# Promoting safe school access in Brevard County, Florida

## Material Information

Title:
Promoting safe school access in Brevard County, Florida final report
Physical Description:
ix, 128, 38 p. : ill. ; 29 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Baltes, Michael R
University of South Florida -- Center for Urban Transportation Research
Publisher:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), College of Engineering, University of South Florida
Place of Publication:
Tampa, Fla
Publication Date:
Frequency:
annual

## Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Traffic safety and children -- Florida -- Brevard County   ( lcsh )
Schools -- Safety measures -- Florida -- Brevard County   ( lcsh )
Genre:
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
bibliography   ( marcgt )

## Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (p. 107-108).
Also available online.
Funding:
The conduct of this study was made possible by a research grant funded by Section 402 Safety Funds from the State Safety Office of the Florida Department of Transportation and the Brevard County Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Statement of Responsibility:
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; Michael Baltes ... et al..
General Note:
"September 1997."

## 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 - 026183881
oclc - 84849154
usfldc doi - C01-00221
usfldc handle - c1.221
System ID:
SFS0032315:00001

Full Text

PAGE 1

PROMOTING SAFE SCHOOL ACCESS IN BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA FINAL REPOR T Center for Urban Tran&portalion Research (CUTR) College of eng.ineorlng, Unlver&ity of South Florida Tampa, Florida The conduct of this study was made pos sible by a research grant funded by Section 402 Safety Funds from the State Safety Office of the Florida Depallment of Transportation and the Brevard County Metropolitan Planning Organization. SEPTEMBER 1997

PAGE 2

PAGE 3

T A BLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables .. 0 v List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Pre f ace ....... ......... . ............ . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . lx I. Introduction ..... ...... : ....... ... .... ....... .......... . . . 1 II Study O b j e c t ive . ...................... . . ....... : .......... : 2 Ill Study Ou t lin e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 IV Ana l ysis and Mapp ing of Spatial Distri b uti o n of Stud e nt A c c i d ents . . . . . . 3 V Lite ra ture Re v iew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 VI Summary of Workshops/ P resenta t ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 4 VII. R e vi e w of Field Condi t ions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 5 VIII Inter s ection and Sch o o l Bus Sto p Eva l uation Checklists . . . . . . . . . . 35 IX. S t a rt of the Deve l opment of Education, En f orcement, and Comm u nity Awa reness P rcigrams .................. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 X Conclusions and Furthe r R e commendations Re l ated to Safe S chool Access . . 59 APPENDIX A: St ate Plane NAD27 C o ordina tes for Public Schools . . . . . . . . 63 APPE N D I X B: Summary of All S t udent Accidents In Breva r d Cou n ty 1992-1996 . . . 67 APPENDIX C: Extende d Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 APPENDIX D: 'Hazardous Wa l k i n g Guidelines ( Florida Sta t ute 234.02 1 ) .' .. :. . . 1 0 1 APPEND I X E: I n stitute of Tran s po rt ation E ngineers Gu i d e lin e s for Sch o ol Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 05 APPENDIX F: Brevard County Student Acc i dent Database for 1992-1996 . . . . . 109 APPENDIX G: Leg a l I nterpre t ation o f Section 234.01, Florida Statu te s . . . . . . . 127 i i i

PAGE 4

PAGE 5

L I S T OF TABLES Table 1 S t udent Pedestrian and Bicyclis t Accident TYpes . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Tabl e 2 Six Intersections with the Highest Number of Student Pedestrian and Bicyclist Accidents in Brevard County .. .. : . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Table 3 Student Pedestrian and Bicyclist Accidents by Accident Type . . . . . 10 Table 4 Int ersection Evaluat ion Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Table 5 School Bus S top Location Evaluation Criteria . . . . . . . . . . . .. 47 Table 6 Data for all Student Accidents in Brevard County, 19921996 .... ..... : 111 v

PAGE 6

PAGE 7

LIST OF. FI. GURES Figu r e 1 Eau Galli e Boulevard and Croton Road (looking north) . . . . . . F Figure 2 Eau Gallie Boulevard and Croton Road (looking north) . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 3 Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue (looking west) . . . . . . . . . 20 Figure 4 Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue (looking south) . . . . . . . . . 21 F igure 5 Levitt Parkway and Fiske Boulevard (looking east) . . . . . . . . 24 Figure 6 Levitt Parkway and Fiske Bou levard (looking north) ....... . . . . . 24 Figure 7 Courtenay Parkway and Needle Boulevard (looking east) ....... ; . . . 27 Figure 8 Court enay Parkway and Needle Boulevard (looklng north) . . . . . . . 28 Figure 9 Barton B o ulevard and Fiske Boulevard (looking north) . . . . . . . . 31 Figure '10 Figure 11 Bougainvillea Drive and F.iske Boulevard (looking south) Bougainvillea Drive and Fiske Boulevard (looking north) vii 33 34

PAGE 8

PAGE 9

PREFACE This study examined existing conditions in Brevard County related to the safety of school-ag e ch ildren (5 to 18 years) during the commute to. and from schools and at school bus stops In order to improve the safety of students, two safety checklists were developed to improve safety during the trip to and from schools and at school bus stops. The evaluation checklists are intended to provide various local agencies within Brevard County a set of criteria with which to objectively evaluate the safety of intersections used by students and areas immediately surrounding them and the location of school bus stops that are flexible enough for county-wide as well as site-specific application. In addition t o developing the evaluation checklists, the study also begins the process of formulating the development of general education, enforcement, and community awareness activities to im prove the safety of children during the commute to and from schools and at school bus stops. The following CUTR staff assisted in the preparation of this report: Project Manager: Supporting Staff: Michael Baltes, Research Associate Dennis Hinebaugh, Transit Planning Program Manager Ed Mierzejewski Deputy Director, Engineering Joel Rey, Research Associate. Michael Pietrzyk ; ITS Program Manager Steve Polzin, Director, Institutes Martin Catala, Graduate Assistant ix

PAGE 10

PAGE 11

INTRODUCTION The safety of students during the commute to and f rom schools and at schoo l bus stops is a critical issue to many local communities. Children (especially young children) are particularly vulnerable to injury while wal king or bicyc li ng to and from schools and at school bus stops: Frequently, the school access route during the commute to and from schools requires elementary and junior high school students to negotia t e busy r.oads in sometimes non-daylight cond i tions or to wait for a school bus at a school bus s t op just a few short feet away from speeding traffic. Many access routes to schoo l s and school bus stops in Brevard County are located on major . roadways As a result, some ch i ldren routinely encounte r and have to deal with complex traffic situations. School access routes and school bus stops are generally unmarked and invisible to motorists Children waiting by the side of the roadway for their school bus are generally unsupervised, not readi l y visible, and completely unprotected. Consequently, motorists often disregard speed reductions in schoo l zones and along stopped school buses. Motorists are typically unaware of children's limitations in traffic situations and, likewise, children do not fully understand the limitations of motorists. In addition, the potentia l for severe accidents relating to school access continues to grow as urban i zat i on increases in the county. During the Past ten years the population of Brevard County has increased by 33 percent, with continued growth anticipated. Recently, a Brevard County student was killed while wal king to her school bus stop on a high speed rural road. Community reaction indicated that school-aged children are generally perceived to be at great personal risk while bicycling and walking to and from schools and school bus stops. Although Brevard County generally has been monitoring bicyclist and pedestrian accidents for . several years, specific accident data involving school-aged pedestrians and bicyclists have been . unavailable In a single format that permits extensive analysis. Until this study, a conclusive detenmination of the scope, nature, and extent of the problem had not been conducted. Consequently, the Identification and implementation of measures to improve the safety of school age children while bicycling and walking to and from schools and school bus stops has historically been on a case-by-case, often reactive, basis. 1

PAGE 12

While tf'affic engineering, education, and law enforcement professionals are sincerely concerned about the safety of school-aged children during the commute to and from schools and at schoo l bus stops, comprehensive standards and programs that would foster safer school access are not readily available for use. For example, a traffic engineer can easily lo cate engineering standards for the placement of utility poles, but safety standards for the location of schoo l bus stops have not been developed and institutionalized. Responsibility for safe school access is usually divi ded between school districts, local government traffic engineers, and law enforcement agencies These agencies are usually physically and organizationa ll y separate such that program coordination is difficult. In many locations, while there may be only one school di strict, each lo cal government will often have their own traffic engineering and l aw enforcement personnel. In Brevard County, at least 30 different local agenc i es have some jurisdictional c on trol over sch ool access within the county-wide school district. Imp roved mulli agency coordination dialogue, and understanding is necess ary to effectively, consisJently, and systematically address school access safety II STUDY OBJECTIVE The objective of this study is to i d ent i fy existing cond iti ons i n Brevard County r elated to the safety of schoo l age pedestrians and b icyc lists (5 to 18 years) during the commute to and from schools and at school bus stops. In order to Improve safety, a check list of improvements with accompanying engineering education, enforcement, and community awareness solutions are recommended to im p rove student safety during the trip to and from schools and at school bus stops in Brevard County. The study's recommendations are intended to p r ovide various local agencies within Brevard Coun t y with a set of cri te ria with whi ch to evaluate the safety of intersections used by students during the commute to and from schools and are as immediately surrounding them and the location of school bus stops that are flex i bl e enough for county-wide as well as site-speci fic application. In addition to the evaluation checklists, the study also begins the process of f o rmulating the development of general education, enforcement, and community awareness activities to im p rove schoo l access safe t y. 2

PAGE 13

Ill STUDY OUTLINE In order to meet the study's objective, nine tasks were developed as follows: Analyze and Map Spatial Distribution of Student Accidents literature Review Conduct of Workshops/Presentations Review Field Conditions at Six Highest Accident Intersections Develop Evaluation Checklists Develop Solutions to Improve Safety Evaluate Checklists at Pilot Sites start the Development of Education, Enforcement, and Community Awareness Programs Prepare Final Report The following sections describe the methodology and results for each task. IV ANALYSIS AND MAPPING OF SPATIAL DISTRIBUTION OF STUDENT ACCIDENTS The first task included determining the breadth, location, and nature of bicyclist and pedestrian accidents invo lving school-age children traveling to and from schools and/or bus stops by analyzing Florida Traffic Accident Reports (FT AR) for Brevard County between 1992 and 1996. Specifically, the FTAR were analyzed .to determine such information as when al)d where accidents invo lving . student pedestrians and bicyclists occurred and the environmental conditions and pedestrian/bicyclist/motorists action(s) that may have l ed to the occurrence of the accidents. This involved assigning each accident, when appropriate information was available from the FTAR using the diagram of the accident as well as the reporting officer's narrative of the accident, to a predetermined aCcident "type" that might have led to the occurre nce of the accident such as a student riding his/her bicycle or walking the wrong way against traffic and motorists not exercising proper care such as careless driving and failure to yield right-of-way to pedestrians in crosswalks, for example. Based, in part, on the work done by Cross and Fisher and Knoblauch et al. for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)'. 14 possible accident types were 1 Knob!.rluh. R 81'\d \'/, MGOtO. Jt,.ll. Sctmtz, a Somtnon.. hc:!ors and /Qr lf(N'al Ol!ld P$Mt/fllll AXI"d$111$. S8ftty Atrr.JnlstRtiM. \VaJ!tifl!liOII, O.C... June 1 077 .; K. V.d G. Rsl\or. A fe'tlnl\kallo.n of PAlaleJd fW$UM Nafcml Hlgh.uy Traffie S8fttt Ad.'rinltln'Scn. Y.'astillQion. O.C .. SeF(I:mbor 1W. 3

