will not significantly improve the overall safety performance of large Florida schoo l buses. The potential benefits measured in absolute terms Q.e., a quantifiable number of student deaths prevented and injuries reduced) to be derived from the insta llatio n of various safety r estraint system types were shown to be diminutive. Table 4 7 denotes the potential fatalities prevented and injuries reduced by the various safety restraint systems under evaluation. The low number of fatalities and injuries prevented or reduced, in large part, is due to the fact that the fatality and injury rate base that safety restraints can affect is small. This diminutive fatality and I njury base rate reconfirms the effectiveness of the safety investment options already being utilized on large Florida school buses (dual stop signal arms, crossing control arms, etc ) and the reality that serious accidents involving school buses in Florida are extremely rare occurrences. Table 47 Summary of Potential Safety Restraint System Fatality and Injury Reductions ($1 million annual Investment) 2,187(')'11>1 121 I of YaJn 10 --Lifo J6

PAGE 151

As concluded by NTSB in an analysis of the crash performance of large school buses in 1987, .. .large school buses are an extremely safe form of transportation when compared to other modes of transportation."' The exemplary safety record of school buses however, should not imply that safety improvements to large Florida school buses be precluded. To this end, this analysis has shown that safety investment options other than safety restraints (of any configuration and/or design) are more beneficial in terms of their potential ability to prevent fatalities and reduce injuries per dollar invested. Based on the results of the cost-benefit analysis, it was concluded that higher seat-backs ("New York seats) offer the greatest potential to prevent fatal i ties and reduce injuries sustained by Aorida school bus occupants per dollar i nvested. In addition, other safety investment options have been determined to hold promise in terms of their fatality prevention and injury severity reduction potential. These include crossing control arms and rearward facing seats with lap-belts. It is recommended that these safety investment options be considered for further study. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH Higher Seat-Backs As mentioned, the results of the CBA showed that 24-inch high seat-backs ("New York" seats) as measured from the seating reference point possess the greatest potential to prevent fatalities and reduce injuries sustained by Aorida school bus occupants per dollar invested. Similar conclusions were reached by the Transportation Research Board committee that investigated school bus safety .2 However, these devices may not be the panacea for providing optimal school bus occupant safety. Several caveats have been identified with their use in non-Type A school buses. These include:3 1 National Transponation Safety Board 1987. Safety Study-Crashworthiness of Large Poswandard School Buses. Bureau of Safety Programs, WashingtoD, D.C. 1 Transporwion Research Board. 1989./mproving School Bus Safety. Special Repon No 222. National Research Council, Washington, D .C. '"Bid for Higher Stat Backs Fails at National Standards Conference." 1 990 School TranspcrtaJion Director 10(9) 122

PAGE 152

more pupils might stand because driver's view is obstructed more students might be found left on buses more expensive to purchase may be prohibited under certain FMVSS 217 provisions (governs school bus window retention and emergency release) no proven documentation of their effectiveness Those who advocate the installation of higher seat-backs are concerned that ... if action [the installation of higher seat-backs] [is not] taken, it could undermine compartmentalization vis-a-vis seat belts and result in political pressure for belts. "4 Also, advocates contend that higher seat-backs will reduce "h yperextensions of the neck ; particularly for larger, taller passengers, and, if a school bus were involved in a frontal Impact collision, "h i gher seat-backs will reduce the likelihood that passengers thrown forward in their seats (with or without lap-belts) will strike the top of the seat-back in front of them, or override the seat-back in front of them and strike other passengers. "5 Recommendation: To determine feasible solutions to the possible caveats associated w ith the installation and use of higher seat-backs It is recommended that more research be conducted. This may include sled or crash testing, a demonstration project or isolated case study (Dade County, Florida, currently operates several buses with higher seat-backs), and the administration of comprehensive surveys to school districts and pertinent personnel In the states of Illinois, New York, and New Jersey (to date the only states known to require 24-inch high seat-backs) to acquire relevant information regarding their operational experiences with higher seat-backs. This information may be used to determine the most appropriate seat-back height tor possible future installation of these devices in non-Type A Aorida school buses. RearwardFactng Seats wltn Lap-Belts Of the modified seats and various restraint systems tested by Transport Canada, rearward-facing seats with lap-belts offered the most occupant safety protection, notably more than the unmodified standard 39-inch-wide seat incorporating a 20-inch-high seat'Ibid. 'Transponation Research Board. 1989.<>p cit. 123

PAGE 153

back as measured from the SRP.6 The HIC values recorded fo r the head-on and angled (30' from the l ongitud i nal axis) i mpact tests were 275.6 and 309.2, respectively W ith regard to the recorded peak chest accelerat ion values for the rearward facing seats with l ap-belts i n both the head-on and ang l ed i mpact tests, they also were significantly bel ow the leve l s recorded for the othe r seating and safety restraint system des i gns t ested Figures 17 and 1 8 below, also prov i ded in Chapter V of this report, graphically illustrate in comparison with the other seating and safety restraint system designs tested by Transport Canada the safety potent i al of rearward fac i ng seats with l ap belts Figure 17 HIC and Chest Acceleration Valu es fo r Transport Canads Head-On I mpact Test eo7 0 60-;! so & 40 t 30-"' li 20 100 0 .,.,. i"' --- I I 200 I 400 ,.., ... I 600 H I C Value .... I 600 .... .... .... I 1000 I 1200 Flgure18 HIC and Chest Acc:eleration Values lo r Transport Csnads AngHid Impact Test 60 70 -60 -& 50-I 40-30-4 ...... ... I 6 20-10-0 I I I I I I I I 0 200 400 600 600 1 000 1 200 1400 1600 HICVaJue Recommendation: The progress and body of research compiled by Transport Canada regarding the concept of rearward-fac ing seats with lap-belts shou l d be followed intently Any decision to proceed w ith future research and test ing vis-a-vis a demonstration project i n Florida would requi r e FMVSS 222 to b e amended to allow for the insta ll ation and use of seats that face the rear of the school bus. FMVSS 222 currently mandates forward-facing seats only I f FMVSS 222 were to be amended, evaluat ion experiments with large F lorida school buses equipped w ith rearward-facing seats w ith andjor without lap-belts sho u ld be ser i ous l y cons i dered. They may provide in co n junction with h i ghe r seat-backs (24 inches as measured from the SRP), the next substantial step forward In improving F l orida school bus occupant safety 6 Farr, G.N. 1 987 School Bu.s Seal De.elopment Study Traffic Safety Standards and Research, Transpon Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 124

PAGE 154

In addition to higher seat-backs and the concept of rearward-facing seats lap belts, it is recommended that the following safety investment options receive further consideration. These include: airbags electronic proximity sensors on-board adu l t monitors Alrbags The airbag system investigated by the UCLA researchers had several functional problems associated with its use, illustrated by the following: Except under exceptional circumstances, they did out perform properly structured, properly padded high-backed seats. The device would have to be concealed in such a manner as to be immune from the meddling nature of the school bus occupants. The high cost of electronic operation and maintenance made them prohibitive. Accidental firing could cause Injuries Immediately after a collision, airbags could seriously inhibit a prompt evacuation of i njured or unconscious children due to the enormous volume they displace when fully inflated. Recommendation: Because of the numerous technical problems associated with the airbag concept, the UCLA team concluded that "further research i s recommended before a decision can be made concern i ng its practical i ty for school buses."7 In the 25 years that have passed since the UCLA Series I test was performed, airbag technology has advanced to such a sophisticated level that these devices are now standard equipment or are offered as optional equipment on almost every automobile and light truck sold in North America. Because of the advances in airbag technology it is suggested that further consideration be given to research and testing of the "practicality" of airbags for large school buses operat i ng in Rorida. 'Severy et al. 1967.School Bus Passenger Protection.lnstitute of Transponation and Traffic Engineering, U nivers ity of California at Los Angeles, California 125

PAGE 155

Electronic Proximity Sensors In 1986, fiVe Florida counties were involved in a testing project that evaluated the practicality of electronic proximity sensor systems. These devices were marketed under the name of CAR. E., Safety Sensor System. The five participating counties included Bay County, Volusia County, Lake County, Polk County, and Orange County. In its final report, the committee respon sible for evaluating the CAR. E. proximity sensor system noted the following:8 The system fails in moist weather to inc lude rain or fog. The system is unreliable in that it does not give sig(lals when it should, or gives false alarms. Lack of driver's confidence due to unreliability (false alarms) of the system. All units tested have been replaced or modified by the manufacturer, and they subsequently malfunctioned or failed. The frequencies of malfunctions and complete failures during the test period would indicate a high life cycle maintenance problem that would impact both personnel and cost. Recommendation: Due to the disturbing number of student fatalities and injuries caused by students being struck and fatally injured by their own school bus, it Is recommended that closer review, study, and testing be given to eliminate the inherent problems associated with the electronic proximity sensors currently available for installation on Florida school buses. On-Board Aduh MonHors Another strategy for reducing the number of students injured by their own school bus is the use of on-board monitors. Monitors not only have the potential to prevent load ing unloading and crossing accidents, they could also be utilized in maintaining on board student discipline. Lettor from Louise M Program Director, Transportation Operations, Audi!S and Safety Division of Florida Public Schools, to the Center for Urb an Transportation Research. November 18, 1992 126

PAGE 156

Research questions surrounding this issue involve effectiveness of on-board monitors, use of paid or voluntary monitors, personal liability of monitors school board l iability for actions by moni tors, training and certification of monitors, and other" costs involving monitors, e g recruiting, employment screening, scheduling and insu r ances. Coll ecti o n of School Bus Accident Data The l iterature review po i nted out that there is a dearth of concrete evidence concerning just how effective safety restra i nts are or may be in l arge schoo l buses. Th i s lack of concrete evidence emphasizes the important need for a comprehensive study to compare the fatality and i njury rates among belted and unbel t ed school bus occupants to dec i sive l y determine their safety potent i al. Therefore, it is recommended that multiple years of school bus accident data before and after the installation of safety r estra i nts i n l arge school buses be acquired from school d i str i cts (possibly state departments of transportation) that currently operate large school buses with safety r estraints The accumulation of these data will enable a long i tudinal/time-series analysis (or another type of empi r ical analysis) to be performed. An analysis of this type can be used to compare t he safety performance of school buses before and afte r the installation of safety restraints In o r der to estab l i sh either an upward trend, a downward trend or a stationary trend i n the number of fatalities and in j uries sustained by l arge school bus occupants. The identification of one of these trend types may provide the ins i ght necessary i n determining the effectiveness of safety restraints ( l ap-belts) in large school buses. Ope r atin g Ex periences Comprehensive surveys should be adm i nistered to schoo l dis t r i cts and states that currently requ ire the i nstallation of safety restra i nts in large school buses to acqu i re data regarding their operational experiences with safety restraints Oap-belts), i.e the issue of liability, seat belt use/compliance maintenance costs, vandalism of belts, influence of safety restraints on student conduct, and other informat i on CONCLUS ION An analysis of the crash performance of large school buses in 1987 led the Nat i ona l Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to conc lude that .. .large school buses are an extremely safe form of transportat ion when compared to other modes of 127

PAGE 157

transportation.'.g The exemplary safety record of school buses in Aorida, however, should not imply that safety improvements to large school buses be precluded. Accidents involving large school buses in Aorida continue to occur, and as long as one child is fatally or seriously injured, the pursuit of increased safety must be a constant process. National Transportation Safety Board. 1987. Saftl)' Study CrOJhworthiness of Large Poststandard School Bu.res. Bureau of Safety Programs, Washington, D.C. 128

PAGE 158

APPENDIX A Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards That Apply to School Buses A-1

PAGE 159

Table 48 FMVSS That to School Buses Af:!pliea only to tehool buNt with grou whiolt 'rilghtt of 10.000 lbt. Of lest. b FMVSS 209 and 210 apply only to drlvlf't seats on all school buses and to pa886tlgeJ seats on ld'lool with gtosa vehldt weights of 10 .000 lbs. 01 leas. c Applies only to aehool buaea with grou vehic le weightt gre,_,r 1han 10,000 lbs. d AmtndiMI by NHTSA to requ ire a system of convex mirrOfa on school buses bu i l t atttr 0.0. 1, 1993 Sourc. : Tra n tportatiOn Aeseatch Board. 1989./mprolllng School Sar.ty. Special Report 222. Na1ional Rt:March Council Washington, O.C. A -ll

PAGE 160

APPENDIX B Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rate Combination Tables Per $1 ,000,000 Annual Investment B-1

PAGE 161

btjllry s-rily lncapaciuuing Possible Table 49 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Higher Seat-Back S/.5 104 Injury Severity Reduction :!.) .. >'<;'Yf*-'*"'11..;; ., _, _ _,._, -'\'> tv <;A A .. a.<> /54. S 206 257.S J09 J60.5 B-11 412 463 5 I 515

PAGE 162

llljury Sevmty Possible Table so Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Adult School Bus Monitor Injury Severity Reduction ;;:;;;; 0.557 I 1.15 I /.444 I 1.73 2.3/ 2.88 3.46 4.04 4.33 B-Ill 4.62 5.19 I 5. 77

PAGE 163

btiiUY s-rily Posslblt Table 51 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Dual Stop Signal Arm InJury Severity Reduction ; i>tJ N'\*'' ,_,'ij:'>; '<'. (: ';_.,AY>'il>$<,.<.. _.;.. *"4hU>O. ;:< 0.0635 I 0.1270 I 0.1906 I 0.2541 I 0.3176 I 0.38II I 0.4446 I 0.5082 I 0.5717 I 0.6352 B-I V

PAGE 164

Table 52 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Crossing Control Arm lnjiiTj Severity Possible Injury Severity Reduction : n OC::W:st. v *' W! '&> 'vS:.,.0.1332 I 0.2663 I 0.3995 I 0.5326 I 0 66581 0.7989 I 0 .9321 I UJ65Z I 1.1984 I 1.3315 B-V

PAGE 165

Table 53 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to External Loud Speaker l1ljJuy SetleriJy Possible System Injury Severity Reduction ;,<.-; 'h'd 0.0798 I 0.1S97 1 0.239S I 0.3193 I 0 .3992 I 0.4790 I O SS89 I 0 63871 0.718$ I 0.7984 B-VI

PAGE 166

" .,; 0 ... 'i -c a.o .rtE 111GI =ct a:= !! m.,. .,. ... ..... CD;:,-CD > .I:I'CID al ... GIG) .,"C := cO .,; Gl.c >Ill tiii .. iii CD ::I =c .,; Wl:i: 1:: "' .,; 'C

PAGE 167

PtrU:ltl Ejf.mw 100% Table 55 Variable Effectlvenl!$& and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Incapacitating Injury Reduction 1 -UV? :o:q:-,, '"'':""''? s i.f 1 ::t-fjc$-') -#1r.. /:> _,...._ _,.,.. ., -""A-'-,p ,;; 4-'>"" "0'*-*Wl J.6U2 3.2425 I <.8637 I 6.4850 I 8 1062 I 9.7274 I l/.3487 I 12. %99 I 14.5911 I 16.2124 BVIII

PAGE 168

Table 56 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder BeH NonlncapacHatlng Injury Reduction f.{,:.;,_(> -*:l
PAGE 169