PAGE 14

. developed and a p p l ied to the s tud ent pedes tri a n and bicyclist acci de nt s in the county The acc i den t types are liste d and brie fly explained i n T able 1 TABLE 1 STUDENT PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLIST ACCIDENT TYPES A cci d ent T )'pes I 1 o.serlpUon TY90 1 I Riding bicycle 1 9 alnst ttafflc (wrong direc:Gon) T Y9" 2 along roadway-ttolfic (Wrong cir edlon) Type 3 I Motcwls.t obtc:ured (examples inc:tude shrubbert bushes pa.rQd c:ars, utl'rty poles, $urf s glare. e\c.) Type 4 I PadestrianttNcycllst n o t exercising due care (examploslnclude f a ilure to yield not heeding croWng slgnal. e1e ) Type$ [ Int o traffic ( e x amples indude darting o u t betwee n parked ears and other roadsi do obs tructions} TypeS Uniquo (not likely t o occur egain) Type7 'ntersection das" (chi l d d ashe.u nexpeete PAGE 15 Time of accidents was set equal to approximate morning (around 6:00a.m. to around 10:30 a.m.) and evening school commute times p.m. to around 6:30p. m.} . .. Day of the week was set equal to Monday throllgh Friday (Saturday and Sunday were excluded} Age of individuals involved 1n acc1aems was set equal to between 5 and 18 years of age Accident dates were set equal to only scho ol days (all holidays and observances were excluded} The use of the four criteria in narrowing down the total sa m ple of FTAR resulted In a subsample of 353 FTAR involving student pedestrians and b i cyclists in Breva r d County during the five-year period 1992 through 1996 It should be noted that the subsample of accidents contains both inforrna\lon related to accidents involving student pedestrians and bicyclists during the journey to and from schools and at school bus stops Due to limitations of the FTAR from which the student pedestrian a[ld bicyclist accident information was obtained, it was not possible to distinguish between whether student pedestrians or bicyclists were making trips to or from schools or school bus stops when the accident occurred However the extracted data do provide specific information regarding the overall trend and particular circumstances pertaining to the student pedestrian and bicyclist accidents in the county Last, each of the student pedestrian and bicyclist acci dents ana l yzed within invo l ved an accident that contained at least a single student pedestrian or b i cyclist and at least o n e moto r vehicle of some type inc l uding automobiles, motorcycles, o r light trucks, for example. As a pre r equisite for the comp le tion of an FTAR, the accident must have involved at least one motor vehicle of some type. Typically, accidents that involve two or more pedestrians or two or more bicycles absent at least one motor vehicle are not candidates for inclu sion In the F T AR. In addition to analyzing the FTAR, the spatial distribution of the student pedestrian and bicyclist I accidents in Brevard County were mapped using the street or roadway that the accident occurred on and the nearest intersecting street or roadway to the actual street or roadway that the accident occurred on as stated on the FTAR by the reporting law enforcement officer This meth o d was used to precisely locate the occurrence of all student pedestrian and bicyclist accidents in Brevard County during the five -year study period This information was also used to identify the six highest . student pedestrian and bicyclist accident intersections within the county. In addition to mapping the' student pedestrian and bicyclist accidents throughout the county, the location of all public 5 PAGE 16 elementary, junior (middle) and senior high schools were mapped using precise latitude and longitude coordinates (XY) provided to CUTR by the Brevard County Property Appraisers Office. The X-Y points were provided in the fonm of State Plane NAD27 (Florida East Zone) coo rdina tes. For reference, the XY coordinates for the public schools are included in Appendix A. The mapping of all public schools in the county was done to show the locat ion of the schools in rel ation to all of the i dentified student pedestrian and bicyclist accidents during the five-year study period. The six intersections with the highest number of student pedestrian and bicyclist accidents within the county as determined by the informat ion extracted from the subsample of FTAR are buffe ted below. During the five-year study period, data extracted from the subsample of FTAR relate that 4 of the six intersect i ons each had 5 accidents and 2 of the intersections each had 3 accidents. Table 2 lists the six intersections and provides detailed information about each of the accidents obtain ed from the subsample of FTAR that occurred at the six intersections. In addition, Appendices B and F contain a host of additional summary informatio n about all of the student accidents that occurred in the county during the fiVe-year study period. Eau Ga llie Boulevard and Croton Road 5 accidents Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue 5 acc id ents Levitt Parkway and Fiske Boulevard 5 accidents Courtenay Parkway and Need le Boulevard 5 accidents Barton Boulevard and Fiske Boulevard 3 accidents Fiske Boulevard and Bougainvillea Drive 3 accidents A detailed summary of field observations made at each of the six high accident intersections as well as other particular circumstances surrounding the accidents at these intersections such as time of day, day of the week, and age and gender of the student pedestrians and bicyclists inv olved in the accidents are elaborated on in following paragraphs. 6 PAGE 17 C lass Bicycle Bicycle Bicycle Bicycle Bicyc l e Clas:s TABLE2 SIX I NTERSECTIONS WITH THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF STUDENT PEDEST R IAN AND BICYCL:IST ACCIDENTS IN BREVARD COUNTY,1992 . . . Eau Galllo Boulevard a!)d Croton Road (5 acc-ldcnlS) C i ty Date Day Time Age < 14.4) Gonder Accident Type 2 Me l bourne 09130/92 Wednesday 7:02a.m. 12 F e mal e 10 Me l bou r ne 10/01192 Th u rsday 6:40a.m 14 M a te 4 Melbourne 10105192 Monday 10:31 a .m. 12 Male 4 Melbourne 09103196 Tuosday 9:05a.m. 16 Male 10 Melbourne 12111196 We d nesday 6:46a.m 18 Male 10 Dairy Road and Singleto!l Avenue {5 aceidonts) City Date I Day Time Age {X= 12) Gender A ccident Typo Pedestrian Titus.viUe 04/QS/92 I Wednesday 3:40p.m. 14 Female 5 Trlusville 11117192 'T uesday 2:40p.m. 13 M ale 9 Pedestrian Tstvsville 02101193 Monday 7:10a m 11 Female 4 B icycl e Titusville 12105194 Monday 2:29p m. 13 Male 5 B icycl e Titu sville 1 1103/95 Friday 3:30p.m. 9 MOlle 3 Levitt Parkway and Fiske Bou levar d (5 aeclde!ltS) -Class City Date Day Time Age ( 0 8) Gonder Accldenl Type Bicyckt Rockledge 04/21/94 Thursday 7:56a. m. 11 Female 10 B i cycle Rockledge 03117195 FMay 2 :40p.m. 11 Femal e 4 Bicycle Rockledge 06101/95 Thursday 7:56a.m. 8 Male 10 Bicyc l e Rod< ledge 03121196 Thursday 6:26p.m. 12 Male 4 llicycle Rockledge 08130/96 Friday 2:56p m 12 Fema le 10 .. Class City Parkway and Needle Boulevard {S ac ciderit s) I Date Day nme Age ( .2) : Gondor Accident Type B i cycle Mer r i tt I s land 1 01103192 Friday 4:15p.m. 12 Femal e 10 .... B i cycle .. Mer r i tt I sland 03111/93 T hursday 3:15p m. 8 4 .... Bicycle Merritt lsland 01111/95 Wed n esday 7 :30a.m. 11 Female 10 Morfitt ls land 02106195 Monday 3:50p.m. 13 M a le 10 Bicycfe Me rri tt Island 1 11/Ga/96 Friday 7:00a.m. 12 Fe m ale 5 Barton aoulcv:trd and Fiske Boulevard (3 accidents) .. Class City Date Day Time Age ( = 13 .3) Gender Accident Typo. B i cycle Rockledge 09109/92 Wednesday 3:13p.m 13 Femal e 4 61cycl c Rockledge 08125/94 Th ursday 7:07a.m. 12 Femal e 4 Bicyc l e Rod PAGE 18 accidents occurred that involved student pedestrians and bicyclists age 5 to 18 years. Of these accidents, 264 or about 75 percent of the accidents involved student bicyclists and 89 or 25 percent invo lved student pedestrians. About three-quarters (192 accidents) of all student bicyclist accidents . involved students between the ages of 8 and 14 years with students age 14 having the highest accident Involvement. Conversely, the age oflhe students involved in pedestrian-related accidents was spread more evenly across the 14 different possible age cohorts. The data show that student pedestrians age 14 years were also involved in the greatest number of accidents. The mean age for all student bicyclists involved in accidents was 11.7 years of age and the mean age for all student pedestrians involved in accidents was 11. 8 years of age during the five-year study period. In addition to the age of the student bicyclists and pedestrians involved in accidents, the FTAR in the subsample provided a host of additional information about the student bicyclists and pedestrians as well as other surrounding conditions at the time of the accidents, as follows: no physica l roadway defects or improperly functioning signal control device(s) were detected in 98.3 percent of the student bicyclist accidents and in 99 percent of the student pedestrian accidents that could have l ead to the accidents as n oted by the attending law enforcement officer who completed the FTAR in 53 percent of student pedestrian accidents and in about 33 percent of the student bicyclist accidents no type of traffic signal control was present at the location of the accident twenty-three (23) percent of the student bicyclist accidents and 29 percent of student pedestrian accidents occurred in an area designated as a school zone about 27 percent of the student bicyclist accidents and about 4 percent of the student pedestrian accidents occurred at an intersection controlled with a stop sign about70 percent of all student accidents (includes bicyclists and pedestrians) occurred in the afternoon during the trip home from school and school bus stops the highest frequency of student bicyclist accidents occurred on a Wednesday and the highest frequency of student pedestrian accidents occurred on a Monday the month of November accounted for the highest number of student bicyclist accidents and total accidents and the month of February accounted for highest number of student pedestrian accidents during the five-year study period in the majority of both student bicyclist and pedestrian accidents, the student's point-of-impact was eithe r the front right or left fenders or the fron t of vehicles 8 PAGE 19 both student bicyclists and pedestrians were most l ikely to suffer a non-incapacitating injury as a result of the accidents the majority of student bicyclist and pedestrian acc i dents occur r ed when it was daylight on a clear and sunny afternoon both the majority of student b i cyclist and ped e strian acc i dents occurred in prim a rily residential areas as opposed to areas defined as primari l y business both student bicycl ist and pedestrian accidents were most likely to occur on a dry, paved, local, two-lane roadway with a posted speed of 25 mph the majority of student bicyclists and pedestrians involved in accidents were males Table 3 summarizes the student accidents by accident type and a l so shows the corresponding percentage by accident type. As the table shows the most prevalent causes for both the student bicyclist and pedestrian accidents were directly attribut a b l e to some type of an action by the students. Information from the FTAR indicate that about 63 percent of the student bicyclist aCcidents and about 72 percent of the student pedestrian accidents were the direct result of an action by a student. The most common actions that l ed to accident s on thE! part of both st u dent . . bicyclists and pedestrians were the result of their not exercising proper care includ i ng not crossing at a signalized intersection, not heeding "DON'T WALK" signal when cross ing at a controlled intersection failure to yield right-of-way, failure to stop at inters e ctions, standing o r p l aying In the. road darting out into t r affic between parked cars ; and rid ing a bicyc l e o r wa l k i ng the wrong way agai n s t tra ffic when navigating the journey to or from sctiools or school bus stops. The FT AR in the sample also reflect the fact that about 27 percent of the student bicyclist and about 19 percent of the student pedest r ian accidents were the resul t of an action by motorists such as not exercising due care including failure to y i eld right-of-way (encroach ment into bike lanes and pedestrian crosswalks), Improperly changing lanes, improper turning movements {both left and righ,t . turns), careless driving such as speeding and swerving and backing either out of a parking space or private drive. The remaining student biqtclist and pedestrian accidents that were determined to b e related in some way to motorists Included motorists' vision being obscured by r oadside obst r uctions such as trees, bushes, and utility poles and motorists misinterpreting the student. bicyclist's or pedestrian's inte ntions. 9 PAGE 20 Last, ab o ut four percent of the rema ining student pedestrian and bicyc list accidents were determined to be the r esult of inclement weather conditions unique circumstances t hat are not likely to occur again ( in o ne instance, a student was hit by a riding lawnmow e r) and no improper ac t ions on the part of any part ies involved in the accidents. TABLE 3 STUDENT PEDESTRIAN AND BIC YCLIST ACCIDENTS BY ACCIDENT TYPE Accid ent Typtsc D&scriptlon Percentage Type 1 Riding bicyde traffic (wrong direction) 1 4 .9% Type2 Walking along roadway with traffic (wrong d i r ection) 1.3% Ty pe3 Motorist view obscured (example-s include shrubbery, bushes. p.arl PAGE 21 way to pedestrians in crosswalks, for example. The results also show that these particular traffic offenses need to be enforced within a certain distanc e schools (usually within a half of a mile), . p articu larl y elementary and junior/middle schools. Based on the information extracted f r om the FTAR, there appe11rs to be a need to instrucUtrain student bicyclists and pedestrians how to navigate the trip to/from school or school bus stops with confidence and awareness, particularly in complex env ironm ents/settings along high traffic volume roadways and at busy and complex intersections. V LITERATURE REVIEW This section summarizes the results from a comprehensive review of literature relating to student pedestrian and bicyclist safety. In order to uncover re levan t IHerature a search of the Transportation Research Information Servic es (TRIS) database as well as a host of Information about student safety was obtained from Internet searches using some of the common Internet search engines such as Excite, Alta Vista, Lycos, lnfoSeek, and Yahoo. During the Internet searches key words such as "student safety," "child safety," "safe school access," "hazardous walking," "schoofbus stop," "pedestrian," "bicyclist," "bicycle" were used io identify relevant sites The amount of literature obtained from both the TR IS and Internet searches is voluminous and any attempt to summarize all of the Information uncovered in this se ction of the study goes well b ey ond the Intent of the literature revi ew. Nevertheless, some of the Information uncovered and summarized includes highly acadl;)mic articles in such journals as Transportation Research Records, Human Factors, Traffic Engineering and Control; federal, state, and lo cal government studies; safety materials from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NH"f:SA; and information on the Internet from such organizations as National Safe KIDS Campaign. The articles, . re p orts, and Internet sites were selected for summarization on the basis of how well they relate to the issue at hand, namely student safety during the commute to and from schools and school bus stops in the county. In addition, due to the ever changing nature ofjhe Internet, some of the sites referenced and summarized in the literature review may no longer be available at the time of reading. Last, due to the voluminous nature of the information gathered as part of the literature review, this section only provides a summary of selected literature. Appendix C contains the . extended literature review absent the following .literature. 11 PAGE 22 According to Safe Kids Are No Accident, a report published by the National Safe KIDS Campaign, children between the ages of 6 and 12 years are at the greatest risk for bike accidents and a head injury is the most serious outcome of an accident. The report points out that accident statistics show that in excess of 350,000 children end up In hospital emergency rooms each year as a result of b ic ycle-related injuties In add ition, the report offers the fo llowing suggestions to help keep children safe while they ride to and from schoo l in Brevard County: Be sure last year's bike fits this child. A boy should be able to straddle the bike with one inch of clearance above the top when feet are flat on the ground. A girl should be able to sit comfortably on the seat with one leg straight and her foot on the ground. Make su r e that the bike is working properly. Inspect brakes, pedals, handlebars. and . reflectors. Tighten the frame's nuts and bolts. Inflate the tires to the proper pressure. Replace parts that are missing, broken or wom out. Be sure child ren always wear a bike helmet. Wearing helmets can save children from serious head injuries. Helmets must be readjusted each year to be sure they fit comfortably and do not move around on the child's head. Younger children should be restricted to r iding on sidewalks paths, and driveways until parents are sure they ride well and observe basic rules of the road. This usually occurs around age nine. Older children should be taught to follow the basic rules of the road Tell. them to stop before riding out into traffic from a driveway, sidewalk, alley, or parking lot. Remind them to look to the left and the right, and then look left again. When there is no traffic, they can enter the roadway. Tell them to ride on the right side of the road with the flow of traffic They must obey all stop signs and red lights and walk the bicycle through busy Intersections. When making a left tum, they should look back and yield to traffic coming from behind They should never assume that other drivers can see them even though they can see the other drivers The report continues by illustrating the many ways that the above information can be used in a safety program for children. For example, a short article on bike safety could be included in school newsletters to students/parents or students could be taken on a field trip to a local bicycle repair 12 PAGE 23 shop to learn how to get their bikes ready for the new school year. Also, the report notes that children should check their helmets and their bike for safety factors. Include police and sheriffs departments In the safety programs to help conduct bicycle clinics when safety is the primari objective. Last, children could b e encouraged to prepare a skit about the importance .of wearing helmets when riding their bikes or the rules of the road. At their Internet site (http://www.safekids.org/) the National Safe KIDS Campaign points out that head injury is the lead ing cause of death in bicycle accidents and is the most important determinant of bicycle-related death and permanent disability. II states that head injuries account for more than 60 percent of bicycle-related deaths, more than two-thirds of bicycle-related hospital admissio ns, and about one-third of hospital emergency room treated bicycling Injur i es The single most effective safety device available to reduce head injury and death from bicycle accidents is a bicycle helmet. Helm e t use is associated with a redu c tion in the risk of bicycle'related death and injury and a . reduction in the severity of head injury when an accident occurs. Unfortunately, .it is estimated that only 15 percent of children ages 14 and under wear a helmet when riding a bicycle. -Helme t usage is lowes t for all age groups, among children ages 11 to 14 (11 percent usage). Bicycle education programs and mandatory bicycle helmet legislation a re effective at in creasing helmet use and, therefore, reducing b icy cle-re lated death and Injury. The National Safe KIDS Campaign Internet site offers the following accid ent statistics involving student bicyclisis and the effectiveness of using bicycle helmets among other information: It is estimated that collisions with motor vehicles account for 90 percent of all bicyc le-rel ated deaths and 10 percent of all nonfatal bicycle-related injuries Collision with a motor vehicle increases the risk of death, severity of injury and the probability of sustaining a head injury. Nearly 60 percent of all childhood bicycle-related deaths occur on minor roads. The typlca! bicycle/motor vehicle acpldent occurs within one mile of the bicyclist's home. Children ag es 14 and under are more likely to be injured riding in non-daylight hours (e.g:, at dawn, dusk, or ni gh t). The risk of sustaining an injury in non-day lig ht conditions is nearly four times greater than riding during the daytime Among children ages 14 and under, more than 80 percent of bicycle-related fatalities are associated with the bicyclist's behavior, primarily "failure to yield right of way" and "riding/walking with or against traffic." 13 PAGE 24 Children ages 14 and under are five times more likely to be injured in a bicycle-related accident than older riders. Children between the ages of 5 and 14 represent 36 percent of all b i cycle riders, yet have a death rate more than two times the death rate of all other bicycle riders and account for nearly 70 percent of all nonfatal injuries. Males account for approximately 85 percent of bicycle-related deaths and 70 percent of nonfatal injuries and have higher bicycle-related death and injury rates than females. Males ages 10 to 14 have the highest death rate from bicycle-related head in jury of all ages. Younger children, under age 10, are more likely to suffer head injur ies than older riders. Approximately half of a ll bicycle-related injuries among children under age 10 occur to the head/face, compared to one-fifth among older children. Children are more likely to wear a bicycle helmet if riding with others (peers or adults) who are also wearing one and less likely to wear one if their companions are not. Various studies have shown bicycle helmet legislation to be effective at increa sing bicycle helmet use and redu cing bicycle-related death and injury among children covered under the law. VI SUMMARY OF WORKSHOPS/PRESENTATIONS Several workshops/presentations were conducted to present findings about the study to attendees and to solicit recommendations about the direction of the study from them as well. The first workshop was held on J uly 16. 1997, and involved mainly members fro m the loca l Community Traffic Safety T eam (CTST) (a representative from the State Safety Office was also present at this workshop). The CTST is composed of a variety of individuals ranging from local law enforcement, the MPO, local fire departments, and Emergency Medical Technician services. During the workshop, a presentation was made to members of the CTST by a CUTR staff member. The presentation consisted of showing a short video tape as well as a host of slides taken at the six intersections illustrating typical student and motorist behavior as well as intersection safety deficiencies and discussing detailed information extracted from the subsample of353 FTAR such as the gender and age of the students involved In the accidents. A short question and answer period followed the presentation. No specific recommendations concerning project direction were made by the CTST. All CTST members appeared to b e encouraged by the progress and findings of the study. 14 PAGE 25 The second pres en tation was made to the Metropolitan Planning Organization Citizens Advisory Commtttee (MPOCAC) and Metropolitan Planning Technical Advisory Committee : (MPOTAC) on September 8, 1997. The short presentation to both committees consisted of showing summary information from the study such as the six high student accident Intersections and the education, enforcement, and community awa renes s efforts detailed in the study to improve the safety of children during the school commute in the county. A short question and answer period followed the presentation. No specific recommendations concerning project direction were . made by members of either committee. As was the case in the firSt presentation to the CTST, all committee members appeared to be encour aged by the progress and findings from the stUdY The third and last presentation was schedu led to be given to the Brevard Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) during the morning of September 10, 1997. Due to scheduling conflicts of a number of MPO committee members caused by the meeting running longer than anticipated, several members had to leave the meeting prio r to the presen t ation which caused a quorum of voting committe e members to be los t. The remai n ing committee members felt that due to the importance of the information being presented, the CUTR member making the presentation should reschedule the presentation for the MPO's next meeting in October 1997. Unfortunately, according to the study's grant, the final report is due September 30, 1997, and as a result, a summary of the last presentation could not be included in the final report. VII REVIEW OF FIELD CONDITIONS This sectlol) summarizes the field observations made at the six intersections within the county that were identified as having the highest frequency of student b icyclist and pedestrian accidents. The six high acident Intersections were identified previously in T able 2. In addition to recording the conditions at the six intersections, each Intersection was videotaped and extensively photographed during the observation periods. Observations were conducted at each of the six intersections for between one and two hours on Tuesday, May 13, and Wednesday, May 14, 1997. The intersections of Fiske Boulevard/levitt Parkway, Fiske Boulevard/Bougainvillea Drive, and Fiske Boulevard!Barton Boulevard were observed during the morning school commute and the intersection of Dairy Road!Singleton Avenue was observed during the afternoon commute home from school on the Tuesday. On the Wednesday, the intersection of Eau Gallie Boulevard/Croton 1 5 PAGE 26 Road was observed during the morning school commute and the intersection of Courtenay Parkway/Needle Boulevard was observed during the afternoon commute home from school. During the six site visits, typical conditions were observed and recorded at each Intersection including any existing operational and/or physical conditions of the roadways that create obvious hazards to students and normal student pedestrian and bicycl ist and motorist behavior that create conflicts and/or hazardous situations at and in close proximity to the intersections. The following summarizes the observations made at each of the six h igh accident intersections. The intersections are described below and are liste d in no particular order. Intersection 1: Eau Gallie Boulevard and Croton Road Located in the city of Melbourne, the intersection of Eau Gallie Boulevard/Croton Road is a very wide and heavily used chann elized four-way signalized intersection with a contro ll ed crossing and signalized left tum lanes at each of the intersection's four legs The crosswalk at each leg is denoted by white 90' longitudinal lines. In addition t o the controlled crossings extensive signage including flashing beacon reduce speed signs and yellow pedestrian cross ing warning signs have been placed adjacent to the edge of the outer travel lanes and prior to each crosswalk t hat warn oncoming traffic of the c rossing Pole mounted signs restricting right turns on red when students are present during the morning and afternoon school commute periods have a l so been placed prior to each intersection's crosswalk Also, two cross ing guards assist students at the intersection during both the morning and afternoon schoo l commute pe ri od s. In addition to the extensive signage and other treatments to increase student safety such as barricades/railings placed at each pedestrian push button area to keep students out of the roadway prior to crossing, the intersection is also marked as a SCHOOL ZONE. Both Croton Road and Eau Gallie Boulevard have sidewalks paralleling both sides of each roadway that provide students from all directions safe access to the intersection and to Croton Elementary and Johnson Junior High schools. Neither Croton Road nor Eau Gallie Boulevard has bicycle lanes As noted, observation of this intersection was conducted during the morning school commute of Wednesday, May 14, 1997, and lasted for about two hours. Figures 1 and 2 show the intersection of Eau Gallie Boulevard and Cro t on Road 16 PAGE 27 Observations revealed that the intersection is heavily used by students who attend Croton Elementary and Johnson Junior High schoois The Intersection also provides access to Eau Gallie High School. However, no high school student pedest r ians or bicyclists were observed using the intersection during the observation period. The intersection is located just a few hundred feet south of the elementary school; about three quarters of a mile south of the junior high school, and about a quarter of a mile west of t he high school. The intersection was observed to have large numbers of student pedestrian and bicyclist traffic traveli ng through the intersection to access bo.th the elementary and junior high schools. Most of the student traffic was observed to' access the intersection from the south on Croton Road and from residential neighborhoods (Leewood Forest and Orange Creek) just north of the inte rsect ion on t h e west side of Croton Road and just across . from the elementary school. These particular students were observed walking/riding bikes south along the sidewalk to t h e inter section and then crossing Croton Road east to access the elementary and junior high schools. During the observation period, no students were observed crossing at a point other than at the controlled crosswalks. FIGURE 1 EAU GALLIE BOULEVARD AND CROTON ROAD (looking north) Observation of the intersection reveals that i t operates very well despite the heavy student usage and high traffic volumes during the morning school commute period. Few obvious potential conflicts were observed inclu ding traffic not heeding the right turn movement restrictions during 17 PAGE 28 school eommute periods (traffic often ignores painted STOP lines and e ither partially or completely bl o cks crosswa l ks). high speed eastbound and westbound through traffic on E au Gallle Boulevard, high speed right turn i ng traffic off of Eau Gallie Boulevard, and the limited area for platoon ing students at the southeast corner pedestrian push button area due t o restricted right-of-way causing some students to stand in the roadway o r extend their bicycles into the roadway which encroaches upon right turning movements. The two crossing guards are very helpful at attenuating most of the potential serious hazards to students. Interestingly, both crossing guards find it necessary to station themselves at t h e northeast pedes tr ian push b utton area. In addition. in some instances left turning traffic was observed speed i ng through the intersection during "sta le" yellow l ights (just prior to turning red) to avoid waiting another entire light cycle. Thi s left turning traffic may be paying more attention to avoiding another ligh t cycle than to students who may potentially be crossing in the crosswalks. FIGURE 2 EAU GALLIE BOULEVARD AND CROTON ROAD (looking nortll) Intersection 2: Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue The intersection of Da iry Road/Singleton Avenue is a signalized f our-way intersection with controlled pedestrian crossings at the west and north approach legs. The intersection is located in the city of Titusville A t the Intersection bot h Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue are two-lane 18 PAGE 29 roadways. Onl y the north leg of the intersection has channelized left and right tum lanes for traffic traveling south on Singlet o n Avenue wishing !o turn left o r right onto Dairy Road The crosswalks .. : 1 at the west and north approach legs are distinguished by white go longitudinal lines. STOP lines are painted on the approach l anes prior to the crosswa l ks. The intersection s four legs are marked as SCHOOL ZONE S and require traffic to slow during jhe morning and a ft e r noon school commute periods (flashing beacon reduce speed signals have been placed at the poi nt of the painted SCHOOL ZONE marking on the Intersection's west leg near the middle and e l ementary schools) Pole mounted y ellow pedestrian warning signs have been p l aced adjac e nt to the edge o f the outer travel l anes of each leg and prior to each crosswa l k that warn oncoming traffic of the pot e ntia l conflict involving student pedestrians and bicyclists in the crosswalk. During both the morning and afternoon school commute peri ods a crossing guard assists students with crossing at the i ntersection During observation of the intersection, the cross i n g guard was posit io ned a t the northwest pedestrian push button area direct l y between the two crosswa l ks Dairy Road has sidewalks that extend west along the eastbouni:l travel l ane bey o nd both Madison Middle School and Oak Park Elementary and extend west parallel to the westbound travel lane beyohd Dairy Road Plaza shopping c e nter This particu lar sid ewalk provides access t o and f rom residential neighborhoods such as County Estates. Singleton Avenue has sidewalks that extend northward a l ong the northbound traff i c lane beyond Dairy Road P l aza shopping center and extend south along the southbound trave l lane that also provides aceess to and from residential neighborhoods These neighborhoods include Titus Woods and Westw o od Villas Due t o limited right-of-way, neithe r Dairy Road nor Sin gleton Avenue has bicycle lanes As noted, observat i on of this intersect i on was conducted during the afternoon commute from school on Tuesday, May 13, 1997, an d lasted just ove r two hours. Figures 3 and 4 illustrate the intersection of Dairy Road and Singleton Avenue. Observat io n s revealed that the intersection is used prima r ily by students who attend MadiSOIJ M i ddle School and Oak Park Elementary. The Intersection is l o cated about a fifth of a mile eas t of both the middle and elementary schools The schools are located in very clo se proximity to one another on Dairy Road just to the west of the intersection. To a l esser extent, the intersect i on also prov i des access to Astr onaut High School which is located over a mile west of the intersection off of Dairy Road on War E a gle Boulevard. No high s choo l student pedestrians or bicyclists were observed using the intersection during the observation period. However, several high school students wer e observed us i ng the i ntersection while driving in their automobiles The intersection 19 PAGE 30 was observed to have high volumes of both student pedestrians and bicyclists from the two lower grade schools during the commute home from schoo l During the commute home from school, these students were observed to p r imarily access the intersection in an easterly direction using the sidewa lk that parallels the eastbound travel lane of Dairy Road. The release time for the middle school is 2:20p.m., 3:30p.m. for the elementary school, and 2:05p.m for the high school. Once the schools release their students observations revea l that use of the intersection by students from the two lower grade schools l asts for about 20 m i n u tes each and the students from the two schools tend to access the intersect ion in large groups FIGURE 3 DAIRY ROAD ANO SINGLETON AVENUE (looking west) The potential hazards observed at the intersection are: students d i splaying hazardous behavior by walking and riding bicycles between queued traffip in Dairy Road travel lanes prior to the crosswalk with almost total disregard for traffic students displ aying hazardous behavio r by walking and riding bicycles between queued traffic in Singleton Avenue travel lanes just prior (north) of the crosswa lk with total disregard for traffic during the 20 minutes or so that each schoo l' s students were using the intersection, they tended to be bunched in groups of two or more causing excessive p la tooning and overcrowding at the southwest and northwest pedestrian push button a r eas with the problem being particularly pronounced at the southwest pedestrian push button area 20 PAGE 31 f\GU. RE 4 DAIRY ROAD AND SINGLETON AVENUE (looking south) excessive wait time for WALK signals cont r ib utes to student platooning and overcrowd ing as a result of the del ay caused by the long walt for WALK signals, students tend to cross at points other t han at the contro lle d crosswalks some students disreg arded instruct io n by the crossing guard some students observed using c ro sswalks even when the DON'T WALK signal Is activated putting t hem into the direct pa th of oncoming t raffi c the permitted left turning movements at the intersection's west (t r affic continuing north on Singlet o n Avenue) and south (traffic con tinui ng west on Dairy Road) legs are impeded by oncoming traffic causing left turn ing traffic to "dash" through the intersection when gaps appear. This causes left turning traffic to pay more attention t o f i nding a suitab l e gap between oncoming vehicles than to students who may be in the crosswalks similar to left turning traffic righ t t urning traffic at the intersection's n orth (traffic !)Ontinuing on Dairy Road) and west (t raffic continuing south on Singleton Avenue) legs are also impeded by oncoming traffic necessitating that right turning traffic "d ash" when gaps appear possibly causing tra!tic to pay more attention to finding a suitable gap than to