Table 57 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Possible Injury Reduction -:.-a! '%}:r >"3$i1t"5': q('$ : D I 0' A <; -;.. I I 4.7939 V939 I 7.19IJIJ aor. I J I9S9 I 6.3919 I 9.5878 100" I 3 9949 I 7 9898 I 11.9848 I IS.9797 I /9.9746 I 23.969S I 27.9644 I 31.9593 I 3S.9S43 I 39.9492 8-X

PAGE 170

Table 58 Variable Enectlveness and Usage Rates a s Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Fatality Prevention "' ,. ' ...,._. t> '> I . "'"' htt:t!ttl . 1!/f::IW lOll 20!1 lOll 40" SOli 60" . ..... ,.;.-, .. .; ., 0 .00'./. O.OOIZ>l 1 70" 81lll .... to> . 90ll > "'"' "'o A Nu. O .IJ7J6 I 0 .0112 I 0 .02U I 0.0316 0.0311 ; I o.ozz6 1 o .ozn O .OJ92 o.osu 0.11&16 0 ./11U 0.11111 0 -O .O!U(J. 0 .0504 I 0 .0560 1: .... h--li : ;; v. ... O.JJ6n I o .tm6 I o.Oill9 0.61U I O OU L 0.09>9 O.IJS95 I 0.1007 O JJ/9 . . > .... .. 0.1007: 1-. Joof. I o .o1w I 0 0280 I 0.0420 I o .os60 I 0 .0100 I o.OBJ9 I o 0979 I o.m9 I O.I2S9 I o.n99 8-XI

PAGE 171

'"'" 80J. JOOJ. Table 59 Variable EffectiVeness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt JncapacHatlng Injury Reduction tifi >$ <:--i.>?' . "'-K.-'>
PAGE 172

Table 60 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt NonincapacitaUng Injury Reduction ,.. ""-'"''-' ""-"' .. ""' "" _..__ ,.,,., _ ->t: ... '\i'; ,, Percml .'f >'< / .,i<'t< '
PAGE 173

Perr:ml Table 61 Variable Eflectlveneas and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap / Sh o ulder Belt Possible Injury Reduct i on Efftai-.e 10" . .t $; T o.fllll4 i.8m 10 40S SOl' 60S lOS lOS 100'N. 0.9 601 1.441( 1.911$ 2 .401 9 z .mz JJ6U 1 1410 4.J2JJ 4.80J1 1.91/S 2 .8822 3.8-130 4 .8/JJ1 5 .1645 6.72$2 1 .68411 I 8 6461 I 9.6014 2 .8812 4 .m1 : 1 r r 6461 JO.Of?8 I 1 14 10 S .764J 1.6860 f 9 6074 I JI. JZ89 IJ.4 S OI JJ.Jl/9 r 17. 2914 1 1u149 4 .1017 7.2Ql6 9 6074 . n ,.ip9; : I JMI/2 IUIJO 19.zJI9 J I 1 646 7 I JJ.SZ89 I 1 4 4 111 I 17. 291 4 I zo.rm I 2J,OS79 I I u.nu 7 .68411 11.5289 I 15 J719 I 19 2149 I 21 .0179 169004 I J0.14JI I 14 5&& I 18. 4 291 1.6467 tz.9701J 1 n.29Jt 1 zu!67 1 zJ.91bl J0.26J4 I H.SUI ) ' . . 9 6074 I 14 41/2 I 19 .21<9 I 14.0116 I 2&8ZZJ I JJ 6260 I J8. 429B I 4J. 2JJS I fll.om B-XIV

PAGE 174

Pt:rUIIl Table 62 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to 0.0128 0.0320 Lap-Ben Fatality Prevention ,,, s.:..;a>-: '"""' ... if ;t'$ >. ,, B-XV

PAGE 175

100!0 Table 63 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt lncapacHatlng Injury Reduction ,._.,_ 0 "-"'-"..,.,;. .... -,, _. ......... ,.. > ... -__ 0.7261 2 /788 z.mo BXVI

PAGE 176

Table 64 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Nonlncapacltatlng Injury Reduction v.!$*"",q ... #>... "'"''"',_.__,. Puct:nl J /.2JOI BXVII

PAGE 177

Pert:Dtt E/ftiw: 20r. JOOY. Table 65 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Possible Injury Reduction 10"' zor. 2 2001 4.4002 J.J002 9.9005 19.6010 11.0006 I 22.0011 I JJ.00/7 I 44 0021 66.00J4 B-XVIII 110.005

PAGE 178

Table 66 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention 4' M""' ''"'i .., ' '" _.,_ -, ...... o.rma B X I X

PAGE 179

Table67 Variable Effectiveness and Usage R ates a s Applied t o R earwardFaclng seats wtth a LapB ell Incapac it ating In j ury R educt i on '< ' ""+ _--1-4<-4i>'J. l'ur:ml f".hl1-.. -t-t.l ..... O :f!JU. O.OnQ 1$-?!fo .fi 0$ --.; ,. \,x. 'l; .. , ,,.< '""* *"' t ;&'t' .... . 2<)5 0.0770 O ISJ9 0 .2109 O .J079 0.3849 0 .4618 o .sm 0,6/$8 0.6928 0 .7697 ,.., o,::-. . it-' 4<. o..<61B $ d57{J r lC!'. 0 .2109 0 .6928 o .son 0 .9217< *' 'II$. ,. 401' D.ISJ9 O .JD79 0 .<1618 0.6158 0 .7697 0.9217 1 .0776 J .ZJI6 1 .3&$5 /.SJ9J ., .. .,. .. .. 50S 0.1914 O.JU9 O .S77J 0.1697 l.JJ/4 /.J470 1 .sm /.7J,1f 1 :9244 -. "" 0.1117 0 42J4 0.61$0 OMOI 1.0584 1.1101 1 .48/7 1 69.U 1.9051 2.1168 --. '* O .J J09 0 ,4611 um 0.9217 .. IJS.U l.JISS 1.616J I .K/4 2.li7V 2.Jt 70,. 0 .2494 O .SJU o .son 1 .0776 1 1470 1.6165 1 .1&$9 2 ./SSJ 1 4147 2 .6941 i,l x-y->,' It .. ..... .... t o.i&f9' > (<(;-1< : ,. + Mgf '%'t: """ 't Vc% > 0 .7697 .. .... p ;J092 i '" i 11jj .. "?: '. ;; 0;-i/1'..> "''" ., ,.. ,.., ..... "-"1 B-XX

PAGE 180

Table 68 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Nonincapacltatlng Injury Reduction hi'UIII Ejf-.. ""'"' ""'''" ,._._-," "<-;-"""'-"o/-" ""''l>$$<'W ,,.,,_., t< > _ .;, -''"' '''""-"-> ,:,n.;.-,.,,>,} ;r:;:. ;); 1.6561 8-XXi

PAGE 181

2t)jl 7l)jl Table 69 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-BeH Possible Injury Reduction -r. . -"' -,H-, -..., ... "": "'/ J .20tiJ 4.08 08 8 1615 I Jl.UZJ 9 ,3214 I $ ,2467 B-XXII

PAGE 182

APPENDIX C Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates Combination Tables as Applied to All Large Public Florida School Buses C-1

PAGE 183

Table 70 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Higher Seat-Back Injury Severity Reduction (installed for an annual investment of $385,000 in /ojruy Scvoily Possible all large public Florida school buses, 14 008) ';' "op>" $ ""-, ''A> ,. II'Jt,, 't-., ':Y _,:, ""' -,;,.--... 'e"'''-*''l ,,;.,,.,-,.._ .,, ,,,_ ....... /03 154.5 206 C -11 360.5 412 463.5 I 515

PAGE 184

Table 71 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Adult School Bus Monitor Injury Severity Reduction (all large public Florida (14,008) school buses staffed annuallv for } '""\"'<':"':' ,v' 1/ljuly Sewrlly Possible 51. 8 I 103.61 129 .5 1 155.41 207.2 I 259 I 310.81 362.61 388.51 414.41 466.21 518 C-111

PAGE 185

Table 72 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Dual Stop Signal Arm Injury Severity Reduction {Installed tor an annual Investment ot $950,000 In all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) brjruy SetmJy *""!<(..;.,.. Y" \ ;w h> 4#'). :,:; :tW. t: 10% 20% Ponible C-IV

PAGE 186

Table 73 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Crossing Control Ann Injury Severity Reduction (Installed for an annual investment of $900,000 In all large public Florida sChool buses, 14,008) i !'{ ti $ .. ,y,; "4r -"' .:w ,. Jh brjvy Sewriry !!'W'r:.j1 .'$i_ <:?ci 4'" Possible 0.198 I 0.396 I 0.594 I 0.792 I 0 990 I 1.188 I 1.386 I 1.584 I 1 782 I 1.98 C-V

PAGE 187

Table 74 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to External Loud Speaker System Injury Severity Reduction (Installed for an annual Investment of $750,000 In all large public Florida school buses, "'""""' "'""'"" '>'""'"""' llljury Snerily 0.099 Possible 0./ 0.2 0 .1 0.4 0.7 0.8 0.9 C-VI

PAGE 188

Table 75 Variable Effectiveness and Uaage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Fatality Prevention (Installed for an annual Investment of $7 700,000 In all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) }()(), i\<':'_ t ,,, C-VII 0 9 1.05

PAGE 189

Table 76 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Incapacitating Injury Reduction (Installed for an annual Investment of $7,700 000 In all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) "' __ ._. '*';c:n;.;;:"'C;l;-::/;; . ''"i '>'t;;: ... .. _.(!-:>,.'"' -/':& ':elll }<>. t ... <(>j: ><;1$<>, . : l!'t < ">1!
PAGE 190

Table 77 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Dual Shoulder Belt Nonincapacitating Injury Reduction (installed for an annual investment of $7,700,000 in all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) I{)()'J/, '"' .'> '>' '""'''!''"'? "<' ;,;><: :i:'.. ... "JP- :: *' .. 20.9 4 1.8 62.7 8J.6 C-IX 167 2 188.1 209

PAGE 191

Table 78 Variable Effec:tlveness and uage Rates as Applied to Lap/ Dual Shoulder Ben Poulble Injury Reduction (Installed tor an annual Investment of $7,700 000 In all large public Aorlda school buses 14, 008) '. _, .. ""'-"'*'" n .<-.. ,,2 1 0., i ' . J6.t 70'11 10. 1 70 6 J0 9 4/.7 51 5 61.8 12. 1 8 H 9 2 7 JOJ.O .. ._, .. :.,_,; ' .,_.., .... "JO'II UJ U8 n7 ' 4011\ 20 6 4 1.2 61. 8 82.4 JOJ.O J2J. 6 /44 1 164. 8 /85. 706 0 .,-. "'"-l -,; ,.., DJ = 60'11 J0 9 61. 1 91 7 /2J 6 J.S4.5 115. 4 216 J U1. 1 278J 109.0 -J6.1 12. 1 10..1 1". 1 180 1 216.1 2P-< J?4.L d 6 o.s 80'11 41. 2 12 4 121.6 164. 8 lOfi. O l<1 1 218 4 119.6 110.8 412.0 _, .. ,. .. r: nr m1 =s m1 100'11 $/.5 IOJ. O 114., 706.0 J09. 0 J60. S 4/1.0 461.5 5/S e-x

PAGE 192

Table 79 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Fatality Prevention (Installed for an annual Investment of $6,400,000 In all Florida school buses, 14,001 I I 100!1'. 0.6 0.75 0.9 C -XI

PAGE 193

100'11 Table 80 Variable Effectiveness Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Belt Incapacitating Injury Reduction (Installed for an annual Investment of 0.68 1.36 1.36 I 2 72 3.4 6 8 In all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) w: J ,,J{1v . { .,..J ,.."'>''* v #'l!\1! "o/.-1 .,}?(, >->.-> ... ,.., .. # '>'"<> X;,.,, }(. P""'}''t-"'''<;. .jt 10.2 13.6 17 20.4 C-XII 23.8 27. 2 30. 6 34

PAGE 194

Table 81 Variable Effectiveneas and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap / Shoulder Belt Nonlncapacltatlng Inj ury Reduction (Installed for an annual Investment of $6 400 ,000 In all large public Florida school 1 00% 2&.9 41.8 61 7 81.6 1&4.5 125.4 146. J 188.1 C-XIII 2IJ9

PAGE 195

Perllfl E/ftx:tiw 100, Table 82 variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap/Shoulder Ben Possible Injury Reduction (installed for an annual Investment of $6,400,000 In all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) .. ... ,.,., -' .. .. .,...,,., .... --.,' '-" . (,.. ----'"" .......... ._ . SUOJ 101 JS4.S 2116 2S7.S 109 J60.S 412 46J.S C-XIV SIS

PAGE 196

Table 83 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention (Installed for an annual Investment of $2,800 000 In all large public Florida school buses, 14,008) ... . ,. -'' '' ..... _., C -XV

PAGE 197

Table 84 Variab l e Effectiveness and Usage Ra1ea aa Applied to Lap Belt In c apacitating Injury Reduction (Installed for an annual Investment of $ 2,800,000 In all larg e public Flor i da school buses 1 4 008) .. ; <;; "' Pm:mt "' . .. E/ftJCtiWI lOll 20!1 JOll 40" SOl! 6/Jll 711!1 80" 90!1 1005 ' ,-(,.,.. ,. ?> ... : ';:-' -d '.;:-$. . 'Jo"'' 0.]4 0-68/ um 'f .. '1 .042 '/lt.1:063' VV ""'' .. /,01/ 2 .042 ] ;()6] 4.084 }. k ', > 6.}26 7.1t7 8.J?,:; A s%iQ.}t; 405 1 .361 2 72] 4 .0&4 S 44S 6.809 8.168 9 129 10. 8 /2.2$ 1].61 . . > -..,, } .. sor. 1 .102 J .40J S IOJ 6 807 10 209 11.9/ IJ.fl . i:$JIS J ;.J1.(1Z J -605 2.042 4 .0&4 6.126 1.168 10.1119 ll.ZS2 14.1, /UJ6 !&.J71 0 1.0.!12 7Vr. 2 18 4.'/f$ 7./47 9.51 11.912 14. 29 16.68 19.06 U.44 21.82 . BOll 2.12J S .441 8 168 IU9' 1}.61] 16.}4 /P.O.S 21.71 U.sg :17,13 90ll J.06J 6 /26 9 189 IZ.2$2 /S .JIS 18. 18 11.44 u s 27 .57 J0.6J . .j. ...... . . ._, 100" J.40J 6 807 IQ.1119 lMl .. < 1'{.9/ i 20.42 :;J(I N;>' ..... *34 v " 1;()6, C. XVI

PAGE 198

Table 85 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-Belt Nonlncapacltatlng Injury Reduction (Installed for an annual Investment of $2,800,000 In all large public Florida school buses 14,008) '$:)o};% ':!""""'0'"""'>..,.,. _, ,$; Percml >, -"'
PAGE 199

7QJO 90Ji Table 86 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Lap-BeH Poss ible Injury Reduction ( Installed for an annual investment of $2,800 000 In all large public Florida school 139 .18$ I 18$. $8 C-XV III