students In the crosswalks right turning traffic disregards the STOP l in es at the intersection's north and west approach legs and pulls comp l etely or. partia ll y into the crosswalk to view oncoming traffic and minimize right turning movement delay PAGE 32 traffic approaching the crosswalk from the east on Dairy Road uses part and, in some instances, all of the southwest pedestrian push button area extension sidewalk as a right turn lane when left turning traffic is partially blocking their movement. This behavior was observed to occur due to the absence of some type of separation between the pedestrian push button area and ihe eastbound approach leg such as a barrier curb or other treatment that would prohibit traffic from using the sidewalk extension area traffic traveling northbound on Singleton Avenue prior to the intersection's south leg veer to the right of left turning traffic that is partially blocking the intersection to continue northbound on Singleton Avenue causing a potential conflict with students who may be walking/riding in the intersection's north leg crosswalk who may not anticipate the oncoming vehicle or vehicles pedestrian WALK actuation push buttons and pedestrian actuated signal signs on pedestrian signal head poles are in poor condition and unreadable students use access/egress driveways prior to and after the controlled crosswalks as points to cross particularly at the convenience store (northwest co r ner of intersection) driveways that border both roadways. Traffic was observed not coming to a complete slop before egressing the convenience store and tire center which is located at the intersection's southwest comer insufficient space at southwest pedestrian push button area causes students to partially/fully stand in and extend bicycles into the roadway (Dairy Road) when waiting to use the crosswalk as a result of long wait and overcrowding at southwest pedestrian push button area, students cross at points along Dairy Road, often just prior to the crosswalk (within 50 feet of the crosswalk) between queued eastbound traffic and into the path of oncoming westbound Dairy Road traffic pedestrian signal head located at the southwest pedestrian push button area is partially covered by tree branches which obstructs both student and motorist vision of the signal head pedestrian wait areas are poorly maintained at the southwest and northwest pedestrian push button areas. Specifically, the sidewalks surrounding the intersection are in poor condition Overall, the intersection itself was found to have numerous deficiencies such as poor maintenance inadequate space at pedestrian push button areas for platooning students, questionable signal timing, sight obstructions blocking view of pedestrian signal head (southwest pedestrian signal), and numerous access/egress driveways that could cause potential conflicts between vehicles and students During the observation period, when asked about the intersection, many students commented that they do not trust the controlled crosswa l ks and that it was better for them to cross 22 PAGE 33 at points other than the two controlled crosswalks using their own judgement. They felt that the . same level of risk exists whether they cross at the crosswalks or not. For these and other reasons, .. , numerous students were observed displaying hazardous behavior such as crossing between queued traffic at points other than the controlled crosswalks which further heightens the need to improve student safety at and near the Intersection via a variety of countermeasures including education of students a nd rethinking the intersection's design and phasing of the traffic and pedestrian control devices. It was commun i cated to CUTR by a staff member of the Metropolitan Planning Commission (MPO) that this particular Intersection has been listed as a priority intersection for redesign and other treatments for several years that will make it safer for students during the morning and afternoon school commutes. Intersection 3: Levitt Parkway and Fiske Boulevard Located in the city of Rockledge, the intersection of Levitt Parkway/Fiske Boulevard is an unslgnallzed and channeliz ed 'T' intersection. A divisional island thatseparqtes the Levitt Parkway travel lanes is located at the terminus (stem of the "T" intersection) of Levitt Parkway. The only traffic control device at the intersection is a STOP sign located at ihe tennlnUS Of the westbound approach lane of Levitt Parkway where It meets Fiske Boulevard. The STOP sign controls access to the northbound and southbound travel lanes of Fiske Boulevard for traffic turning left or right onto Fiske Boulevard from Levitt Parkway. The lone crosswalk is denoted by white 90 1ongitudinallines and exists on Levitt Parkway at the Intersection just to the west of the divisional island. A STOP line (set back quite a distance from the crosswalk) is painted on the approach lane prior to the crosswalk on Levitt Parkway. As noted, other than the single STOP sign, no other traffic control devices are placed at the Intersection. Observation of this Intersection was conducted during the morning school commute on Tuesday, May 13, 1997, and lasted just over one hour. . At the intersecting point of the two roadways, Levitt Parkway is a low volume east-west two-lane roadway that provides access to a dense residential neighborhood aptly named Levitt Pari<. Levitt Parkway has a lone sidewalk that borders the westbound approach lane. Fiske Boulevard is a major five-lane roadway (with a two-way center left-tum lane for use at all times ofthe day} that has heavy and high speed n,orthbound and southbound traffic in both the morning and afternoon school commute periods. Fiske Boulevard has narrow "silent" bicycle lanes (unmarked with either signs or pavement markings) at the outer edge of both the northbound and southbound travel lanes and 23 PAGE 34 narrow sidewalks p a rall el to the r oadway that extend north and south past Hans ChristianAndersen Elementa!'Y and John F. Kennedy Midd l e schoo l s : Figu res 5 and 6 show the intersection of Levitt Parkway and Fiske Boulevard. FIGURE 5 LEVITT PARKWAY AND FISKE BOULEVARD (looking cast) FIGURE 6 LEVITT PARKWAY AND FISKE BOULEVARD (looking north) 24 PAGE 35 Observations revealed that the intersection is used primarily by students who attend Hans Christian Andersen Elementary and John F. Kennedy The intersection is located about half ... .. . .. " 'I' of a mile north of the elementary schoo l and about the same distance south of the middle school. The intersection wa. s observed to have numerous student pedestrians and bicyclists traveling southbound on the sidewalk through the Intersection para ll el to the northbound trave l l ane of Fiske Boulevard to gain access the elementary school. In addit ion, several student pedestrians and bicyclists were observed traveling n o rthbound o n the sidewalk through the intersection parallel to the northbound travel lane of Fiske Boulevard to access the middle school. The students primarily came from the residential nei ghborhoods of Lev itt Park, Davis Court, P i neland Park, Timbers West, and St. Michel Village . Despite the high number of student bicyclist and pedestrian accidents at the intersection during the study period, it operates we ll despite the high traffic volumes in the morning peak on Fiske Boulevard and the somewhat large number of student pedestrians and bicyclists using it during the morning school commute. The potential conf l icts o b served at the intersect i on inc l ude: students displaying hazardous behavior by walking and riding bicycles between queued traff i c . at the crosswalk and prior to the crosswa l k in Levitt Parkway travel lanes w ith seeming d i s r egard for traffic students walking and riding bicycles westbound on Lev i tt Parkway towards the intersection often use Levitt Parkway travel lanes (some use the grass) due to the presence of a very narrow sidewalk that borders the westb o und a p proach lane of Levitt Parkway traffi c turning both left and right from Levitt Parkway onto Fiske Boulevard ignore the STOP line and pull completely or part i ally into the crosswalk to view oncoming traffic traffic turning both left and right from Levitt Parkway onto F i ske Boulevard watch for gaps in the . . . Fiske Boulevard north and southbound traffic streams and as a result, are less attentive to . .. students in the crossing due to the high speeds and high traffic volume on Fiske Boulevard, traffic turning both left and . right from Levitt Parkway onto Fiske Boulevard have difficulty at times fincling gaps in the Fiske Boulevard traffic stream and become impatient. For this re a son, the second and third cars in the turning queues were observed not coming to a complete stop on Levitt Parkway when a ga)) appears for fear they will have additi o nal delay should they fail to make the gap 25 . PAGE 36 anticipation of failing to make the gap causes traffic turning both left and right onto Fiske Boulevard from Levitt Parkway to "dash" for the gaps at relat ively high speeds In addition several students were observed not making the best use of the "silent" b icycle lanes (unmarked with either s ign s or pavement markings) on Fiske Boulevard between the intersection and Aliderse n Elementary. A few students were observed riding their bicycles in the southbound bicycle lane (wrong way) against the northbound Fiske Boulevard traffic stream simultaneously with a friend rid ing his/her bicycle southbound on the sidewalk to access Andersen Elementary school. It is believed that students display this hazardous behavior due to the narrow sidewalks that run along the l ength of Fiske Boulevard not a ll owing them to ride side-by-side on the sidewalks. In addition, the "silent" bicycle lanes between the intersection and Andersen Elementary are poorly maintained (edge cracking) and retain water Last, between the intersec tion of Levitt Parkway/Fiske Boulevard and Andersen Elementary observations revealed that all students who were traveling southbound on the sidewalk or in the bicycle lane on the east side of Fiske Boulevard crossed F iske Boulevard at the signalized crosswalk directly in front of Andersen Elementary and not at another point. In addition to being signalized, this particular crossing also has a crossing guard during the morning and aftern oon school commute periods to assist students. Intersection 4: Courtenay Parkway and Needle Boulevard Located In the city of Merritt Island, the intersection of Courtenay Parkway/Needle Boulevard is an unusually des igned signalized "T" in ters ect i on with controlled crosswalks at the in te rsection's north, south, and east legs. Due to the unusual geometry of the intersection, the crosswalk that transects the south leg of the intersect ion is set back about 20 feet to the south from the crosswalk located across the east leg of Needle Boulevard. The three controlled crosswalks are denoted by white go longitu dinal lines and are in good repair. STOP l ines are painted on the approach lanes tha.t preced e both the south leg (northbound traffic) crosswalk located on Courtenay Parkway and the east leg (westbound traffic) crosswalk located on Needle Boulevard. A STOP line has been placed on the Needle Boulevard approach lane (stem of the ''T" Intersection) prior to the crosswalk that stops both right and left turning traffic. At the intersecting points of the roadways, Needle Boulevard has a channelized right turn movement for. traffic wishing to continue north on Courtenay Parkway and a channelized and signalized left turn lane for traffic wishing to continue south (or straight onto Hurwood Lane). A pole mounted sign has been placed adjacent to the right turn only 26 PAGE 37 lane and prior to the c r osswa l k on Needle Bou l evard that has an arrow pointing downward t o the STOP line and a message that reads "Stop Here on Red Thru Traffic H as Right of Way ." . . . . Observation of this interse ction was conducted d uring the aft ernoon school commu te on Wednesday, May 14, 199 7, and lasted just under two hours At t he inter sect i ng point of t he t wo r oad ways, Ne e dle Bou l evard is a l ow volume east-westtwo-lane .. roadway that provides access to res i den t i al neigh b orhoods including Hampton Homes and Catalina Is les Courtenay Par kway is a major multiple-lane roadway with a raised divid ing median that has heavy and high speed northbound and sou t hbound traffic in both the morning and afternoon school comml.jte per i ods. Traffic speeds, volumes and drive r and student behavior were only observed during the afte rnoon school commute period at this Int e rs e ction Neither of the roadways at this 'T' i nterse ction has bicycl e lanes. However, a sidewalk ex ist s along the ou t er edge of the northbound travel lane of Courtenay Parkway that traverses the in tersection and sidewalks exist that para ll el the outer edges of both t r avel lanes on Needle Boul evard that Provide east-west access t o the i ntersection. Figures 7 and 8 show the Interse ction of Court e nay Parkway and Needle Boulevard. F IGURE7 COURTENAY PARKWAY AND NEEDLE BOULEVARD (looking east) 27 PAGE 38 Observation of the intersection revealed tha t it is used primarily by students who attend Mila Elementary and Edgewood Junior High schoo ls. The in tersect ion is located about half of a mile north of both the e lem entary and j unio r high schoo ls The release time for the elementary school is 2:50 p.m. and the release t im e for the junior h igh school is 2:40 p.m. The close release times for the schoo l s causes unusually heavy student pedes trian and b i cyclist activity to occur at the intersection at one time. Once released observations indicated that use of the intersection for students from both schools l asts for about 30 mi nutes During the afternoon school commute, observations revealed that numerous student pedestrians and bicyclists travel northbound on the sidewalk that r uns a l ong the northbound approach lane of Courtenay Parkway p rio r to encountering the intersection. Once at t he intersection, most students continued north on the sidewalk while a few elected to cross Courtenay Parkway at either the south or north leg controlled crosswalks. FIGURE 8 COURTENAY PARKWAY AND NEEDLE BOULEVARD (looking north) The p otentia l hazards observed at the in tersec l i on are: students displaying hazardous behavior by walking/ running and riding bicycles between queued and high speed moving t r affic in Cou rtena y Parkway trave l lanes prior t o, at, and after the south and north leg crosswalks with total def iance fo r t raffic 28 PAGE 39 students displaying hazardous behavior by walking/running and riding bicycles between and moving t raffic in Neec;lle Boulevard tif.Ye! to, at, and after the crosswalk with little regard for. traffic . some students were observed using the crosswalks against DON T WALK signals putting themselves into the direct path of moving traffic on both roadways as a .result of crossing against DON'T WALK signals on Courtenay Parkway students became stranded on divisional islands between the north and southbound travel lanes. Once in this situation, students were observed either tiJking the risk to navigate oncoming traffic or waited for a red phase before crossing the rest of the way duriog the 30 minutes .or so that students were observed using the intersection, students tended not to gather In large groups when crossing at the crosswalks (primarily due to the bulk of students who had already crossed at points prior (south) to the controlled crosswalks) excessive wail time exists between pedestrian WALK s i gnals at the crosswalks (movement of traffi c given priority a t this ihlersection) as a result of the delay ca used by the l ong wait time between pedestrian WALK signals, students do not want to wait at the pedestrian push button areas thus encouraging them to cross at points other than at the controlled crosswalks to eliminate delay during a green light phase, the first vehicle in the traffic queue that Is turning left or rfght off of Needle Boul e vard onto Courtenay Parkway often blocks part and, in some instances, all of the crosswalk prior to completing the turning movement during a red ligh t phase, traffic turning right from Needle Boulevard onto Courtenay Parkway watches for gaps in the northbound Courtenay Parkway traffic stream and, as a result, are less attentive to students in the crossing students use access/egress driveways prior to and after the controlled crosswalks as points to cross particularly at the Texac o Station (northeast corner of "T" Intersection) driveways that border. both roadways. Traffic was observed not coming to a complete stop before egressing/accessing the Texaco Station and Checker s Drive Thru which is located at the intersection's southeast corner left turning traffic was observed blocking the Needle Boulevard crosswalk during a "stale" yellow light to avoid wailiog another entire light cycle. These vehicles were obs erved to be blocking the crosswalk or beginning their left turning movement when the pedestrian phases began both pedestrian crossing signals located at the approach stem of Needle Boulevard were observed to get "stuck" simultaneously on the pedestrian WALK signal for several Needle 29 PAGE 40 Boulevard green light phases before reverting back to normal operation. This caused students to assume that it was safe to cross Needle Boulevard even though traffic on Needle Boulevard had a green phase. Several "near misses" were observed at the intersect io n as a result Overall, the main problem at this in tersection is related to conflicts caused by students displaying extremely haza rdous behavior such as crossing both Courtenay Parkway and Needle Boulevard trave l lanes between queued and moving traffic at points other than the controlled crosswalks (as well as at controlled crosswalks during the DON'T WALK phases) with littl e regard to o n coming traffic or personal safety. Despite the unusual geometry of the in tersect i on and the long waits between WALK signals, it operates well desptte the high traffic volumes on Courtenay Parkway and the large number of student pedest rians and bicyclists that use it during the afternoon commute home f rom school. Intersection 5: Barton Boulevard and Fiske Boulevard The intersection of Barton Boulevard/Fiske Boulevard is a wide and heavily used channelized four way signalized intersection with a controlled crossing (pedestrian actuated signals) at each of the intersection's four legs. Crosswalks at each leg are denoted by white go lon gitudinal lines. In addition to the controlled crossings, pole mounted signs have been placed adjacent to the edge of the outer travel lanes that read "Right Tum Yield To Pedestrians in Crosswalk" where right turn lanes exist at the east leg of Barton Boulevard and the south leg of Fiske Boulevard. Observ ation of this intersection was conducted during the morning of Tuesday, May 13, 1 9g7, and l asted for about one hour. Barton Boulevard and Fiske Boulevard are both major multiple-lane roadways with heavy and high speed traffic in both the morning and afternoon peak commute periods Both Barton Boulevard and Fiske Boulevard have narrow sidewalks that parallel all of the intersection's approach lanes Three of the intersection's legs are four lane with signalized left hand turning movemen ts provided In all directions. The intersection's west leg is two lane with a signalized and channelized left turning movement. Fiske Boulevard has painted left turns lanes at both legs (double left turn lanes are provided at the south leg for traffic turning west onto Barton Boulevard) and no divisional islands. Right-hand turning movements are prov id ed at the south leg of Fiske Boulevard for northbound Fiske Boulevard traffic and at the west leg of Barton Boulevard for eastbound Barton Boulevard 30 PAGE 41 traffic. Merge lanes are provided on Fiske Boulevard for westbound Barton Boulevard t raffic turning right (north) onto Fiske Boulevard and qn E;la[lon B:JUievard for northbound Fiske Boulevard . traffic turning right (east) onto Barton Bou le vard. At the po i nt of the crosswalks, both approach legs of Barton Boulevard have a narrow div i sional is l and that may provide safe refuge for students who become stranded in the crosswalk. Last, due to the design of some legs of the intersection, it was necessary to ang l e the end portions of the crosswalks in order to align them with .the pedestrian push button areas. Figure 9 shows the inters ection of Barton Boulevard and Fiske Boulevard: FIGURE 9 BARTON BOULEVARD AND FISKE BOULEVARD llooking north} While no students were observed using the intersection during the observation period (the observation team arrived after the schoo l start times), it is believed that the intersec t ion is used primarily by students who atten.;l Golfview E le men tary school and John F. Kennedy Middle Schoql and come primarily from the residential neighborhoods of P ine Cove, Lev itt Park, Casa Verde, Regency Pine Apartments and Rockledge Village Apart m ents. The intersection is located about half of a mile north of the mi ddle school and about half a mile south PAGE 42 include -crosswalk signals only allowing enough time for students to cross all le g s about a third of the way. As a the potential exists for students to be stranded in the crosswalk at the head of the divisional is la nds on Barton Boulevard or the painted left turn lanes on F iske Boulevard when left turning or oncoming vehicles begin their movement. However, it is not unusua l for WALK intervals (usually 4 to 7 seconds in length) to be established to allow only enough pedestrian clearance time on a given phase to clear t he crossing from the curb to the median. However, additional pedestrian actuation push buttons are not provided in the median r efuge should this situation occur. Also, observations revealed that it takes multiple traffic light cycles before obtaining a pedestrian WALK signal after actua tion. As a result, students may opt to avoid crossing at t he signa li zed crosswa lks and cross a t some other point due to the long wait in obtaining a pedestrian WALK signal. Even though pole mounted signs are placed at the beginning of the marked right hand turn l an es right turning movements may prov ide a potential area of conflict as well. In addition all pedestrian actuation push button areas are well designed and allow enough room for students to platoon before crossing each leg and the intersection itself and surrounding sidewalks are well maintained. Also, the pedestrian actuation signals, pedes trian signal heads, and pedestrian actuated signal signs are in very good condition. Intersection 6: Fiske Boulevard and Bougainvillea Drive The intersect i on of Bougainvillea Drive/Fiske Boulevard is a plain unsignalized T intersection The only traffic control device at the intersection is a STOP sign located at the terminus (stem of the "T" intersect io n) of the westbound travel lane of Bougainvillea Drive where it meets Fiske Boulevard. The STOP sign con trols access to the northbound and southbound travel lanes of Fiske Boulevard for westbound t raffic turning left or right onto Fiske Boulevard from Bougainvillea Drive. The lone crosswalk is deno ted by white SO' longitudinal lines across Bougainvillea Drive in a north-south direct i on A STOP line is painted on the approach lane that precedes the crosswalk on Bougainvillea Dr ive Observation of this Intersection was conducted during the morning of Tuesday May 13, 1997, and lasted about one hour. Bou gainvill ea Drive is a low volume residentia l type roadway that provides access to a relatively dense residential neighborhood (Rockledge Estates). Students must use Bougainvillea Drive travel lanes to gai n access to the intersection due to a lack of sidewalks along Bougainvillea Drive. Fiske Boulevard is a major five-lane roadway (with a two-way center left-tum lane) with heavy and high 32 PAGE 43 speed northbound and southbound traffic in both the morning and afternoon peal< commute periods. Fiske Boulevard has "sile nt" bicycle la nes (un ma rked with either signs or pavement . markings) at the outer edge of both the northbound and southbound travel lanes and narrow sidewalks that parallel the roadway that extend a good distance north and south oflhe intersection Figures 10 and 11 show the intersection of Fiske Boulevard and Bougainvillea Drive. While no students were observed using the intersection during the observation period due to the observation team arriving after the start times of the schools located near the Intersection, it is that the intersection is used primarily by students who attend Golfview Elementary school and John F. Kennedy Middle School. The intersection is located about half of a mile north of the elementary school and just over a mile north of the middle school. FIGURE 10 BOUGAINVILLEA DRIVE AND FISKE BOULEVARD (looking south} The potential conflicts observed at the intersection include: extensive obstruction s exist that restrict the sight dis tance of motorists and students including bushes, hedges, utility poles, houses, f ences, and trees students walking or riding bicycles westbound on Boug ainvi llea Drive (approach stem) towards the intersection must use Bougainv ille a Drive travel la nes due to lack of sidewalks 33 PAGE 44 . FIGURE 11 BOUGAINVILLEA DRIVE AND FISKE BOULEVARD (looking north) as a result of the sight obstruc t i ons, t r affic turning both l eft and right from Bougainvillea Drive on t o Fiske Boulevard often i gnore the STOP line and pull completely or partially across the crosswalk to view the oncoming Fiske Boulevard traffic streams traffic turning both left and right from Bougainvillea Drive on t o Fiske Boulevard may be inattentive (unaware) to crossing students due to sight obstructions as a result of low traffic volumes on Bougainvi lle a Drive, traffic may come to a rolling stop in the area o f the STOP sign and crosswalk on Bougainvi ll ea Drive before entering the Fiske Boulevard traffic stream compounding the p r oblem of sight obstructions high speed and high traffic volumes on Fiske Boulevard may cause traffic enter ing Fiske Bou le vard from Bougainvillea Drive to look for gaps to appear in Fiske Bouleva rd traffic causing entering traffic to be less attentive to student activity in the crosswalk vehicles parked on Bougainvillea Drive near the intersecting point of the two roadways (in front of two private homes located at the north and south corner of the stem) may provide an area of potential conflict between students and motor ist s due to lessened sight distance Overall, several broad conclusions can be drawn from the observations at each of the six high accident intersections as follows: 34 PAGE 45 The phys i cal conditions and operational characteristics of each intersection were better than expected given the high Incidence of acc \ de Dts locations Only a handful of physical 'i :1/.t and operational deficiencies were identified at the six intersections including worn out pedestrian signal actuation push buttons; faded pedestrian signal signs; and limited sight d i stances due to shrubbery, utility poles, etc. A l so, a few chronic traffic violations by motorists were observed during the site visits. These violations included excessive speed through some of the intersections (Eau Gallie Boulevard/Croton Road, Fiske BoulevardfBarton Bou l evard, and Courtenay ParkwayfNeedle Boulevard), fai lure motorists to yie l d the right-of-way to student pedest r iansfbicyc l ists in crosswalks, and d i sregarding traffic control signs that restrict right turns on red when students are present and S T OP signs Also, student pedest r ian an d student b i cyclist behavior was as expected given the high frequency of accidents at the six Intersect i ons, particularly a t the i ntersections of Dairy Road/Sing l eto n Ave nue and Courtenay Parkway/Needle Boulevard. Further the pedestrian contro l dev i ces at some of the intersections were observed not to perform as expected (the pedestrian signa l at the intersection of Courtenay ParkwayfNeedle Boulevard was stuck on the WALK signal for several green l i ght phases) Numerou s students were observed disp l aying hazardous behavior by crossing at points (usually just p r io r to the marked crosswalks) other than at contro ll ed crosswalKs betweeri queued and moving traffic. The commute home from the schoo l s is highly pea k ed in the afternoon lasting between 20 to 30 minutes after schoo l end times and students tend to access the intersections in groups. Conversely, the commute to school in the momings is l ess pronounced and student s are more d i spersed than during the afternoon commute home from school. T he morn i ng commute was observed to last for between 30 to 45 minutes. Ali of the high accident Int e rsections have an elementary or junior high/m i dd l e school within c l ose proximity, usually no more than half a mile. V111 INTERSECTION AND SCHOOL BUS STOP EVALUATION CHECKLISTS Intersection Evaluation Criteria Traffic control along routes used by students during the commute to and from schools Is a highly charged issue. If all of the safety demands by pare n ts and others were addressed there woul d be too many adult cross i ng guards, pedestrian/bicyclist bridges and many more traffic and 35 PAGE 46 pedestrian signals, signs, and pavement markings in place that do not accurately represent actual safety needs. Engineering studies often show that many of the traffic control devices and signs requested by concerned parents are often unwarranted. And, in fact, these d emands can be very costly to a community and they can also lessen motorist respect for the controls and signs. Th erefore it is necessary to co nsider that regard les s of the location of schools or crossings used by students during the commute to and from schools and school bus stops (also addressed in this section), the establishment of safe and effective traffic signals, signs, and pavement markings ca n best b e obtain e d through the consist ent application of rea listic policies. standards. and practices Incons istent application of traffic control devices cause confusion on the part of student pedestrians, student b icycl ists and motorists that may induce unsafe behavio r th at can ultimately lead to accidents. The intersection evaluation criteria that follow have been prepared for those indiv idua ls in Brevard County responsible for improving the safety of student pedestrians and bicyclists during the commute to and from schoois. It should be stressed that the actl!al traffic analyses, other necessary engineering studies and ultimate safety improveme nts to intersections used by students based on the evaluation criter ia be guided by the direction o f a qualified professional traffic engineer. Through the cons istent application of the evaluation criteria the county s hould not expect to eliminate all future accidents i nvolving students commuting t o and from schools but to hopefully lessen them. Also, it should be kept in mind that the process of Imp rovi ng the safety of the commute to and from schools can either be limited to those evaluation criteria wh i ch fall within ava ila b le funding or performed in an unconstrained manner without regard to availab l e funding so that all feasible and necessary physical and operational improvements can be made to the intersections and areas surrounding them at some point in the future. When applying these evaluation criteria to intersections other than the six evaluated in this study, the feasibility of the candidate physical and/or operationa l improvements should be thoroughly considered since not all evaluation criteria and subsequent solutions can be applied to all intersections used by students during the school commute. For this reason, the traffic contro l(s) used, whether they include signs prohibiting right turns on red when children are present or reducing t raffic speeds in areas marked as schoo l zones through consistent signage or traffic 36 PAGE 47 calming. measures in residential areas SIJCh as roundabouts or speed hunips j :an intersection used by students that is located on a major multiple lane roadway would probably not require the same traffic controls as an Intersection located on a low volume two-lane residential street. The ultimate goal of the evaluati on criteria is to improve the safety of students at intersections and areas immediately surrounding them as much as is practical, bearing In mind that many intersections and s urrounding areas cannot be improved beyond a certain point and will never reach the .level of being 100 perceht safe for students during the commute to and from schools A l so, the evaluation criteria should be viewed from all persons who will use the intersection to ensure that the meaning of the message, or messages in some cases th at Is being communicated to them is consistent and clear. For. example, traffic signs that are spaced too far apart or too close together may not evoke the desired motorist response and, m ay, in fact, serve to confuse the motorist, thus, potentially lea ding to accidents involving students. In addition to developing traffic engineering solutions such as the consistent placement of applicaRie pole mounted and/or overhead mounted pedestrian-related traffic control signs in . accordance with the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCO) or interrupting tra ffic flow through the use of traffic signals or crossing guards, for example, education of motorists .and students and Increasing community awareness are suggested as solutions as well for improving the safety of students during the commute to and from schools. The evaluation criteria provided in the form of a checklist to be used to improve the safety of students during the commute to and from schools is detailed in Table 4 The engineering solutions are detailed in the table next to each evaluation criteria and the general education, enforcement, and community awareness solutions are covered in greater detail in the next section of the study. In addition to the table containing the Intersection evaluation criteria, a copy ofthe. Hazardous Walking Guidelines (Florida Statute 234.021) Is contained in Appendix 0 and Appendix E contains . ' the Institute of Transportation Engineers' suggested gu i delines for conducting school studies as detailed in their publication entitled Transportation and Traffic Engineering Handbook: Second Edition. 37 PAGE 48 TASLE4 INTER SEC TI ON EVALUATION CRITERIA lntersedion evaluated (Weet names) Date evaluated I I Time or eviiUalion _a.m./p.m. TO_ t m J p m School{s) e&oses.lto lntersea lon Is the Intersection controlled by: Stops;gn_ Traffic Signets_ Pedestrian slgnal present: Yes No I s this area : Res.ldential_ Commercial_ Posted limit It tho lntmedion: Noo1hleg_ s...hleg_ Dtaing lroffic:ms: Ugllt_Medllm__ Heavy __ Primary reas.on(s) tot evtruatlon ltrtersedlon eval u ated by (name or person) Intersection Evaluation Criteria YES NO 1. Ale there oonUnuous sidewalks .separated from the roadway by a landscape buff e r thst para Gel a D of the lnterse<:tion'.s approach 2. H a l legs ollllo-have.,.,..,_,. detached .-lb. ate U..y at leas< 5 leet wtdo in residel'ltbllreas Ot at lea.st8 feet \W:!e in school areas? 3. J.s there an 11ppropttato l and.scape buff e c (gnu& sttip wltrees or other sturdy vegetation that serves as a pro!ectlve barrier) at ieast5 feet wide separating the st reet(s ) and all sklew&!ks along the i ntersecUon1s approach legs? 4 Is there 100 1 .. 1 in advance ol and 20 feel beYond the inter.;ection (u nsign-'ized or on au oc some of lhe inteJsedlon's approadl fegs? 38 lndustrioi_Other_ East leg _We>! leg_ NA Solution conattuct continuous. detachecl' sidewallcs with 1 minimum preferred width of$feet 1 n rosldantill l ateas and 8 feet in &ehool areas lo ..... gtps along OC>tl'idon; wkfen lo 8 minirrr.Jm prelen'ed width of 5 .. ue loot (del)en PAGE 49 lntlrteetion, .evaluation Criterl'a YES NO NA Solutions 5. Are there c ido-$\leets within ctose proximi.ty (250 feet or less) in adVanco of and/or beyond the consider closi n g street connact!ons Intersection? : provide proper provide alternate routea lot veh icles/stude nts developfenerea&e community aw a reneH educate motorists and studen ts assiJn aosslng guard K 1YOIIWl1ed ... paflolsln -6. Ooulho total crossing distance of all or some of the crosswalks ex<:eed 60 construct median refuge (safety island) at feet? each offending etouwalk Install pedestrian actuation push button on refuge reduce number of lano.s reduce Jane width t ensure adequa t e ctude n 1 walk and clearance tJme inst1l bl..llbk'lg curt> mum' ln1)lement ........... 10 ltC!uc:c. tnlftic; ouellas ,;gnogo 01 ltaftic; c:almirQ methods s uch as speed hUJJlPS or roundabouts (prlmarlry residenti a l ttatments) relocate Ct'OS$i n g ( l ) to mld block I assign adult aosalng gulfd{s) i f warranted 1. Hat tha vagetatlon at the lnter .. ctlon's approach legs been properly main tained so thst it provide proper maintenance by periodiclillly po101 no obstruc::t:ion to th e s:tutfonrt vtslbllity of traffic or motorist" a vlslbility of students? tri:nming ex isting vogotatJon so th at maximum$jght distances can be maiolalneclln-.ncewMmadwoy speeds B Have alf the pavement markings prfo r to and at the intersectton been p roperty maintained provide proper maintenance through ( c lea r ly vmble lP approaching t raffic even d uring wet and rolny condit ions}? periodic checks repaint/ra:sttlpe pavemen t markings implement ma i ntenanc e progl'a.M 9. Hat the roadWay surface jus t prfor to and at the intersection beon properly maintained (no provicSe proper malt\tenanca through vlolblo pot holes, abrasiveJsroolc surfaces, and/ edge cradtlog)? periodic cllec:ks resurface approach lanes ln1)lement malnt......, pmgram wlh pr--. tepolting and repair sdlecfule ccmponents 39