PAGE 200

Table 87 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Fatality Prevention (Installed for an annual Investment of $5,300 000 In all large public Florida school buses 14,008) 4$1w! N :-:: :.:L,,.,..,. "'""t ?J. ... _.,-,.;:,, t :-.; .. C -XIX

PAGE 201

Tabla 88 Variable Effee11veness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward-Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Incapacitating Injury Redue11on (Installed tor an annual Investment of $5,300,000 In all large public Florida PerrDII 1!/ftcriw school C-XX

PAGE 202

Table 89 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to Rearward Facing Seats with a Lap-Belt Nonlncapacltatlng Injury Reduction (Installed for an annual Investment of $5 300 000 In all large public Florida school buses, 14 008) s ;: l . _.,:. .i>:)fo:-l'><**i>li ... {: .. :,_,:.:::,..._,.., ..... f6'l>:: .. < :J PD'CJDII f' ><> -C-XXI

PAGE 203

Table 90 Variable Effectiveness and Usage Rates as Applied to RearwardFaclng Seats with a Lap-Beh Possible Injury Reduction (Installed for an annual Investment of $5,300,000 In all large public Florida school buses C-XXII

PAGE 204

APPENDIX D Bibliography 0-1

PAGE 205

Adams, L. 1975. School Bus Passenger Seat Testing. Washington, D.C.: U.S Department ofTransportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT-HS-801 714. Adams, L., A Kadilkar, L. Pauls, and W. Rup. 1976. Development of a Unitized School Bus. Volume II: Technical Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transp ortation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS 802 005 Advances in Belt Restraint Systems: Design Performance, and Usage." 1984. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Agran, P.F., and D. Winn 1987 "Traumatic Injuries Among Children Using Lap Belts and Lap/Shoulder Belts in Motor Vehicle Collisions. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual C
PAGE 206

Ames W. A. 1972. "The Constitutionality of Mandatory Seat Belt Use Legislation." Charlottesville: Virginia Highway Research Council. AMF Advanced Systems Laboratory. 1975. Schoo/ Bus Passenger Seat Testing. Washington, D.C. : U .S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Adm i nistration. Anderson, P.A., F .P. Rivara, R.V. Maier and C. Drake 1991. "The Epidemiology of Seat Belt Associated Injur i es ." Journal of Trauma 31 (1) : 60-67. Anderson, T .E. 1 974. Ejection Risk in Automob ile Acci dents. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical I n formation Service. Andrews, P 1987. "Buckling Up i n School Buses -Yea or Nay?' California Highway Patrolman 51 {10):62-66. Anonymous. 1966 "School Bus Crash.' Fleet Owner 61 {7) : 8"7 89. Anonymous. 1968. "1.600 Needless Deaths at Crossings." Southern Pacific Bulletin 52{4): 7-10 Anonymous 1969 Respons i bilities of the School Bus Driver." School Bus Fleet 13(6): 43-46. Anonymous. 1985 Our Position on Belts is . .' National School Bus Report Advocate and opponent posi tions assembled and disseminated by the Wolfington Body Company I nc., Exton, Pennsylvania Anonymous. 1987. Operators Fault Findings on Seat Belts. School Transportation Director 7(14) Anonymous. 1990. "New York Finds Increase in Seat Belt Related I njuries Repai r Costs.' School Transportation Director 1 0{5). Appleby, M.R., and R.R. Navarre. 1975. "School Bus Seat Back Pads--The California Experience In Proceed ings of the 19/h Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine Held in Lake Bluff, Illinois 20-22 November, 4 1 1-19. Appleton, I. 1983. ''Young Children and Adult Seat Belts I s it a Good Idea to Put Children in Adult Belts?" Traffic Research Report 31 Appleton, I. "M i nistry of Transport Seat Belt and Child Restraint Survey, 1984." Traffic Research Circular 22. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Transport New Zealand Road T ransport Division. D-Ill

PAGE 207

Arkansas Legislative Council. 1984. Feasibility of Requiring School Districts to Install Seat Belts on School Buses. Uttle Rock, Arkansas. Arizona Highway Department. Traffic Safety Division. 1967. Arizona Minimum Standards for School Buses. Phoenix, Arizona: The Department. "Armed With a Visua l Safety Feature. 1989. School Bus Fleet 35 (2) Ashton S J., G.M. Mackay, and P .F. Gloyns 1974. Trauma to Children as Car Occupants. B i rmingham, Eng l and: Department of Transportation and Environmental Planning. Auto Lap Belts Seen As Cause of Low Back I njuries in Children ." 1981. Medical Tribune (August). New York, New York: The Medica l Tribune. Avery J G. 1984. "Seat Belt Success: Where Next?" British Medical Journal 288:662. Backaitis, S H. et al. 1975. Performance Evaluation of Child Dummies and Baboons in Child Restraint Systems in a Systematized Crash Environment." SAE Proceedings 751153. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Backwinkel, K.D. 1968. "Injuries from Seat Belts." Journal of the American Medical Association 205:305. Baker, S. et aJ. 1970. 'Traffic Deaths Due to Blunt Abdominal Trauma." Proceedings of the 14th Annual Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine Held in Ann Arbor, Michigan Bayer A A., and L.S. Pauls. 1978. School Bus Passenger Seat and Lap Belt Sled Tests Washington D.C : U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 804 985 Beg l ey, C. E. 1988. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Safety Be lts i n Texas School Buses." Public Health Reports 103(5): 479-85. Berg, F.A. 1985 "Accident Simulation with Two Commercial Vehicles." Automobiltechnische Zeitschrift 87(11 ). Bernard, R.G. 1984 "Death Zones or Seat Belt--Which Is More Important." School Bus Fleet 29(4). setter Tra i ning Reduces Accidents and Saves Uves." 1983. School Bus Fleet 28(2): 28-30 Bitta, A.S., and T.C. Steigerwald 1984. Student Discipline on the School Bus. National School Bus Report 14(1 ). 0-IV

PAGE 208

Block, V., and R W. Crosby. 1 968 "How Safe is the R i de to School?" Traffic Safety 98(10): 12 -13, 36. Block V., and R.W. Crosby. 1968 It's Time We Faced the School Bus Problem." Family Safety 27(3): 18-20. Blomgren, G W. Jr., and T W. Scheumeman. 1961. Psychological Resistance to Seat Belts Evanston : Northwestern University, Traffic I nstitute Blumenberg, R.M 1967. 'The Seat Belt Syndrome: Sigmoid Cclon Perforation." Ann. Surg. 165:637. Bohlin, N.l. 1967. "A Statistical Analys i s of 28,000 Accident Cases with E mphasis on Occupant Restraint Value.' Proceedings of the 11th STAPP Car Crash Conference Held in New York. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Eng i neering. Bohl i n, N.J. 1981. Refinements of Restraint System Design A Primary Contribution to Seat Belt Effectiveness in Sweden." International Symposium on Occupant Restraints Held in Toronto Booze, Allen, and Hamilton. 1987. School Bus Seat Belt Study. Submitted to the Californ i a H i ghway Patrol Motor Carrier Section, Sacramento, Californ ia. Boulay, P., and S. Davis. 1975. "The School Bus Safety Imp r ovement Program." Proceedings of the 19th Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine Held in San Diego California 20-22 November 420 37. Bragg, B.W.E. 1977. Attitudes Towards, and Effectiveness of Mandatory Seat Belt Legislation I n canada. Paper Presented at 6th International Conference of the Internationa l Association for Accident and Traffic Medicine Melbourne Australia February. Braun, E ., s Davis, J.H. Klot, B.C. Levin and M. Paabo. 1990 Assessment of Fire Performance of School Bus Interior Components. Gaithersburg Maryland: Nationa l Institute of Standards and Techno l ogy, Technical Analysis Division, N I STIR 4347. Brief Answers to 30 of the Most Frequently Asked Questions About Safety Belt Use and Effectiveness 1984. Washington, D C.: Highway Users Fede r ation for Safety and Mobility, Public Affairs Division Brink D.C 1 973. Spinal Cord Injuries and Seat Belts." Medical Journal of Australia 2:801. Brink H.M. and D.M. Severy. 1967. "Full Scale Collision Tests Provide the Basis for Ccrrecting School-Bus Sa f ety Deficienc i es The SAE Journal 75(11 ): 62-69 D-v

PAGE 209

Br i nk, H.M ., D.M. Severy, J D Baird, and D M. Blaisdell. 1969. Safer Seat Designs." Proceedings of 13th STAPP Car Crash Conference Held in Boston, 2-4 December 1969, 314-35. Washington D C.: U S Department of Transportation, DOT HS 007 114. Br ink, H.M ., D.M. Severy, J.D. Baird, and D.M.Biaisdell. n.d. UCLA-ITIE Engineers Research a Safer Seat." SAE Journal. Brooks, S.H A.M.Nahum, and A.W. Siegel. 1970. causes of Injury i n Motor Vehicle Accidents ." Surgery Gynecology and Obstetrics 131 (2):185-97. Burg J .F. 1968 "Another look at School Bus Safety." School Bus Fleet April/May, 27-29. Burtch, T M. 1990 Background Paper on School Bus Occupant Protection in canada." Road Safety Bus Construction Standards Still Object of Disagreement ." 1978. School Bus Fleet 23(2): 18-22. Cal ifornia Department of Education. 1967. Regulations and Laws Relating to Pupil Transportation in California Sacramento, California: The Department. California. Legislature. Senate. Committee on Transportation. 1984. "Should the Use of Seat Belts Be Mandatory?" In Transcript of Proceedings, Public Hearing Before the Senate Committee on Transportation, 23 October, 9:30a.m., State Capitol, Room 112, Sacramento. Sacramento California: Senate of the State of California, Joint Publicat i ons Office. Cameron, H.M ., and P.G. Nelson 19n. Injury Patterns With or Without Seat Belts ." Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Association for Accident and Traffic Medicine Campbell, B J 1961. ''The Automotive Crash Injury Research Program of Cornell University." Journal of the Iowa Medical Society 51:760 Campbell, B J. 1979. "Seat Belt Effectiveness." International Symposium on Seat Belts Held in Tokyo, Japan. Campbell B .J 1986 The Effectiveness of Rear-Seat Lap-Belts in Crash Injury Reduction Springfield, Virginia: National Technical I nformation Service, HSRC A125 D-VI

PAGE 210

Campbell, B.J., P .F. Waller, and F.M. Council. 1967. Seat Belts: A Pilot Study of Their Use Under Normal Driving Conditions. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Campbell B J et aJ. 1983 Increasing Safety Belt Use Through an Incentive Program. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Campbell, B.J. et al. 1984. The Use of Economic Incentives and Public Education to Increase Seat Belt Use in a Community. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, H i ghway Safety Research Center. Campbell, H.E. 1955. "The Automobile Seat Belt and Abdominal Injury ." Surg. Gynec Obstet. 119:591. Canada. Ministry of Transport. Road and Motor Veh i cle Traffic Safety Branch 1974. The Seat Belt Argument/Countermeasures Development. Ottawa, Ontario: Transport Canada, Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch. Canada. Ministry of Transport. 1975. Multidisciplinary Accident Investigation. GMC School BusjGM Truck '7" Type Collision Ottawa, Ontario: Ministry of Transport, Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Canada. Ministry of Transport. Road and Motor Vehicle Traffic Safety Branch. n.d. A Review of Three Studies Altempting to Relate Reported Seat Belt Usage to Seat Belt Attitudes and Other Variables: A Report. Prepared by Ruth Heron. Ottawa, Ontario: Transport Canada. Canada. Ministry of Transportation and Communications. 1978. Changes in the Number and Cost of Motor Vehicle Injury Victims in Ontario Following the Introduction of Seat Belt Legislation and Highway Speed Umit Reductions, 1975-76. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Health, M i nistry of Transportation and Communications. Carroll, T.B., and F.H. Gruber. 1968. "Seat Belt Fractures. A Report of Two Cases ." Radiology 91(3) : 517-18. Castelli J. 1991. ''T ransport of Children is Serious Business." Traffic Safety 91 (5): 1Q-11. Center for Transportation and Studies and Research 1989. School Bus Safety Belt Study. New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark, New Jersey. Charles, S., and A. Shelness. 1970. "How Safe is Pupil Transportation?" Pediatrics 45(1): 166-87 D-Vli

PAGE 211

Charles, S 1977. "Stepchild of American Pediatrics: Child Transportation Safety." Pediatric Annals 6(1 1 ) : 726-741. Chaska, J. 1989. "Some New Cars Safer to Drive." Traffic Safety 89(4) : 10-11 Chi, G.Y.H ., and D.W. Reinfurt. 1981. A Comparison of the Automatic Shoulder BeltjKnee Bolster Restraint System with the Lap and Shoulder Belt System in VW Rabbits A special report prepared for the U .S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Chapel Hill, North Caro l ina: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center Chlad, D. 1983. "When I R i de in A Car ." Chicago: Children's Press. Christian M.S. 1976. "Non-fatal Injuries Sustained by Seat Belt Weare r s : A Comparative Study." British Medical Journal 1 (1310). Clock, V., and R.W. Crosby. 1968 "It's Time We Face The School Bus Problem." Family Safety 27(3): 18-20. Cocke, W.M Jr., and KK. Meyer. 1963. "Splenic Rupture Due to Improper P l acement of Automobile Safety Belt." Journal of the American Medical Association 183:693. Comeau, L.F. 1984. "School Bus Safety: The Next Step ." School Bus Fleet 29(3):28-29. Comeau, L. 1985. "Do We Real l y Ca r e? Will Seat Belts on School Buses Save Lives, or Do They Threaten Our Chi ldren? 1985. School Bus Fleet 30(3) 26-31. Comeau, L. 1989. "Children Should Be Seen Not Hurt." School Bus Fleet 35(2) : 63-64 "Congressionally Ordered School Bus Study Released ." 1989. School Bus Fleet {35)3: 25-29. Cooper, F.D., and L Hall. 1967. "A sensitive Manikin for Evaluations for Seat Comfort. In Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers London, England: Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Corben C.W., and D.C Herbert. 1981 Children WearingApprovedRestraintsandAdults Belts in Crashes. N.p : Traffic Accident Research Unit Departmen t of Motor Transport, New South Wales. Council, F.M., and W.W. Hunter. 1974. Seat Belt Usage and Benefits in North carolina Accidents. Chapel Hill : University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. D-VIII