PAGE 50

Intersection Evalu;Jtlon YES NO NA Solutions 10 Hove slandard (FOOT specification) blOfly man-<'-cncb. pMda proper maintenance through raiYd slobs. etc.)? periodic inspediMs tepair any damage such a:s atcb tnd raised sidewalk sfabs ifr4)1ement program 1nd repair prioritization $Chedufe 1 14, AJe there any 1\01\-standard signs, slgna1s, or piVemtnt markings th a i wi'!'l the o fficial condu ct perioOx: ins p ections to cfleck for tntftic deviee.s at the lnterseafon? unauthorize d r r..ffle control davicestpavement markings remove unauth orized traffic cont ro l deviceslpavement maft(fngs 15. Has consiste nt s l gnagc sUCh as Sc ho ol Ad\! School Cross i ng andlor instal l a n applicable s ign s Pedestrian Crossing signs been provided at tho I nt ersectio n ? 16 Are traffic control s i gns placed at logical regular Intervals without restricting deeranoe conduct periodic inspections of sign or sight distano!s a t the int e rsedion? placement e loeate si;.ns that are spaced too dOlt together or too tpart 17. Oo the pode PAGE 51 lntersecdon Evaluation Criteria YES NO NA Solutior1s 18. Aro thete co mmerclaJ ac:cess/egren drivgs) be mkl-blod< connrcu? elimin a te c:rosswaJk(s) instal! traffic catmlog meas ure$ (primarily reside n tial treatments) provide attem.ate route& f or student/vehicles conslnrd grade-seporoted pedlblke bridge . 24. Ooalllo lnte---OSW1IIk'l . -.....-s of all new or redesSn pro jects 41