PAGE 212

Crashes That Need Not Kill. 1976. By Harvest Films for Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 29 min. New York: Harvest A-V. Film. Croft, P.G. 1977. The Use of Occupant Restraint Devices. New South Wales, Australia: Traffic Accident Research Unit Report. Culler, C.J and J.L Cunningham. 1980. Compliance With the Child Passenger Protection Law: Effects of a Loaner Program for Low-Income Mothers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Cunningham J .L, C J. Culler, and C.A. Pentz. 1981. Chf/d Restraint Device Loaner Programs: Final Report Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Dajee, H., and A.C. MacDonald 1982. "Gastric Rupture Due to Seat Belt Injury." British Journal of Surgery 69:436. Dajee, H. et al. 1979 "Seat Belt Aorta: Acute Dissection and Thrombosis of the Abdominal Aorta ." Surgery 85:2236. Danforth Pushes for Three-Point Belts in Rear Seats." 1986 Automotive News 61 (5141). Danish Council of Road Safety Research 1984 Restraints tor Adults and Children in the Back Seat of Private Cars An Estimation of the Effect of Alternative Regulations. Gentofte, Denmark: Danish Council of Road Safety Research. Danskin, N. 1967. "Designing Vehicles for Safety." Paper presented at 2nd Nation Conference of the Institution of Highway Engineers, 7-8 December, London. Dardik, H., and I.M. I braham. 1977. "The Spectrum of Seat Belt Injuries ." Lawyer's Medical Journal 6(1 ):59-75. Davis, M.M. 1977. A Study of Some Schoolbus Crashes Proceedings of the 21st Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine Held in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada 15-17 September, 188-96. Dawson, N ,E 1986. Evaluation of School Bus Demonstration Project. Ottawa, Ontario Canada: Transport Canada. Day, D., and K. Ackles. 1984. "Child Belt-Load Cell Tests." Transport Canada Technical Memorandum 3614H-3 Ottawa, Ontario Canada: Transport Canada. D-IX

PAGE 213

Dejammes, M. 1983. "Lower Abdomen and Pelvis: Kinematics, Tolerance Levels and Injury Criteria." In Proceedings of Biomechanics of Impact Trauma Conference. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Holland: International Center for Transportation Studies. DeLeys, N.J. 1981. Evaluation of Passive Belts for Different Size Occupants. Prepared for U .S. Department ofTransportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Admi nistration. Washington, D.C.: The Administration. Dennis, J .L. 1980. "Designing a Test Dummy for Assessing Side Impact Performance." In Proceedings of Towards Safer Passenger Cars Conference. London, England: I nsti tution of Mechanical Engineers. DeRosa, D., and J.F. Larsonneur. 1984. "Seat Belt Improvements." In Advances In Belt Restraint Systems: Design, Performance and Usage. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineering, SAE 840400. A Dialogue on School Bus Safety." 1989. National School Bus Report 22(4): 16. "A Dialogue with Morris Adams." 1984. School Bus Fleet 29(1). "The Difficult Age (Safety Restraints for Children)." 1979. On The Road 2(3):22 Devlin, Charles. 1983. seat Belts in School Buses: The Controversy Reoccurs ." Castaways. Doersch, K.B., and W.E. Dozier. 1968 "The Seat Belt Syndrome: The Seat Belt Sign, Intestinal and Mesenteric Injuries." American Jouma/ of Surgery 116:831. "Doing A Slow Bum." 1989. School Bus Fleet 35(2). Donelson, A.J. Jr., 1980. Non-use of Automobile Safety Belts in Civil Litigation. Prepared for the National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Donely, R.P. 1969. "You r Lights Speak Well for You." School Bus Fleet 14(2): 25. DuBois, E.F. 1952. "Safety Belts Are Not Dangerous." British Medical Journal 2:685. Eckart, D.E. 1989. "How Can We Ensure Our Children's Safety?" School Bus Fleet 35(3):54. EJband, A.M. 1959. Human Tolerance to Rapidly Applied Accelerations: A Summary of the Literature. Cleveland, Ohio: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Lewis Research Center. DX

PAGE 214

Effects of Alternative Measures to Increase the Usa of Seat Belts In the Rear Seats and Use of Safety Equipment for Children tn Private Cars 1984. Stockholm, Sweden: Nordic Road Safety Council. Enders, J.H. 1978. "NASA Technical Advances in Aircraft Safety." SAE Preprlnt 780020. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Evans, L 1985. "Fatality Risk for Belted Drivers Versus Car Mass." Accident Analysis and Prevention 17(3). London, England. Evans, L 1985. Rear Seat Restraint System Effectiveness in Preventing Fatalities. Warren, Michigan : General Motors Research Laboratory. Evans, L. 1988. "Rear Seat Restraint System Effectiveness in Preventing Fatalities." Accident Analysis and Prevention 20(2): 129-36. Evans, L., and M. Frick. 1986. safety Belt Effectiveness in Preventing Driver Fatalities Versus a Number of Vehicular, Accident, Roadway, and Environmental Factors." Accident Analysis and Prevention 17 ( 4). Evans, W.A., and A.J. Courtney. 1985. "An Analysis of Accident Data for Franchised Public Buses in Hong Kong." Accident Analysis and Prevention 17(5). London England. Faigin B. 1976. Societal Costs of Motor Vehicle Accidents Washington D.C.: U.S. Department at Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 802 119. Farmer, E. 1986. "A Plan to Resolve the Seat Belt Issue." School Bus Fleet 31 (4): 48-50. Farmer, E. 1988. "Accident Prevention Measures." National School Bus Report 21(53):15. Farmer, E. 1989. "Loading School Buses Beyond Capacity: Is the Practice Ever Justified? National School Bus Report 22(4):19-20. Farmer, E.M. 1989. "There's More to Safety Than Just Bus Seat Belts: Electronic Sensors and Elliptical Mirrors Can Prevent Accidents." School Bus Fleet, October 74-76. Farr, G.N. 1985. "School Bus Safety Volume 1." Technical Report TP 6222E. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Transport Canada, Road Safety and Motor Vehicle Regulation Crashworthiness Section. 0-XI

PAGE 215

Farr, G.N. 1987. "School Bus Safety Study Volume 2." Technical Report TP 8445E. Ottawa Ontario, Canada: Transport Canada, Road Safety and Motor Veh i cle Regulation Crashworthiness Section. Farr, G N. 1989. School Bus Demonstration Project Rearward-Facing Seats. Ottawa Ontario, Canada Fast, C 1984. "A Misleading Safety Record." School Bus Fleet 29(3): 21. Fast, c. 1987. "The Case for Seat Belts on School Buses ." Traffic Safety (Washington) 87(5) : 6-11. Fayhee, J. 1987. Belts on School Buses? Consider Other Options Traffic Safety 87(2) : 14-15. Fhaner, G and M. Hane 1972. Seat Belts: The Importance of Situational Factors. National Swedish Road Safety Office. Fhaner, G., and M Hane. 1973. "Seat Belts-Factors Influencing Their Use--A Ute r ature Survey ." Accident Analysis and Prevention 5(1). Fhaner, G ., and M. Hane. 1973. Seat Belts: Relations Between Beliefs, Attitude and Use. Statens Trafiksakerhetsverk, Driver License and Research Department Solna, Swede n F i nch P.M. 1980. Side I m pacts." In Proceed i ngs of Towards Safer Passenger Conference. London, England : Institute of Mechanical Eng i neers. Fish J and R.H. Wright. 1965 "The Seat Belt Syndrome Does it Ex i st? Journal of Trauma 5:746. F i sher, P. 1965. Injury Produced by Seat Belts: Report of Two Cases ." Journal of Occupational Medicine 7:2 11. Aamboe E. E. 1975. A Comparison of Injuries Between Lap belted and Non-restrained Automobile Occupants According to Seated Position and Vehicle Size. Washington D.C.: u.s. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 801 350. Fleming, D.M. 1 978. N.R.MA Survey Availability, Wear ing and Adjustment of Seat Belts 1978. Sydney, New South Wales, Australia: National Roads and Mot orists Association. 0 -XII

PAGE 216

Florida. Legislature. Senate. Committee on Transportation. 1985. An Evaluation of the Need for Legislation Requiring the Wearing of Seat Belts. Tallahassee, Florida: The Committee, Office of the Secretary of the Senate. Flynn, L 1979. School Buses. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Technical Services Division, DOT HS 805 207. Fowler, J.E., and K.F. Newman. 1980. "The Use of Computer Simulation for the Design of Safer Vehicles." In Proceedings of Towards Safer Passenger Cars Conference. London, England: Institute of Mechanical Engineers. Frazier, R.G. 1961. "Effectiveness of Seat Belts in Preventing Motor Vehicle Injuries." New England Journal of Medicine 264:1254. Freedman, K., and J. Luk i n 19n. Occupant Protection for Children: A Survey of Restraint Usage, Altitudes and Knowledge. Sydney, Australia: Traffic Accident Research Unit, Department of Motor Transport, New South Wales. Friedman, D., and K. Friedman. 1974 AdVanced Air Bag Restraints for Standard Size Car Drivers. Vol. 1: Executive Summary. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Friedman, D., and K. Friedman. 1974 AdVanced Air Bag Restraints for Standard Size Car Drivers Vol. 2: Final Program Report. Washington, D.C : U.S. Department of Transportation. Fulton, J.L. n.d. Seat Belts Versus Shoulder Harness. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineering, SAE 663536. Gallup, B.M. et al. 1982 "Abdominal I njuries to Restrained Front Seat Occupants in Frontal Collisions : In Proceedings of the 26th AAAM Conference Held in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. Gallup, B.M. et al. 1985. "The Relationship Between Belt F it and Abdominal Injuries to Rear Seat Occupants." In Proceedings of the 4th Canadian Multidisciplinary Highway Safety Conference Held in Montreal, Quebec, Canada Gardner et al. 1986 School Bus Safety Belts Their Use Carryover Effects and Administrative Issues. Office of Driver and Pedestrian Research, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Washington, D.C. DXIII

PAGE 217

Garth, R.A., and D C. Herbert. 1980. The Short Term Priorities for Improving Lap Sash Belt Performance In Motor Vehicles. Rosebeny, New South Wales, Australia: New South Wales Department of Motor Transport. Geller, E.S., J.G. Cesali, and R.P. Johnson. 1980. "Seat Belt Usage: A Potential Target for Applied Behavior Analysis ." Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis 4:94-100. Geller, E.S. R.P. Johnson, and S.L. Pelton Development of Cost Effective Incentive Strategies for Motivating Safety Belt Usage. NHTSA contract in process. General Accounting Office. 1992 Safety Belt Use Laws Save Lives and Reduce Costs to Society. Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division, Washington, D.C. Generalli, T.A. 1984. "Clinical and Experimental Head Injury." In Proceedings of Biomechanics of Impact Trauma Conference. E l wevier, Amsterdam, Holland: International Center for Transportation Studies. Gentile, J. 1983. "An Accident By Any Other Name ... Still Counts ." School Bus Fleet 28(2). Ger r itsen, R. et al. 1966 unusua l Abdominal Injuries Due to Seat Belts. Journal of the Albert Einstein Medical Center 14:63. Get It Together: Safety Belt and Child Safety Seat Educational Program, Leader's Guide and Resource Materials. 1982. Washington, D C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National H i ghway Traffic Safety Administration. Gibbons, C .T. 1983. "The School Bus Ride As A Social Experience." National School Bus Report 13(1):161 7. G i kas, P.W., and D.F. Huelke 1966. Pathogenesis of Fatal Injuries to Rear Seat Occupants of Automobiles Washington, D C : U.S. Department of Transportation DOT HS 000 134 Gissane, w 1968. "The Nature, Causes, and Prevention of Neck Injuries in Car Occupants." In Proceedings of an International Conference on Accident Pathology Held in Birmingham, Alabama. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrat i on, DOT HS 800 431. Gissane, W. 1970. "The Causes and the Prevention of Car Occupant Neck Injuries. In Proceedings of the Prevention of Highway Injuries Symposium. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute. D-XIV

PAGE 218

Green, R.N., and G.S. Sharpe. 1982. "Contributory Negligence in Promotion of Safety Belt Use." Transportation Research Record No. 844. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences, Transportation Research Board. Green, R.N., A. German, Z.M. Gorski, S. Nowak, and D.M. Dance. 198 7 "Abdominal In juries Associated Wrth the Use of Rear-Seat Lap Belts in Real-World Collisions." In Proceedings of the 1987 International Conference on the Biomechanics of Impacts Held in Birmingham, England, 113-121. Bron, France: IRCOBI-Secretariat. Grey, Joseph. 1984. Mandatory Seat Belt Use. Charlottesville, Virginia: Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council. Grey, Joseph. 1985. Mandatory Seat Belt Use Laws. Charlottesville, Virginia. Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council. Griffin, Ll. 1973. Analysis of the Benefits Derived from Certain Presently Existing Motor Vehicle Safety Devices: A Review of the Literature by Lindsay I. Griffin, Ill. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Grime, G. 1965. "Safety Cars-Principles Governing the Design of Cars and Safety Devices." Road Research Laboratory Report No. 8. London, England. Grime, G. 1984. car Design and Occupant Safety." In Proceedings of Biomechanics of Impact Trauma Conference Elsevier, Amsterdam, Holland: International Center lor Transportation Studies. Grime, G. n.d. "Accidents and Injuries to Car Occupants Wearing Safety Belts." Automobile Engineer Gutoskie, P. 1978. "School Bus Accident Study." Technical Memorandum TMSE 7801. 'Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Transport Canada. Gutoskie, P. 1987. An Analysis of canadian School Bus Accident Records -1982-83 to 1984-85. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Trans port Canada, Road Safety Directorate, Traffic Safety Standards and Research Branch. Hackney, D.C., and D. Cutting. "The Use of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations Vehicle Crash Test Data Base in the Study of Vehicle Structural Responses." In Proceedings of International Conference on Vehicle Structures. London, England: Institute of Mechanical Engineers. Hart, P.O. 1978. Public Attitudes Toward Passive Restraint Systems. Washington, D.C.: U .S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 803 570. D-XV

PAGE 219

Hartemann, F., and C. Tarriere. 1975. "How to Further Improve the Protection of Occupants Wearing Seat Be l ts ." In Proceedings of the 19th AAAM Conference. Haselgrave, C. M. 1980. Prediction of Seat Belt Fit: Comparison between a Geometrical Model and Wearer Preference. Nuneaton, Warwickshire, England: Motor Industry Research Association. Hatfield N.J. and K.N. Womack. 1986. Safety Belts on School Buses: The Texas Experience. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas A & M University, College Station, Texas. Henderson, J.M., and K. Freedman. 1973. "The Effect of Mandatory Seat Belt Use in New South Wales Australia." In Proceedings of the 17th AAAM Conference Held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Henke, A.W., D.H. Robbins, V.L Roberts, and P.H. Wright. 1970. Child Seat Restraint Systems Test Program Final Report Multidisciplinary Accident Investigations Phase 4. Final Report. Washington, D C.: U .S. Department ofTransportation, DOT HS 800 382, 383, 384. Henke, C. 1984. "Should Pupils Be Belted? School Bus Fleet 29(1): 12-15. Herbert, D.C. 1964. "Injury Reduction by Diagonal and Other Vehicle Safety Belts. Medical Journal of Australia 1:61. Herbert, D.C., and C .W. Corben. 1977. Human Measurements and Performance in Retracting Seat Belts. Australia: Traffic Accident Research Unit, Department of Motor Transport, New South Wales Herbert, D.C., and D. Cutting. Crash Protection for Children Alter Their Third Birthday. New South Wales, Sidney, Australia: Department of Motor Transport, Traffic Accident Research Unit. Hertzberg, H.T.E. 1972. "The Human Buttocks in Sitting: Pressures, Patterns, and Palliatives." Paper presented at Automotive Engineering Congress, 10-14 January, Detroit. Highway Loss Data Institute. 1977. Automobile Insurance Losses, Injury Coverages: Comparisons of Claim Frequencies of Volkswagen Rabbits with Passive and Active Seat Belts, 1975 and 1976 Models. Washington, D.C.: Highway Loss Data Institute. Highway Loss Data Inst itute. 1979. Automobile Insurance Losses, Injury Coverages: Comparisons of Claim Frequencies of Volkswagen Rabbits with Automatic and Manual Seat Belts. Wash ington, D.C.: Highway Loss Data Institute. D-XVI

PAGE 220

Highway Safety Foundation. 1969. Preliminary Results of a Study of Seat Restraint Use and Effectiveness in Traffic Accidents. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 008 534. Highway Safety Research Institute. 1975. Design for NASS: A National Accident Sampling System. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, UM-HSRI-SA-75-14-1. Hochberg, Yosef. 1976. Problems of Inference in Studies of Seat Belt Effectiveness. Report prepared for U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Holt, B.W., and B.A. Vazey. 1977. In Depth Study of Seriously Injured Seat Belt Wearers. Sydney, Australia : New South Wales Department of Motor Transport, Traffic Accident Research Unit. How to Plan a Comprehensive Community Occupant Protection Program. 1984. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Hu, A.S., S.P. Bean, and R.M. Zimmerman. 1976. Response of Belted Dummy and Cadaver to Rear Impact. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service. Hubbard, W.O. 1967. School Bus Safety and the Seat Belt. Lexington, Kentucky: Legislative Research Commission. Huelke, D. 1966. causes of Death in Automobile Accidents." In Proceedings of the Conference on Vehicle Crash and Injury Prevention. London, England: Society of Manufacturers and Traders. Huelke, D .F. 1978. "The Effectiveness of Belt Systems in Frontal and Rollover Crashes ." In SAE Proceedings 770148. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers) Huelke, D.F. 1978. "The Rear Seat Automobile Passenger in Frontal Crashes." In Proceedings of the 22nd AAAM Conference, Volume I. Huelke, D.F. 1978. Lower Torso Injuries and Automobile Seat Belts." Presented at the Society for Automotive Engineering Congress and Exposition, Detroit, Michigan. Huelke, D.F. 1981. "Effectiveness of Occupant Restraints in Reducing Serious Injuries and Fatalities." Presented at the International Symposium on Occupant Restraint, Toronto. 0-XVII

PAGE 221

Hue l ke, D. F. 1987. 'The Rear Seat Occupant in Car Crashes." AAAM Quarterly Journal 9(4):21-24. Huelke, D. n d. Alrbag Deployments and Rear Seat Restrained Occupants -Field Investigations Within the State of Michigan. Michigan: Motor Vehic l e Manufacturer's Association. Huelke, D. F. n.d. Study of 139 Accidents In v olving 177 Fatalities. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Un i versity of Mich i gan, Highway Safety Research Institute. Huelke, D.F. T.E. Lawson, J.C. Marsh, and R. Scott. 1977. The Effectiveness of Belt Systems in Frontal and Rollover Crashes Ann Arbor, Michigan: Uni versity of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Ins ti tute. Huelke D.F., and T.E. Lawson. 1978. "Injuries to Rear-Seat Passengers in Frontal Automotive Crashes." The HSRI Research Review 9(1) Huelke, D F ., and W.A. Chewning. n.d. Comparison of Occupant Injuries With and Without Seat Belts. Warrenda le, Pennsylvania: Society for Automotive Engineering. Huelke, D. F. e t al. 1973. "Injury Causat i on in Rollover Accidents." In Proceedings of the 17th AAAM Conference Held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Human Collision 1975 By Crawley Films for Ministry of Transportation and Communications of Ontario, 29 min. Toronto Ontario, Canada: The Ministry. Film. Hunter, W.W . J.C. Stutts, and T.R. Fische l!. 1 985. A Follow-up Survey of the Seat Belts Pay Off Community Incentive Program. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Hutchinson, T.P. 1986. statistical Modeling of Injury Severity, A Special Reference to Driver and Front Seat Passenger in Single-Vehicle Crashes ." Accident Analysis and Prevention 1 8(2) Londo n England. Hyde, A.S. 1985. The Seat Belt Defense. Key Biscayne, Florida: Hyde Associates. "How Safe Is a School Bus?" 1971. Journal of American Insurance 47(4). The Impact Inside. 1 978. Distributed by the National Audiovisual Center for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Public Affairs, 29 min. Washington, D C.: The Office. Film. "Industry News: AMA Releases Statement on Seat Betts." 1984. School Bus Fleet 29(4):5 -8. D XVIII

PAGE 222

Institute of Mechanical Engineers. 1984. Proceedings of the International Conference on Vehicle Structures. London, England: Institute of Mechanical Engineers. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. 1984. "Seat Belts in School Buses ." Status Report 20(5) May 1987. Materials Assembled and Condensed by Thomas Built Buses, Inc. High Point, North Carolina: Thomas Built Buses Inc. Insurance Losses, Personal Injury Protection Coverages: Injury Claim Frequencies for Volkswagen Rabbits with Automatic and Manual Seat Belts 1981 and 1982 Models. 1984. Washington, D C .: Highway Loss Data Institute. International Symposium on Seat Belts Held in Tokyo, Japan 1979. Tokyo, Japan: Secretariat, International Sympos ium on Seat Belts. "An Interview With Terry Whitesell." 1984. School Bus Fleet 29(2) It's the Sudden Stop at the End 1975. 17 min Toronto, Ontario, Canada: The Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Film. Jatras, K.P. 1976 Ute Saving Potential of Greater Safety Belt Usage. Washington D C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, Nationa l Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of S1atistics and Analysis, DOT HS 802 002. Johannessen, H.G. 1984. "Historical Perspective on Seat Belt Restraint Systems." In Advances in Belt Restraint Systems: Design, Performance and Usage. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineering SAE 840392. Johannessen, H.G., and R.V. Pilarski. n.d. Rear Seat Occupant Protection. Warrenda le, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineering, SAE 810797. Johannessen, H G., and T .H. Vas. n.d. The Changing Shape of Seat Belt Systems. Warrendale Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineering, SAE 820796. Kaapcke, B. 1972. "The Other Busing Issue: Safety ." Journal of Insurance 33(5): 17-22. Kahane C.J. 1986. An Evaluation of Child Passenger Safety: The Effectiveness and Benefits of Safety Seats. Washington, D .C .: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration DOT HS 806 890. Kahn, J. 1 986. "Murphy's Seat Belt Law: How the Seat Belt Issue Stands From an Attorney's Point of View ." School Bus Fleet 31 (3): 40-41. D-XIX

PAGE 223

Kallieris, D., J. Barz, G. Schmidt, and G. Hess. 1976. Comparison Between Child Cadavers and Child Dummy by Using Child Restraint Systems in Simulated Collisions." In Proceedings of the 20th STAPP Car Crash Conference. Kallier is, D., and G. Schmidt. 1990. "Neck Response and Injury Assessment Using Cadavers and the Us-SID for Far-Side Lateral Impacts of Rear Seat Occupants with Inboard-Anchored Shoulder Belts." In Proceedings of the STAPP Car Crash Conference. Kansas State Highway Commission. 1967. Kansas School Bus Minimum Standards for School Bus Design Operation and Driver Requirements. Topeka, Kansas: The Commission Traffic and Safety Department. Kelley, B., and L. Smith. 1991. Critique of Rear Seat Submarining Investigation.' A NHTSA Study."//R Review 1(1):75-77. Kendall, D.L et al. 1981. Comfort and COnvenience of Safety Belts in Everyday Use. Nuneaton, Warwickshire, Eng l and: Motor Industry Research Association Kenway, C .J. 1969. "Mi nimum Standards for School Buses in Canada. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Canada Safety Council Held in Ottawa, 5-7 May. Keeping Two Hands on the Wheel." 1988. School Bus Fleet 34(5} : 34-36 K i hlberg, J.K., and S. Robinson. 1967. Seat Belt Use and Injury Patterns in Automobile Accidents. Buffalo New York: Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory. K l otz, J. 1991. "The Three Variab l es of School Bus Discip l ine." National School Bus Report 24(1): 14-15. Knoop, J C et al. 1980 Statistical Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Child Restraints. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transporta t ion, DOT HS 805 660. Koivurova, M. 1987 The Use of Seat Belts and Child Restraints in 1986. Helsinki, F i nland: Central Organization for Traffic Safety Krafft, M., C. Nygren, and C Tingvall. 1990. "Rear Seat Occupant Protect i on: A Study of Child r en and Adults in the Rear Seat of Cars in Relation to Restraint Use and Car Character." Journal of Traffic Medicine 18(2):5 1 -60 Kulowski, J and W.B. Rost. 1956. Intra-abdominal In j ury From Safety Belt in Auto Accident: Report of a Case Arch. Surg. 73:970. D-XX

PAGE 224

Lane, J.M., P.W. Milne, and H.T. Wood. 1978. "Ev aluation of a Successful Rear Seat Belt Publicity Campaign." In Proceedings of the Australian Road Research Board. Volume 12. Lap Seat Belt Useful but Can Injure Children." 1981. Journal for the American Medical Association 245:2281. Lawson, J and D.J. Dalmotas. 1984. "An Assessment of the Potential Cost-Effectiveness of a Regulation Requiring Three-Point Rear Seat Belts in Passenger Cars." In Proceedings of the 3rd Canadian Multidisciplinary Highway Safety Conference Held in London, Ontario, Canada. Laying Down the Rules of the Road." 1989. School Bus Fleet 35(2). Leung, Y.C. et al. 1982 Submarining I n juri es of Three-Point Belted Occupants in Frontal Collisions-Description, Mechanisms, and Protection." In Proceedings of the 26th STAPP Gar Crash Conference Held In Ann Arbor, Michigan. Levine, O.N., and B.J. Campbell. 1971. Effectiveness of Lap Seat Belts and the Energy Absorbing Steering System in the Reduction of Injuries. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Life is Precious, Buckle Them ln. 1982. 14 min. Produced and Directed by Geoffrey Frazer for Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Santa Monica, California: Fiesta Films. Lindgren, S and E. Warg. 1 962. seat Belts and Acc ident Prevention : Practitioner 188:467. Lister, R.D., and B.M. Milson. 1963. "Car Seat Belts: An Analysis of the Injur ies Sustained by Car Occupants." Practitioner 1 91:332. Lonero, L.P., N. Gardner, H. Pang J. Pierce, M Toomer, and P. Young. 1973. The Seat Belt Education Project. Downsview, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Research and Development Division. Lonn, C., and L Rabow. 1980. "Is the Position of Seat Belt Anchoring Point a Factor in the Etiology of Spinal Injury?" Journal of Traffic Medicine 8(3) :38-39. Lowenhielm, D. 1984. "The Anatomy and Physiology of Head and Neck Injuries." In Biomechanics of Impact Trauma Conference Proceedings. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Holland: International Center for Transportation Studies. DXXI

PAGE 225

Lundell B., H. Mellander, and I. Carlsson. 1981. Safety Performance of a Rear Seat Belt System with Optimized Seat Cushion Design. New York, New York: Engineering Societies Lib r ary. Macauley, M.A. 1971. "The Dynam ics of Dummies." Report on the Second International Conference Experimental Safety Vehicles. Sindlefingen, West Germany. MacKay, G.M. 1974. Some Cost Benefit Considerations of Car Occupant Systems." Aspects Techniques de Ia Securite Rout/ere 15(59). MacKay, G.M. 1978. Safety Criteria in Vehicle Design. London England: Institution of Mechanical Design. MacKay, M. 1984. "An Historical Perspective on Impact Biomechanics and Some Basic K i nematics." In Proceedings of Biomechanics of Impact Trauma Conference Proceedings. Elsevier Amsterdam, Holland: International Center for Transportation Studies MacKay, M. 1987. "A Kinemat i c and Dynamic Analysis of Occupant Responses to Lap Only Restraint Forces. A Discussion. In Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine Held in New Orleans, Louisiana 28 September. Arlington Heights Illinois: American Association for Automotive Medicine. Maclaughlin, T.F., L.K. Sullivan, and C.S. O'Connor. 1991. Experimental Investigation of Rear Seat Submarining ." IIR Review 1 (1):64. Macleod, J.H., and D.M. Nicholson. 1969. seat Belt Trauma of the Abdomen. Canadian Journal of Surgery 12:202. Maghsoodloo, S., D .B. Brown, and V.I. Shieh. 1 989 A Quantification of the Impact of Restraining Systems on Passenger Safety." Journal of Safety Research 20(3):115-28. Maryland State Department of Education. 1985. Concerns About Seat Betts on School Buses. Annapolis, Maryland. Mateyka, J.A. 1974. "Safety Considerations and Design of New Transit Bus Seats." In Proceedings of the 18th STAPP Car Crash Conference McAlpine, M. 1969. "Problems With Students. Proceedings of the First Conference of the Canada Safety Council Held in Ottowa 5 May 1969. Washington, D.C. : U .S. Department of Transportation, Nationa l Highway Traffic Safety Administration. D XXII

PAGE 226

McCoy, G. F. A.A Johnstone I.W. Nelson J. Kenwright, and A.B Duthie. 1988. "Incidence and Consequences of E j ection i n Motor Vehic l e Acc i dents. British Medical Journal 297 (6658): 1244-45 McCullough B and B. Underhill. 1972. An Energy-Absorbing Seat Design for Light Aircraft. Warrendale Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. McFarland A.A., A. Damon, H W Soudt, A.L. Moseley, J.W. Dunlap and W.A. Hall. 1954. Human Body Size and Capabilities In the Design and Operation of Vehicular Equipment Boston: Harvard School of Public Health. McHenrey, R.R. 1971. "Comparison of Results Obtained with Different Analytical Techniques for Reconstruction of Highway Acc i dents." In Prbceedings of the SAE. Warrendale, Pennsy l vania: Society of Automotive Engineers. McKelvey, R.K. 1970. A Comparison of Attitudes Toward Several Cross-chest Safety Belt Systems After Operational Experience. Washington, D.C.: Injury Control Research Laboratory. McMaster, B. 1969. How Safe Are School Buses Today?" Proceedings of the First Conference of the Canada Safety Council held in Ottawa 5-7 May 1969 Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. McMichael, J., Waller, P.F. 1976. School Bus Safety in North carolina. School Bus Accidents and Driver Age. Chape l Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center McRoberts, J .R. Seat Belt Injuries and Legal Aspects." Industrial Mad. Surg 34:866. Me l a O.F. 197 4 Review of Safety Belt Usage and Effectiveness in Accidents. Washington D.C.: U .S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Adm i nistration, Office of Statistics and Analysis, OOT-HS 016 2n Mellbr i ng G. et al. 1981. "The Hospital Experience of Seat Be lt Legislation i n the County of Skaraborg, Sweden." Injury 12(6):506 Melvin, J.W et al 1976. "Occupant Injury Assessment Criteria."ln SAE Proceedings 750914. Warrendale, Pennsylvan i a: Society of Automotive Engineers Merrill T 1991. "Wanted : Transportation Specialists National School Bus Report 24(1): 11. D-XXIII