PAGE 52

lnteruc.tion Evaluation Cl1ttrfa YES NO NA Solutions 25. Are the intersedion's pproaeh tegs curbless (no physfal butt.r between students on construd pl'lysical b a trieiS such as barritl s idewalk 01 tt pedoattlan push button Jteil vehicles)? c:urbs or rairings prohibit RTOR Wl signs d uring school commute times when studen ts are p resen t assign odu tt cros.sing g u ard(s) if warranted use s t u d ent pDir o l s i n schoo l areas 26. Does the timing of the pedestri a n signaJ at the lnters.ecllon a llow enoug h pedes t rian walk lime reume pede.strian a nd traffic signals and t ime for s tud ents and bicyclis ts) to safely etoss? imp l ement means to tedu ce vehlc:le traffi c such as slgnage or traffic calming menure.s (pdmariJy res idential tte.tments) oont1tuct mtdian reft:ge on rooc!wl)'s -.e aosmg exceeds 60 reet Zl. 00 the slgnaltztd inttrMdiotl's pedestrian lncfltllions uu WOlds Inste ad of replace l*ftitlian signaiheads wiCh tt10st symbols? that vu symbOls (upraised hand and pedeJIJian) 28. Oo the actuation push buttons a t the intersectio n ro l ale to lhe proper pedestrian relocate pedestrian actuation push button s inclleallon and direction o f etosswalk travel? 29. Do the pedestrian indicafioM at tt)e slgn elized lntersedio n use standard White repla.Qe pedestrian signalheads with those (WALK or 1n d Portland otange (DON'T WALK or uprsisad h a nd) word or thlt use wtlite and Portland orange symbols? indlcttions 30. J s a pproaching ttatnc't view of students s!andin allhe pedestriln piiSh button area obstructed due to 191 and oOlef' ttattic c:onttol tt the Wltel'$d0n? dear up the pedestrian push buUOft area by using joW .. s poles to-trafllc sion-Jts.. street natne$, Jig,bting, and signs 31. Ale left rnovtments b3Q) allawect 1t au Ot son'le of the piOV\dt ptOWdive loft wm phasr.>g (9<00<1 appro.:.ehes? arrow) rellme pedestrian signals to al$-pedestrfan I phasing a t a n approaches to avoid conflict with turning vehicles {ptlmarlly downtown a reas) movo c ro.sslng to midbk>ck construct ped/btK.e bridge if warranted provide adult c:I'O$$ing guan:l(s) if warranted p!'OYScSe student patrols: i n school are:u 42 PAGE 53 lntarsoction Evaluation Criter i a YES NO NA Solution s 32. Are unre s:lrlded right tums alow&d at some or all of the inlelSeetion"t approach tanes? : restric:tlptohlblt right tums with s.l,gns instal rod rljJilllum arrows a! sOgnaRzed crossings <:hanneliz.e right tum movement eiWninate crosatng move crossi ng to mid-block proVide attemate route(s) for stt1dents construct pedlblke bridge il' warrant*" provtde adull aossirG guard(s) lw- provide sludOniPoollt ... increase community awareness educate motMsts and students 33. Have standard CI'O$$walk markings denoted by two parane l solid white lines about 6 feet apart repaint to indude e fl her 90 been plntod at the intei'Sectlon that the C'IOSSwalk(s) and direction of the crosllng(s)? longitudinal Of 45 diagor.1ll cronwalk lines for added lllslblllcy 3<. Does lraftlc c omelilnes partlolly ot comp:.Oietl block llle lnleiSO PAGE 54 ln teraection Eva l u at i o n Criteria YES NO Ifft pedtsttlan they readabl e during the d a y and nrQht a t distances from to feet to the f ull width of t h e i n tens;ty pedestrian signalhead incf a tors c rosswalks ? 43. D o t h o p e doslrfan pus h buHon. a ea.s have ADA-comp lian t han dl eap ramps? AD A-co m p li ant handlca.P ra mp s 44. Do se mi-Wck or otMr latg e v e hldes with wide turning radii commonly u s & the int e rsection redtsign in t ersectlon to accommodate large dLe use of signs 45. Does t he in tenedion (signlllz:ed onty') have bike-sensitive l oop dtttdors .-nbeddecf in the bike instaU quadrupole, or l a n e or roa)nC!iticn? replace pedestttan actuatiOn push bul1ons 48. Oo the in tersection' s appcoad'l ha ve dange rous storm w a t er d rain g r a t e s (tradiliO(Ial repla ce o r modify parallt lb3r dr,rn grale.s p a ratl el-bJJ drain g rate s) t h a t coul d t ra p the wh&el( s ) of a bicyc le? wilh vat\&, honeycomb or h e rringbone d tls ign d r a in grat es that at* b i cycle friendlY at e x i s ting site s and for new and redevelopmen t proJedS re place d rain gates wlth c:ufb..faoe i nlets (make sure that roadway 60ts MI. slope oxc:essM!Iy lowotdslnlot ) 44 PAGE 55 safety of students at the intetsedion.) COMMENTS (be sure to note any unusual pedestrian or vehicul ar movements t hat occurred during the evaluation period): 45 PAGE 56 Safe School Bus Stop Location Evaluation Criteria Sa f ety at s c hool bus stops is a concern shared by parents, school officials stu dents, and a host o f other ind i viduals in Brevard County. While much can be done to i mprove the safety of students at school bus stops through education and other methods of behavior modification, pa r ents must rely on their school district to locate school bus stops in the safest manner poss i ble. When estab li shing school bus stops, school d i stricts often have to consider a multitude of factors that exist at every potential stop location As school districts will attest no two stops share the same factors and there is no single method or formula for them to fo ll ow that does not i nvolve cons i derable judgemen t when decid i ng the safest locat i on of school bus stops Factors such as traff i c volume distance from students' homes, presence or absence of railroad tracks grade mix of students at the stop, and the like all weigh heavily in the decision of where to locate school bus stops. In some instances, estab li sh i ng a safe school bus stop involves considerable compromise on the part of school districts that ultimately may not r esult in the "safest" stop possible but one t hat is acceptably safe As new school bus routes are planned or exist i ng ones are reevaluated in order to meet the student transportation needs of a school d i strict, the following are suggested as "des i rab l e" for eva luating the safety of school bus stops. It is unreasonable to expect that a school distr ict could satisfy all or even most of the evaluat i on criteria when establishing school bus stops These eva l uation criteria assume a normal nine month school year i n which student transportation is provided Student transportation during other times of the school year such as the Summer should also consider the same evaluation criteria concomitantly with determining how the different time of the year will influence studen t safety at school bus stops. The evaluation cr i teria are provided in the form o f a checklist and are listed below. A total of 31 school bus stop safety location evaluation criteria have been developed and are shown in Table 5. F i nally, in additio n to the school bus stop safety location evaluation checklist, Appendix G contains information concerning court interpretation of Section 234.01, Florida Statutes (Hazardous Walking Guidelines). The review of court rulings regarding Sec/ion 234.01 was conducted by Brevard County's legal council. 46 PAGE 57 TABL E 5 SCHOOL BUS STOP LOCATION EVALUATION CRITERIA Location of stop (tay & nearest lnterstding streets) Tme evttl uated a.mJp.m. O:.te evaluated I I r.me plck""'pld:rop-otf oocurred a.m.lp.m. I$ this area: Resldentlol _ lnd\lS\liol_ 0\tle< Pcsted speed fmiC is l!lilh During obsemtlon. was: Light__ Medium_ Heavy_ (concfuc:t 1 0 minute traffic CXIUnts) How many students at stop Reason(s) for evaluation Evoluo1ed by . School Bus Stop Location Evaluation Ctlterra YES NO NA f ... Yes No I. 1$the stop tocated at least 200 feet from an Intersection no action relocoto s top (W possible) on mejor roadways? pro<'ldo ligllllge (K W.mtntl!d) noc:Gon stop (ifpossiblt) 2 Js ltle stop b:ated at teast 100 feet priot to a rfght-tu:rn lane? . prcwlde slgn&ge (it warranted) 3. Is the stop located In alight Wm lone? no actlon relocate stop (if pos sible) provide$ignage (if warranted) 4 : ts rho slop klca1ed at IelSt 100 lee! aJier an aootletatioMnetge noadlon relocote &lop fd possible) rane? prcvlde slgnage (If warranted} 5 ls t h e a top Joeeted In an 'accektration/ merge lone? re locate top (ff posslbl a ) no aclloo provld e s!gnage (if warraniGd) 6. Is rho stop located alieni 300 feet 1n>m railtoadlloc1le) sig;nage (d' wananted) educate students 47

PAGE 58

School a u,. St o p Location Evaluati o n Crit otla YES N O N A S o l ut i on. If .. Yes N o I s the s to p to m otoris t s hom 1 mi n i mum d is t a n ce of 500 relocate s top (If possible) 7. n o actiOn feet? p rovi d e s)gnage {if wan a n ted) educat e s:tudtn ts 8. Hos a SCHOOL BUS STOP AHEAIY (01 oooonlanoe will MUTCO sign 53-1) .;go boon ploced priO< to the stop W has beeiily (500 f .. t or lss) due to being p l aced on tho cttsVUJ)gradeldowngrade olt hlll o r a t some 81 cutvt1. roc example ? no a ction lltOIIide slgnage [t wacronled) 9 If the stop I s located nut a reten tio n p ond or s imilar body ol no acticm r eloca H t s top (if pouible) water, I s ttM!Ir e a p h ysicaJ b a rrier bOtwet!tn the stop a n d the e d u ca t e s tudents wat e r l a . a guardrail or fence? IMta ll h a n cfl'lil f ence, physical barrier 10. I oomo type of road cons!Ndlon oroU>er conslJule) pr.,io!e s lgnage (jf wsnantod) educate studenrs 11. Is t h e s to p located at least100 r e o t from a oommercfa l n o a ction relocate s t o p (If possi b le } Jcce u /eg ress driveway such a s a t rip m alls afldlor apartment educat e students comp fe)(es that transects a w 1 1kJng a r n u ucf by students lh al re str i ct t u r n ing m ovemen ts at traffi c en1ers a n d at observed speeds grea ter t han 5 mph? commerd a l cces sleg ress d liveWJY1 t o same pros>eftY implement 12. Is tho .. ol obslructioM that ...._n -.t. no aCiiofl -slghtotntructions end sdlool b u s driver v;slbifity lndudlng slwbbeJ)', utility poles, prO"tide proper m.einlen3.nc& Willis fences signs, trees, b uildings parke4 eaf$, and other through pttioelie stop Chedc$ obst ruction s ? elimln.atelrt"J.ttict p at1cin 9 d u ri n g plck u pldrop-aff times strict l y enf o r ce parking restrictions p ro v id e Illumination 1$. tt the next closest stop on the same side of the roactNJY that no oalon relocatollop possl>lo) servos 1M ume -at toll 1,320 fee! awzy ( except In educltes1udonts s pe cia l ci tcUmslances s uch Is ov e tetowdecl stops)? ------4 8 PAGE 59 Sehool Bu s Stop locatio n Evaluadon Cr iteria YES N O NA So l ution, If . Yos No 14. ls there sufflelent room at the stop for stude-nts to deboard the relocate slop (if possible) bus then walk at least 15 feot aw>y 110111 ltiO buS baf0<8 l edueate students deparls the s1op? train school bas drle!s 15. If students aoss a 4--oc s.tane roadway.ls there a crosswalk relocate etop (if possible) no actlo."' with pedestrian signal s near the bus$lop? educate students provicle sJgnage (ir warran ted) 1 6. Does the pbyslc:allpoce tbat tile slop occupios provide no action reloeate stop (t possible) cuflldent room lor 11>o nlmbet stop? remoYe -studeneo imtal a safely boundory (physfeal barrie-r for ttudents to stand behind when walt1ng for t h e b us) 17. l.s th e stop located within 1,320 feet of anothtt stop located on relocate stop (if possible) no aetlon the opposln9 skle of lhe same toadwty that sOJYes the same edvcote stv,.nts sdlool awoy (oxcepl in specialciralmstonoos si.ICh as CM!f'CtOWded stops)? . 16. Is tf'WI stop located on a coadWay that rs uaed by heavy, relocate stop (If possible) no action oommertiaf truck ttaffic? reduoe speed limits strictly enforce speod !&mils restrict h&avy, commercial truck traffic dvring pick-<>p and drop-off tmes ccnstJuct de!adled siolewd< wl!h a ri"limwn preferred Yi.dth of 5 19. I n th e a bsence of a sidewalk. is there a space/path that Is at no action relocate stop (if posslb lo) least 4 teet wide that provides aoce .. legress toll rom the stop? construct detached sidewal k with construct detached sld(M'atk with a minimum prererred width of 5 a minimum preferred width of 5 feet !oct 20. Does the locotiocl of the stop alow forouftlclont water run no adion n>locate slop (I posslolo) o."'fdra ii'13ge? Oducata studen!s improve draimge 49

PAGE 60

Solution If School Bus S to p Loc ation E val uation Criteri a YES N O I'IA Yes l'l o 2 1. Is there s u ffi c ie n t room at t h e stop away from the road way for no act ion reloeal e Slop (d possi b l e) studan ts t o s afel y wait for tM school b us? e ducate studen ts ins t a ll a safety boun dary (physical barrier for studen ts to shuld beh ind w hen wa. iting foe the bus) provide sigrnlg e 50