PAGE 227

Meyer R.J 1 969. Challenge of the School Bus Forestalling Potential Tragedy Clinical Pediatrics 8(4): 192. M i ller, J. 1 976 Efforts to Reduce Truck and Bus Operation Hazards Human Factors 18(6). M i lls J .D. 1973 "Panel DiscussionPhysicians V iew Safety Belt Use ." P r oceedings of the 1973 National Safety Belt Usage Conference Held in Washington, D.C. 74 9 Miller, J .P. 1978. Exemplary Programs Involving the Use of School Buses Washington, D.C. : U.S. Department of Transportation, Nat i onal Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 803 383. Mills, P J ., and C.A. Hobbs 1 985 "The Probab i lity of I njury to Car Occupants in Frontal And S ide Impacts." In Proceedings of the 18th STAPP Car Crash Conference. Warrenda l e Pennsylvania: Soc i ety of Automotive Engineering SAE 841652 Milne, P W. 1979 Fitting and Wearing of Seat Belts In Australia: The History of a Successful Countermeasure. Austral i a : Australian Department of Transport, Office of Road Safety. "Mirror Mirro r on the Bus ." 1 989. Schoo/ Bus Fleet 35 (2) Mitchell D. 1976. Patterns of Safety Belt Use Among Drivers Killed In Fatal Crashes in V i rginia. Prepared by the Virgin i a Highway and Transportation Resea rch Counc il under the sponsorsh i p of the H i ghway Safety Division of V i rg i nia. Char l ottesville: The Council. Mock us, J. W. 1965 "School Bus Safety Wrth Strings Attached. Traffic Safety 65(2) : 14-15, 37. Moffat, C .A. et al. 1984 "Diagnos i s of Seat Be l t Usage i n Accidents." In Advances in Belt Restraint Systems: Design Performance and Usage. Detroit, M i chigan Mohan, A., P. Zador, B. Neill, a n d M Ginsburg 1976. Air Bags and Lap/Shoulder Belts -A Comparison of Their Effec tiveness in Real World, Frontal Crashes Washington, D.C. : Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Morrow G.W and N.B. Johnson. 1975. Development of a School Bus Fuel System Integrity Compliance Procedure F inal Report Washington D.C : U.S Department of Transportation Motor Veh i cle Seating Systems. 1968 Warrenda le, Pennsylvan i a: Society of Automotive Engineers D-XXIV

PAGE 228

Mulcahy, T.J. 1968 "Bus Safety." In Conference on Road Safety Volume 2: Proceedings of Conference on Road Safety Held in Brussels, Belgium, A16-1 through A16-39. Dublin, Ireland: Dublin Department of Local Government. Muller, G. 1970 "Why a Second Collision. In Proceedings of The Prevention of Highway Injuries Symposium, 2nd Edition Ann Arbor Michigan: University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute. Nahum, A.M., A.W. Siegel, and D.E. Runge. 1972. Bus Collision Causation and Injury Patterns." Proceedings of the 15th STAPP Gar Crash Conference Held in Coronado, California 17-19 November, 301-85. Nafiar, D. 1981. Restraint Usage and Effectiveness for Rear Seat Occupants. In Collected Technical Studies, Vol. 1/: Accident Data Papers. Wash i ngton D.C. : U .S. Department of Transportation, Nationa l Center for Statistics and Analysis. National Analysts. 1971 Motivating Factors in the Use of Restraint Systems. Wash ington D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS BOO 585. National Coalition for Seat Belts in School Buses. 1986. National Coalition for Seat Belts in School Buses, 3rd Edition. Skok ie, I llinois: National Coalition for Seat Belts in School Buses. National Committee on Uniform Traffic Laws and Ordinances. 1972. Laws Requiring Seat Belts. Prepared for the U.S Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Admin i stration by NCUTLO staff. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Education Association. 1964. Selection, Instruction, and Supervision of School Bus Drivers. Washington, D.C.: The Association. National Education Association. 1967 Study of School Bus Safety. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: The Association. National Research Council. Tra nsportation Research Board. 1981. Study of Methods for Increasing Safety Belt Use: Comments on the Study by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Prepared by the Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences. Washington D .C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 0-XXV

PAGE 229

National Research Council. Transportation Research Board. Steering Committee for the Study of Methods to Increase Use of Safety Belts. 1 980. Study of Methods for Increasing Safety Belt Use: Report of A Committee Convened by the Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences Wash i ngton D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. National Safety Council. School Transportation Section 1968. Specific Recommendations of the ITTE-UCLA Study. Chicago Illino i s: The Council. National Safety Council. 1973. "New School Bus Features Strengthened Body to Prov i de C r ash Protect i on for Passengers. Traffic Safety 73(4). National Safety Counc il. 1984. Vehicle Damage Scale for Traffic Accident Investigators, 3rd Edition. Chicago, Illinois: National Safety Council. National Safety Council 1984. Protecting Pupil Passengers In School Buses. Washington, D.C. National School Transporta ti on Association 1984. National School Bus Report National School Bus Report Special Edition: Spring. Springf i eld, V ir gin ia. National Transportation Safety Board. 1983 Safety Study Child Passenger Protection Against Death, Disability, and Disfigurement in Motor Vehicle Accidents. Washington, D C.: National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB/SS-83-01. Nationa l Transportation Safety Board. 1 98 7 Safety Study Performance of Lap Belts in 26 Frontal Crashes. Washington, D.C.: National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB/SS-86 03. National Transportation Safety Board 1987 Safety StudyCrashworthiness ofLarge Post Standard School Buses. Washington, D.C : National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB/SS-87-01 Neathery, R.F et al. 1975 "Prediction ofThoracic Injury From Dummy Responses In SAE Proceedings 751151. Warrendale Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Negri, B. 1969. School Bus Cross Over Mirrors: Special Report. Albany, New York : New York State Department of Motor Veh i cles. Nemes, G.A., and I G. Kerenyi. 1978. Injuries Caused by Seat belts in Stati o nary Vehicles. Journal of Trauma 18(10) : 736-37 New Federa l Regu l ations Rai se Construction Standards ." 1977. School Bus Fleet April/May D -XXVI

PAGE 230

New York Legislature. Commission on Critical Transportation Cho i ces 1983. A Public Hearing on the Topic : School Bus Safety -Has New York State Gone As Far As It Can, Should or Must Go? Statements by Commiss ion Chairman Senator Norman J Levy A l bany New York: The Comm i ssion. New York Legislature. Commission on Crit i cal T r ansportat ion Choices. 1985. School Bus Safety In New York State: Children at R i sk? Albany New York : The Commission. New York. Legislature. Comm i ssion on Critical Transportation Choices 1986.1ncreaslng School Bus Safety for New York State s Children Through Seat Belts on School Buses and Elimination of Standees! A report to the Legislature by Commiss i on Chairman Senator Norman J. Levy. Albany, New York : The Comm i ss ion New York. Legi slature. Commission on Critical Transportation Choices. n.d. School Bus Study i n New York State ... Children at Risk? Albany, New York: The Commission New York Legislature. Senate. Committee on Transportation. 1981. Child Safety Restraints : The Safe Way for Children to Travel in Motor Vehicles. Albany, New York: The Committee. New York. State Education Department. 1984-85. A Proposal for School Bus Safety Training Program Albany, New York: The Department "New York School D i stricts Say 'Yes to Seat Belts 1984. School Bus Fleet 29(2):30-32. "NHTSA Urged to Requ ire 3-Point Belts in Rear Seats." 1986. Automotive News 61 (5141). Nicho l s J. L. 1979. A Review of Issues Related to NHTSA' s Safety Belt Usage Effort. Wash i ngton, D C.: U.S Department of Transportation, Nat i onal H i ghway Traffic Safety Administration. Niederer, P et al. 1977 "Adve r se Effects of Seat Belts and Causes of Belt Failures in Severe Car Acc i dents in Switzerland." In Proceedings of the 21st STAPP Car Crash Conference Held in New York. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Eng i neers, SAE 770916 N i elson, 1.0. 1 980. "The Dynamics of Car I mpact and Occupant Protection." In Proceedings of Towards Safer Passenger Cars Conference. L ondon, England : Institute of Mechanical Eng i neers Nielson, I D 1984. "Trends i n The Design of Car Front and S ide Structu res to Meet Future Safety Needs In Proceedings of the International Conference on Vehicle Structures. 0-XXVII

PAGE 231

Nordic Road Safety Counc il. 1975 Inducements to Increase Safety Belt Usage Stockholm Sweden: Nord i sk Trafiksikker h eds Rad. Nor i n, H., and B. Anderson. 1977. "The Adult Belt --A Hazard to the Child? In Proceedings of the 6th International Association for Automotive and Traffic Medicine International Conference Held in Melbourne, Australia. Norin, H ., A. N i lssoneh le, E. Saretok and C. lingvall 1980. Injury Reducing Effect of Seat Belts on Rear Seat Passengers Solna, Sweden: Swed ish Road Safety Office Norin H. et al. 1984. seat Belt Usage in Sweden and its I njury Reduc i ng Effect." In Advances in Belt Restraint Systems: Design, Performance and Usage Detroit. Northrop, G.M., J.T. Ball, D.R.E Bancroft and J.C.J. Reidy. 1978. Evaluation Methodologies for Nine Federal Motor Vehic l e Safety Standards: FMVSS 105, 108, 122 202 207, 213, 220, 221, and 222. Final Report. Washington D C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Northrop et al. 1 980. Statistical Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 222: School Bus Passenger Seating and Crash Protection U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington D.C. "NTSB Fails to Recommend Be l ts in Large School Buses." 1986 PAS News, December, 1. O'Day, J. and R. Kaplan. 1978 "Fatal In j uries to Restrained Passenger Car Occupants." The HSRI Research Review 9( 1). O r dway, F., and R.W. Ellis. 1976. F ield of View Measurements of Four Buses. Final Report. Falls Church Virgin ia: Artech Corpo r ation. Otte P., N. Sudekamp, and H. Appel. 1987. 'Variations of Injury Patterns of Seat Belt Users." Presented at International Congress and Exposition, Restraint Technologies: Front Seat Occupant Protection. Warrendale, Pennsylvania : Soc i ety of Automotive Engineers Ottoson, A.L, and P. Lovsund. 1986. Protective level of Safety Harnesses Combined with Some Racing Car Seats in Frontal Impacts A Laboratory Study Accident Analysis and Prevention 18(6). London, England Palmer M.R., and J B. Toomath. 197 4 An Interim Evaluation of the Compulsory Seat Belt Law. Well i ngton, Ontar i o Canada: Ministry of Transport, Road Transport Div i sion Traff i c Engineering Section D-XXVIII

PAGE 232

Pape, R.C. 1989. New York School District Transportation Surveys. New York: New York Pupil Transportation Association. Parrish, O.G. 1964. The New Jersey Story One Year Later. New Jersey School Bus Lamps Score Success. Trenton, New Jersey: New Jersey State Department of Education. Parsons, M. 1979. Incentives and Disincentives in Seat Belt Usage. Washington D.C.: Transportation Research Board. Partyka, s 1982. Corrections tor the Effect of Data Source on Restraint Effectiveness Estimates. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Tra ffic Safety Administration. Patrick, L.M. 1975. "Passive and Active Restraint Systems Pertormance and Benefit Cost Comparison." In SAE Proceedings 750389 Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Patrick. L.M. 1976. Frontal force Impact Tolerance of the Human Thorax. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 019 973. Patrick, L.M. et al. 1966. Impact Dynamics of Unrestrained, Lap Belted and Lap and Diagonal Chest Belted Vehicle Occupants." In Proceedings of the 10th STAPP Car Crash Conference. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineering, SAE 660788. Pavlinski, L., D. Soule, and W.E. Tarrants. 1982 Effectiveness and Efficiencies in Pupil Transportation Safety. Evaluation Summary Report. Washington D C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Program and Demonstration Evaluation Office, DOT HS 806 134. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell and Company. 1980. Effectiveness of Safety Belt Usage Laws. Washington D C.: U.S. Departmen t of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 805 490. Perry, R.L. et al. 1980. The Impact of a Child Passenger Restraint Law and a Public Information and Education Program on Child Passenger Safety in Tennessee: Final Report Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Petrucelli, E. 1984. "Injury Scaling and Some Consideration of Disability Consequences." In Proceedings of Biomechanics of Impact Trauma Conference. Elwevier, Amsterdam, Holland: International Center for Transportation Studies D-XXIX

PAGE 233

Petty, S.P.F. 1984. Protection for Public Service Vehicle Occupants i n Frontal Impacts ." In Proceedings of International Conference on Vehicle Structures. London, Eng l and: Inst i tute of M e chanica l Engineers. Phill i ps, B.M., and D.M. Goodman. 1980. Automatic Safety Belt Systems: Owner Usage and Attitudes in GM Chevettes and VW Rabbits. Final Report Washington, D.C. : U.S Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. P i ckard, E. C. 1954 "The Use of 'Oscar' in Seat Design. Warrendale, Pennsy l vania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Pickett A.J. 1963. "Seat Design, Comfort and Safety." Motor Body 131:12-15. Pier, B.F 1974. Sources and Remedies for Restraint System Discomfort and Inconveniences San Diego, California: Man Factors, Inc. Physicians for Automotive Safety 1981. "Shoulder Belts in Rear Seats." PAS News. Pope, G 1971. "Student Discipline and Control The Conduct of Students on a School Bus Has a Direct Relationship to Their Safety. School Bus Fleet, June-July, 31-35. Porter, S.E., and E.W. Green 1968. "Seat Be l t Injuries." Arch. Surg. 96:242. Post, D V and M Sivak. 1978. Signal Lighting $ystem Requirements for Emergency School Bus and Service Vehicles. Final Report. Washington, D.C.: U .S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 804 095. Preston, F. 1973. "A Comparison of Contacts for Unrest r ained and Lap Bel ted Occupants in Automobile Accidents. In Proceedings of the 17th AAAM Conference Held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The Prof i t in Safety Belts: A Handbook for Employers. 1984 Washington, D C.: U S. Department of Transportation. Progress and Assessment Report on the National Safety Belt Usage Program. 1984. Washington, D C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Proulx, M., and A Moren. 1978. Proposed School Bus Safety Standards Under the Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Act. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Supply and Services. D-XXX

PAGE 234

Pursel, H. D. et al. 1979. "Matching Case Methodology for Measuring Restraint Effectiveness. SA Proceedings 780415. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. "Quest tor Safety: 1984. School Bus Fleet 29(3) Quinn, F.R., Jr. 1962. "Are Seat Belts Enough?" Gen. Pract. 26:101. Rabe, B.D. 1984. Improving Vehicle Occupant Protection Through Regulation and Legislation." SA Technical Paper 841737. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Rattenbury, S.J. et al. 1979. "The Biomechanical Limits of Seat Belt Protection: In Proceedings of the 23rd AAAM Conference. "Rear Seat Shoulder Belts to Be Requ i red in 1990 Passenger Gars ." 1989. Transafety Reporter 7(7):3. Reavell, J.F. 1969. "School Bus Patrols ." Proceedings of the First Conference of the Canada Safety Council Held In Ottowa 5-7 May, 1969. Reid, S.R. 1984. "Influence of Inertia in Structural Crashworthiness." In Proceedings of International Conference on Vehicle Structures. London, England: Institut ion of Mechanical Engineers. Reidelback, W 1971. "The Shortoomings of Anthropomorphic Test Devices." Report on the Second International Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. Sindlefingen, West Germany. Reinfurt, D.W C.Z. Silva, and A.F. Seila. 1976. A Statistical Anatysis of Seat Belt Effectiveness in 1973-1975 Mode l Cars Involved in Towaway Crashes: Technical Summary, Final Report July 1, 1975-May 31, 1976. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Restraint Requirements for Rear Seat Occupants -Experimental Safety Vehicles. 1972. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 820 234. Reynolds W.V. 1974. The Importance of Seat Belts in the Total School Bus Safety Picture. Fairfax, Virginia: National School Transportation Association. D-XXXI

PAGE 235

Ritchie, W.P., Jr. et al. 1970. "Combined Visceral and Vertebral Injuries from Lap Seat Belts." Surg. Gynecol. Obstet. 131:431. Robbins, D .H 1970. Three-Dimensional Simulation of Advanced Automotive Restraint Systems. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Roberts, V.L. 1967. "Experimental Studies on Thoracic and Abdomin al In juries." In Proceedings of the Prevention of Highway Injuries Symposium, 2nd Edition Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Mich igan, Highway Safety Research Institute. Roberts, V L. 1970 Motor Vehicle Restraints, State-of-the-Art. Presented at 1970 International Safety Conference Compendium : Detroit, Michigan, 1315 May, Brussels, Belgium, 8-11 June. Roberts, A.K. 1983. The Effects of Rear Seat Passengers on Front Seat Occupants in Front Impacts. London, England: Department of Transport. Rogers, A.A., and J.N. Silver. 1968. "E lements of an Effective Child Restraint System: Proceedings of 12th STAPP Car Crash Conference Held in Detroit 22-23 October, 172-87. Washington, D .C : U.S. Department of Transportation. Roper, W.L. 1973. "Can Our School Buses Be Made Safer? California Highway Patrolman 37(7): 4-5, 22-24, 27-28. Rouhana, S.W., J.D. Horsch, and C .K. Kroell. 1989. Assessment of Lap.Shoulder Belt Restraint Performance in Laboratory Testing. 33rd STAPP Car Crash Conference, Washington, D .C., October 4-6, 1989 Warren, Mich igan: General Motors Research Laboratories. Rouse, W., and F. Gendre. 1969. Field Experience and Evaluation of the TAD Vehicle Damage Rating Scale. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina, H ighway Safety Research Center. Rumph, W.C., J. Tydings, P.H. Bass, and A.B Ku rre. 1967. "How Safe Are Our School Buses?" Traffic Safety 67(2): 34-5. Rutherford, W.H. 1987. "Compulsory Wearing of Seat Belts in the United Kingdom --The Effect on Patients and Fatalities." Transport Reviews 7(3). Rutherford W.H. et al. 1985. The Medical Effects of Seat Belt Legislation in the United Kingdom. London: H M.S.O. Ryan, P., and R. Ragazzon. 1979 "Abdom inal Injuries in Survivors of Road Trauma Before and Since Seat Belt Legislation in Victoria." Aust. N.Z. J. Surg. 49:200. D-XXXII

PAGE 236

Ryon D and J D States. 1969. Restraint Systems i n Rac i ng Acc i dents. P r esented a t Internat i ona l Automot ive En g ineering Congress, Det r oit, Mich i gan Warrenda le, Pennsy lvania: Society of Automotive Eng i neers. Saczalski K.J et al. 1969. A Critical Assessment of the Use of Non Human Responding Surrogates for Safety System Eva l uation l n SAE Proceedings 680771. Warrenda le, Pennsylvania : Society of Automotive Engineers saczalski, KJ., and C.W. Angus Necessaty consi derations in the Des ign, Analysis and the Performance Assessment of Crash Worthy Structures and Protective Systems Safer Schoo l Buses An Industry-Wide Effort. 1971. School Bus Fleet 16(5): 22 24, 26-30. Safety Standards as Requ i red of School Buses by Federa l Regu l ation 1968. School Bus Fleet 12(6): 48-9. Safety Topics 1986 Aircraft Engineering, April SBF Survey L ooks at the Danger Zone ." 1985 School Bus Fleet 30(1) "Schoo l Bus Seat Belts : Protection or Peril? 1985 Motor Club News 41(3). "School Bus Safety and Seat Belts. 1 984. National School Bus Report Special Edition. Sc h ool Buses and Seat Belts 1985. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Status Report 20(5). Scherz, R.G. 1976. "Rest r aint Systems for the Prevention of Injury to Children in Automob i le Acc i dents ." American Journal o f Public Health 66(5) : 451 56 Schneider R.C. et al n d "Lap Seat Belt I n j uries: The Treatment of Fortunate Survivor ." Mich. Med. 67: 171. "Schoo l Bus Safety : Do Pa r ents Have Reason to b e Concerned 1980 New York : Physic i ans for Automot i ve Safety school Bus Safety and Seat Be l ts." 1 985 New Yo rk : The Institute for Safety i n Transportation. Schumacher, S.P. 1974 School Bus Driver Instructional Program Washington, D C : U.S Department of T ransportation D-XXX I II

PAGE 237

Seat Belts and Other Devices to Reduce Injuries from Traffic Accidents: Report on a WHO Technical Group, Meknes 26-28 June 1979. 1981. Copenhagen, Denmark: Regional Office for Europe, World Health Organization. "Seat Belts or Passive Protection? Transport Canada Research Shows Compartmentalization Provides Greater Safety for Bus Occupants Than Do Seat Belts. 1985. School Bus Fleet 30{3):16-18. ''The Seat Belt Tug of War." 1984. School Bus Fleet 29{5):40-42. "Are Seat Lap Belts Dangerous?" 1986. NAFA Bulletin (December): 14-16. Senk, SA., and S L. Schw811Z. 1972. Evaluation of the Effects of a Seat Belt Education Program Among Elementary School Children in Loudon County, Virginia. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 800 766. Severy, D.M. 1966. "A Description of the UCLA/liTE Crash Testing Programs ." In Proceedings of the Conference on Vehicle Crash and Injury Prevention. London England: Society of Motor Manufacturers and T rad ers Ltd. Severy, D.M et al. 1967 School Bus Passenger Protection. Institute ofTransportation and Traffic Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles, California. Severy, D.M et al. 1968. "School Bus Passenger Protection." SAE Transactions 670040. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Severy, D.M., H.M Brink, and J.D. Baird. 1968. "Veh icle Design for Passenger Protection from High-Speed, Rear-End Collisions." Proceedings of 12th STAPP Car Crash Conference, 22-23 October, 941 63. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Severy D.M et al. 1969. "Passenger Protection from Front-End Impacts." Presented at the Internatio nal Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, Michigan. Seymour, C. 1977 "Stepchild of American Ped iatrics: Child Transportation Safety ." Pediatric Annals 6{11):726-27. Shackson, R.H. 1976.1nducements to Increased Safety Belt Usage. Dearborn: For Motor Company. Sharp, J.E. et al. 1965. "Analysis of Lap Shoulder Belt Effectiveness in Accidents." In Proceedings of the 9th STAPP Car Crash Conference. D-XXXIV

PAGE 238

Shelness, A. 1 967. How Sate is Pupil Transportation? Spri n gfield New Jersey: Phys i cians for Automotive Safety. Shortridge, R.M. 1973 A Comparison o f Injury Severity Patterns for Unrestrained, Lap Belted and Torso Restrained Occupants in Automobile Accidents. Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medicine Held in Oklahoma City Oklahoma 130-147. Washington D.C.: U .S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 014519. Should Buses Carry Seat Belts? 1 985 Journal of American Insurance 6 1 (3):24-28. Siegel, A W W.T. VanWagoner, and A.M. Nahum. 1969 Case Comparisons of Restrained and Nonrestrained Occupants and Related Injury Patterns. Warrenda l e Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineering, SAE 690245 Siege l A. w. et at. 1 969. I n j uries to Child i n Automobile Collisions ." SAE Proceedings 680771. Warrendale, Pennsy l vania: Society of Automotive Eng i neers. Siege l A.W. et al. 1971. Bus Coll i sion Causation and Injury Patterns ." In Proceedings of the 15th STAPP Car Crash Conference. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Soc i ety of Automotive Engineers. Simpson, H.M. 1980. Epidemiology of Children in Road Accidents (Canada). Ottawa Ontar i o Canada: T raffic I njury Research Foundation of Canada. Simpson H.M., and R.A. Warren. 1981. Seat Belts and Traffic Safety : The Canadian Experience." Proceedings of International Symposium on Occupant Restraints. Amer i can Assoc i at i on on Automotive Medicine Smith, W.S., and H. Kaufer. 1967. Lumbar Sea t Belt F r acture: An Abst r act." In Proceedings of the Prevention of Highway Injuries Symposium, 2nd Edition Ann Arbor, Michigan: Un i versity o f Mich i gan H i ghway Safety Researc h Institute. Smith, W .S., and H Kaufer. 1969 Patterns and Mechanisms of Lumbar In j uries Associated with Lap Seat Be l ts." J Bone Jt. Surg. 51A:239 Soule D. 1982 Seat Be lts on School Buses: Some Cons i derat i ons ." PTA Today 8(2 ): 13 14. Snyder, R.G. 1970 Human Impact Tolerance SAE Proceedings 700398. Warrendale, Pennsy l van i a: Soc i ety of Automotive Engineers D -XXXV

PAGE 239

Snyder, R.G. 1978. Civil Aircraft Restraint Systems, State of t h e Art Evaluation of Standards, Experimental Data and Accident Experience ." SAE Proceedings 770154. Warrendale, Pennsylvania : Society of Automotive E n ginee r s. Snyder, R.G. 1 979. General Aviation Crash Survivability." SAE Proceedings 780017. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers Snyder R.G. et a l. 1967 "A New Pattern of Spine Inj uries Associate with Lap Type Seat Belts." University of Michigan Medical Center Journal 33(May-June) Snyder, R.G. et al. 1967. Seat Belt Injuries in Impact. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Mich igan, Highway Safety Research Institute. Snyder R.G. et al. 1968. "Pathology of Trauma Attributed to Restraint Systems in Crash Impacts." Aerospace Med. 39 : 812. Snyder, E. E., and E. Spreitzer. 1 991. A Focus Group Study of Seat Belt Utilization: An Analysis of the Subjective Meanings of College Students. Washington D C .: AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety Snyder, R.G. n.d Survey of Automotive Occupant Restraint Systems: Where We' ve Been, Where We Are, and Our Current Problems. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineering, SAE 690243. Soc i ety of Automotive Engineers. 1979. "The Human Neck-Anatomy, I njury Mechanisms and Biomechanics." SAE Special Report 438. Warrenda l e, Pennsy l van i a: Society of Automotive Engineers "Spring-Supported Seats Make Comeback 1980. School Bus Fleet 25(3):15. "S t anl ey the Fr i endly School Bus is a Child Watcher." 1970. School Bus Fleet 15(4) : 16 19, 70. Stapp, J.P. 1967. 'The P robl em: B i omechanics of I njury ." The Prevention of Highway Injuries Symposium Proceedings, 2nd Ed i t i on. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of M ichigan, Highway Safety Research Institute Stapp, Col. John P and Ueut. D.l. Enfield. 1958. "Evaluat ion of the Lap-Type Automobile Safety Belt with Reference to Human Tol erance." Presented at the SAE Summer Meeting, Atlantic City New Jersey. Stapp J.P ., and A.F B Brooks. 1 961. Jolt Effects of Impact on Man D-XXXVI

PAGE 240

States, J.D. 1965. "Safety Standards for Automobiles: Past, Present and Future. Papers Presented at the 1965 Meeting of the American Association for Automotive Medicine, Rochester, Minnesota States, J.D. 1979. sott Tissue Injuries of the Neck." SAE Proceedings SP-79/438. Warrendale Pennsylvania : Society of Automotive Engineers. States, J.D. and D.J. States. 1968. "T he Pathology and Pathogenesis of Injuries Caused By Lateral Impact Accidents ." Proceedings of 12th STAPP Car Crash Conference Held in Detroit, Michigan 22-23 October, 72-93. Washington, D C : U.S Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin i stration. States, J .D. et al. n.d. The Medical Aspects of Driver Protection Systems and Devices Developed Through Automobile Racing. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: SOciety of Automotive Engineers, SAE 700660. Steckler, A.M. et al. 1969. "Seat Belt T rauma to the Lumbar Spine: An Unusual Manifestation of the Seat Belt Syndrome ." Journal of Trauma 9:508. Steed, D.K 1988. "Rear Lap Belts: Should You Wear Them?" Journal of Traffic Safety Education 36(1): 6-9, 15 Stevenson, J.H. 1979. "Severe Thoracic Intra-abdominal and Vertebral Injury Occurring in Combination in a Patient Wearing a Seat Belt." Injury 10:321. Stewart, P.T. 1966 Types, Causes and Results of School Bus Accidents. Chicago, 111inois: National Safety Council, School Transportation Section Stewart, P.T. 1967. "Let's Look at the Record on School Bus Accidents." Traffic Safety 67(10): 26-27, 35 36. Stewart, P.T. 1984. Make It Click For Safety--But Not on School Busesl" Traffic Safety 84(5). Stewart, P. 1984. ouest for Safety ." School Bus Fleet 29(3):12 -18. Stewart, P.T. 1985. "In Protecting Our School Bus Passengers--Let's Not N eglect the Needs that Transce nd the Seat-Belt Controversy! Traffic Safety 85(4). Stoke, C. B. 1984 Child Safety Seat and Safety Belt Use Among Urban Travelers: Results of the 1983 Survey. Charlottesville: Virginia Highway and T ransporta tion Research Council. D-XXXVII

PAGE 241

Stoke, C.B. 1976. Seat Belt and Shoulder Strap Use Among Urban Travelers: A Comparison of Results from 1974 and 1975 Surveys. A Report. Charlottesville: Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council Stoke, C.B. 1 976. Seat Belt and Shoulder Strap Use among Urban Travelers: A Comparison of Results from 1974 and 1975 Surveys. Prepared for the Virginia Highway and Transportat i on Research Council. Charlottesville, Virginia: The Counc il. Stoke, C. B. 1978. Seat Belt and Shoulder Strap Use among Urban Travelers : Results of the Summer 1977 Survey. Prepared for the Virginia Highway and Transportation Research Council. Charlottesville, Virginia: The Council. Sube, J. et al. 1967. Seat Belt Trauma to the Abdomen American Journal of Surgery 113:346. Swearingen, J.J. 1966. Evaluation of Head and Face Injury Potential of Current Airline Seats Dur i ng Crash Deceleration." Swearingen, J 1 967. "Biomechanics of Facial Injury I n Proceedings of the Prevention of Highway Injuries Symposium, 2nd Edition. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan, Highway Safety Research Institute. Swearingen, J J., and C.D. Wheelwright. 1962 "An Analysis of Sitting Areas and P r essures." Sweeton E.R., and G.M. Northrop. 1978. Final Design and Implementation Plan for Evaluating the Effectiveness of FMVSS 220: School Bus Rollover Protection, FMVSS 221: School Bus Body Joint Strength, and FMVSS 222: School Bus Seating and Crash Protection. Final Report Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard. Washington, D.C.: U.S Department of Transportation, DOT HS 803 394 Tarriere, C et al. 1975 "The Contribution of Physical Analysis of Accidents Towards Interpretation of Severe T raffic Trauma SAE Proceedings 751176. Warrendale, Pennsylvania : Society of Automotive Engineers. Taylo r T.F.K. et al. 1 976. "Seat Belt Fractures of the Cervica l Spine J. Bone Jt. Surg. 58: 328. "The Thomas Test Confirms Canadian Dummies 'Uninjured' as Bus Body Absorbs, Dissipates Impact Forces." 1985. School Bus Fleet 30(3) :22-25. Thomas Built Buses, Inc 1986 Thomas Built Buses Side Impact Crash Tests. High Point North Carolina: Thomas Built Buses, Inc. D-XXXVIII

PAGE 242

Thomas Bu i lt Buses Inc. 1 992. Seat Belts in School Buses. Information compiled and disseminated by Thomas Built Buses, Inc. Thomas, C. et al. 1982. "The Ma i n Causes of Risk Differences for Restrained Dr i vers and their Restra i ned Front Passenger in Frontal Collisions." In Proceedings of the 9th International Technical Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles Held in Kyoto. Thompson, A. 1989. "Child Safety in Cars: Imp l ications for Health Authorities. Journal of Traffic Medicine 17(3-4):29-35. Thornwaite, s 1990. "School Transport: Seat Belts Are Not t he Issue." Traffic Engineering and Control 31 (11): 588-89. Tidbury, S.N 1984. Future Trends in the Simulation of Crash Worthiness. Cranfie l d Institute of Technology nngvall, C. 1979. Seat Belts--Calculated Effects of 100 Percent Use of Seat Belts. 1979. Solna, Sweden: Swedish Road Safety Office. 'To Bel t or Not to Be l t. 1984. School Bus Fleet 29(2):20-29. Tetany, V.L 1982. "How Parents Can Promote School Bus Safety. PTA Today 8(2):12-13 Tolins, S.H. 1 964. "An Unusual Injury Due to the Seat Belt. Journal of Trauma 4:697. Tolonen, J and D. Kiviluoto. 1983. Road Traffic Deaths i n Finland. Journal of Traffic Medicine 11 (1 ). Tol onen, J. 1983. "Seat Be l t Wear i ng in Sever T r affic Acciden t s ." Journal of Traffic Medicine 11 (3):49-52. Tolonen J. 1983 The Effect of Seat Belts in Severe Traffic Accidents Hels inki F i nland: Central Organization for T r affic Safety. Tom, J.C. et al. 1981. Evaluation of the Comfort and Convenience of Safety Belt Systems In 1980 and 1981 Model Vehicles. Prepared for the U .S. Department of Transportat i on, Nat i onal Highway Traffic Safety Admin i stration. Washing t on, D.C.: The Admin i stration Tomlinson, T. 1972. Safety and the Yellow Bus. L os Angeles, Californ ia: Automobi l e Club of S o uthern California. Tomlinson, T. 1972 "School Bus Safety: A Less Than Pass i ng Grade? Westways 64(9): 45-47, 80. D-XXXIX

PAGE 243

Toomath, J.B. 1967. Evaluat ion of the New Zealand Compulsory Seat Belt Legislation. Wellington, New Zea l and: Traffic Research Section Road Transport Division Ministry of Transport. Torrington K., and M. Hull. 198 1 Seat Belt Wearing and Adjustment Trends: 1974-1979. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Transport, Road Transport Division. Transportation Research Board. 1989 Improving School Bus Safety Transportation Research Board Special Report No. 222 Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board Publicat i ons Off i ce. Transportation Research Board. 1989. Safety Belts, Airbags and Child Restraints. Special Rep o rt No. 224. Washington, D.C. : Transportation Research Board Publicat i ons Office. Treleaven, J. 1976 Seat Belts, the Breathalyzer and Other Motoring Topics. Guildford, England: College of Law. Trembath, R. 1988. SuNey of Restraint Availability. Trinca, G.W. 1 979. "Medical Aspects of Seat Be l t Usage ." Presented at the Internationa l Symposium on Seat Belts Tokyo, Japan. University of North Carolina. Highway Safety Research Center Child Restraint Workshop Series: Volumes I and II. Washington D.C : U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 8 02057 Ursell, C.R. 1976. A Study Relating to Seat Belts for Use In School Buses San Ant o ni o Texas: Southwest Research Institute. Ursell, C.R. 1977 A Study Relating to Seat Belts for Use in Buses. Final Report. NTIS PB264. u S Congress. House. Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations Seat Belt Safety: NHTSA Oversight. Hearing Before a Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations. 100th Congress, 2d sess i on. U.S. Government P r inting Office. U.S. Department of Transportation 1967. Study of School Bus Safety. Final Report Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportat i on. U.S Department of Transportation. 1976. Development of a Unitized School Bus. Volume Ill. Appendices. Wash i ngton, D C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 8 02 006. D-XL

PAGE 244

U.S. Department of Transportation. 19n. School Bus Vehicle Safety Report-Report of the Secreta/}' of Transportation to the United States Congress pursuant to Section 103 of the 1976 Amendments to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 802 191. U.S. Department of Transportation. n.d. Experimental Safety Vehicle Program. Volume 4: Program Plan, Test Specifications and Test Procedures. Washington, D.C.: U .S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 800 102. U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1972 Statement Before the Committee on Commerce, United States Senate, July 19, 1972, by Douglas W Toms. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. Nationa l Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1973. Child/Infant Restraint Systems and Seating. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1973. Seat/Safety Belts. Washington, D C.: U .S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Safety Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 1974. Proceedings of the National Safety Belt Usage Conference Held in Washington D.C. November 28-30 1973. Washington, D.C : U.S. Department of Tran sportat ion, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U .S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1976. Safety Belt Usage: A Review of Effectiveness Studies. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1977. School Bus Vehicle Safety Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1983 Highway Safety Act of 1966. rev ed. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 806 402. U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 1985. Safety Belts in School Buses. Washington, D.C : U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. D-Xll

PAGE 245

U.S. Department of Transportation. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Office of Rulemaking. 1991. Rear Seat Lap/Shoulder Belt Retrofit Kit: Report to Congress. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. n.d Manual to Assist U.S. Government Agencies in Conducting Safety Belt Use Programs. Prepared by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration in cooperation with the U.S. Department of labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, National H ighway Traffic Safety Administration. U.S. General Accounting Office. 1987. Motor Vehicle Safety. A Review of the NTSB Report on Rear Seat Lap Belt Effectiveness. Washington, D C.: U .S. General Accounting Office. U .S. General Accounting Office. 1989. Motor Vehicle Safety. Selected Rulemakings by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Washington, D.C.: U.S. General Accounting Office U.S. Steel. 1968 School Bus Seating for Passenger Protection and Safety. A Design Study Presented by United States Steel. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. National H i ghway Traffic Safety Administration. Vance Bib liographies. 1986. The Seat Belt Issue: A Bibliography. Monticello, Illinois. Van Dyke, J. 1981. The Lifesaving Potential of Greater Safety Belt Usage. Washington D.C.: U .S. Department of Transporta tion National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Mathematica l Analysis Division, National Center for Statistics and Analysis. VanKampen, L T.B. 1984. Presence and Use of Child Restraint Systems and Presence of Safety Belts on the Rear Seats of Passenger Cars. Leidschendam, Netherlands: Institute for Road Safety Research Varkevisser, G.A., and J.G. Arnoldus. 1991. Seat Belts in the Rear Seats of Cars. Springfield, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, R-89-12 Vehicle Equipment Safety Commission. 1973 Regulation VESC-10: Minimum Requirements for Type II School Bus Construction and Equipment. Washington, D C.: The Commission D -Xlll

PAGE 246

Vellar, I .D. et al. 1976. "Rupture of the Bowel Due To Road Trauma: The Emer gence of the Seat Belt Syndrome." Medical Journal of Australia 1:694 Ventre, P. et al. 1975. "An Objective Analysis of the Protection Offered by Active and Passive Restraint Systems." SAE Proceedings 750393. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers Viano, D.C. 1989. Relative Safety Effectiveness of Driver Airbags and Rear-Seat Lap belts. Warren, Michigan : General Motors Research Laboratories. Vilardo, F. 1972. Vehicle Damage Scale for Traffic Accident In vestigators : An Investigation of Its Use and Potential tor Predicting Driver Injury Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center. Volvo Car Corporation and Swedish Road Safety Office. 1979. Injury-Reducing Effect of Seat Belts on Rear Seat Passengers. Wagenaar, A. 1985. Remarks Made at Meeting Sponsored by U .S. Department of T ransportation and the OECD, The Effectiveness of Safety Belt Use Laws: A Multi National Examination. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Wagner, L. 1986. "Pupil Transportation in Canada." School Bus Fleet 31 (2):24-31. Waller P., and P. Barry. 1969. Seat Belts: A Comparison of Observed and Reported Use. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Waller, P.F., L.K. Li, B.J. Campbell, and M.L Herman. Safety Belts: The Uncollected Dividends. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina, Highway Safety Research Center. Walz, F. 1978 "Accident I nvestigation-Safety Belts Zeitschrift Fuer Verkehrssicherheig 24(2):75. Walz, F., and H.J Sprenger. 1980. Rear Seat Passengers in Cars." Information Verlag Verhehrsunfa/1 18(9):185-89. Walz, F.H. et al. 1978 "Severe ly and Fatally Inured Rear Seat Car Passengers (OAIS > f = 2) in Switzerland During 1976 In Proceedings of the 22nd AAAM Conference. Warner, C Y. 1973. ''Belt Occupant Restraint Effectiveness." Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the American Association tor Automotive Medicine Held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 14-17 November, 491-501. D-XLIII

PAGE 247

Warner, C.Y. 1973. "Be lt Occupant Restraint Effectiveness ." In Proceedings of the 17th AAAM Conference Held in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Warner, C.Y., G. D. Hunter, A.L. Burgett, and T.A. Hoyt. 1973. Effectiveness of Automotive Occupant Restraints. Paper presented at the National Transpo rtation engineering meeti ng, Tulsa, Oklahoma. Warner, C.Y., M.R. Withers, and R. Peterson. 1975 "Societal Priorities in Occupant Crash Protection." In Proceedings of the International Congress on Automotive Safety, 907-60. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Warner, K.E. 1982. Mandatory Passive Restraint Systems in Automobiles--Issues and Evidence. Washington, D.C .: U.S. Government Printing Office. Weber, K., and J.W. Melvin. 1987. Memorandum to Colleagues Concerned About Child Passenger safety. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan. Weltman, G. 1979. Program Evaluation Results: A Multi-attribute Utility Analysis of Program Suggestions of Special Committee to Study Methods for Increasing Safety Belt Use. Paper prepared for the Special Committee of the Transportation Research Board. Washington, D.C.: National Research Council, Transportation Research Board. Wexler, L and J. Silverman. 1970. "Traumatic Rupture of the Innominate Artery --A Seat Belt Injury." New England Journal of Medicine 21:1186. What UCLA Found Out About School Buses ." 1967. Traffic Safety (March): 14-16, 35-40. Wild, B.R. et al. 1985. "Effect of Seat Belts on Injuries to Front and Rear Seat Passengers." British Medical Journal 290:1621. Williams, A.F., and P Zador. 1977. Injuries to Children in Automobiles in Relation to Seating Location and Restraint Use : Accident Analysis and Prevention 9(1). Williams, D. 1988. "DOT Places New Emphasis on Merits of Rear Seat Belt Use." Nation's Cities Weekly 11 (36) :9. Williams, G.B. et al. 1979. Task Force Report to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Canada, on Crash Protection for Infant and Child Passengers in Motor Vehicles. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Williams, J.S., and J.R. Kirkpatrick. 1971. "The Nature of Seat Belt Injuries ." Journal of Trauma 11:207. D-XLIV

PAGE 248

Williams, J.S. et al. 1966. "The Automotive Safety Belt: In Saving a Ufe May Produce In tra Abdominal Injuries." Journal of Trauma 6:303. Willumelt, H.P. 1971. Problems Associated with Restraint Systems." Report on the Second International Conference on Experimental Safety Vehicles. Sindlefingen, West Germany. Wilson, A.A. 1970. "A Review of Vehicle Impact Testing; How I Began and What is Being Done."ln SAE Proceedings 700403. Warrendale, Pennsylvania: Society of Automotive Engineers. Wilson, W.T., LP. Lone ro and D Ish. 1973. The Seat Belt Education Project. Toronto, Ontario Canada: Ontario Ministry of Transportation ad Communications, Research and Development Division. Wilson, W.T., L.P. Lonero, and D I sh. 1975. "Increasing Seat Belt Use Through a Program Presented in Elementary Schools. In Proceedings of the 16th Conference of the American Association for Automotive Medic ine Held in New York. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Ontario Ministry of Transportation and Communications, Systems Research Branch. Witte C.L. 1968. Mesentery and Bowel Injury from Automotive Seat Belts." Ann. Surg. 167:486. Woelfel, G. F. et al. 1984. "Severe Thoracic and Abdominal Injuries Associated with Lap Harness Seat Belts." Journal of Trauma 24(2) Wojcik, C.K., and L.A. Sandes, eds. School Bus Seat Restraint and Seat Anchorage Systems. Final Report. California University, Institute of Transportation and Traffic. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, DOT HS 800 740. Woolner, A.B., ed 1972 "Teaching Children Pedestr i an Safety." Injury Control Curriculum Guide (For K-3rd Grade), 2nd Edition. Tennessee: Memphis and Shelby County Health Department. Yankelovich, Skelly, and White, Inc., 1976. A Summary Report of Driver Att itudes Toward Restraints for Greater Safety in the Operation of an Automobile. Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association. Yaw, E.E 1973. "Stopping for School Buses." Traffic Laws Commentary 1 (5). Yeager, A. 1984 "The Medical Case for Seat Belts on School Buses." School Bus Fleet 29 (3)24-27. D-XLV

PAGE 249

Young, Hugh. 1969 School Buses Safe for Children? Proceedings of the First Conference of the Canada Safety Council Held in Ottawa 5-7 May 1989 washington, D.C .: U .S. Departmen t of Transportation, DOT HS 009 279. Young, M.E 1 980 Driver Education (Citations from the NTIS Data Base). Ziegler, P.N 1977. 'The Effect of Safety Belt Usage Laws Around the Wor l d. Journal of Safety Research 9(2). Zimmerman, A.M. 1978. School Bus Occupant Retrofit Protective Materials. Vol. 2, Final Technical Report. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. Zimmerman A.M. 1979. Tests and Materials for School Bus Retrofit Applications Warrendale Pennsylvania : Society of Automotive Engineers. Zimmerman, A.M. 1980 "Test and Mater i als for Schoo l Bus Retrofit Applications ." SA Proceedings 79019 Warrendale Pennsylvania : Society of Automotive Engineers. D-XLVI