PAGE 61

SKETCH OF SCHOOL BUS STOP (be sure to note 81f relevant traffic signals, sign s, pavam&nt matklngs, sigh t obstructions. and student and motorist behavior and roadway deficiencies at the stop) Comments (be sur e to no!e a ny unusu a l pedestrian or vehicular movements that occurred during the evaluation period): 51

PAGE 62

IX OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF EDUCATION, ENFORCEMENT, AND COM M UN ITY AWARENESS PROGRAMS Based on the results from the previous tasks c.ompleted f o r this study, education of both studen t s (part i cu larly elementary and junior high s ch o o l students) and mo tor i sts is perhaps one of the most effect ive means for improving the safety of stu dents d u ring the commute to and f rom schoo l and a t school bus stops in the county In conjunction with educat ing students and motoris t s abou t traffic safety issues relate d t o the school commute, attention should be giv en to peri odic or sporadic enforcement of traffi c laws b y local l aw enforcement in and around school areas to reinf o rce the safety message to both students and motorists with specific focus given to modifying both s t udent and motorist b ehavior Unfortunately in most lo ca liti es, ped estr ians and bicyclists (students or othen.Vise ) are often cons ide red seco ndary r o adw a y hazards to the a ut o mob il e and the level of funding and atten tio n given to educa t ion programs fo r pedestrians and moto r ists and ina)tention to maintenance design, and p r op e r sign age at some int e rsect io ns with pedestrian facilit ies re f le cts this fact. At present, Brevard County has e x cell en t at-school student safety education program s in place such as bike r odeos an d In-class training of students that fo cus o n critical iss u es such as obeying traffic s i gns, signals and lane markings and staying alert at all t imes for p o tent ia l hazards re l ated to their safety during the school commute and a t other t imes of the day The purpose of this section is not the co mp rehens ive d ev e l opmen t o f specif ic and detaile d safety education and community awareness program s for bo t h students and motorists, but to suggest genera l means b y which to increase the awareness of both groups re gard ing t he issue of traffic safety during the school commute and a t other t imes of the d ay. Th e f o ll owin g are a variety of recommended methods to enhance the safety of studen t s d uring the commute t o and from schools and school bus stops. Education of Students. Parents. Motorists. and Training of School Bus Drivers Consistency and expansion of educationa l materials and methods for reinforcing "safe behavior of s t udent pedestr ia ns an d bicyclists is a primary nee d Current safety condit io n s uncovered by this study could be emphasi zed to students through in-classroom i nstruction and the i mpact on student safety during the commute to and from scho ols and school bus stops for schoo l -related or othe r trip purposes should b e clearly expressed t o parents through community awareness 52

PAGE 63

campaigns as well The relative safety of walking and bicycling compared to different modes of travel and travel behavior could be the use of accident statistics and, perhaps diagrams from FTAR. These diagrams could be used in the classroom t o assist students in identifying hazardous conditions at the accident sites that contributed to the accidents such as sidewalk obstructions and the like. Specific types of student behavio r that often lead to studenUvehicle accidents could also be emphasized to studenis such as crossing at a point other than at a controlled intersection and the ()OtentiaUy dead l y consequences of such actions could be made patently clear to them as well. Using the criteria set forth in thi s study for the selection of accidents involv i ng school-age children as a basis, student accident counts could be conducted throughoutthe county and placed Into one of the 14 accident types developed as part of this study. The$e statistics could be communicated to students and parents to reinforce the types of behavior that potentially lead to accidents. The safety impacts on student pedestrians and bicyclists during school commute times of parents driving students to and from schools could clearly be emphasized to parents Parents could be made aware o(. the increased potential conflicts between vehicles/students caused by driving students to and from schools as a result of increased t raffic as well as the different types of motorist and student behavior that often lead s to acc idents inv o l ving student pedestrians and bi cyclists such as speeding in school zones and failure to heed t r affic signs such as STOP signs at intersections. If the impacts of such behavior are made clear to. parents t hey will hopefully be more likely to modify their behavior and obey all traffic laws or consider other com mute alternatives such as car po oling/rid esharing or alternate routes that will enhance the safety of student pedestrians and bicyclists dur ing the commute to and from schools and school bus stops. The current at-school/In-classroom walking and bicycling skills training could be continued and expanded to include all students in the county Including high-school students through the existing .. Driver's Education curriculum. Sufficient resources for expansion of the student safety training programs beyond lower grade levels could be sought to Include additional training sessions for all students and additional staffing to assist in the expanded training of all students. In addition, funds could sought to replace older bikes and the purchase of new bikes and safety gear such as helmets for use in the bike-related safety programs. Expansion of walkand bike-related safety materials such as "Basics of Bicycling" from the Bicycle Federation of America and safety materials fro in. AAA and the Traffic and Bicycle Safety Education Program Department of Urban and 53 PAGE 64 Regional Planning at the University of Florida could also be pursued, for example. Incentives and rewards for volunteer parents and others in the community concerned about the welfare of students to assist in the expanded training sessions and classroom instruction could b e sought using recruitment strategies such as awards programs and perhaps coupon discounts through local merchants for dry cleaning, fast food, and the like. Last, a program could be established through the local Community Traffic Safety Team (CTST) or other committee to monitor and ensure the continued high quality of existing and future student safety education programs. As a further means of improving the safety of studenls, steps shou l d be taken to ensure that school bus drivers are properly trained and that students are educated regarding proper behavior at school bus stops. Regarding the training of school bus drivers, a specific instance when student safety might be compromised is when drivers are required to cross students who wait for the school bus on the opposite side of the roadway across from their actual school bus stop (this practice is often done to keep students from crossing busy roadways). In instances where drivers are required to cross students, a specific method for crossing them shou ld be developed and drivers should be instructed to uniformly follow this method when crossing students. Several possible methods for use by drivers when crossing students are public address lou dspeakers with a set script, eye contact with the stud e nts then a nod of the head, or some type of hand signal/gesture to let the students know that it is safe to cross the roadway. Extreme care should be taken when developing the crossing method to ensure that motori sts who are stopped for school buses do n ot misconstrue the head/hand signal/gesture as a sign for them to proceed forward. In addition students should also be trained to easily recogn i ze and understand the crossing method. Develop Student Safety Theme and Logo Prior to the development of educational materials and the implementation of safety awareness strategies an engaging safety theme, title, and logo could be developed that appeals to a wide audience in the county ranging from young students to adulls. Several themes, titles, and logos may have to be developed to successfully communicate the message to individual groups such as young students and/or adults. Local students cou l d be used to assist in developing the safety theme and logo. 54 PAGE 65 Public -service Announcements (PSAl A series of 30 second to one-minute PSAs could be developed that focus on the Issue of school commute safety to be specifically broadcast over local AM and FM radio stations du ring the morning and afternoon drives to work (school commute times). Fo r example, the PSAs can be focused on reminding motorists to drive carefully and to actively search for students when approaching schools and in other areas during the times when students are most likely to be walking and bicycling to and from local schools and school bus stops. The PSAs can be generic in nature to apply to the en tir e county or they can be tailored to focus on particular cities within the county. Local AM and fM radios stations could be solicited to provide free air time to run the PSA spots. Video Announcements Based on the findings from this study, a series of one or two minute videos could be developed to address the problems and offer solutions. One of the videos can have a youthful appeal featur in g cartoons for elementary students, a rock or rap theme (MTV format) iqr older students, and a more conventional and conservative theme for older aduHs. This type of PSA can be shown in a variety of p la ces including in the classroom, to various organizations including PTA meetings, and on Brevard County public access (cable) stations Local TV stations (cable or otherwise) could be solicited to provide free air t ime to run the video announcements. Display Ads Ads could be developed which are graphically appealing and placed In local newspapers, neighborhood newsletters, and various school newspapers throughout the county. The messages portrayed by these ads could be similar in nature to the messages communicated by any PSAs that are developed. In addition to traditional media, the ads could also be placed on the county's main Internet site and linked to a variety of Brevard County tourist-related Internet sites to communicate . the messages to outof-town visitors. Also, these ads could be placed on the sides of Space Coast Area Tr ansit (SCAT) buses and on billboards in strategic places throughout the county. . 55 PAGE 66 Press Releases and Editorials Engaging and thought-provoking articles stressing the critical nature of the issues could be wriHen for "op-ed" pages of local newspapers, neighborhood newsletters, and school newspapers Public Events/Media Campaign Prior to the release of the PSAs and other m edia, an activity such as a kick-off meeting, press conference, or similar media event could be held ala local school(s) to communicate the issue to the public The event could be something simple such as inviting the local news stations to observe and video tape the behavior of students and motorists at a particular intersection or intersections during the commute to and from schools and the kinds of safety issues the behaviors create Posters, Pamphlets, Brochures, and Coloring eooks Thematic posters could be developed remind i ng county residents of the issues. The posters could be displayed throughout the county in local businesses, public schoo l s colleges, government agencies, and public libraries. A poster contest could be held county-wide at all local schools with w i nners selected from each grade level. Winners could have their efforts recognized by City Councils and the County Comm i ssion and have their posters displayed in a variety of places countywide Also pamphlets and brochures could be developed that relate the key points of the issue and distributed throughout the county Volunteers could be enlisted to aid in the distribution of the posters, pamphlets and brochu r es Last, coloring book(s) could be developed specifically for elementary school students that address the issue in an engag i ng and fun manner. Utilitv Bill Stuffers Bill stutters could be developed that stress the key points of the issue at hand and placed in utility bills, for example. Using bill stutters, thousands of Brevard County residents could made aware of the issue in very cost-effective manner Also, information could be given out with rental car contract sign offs and auto tag renewal notices, for example. 56 PAGE 67 Banners and Sign.. Vinyl banners or signs could be developed that contain the safety theme and logo. The banners/signs could be displayed on fences adjacent to school grounds and along heavily traveled corridors in the county to reinforce the message to passing motorists. Similar to the ads mentioned above, the banners/signs could be placed (painted) on the sides of Space Coast Area Transit (SCAT) buses . Communitv Relations/Marketing Key chains, calendars, bumper stickers, refrigerator magnets, pens, mouse pads, etc. could be developed with the newly developed safety and themes. The items could be given away during special events such as at the Daytona International Speedway during the Daytona 500 and other races and at community events or art festivals. The calendars could be produced to Include weekly or monthly safety tips for students and motorists to remind them of the program's intent and desired outcome. Use of Celebrities Celebrities such as NASCAR drivers, NASA astronauts, and Florida Marlin baseball players could be used to communicate the key issues to students and the public. Celebrities could be used to visit local schools to relate the key issues to students on a more personal level. In addition, these celebrities could be used in the various high-impact PSAs developed for TV and radio. Traveling Information Booth/Exhibit A traveling information booth or exhibit regarding the issue could be developed. The booth or . exhibit could be taken to special community events held throughout the year in the county or displayed at various schools throughout the school year. 57 PAGE 68 Radar Trailer A radar trailer could be used as a speed monitoring device to show motorists just how fast they drive in school zones and on residential streets. The trai ler is equipped with a radar gun, a digital spee d display, and a speed sign. The radar gun measures the speed of the oncoming vehicle and shows that speed on the dig ita l display compared to the speed limit sign. When used, the radar trailer has shown to s i gnificantly reduce the speed of vehicle traffic and to assist in educating motorists. Periodic Enforcement Enforcement of traffic l aws for both pedestrians and motorists is critical for a successful overall school commute safety program. Local law enforcement agencies must visit schools regu larly and provide periodic enforcement targeted at intersections used by student pedestrians and bicyc list s during the commute to and from schools, especially in areas around elementary and junior high schools. Tickets should be issued as warranted to motorists. Motorist Education I n addition to the above mentioned strategies for i ncreasing the awareness of motorists regardin g the safety of students during the commute to and from schools, another strategy is the use of pamphlets containing information about the issue being included with mail-back license renewals. In addition, these pamph le ts could be periodically handed to motorists at the l ocal driver license offices in the county or placed at the offices for motorists. At the state level, the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (DHSMV) could add several questions to driver lice nse examinations that focus on the issue of school commute safety. Further, additional education about school commute safety could be taught during driver education classes attended by motorists after receiving a citation for a host of offenses ranging from speeding to driving while under the influence of alcohol. At the local level, Brevard County and other county/city/town governments could require their employees to participate in yearly defensive driving courses. Last, these educational programs should point out the often overlooked environmental conditions that play a ro le in accidents Involving students during the school commute periods such as the sun's glare and other environmental conditions that cause student and motorist visibility to be lessened. 58 PAGE 69 X CONCLUSIONS AND FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO SAFE SCHOOL ACCESS . The combination of quantitati v e, qual i tative, ;md eva l uative methodology have confi r med what many individuals concerned wilh the safety of students during lhe c ommute to and from schools and school bus stops in Brevard County already are awa r e of and uncovered sonie .new findings as well. One of the key objectives of this study was to Identify safety deficiencies at six high student accident locations and to extend these conditions beyond the six intersections to other intersections used by students du r ing the commute to and from schools and school bus stops that also represent a countywide priority. It is recommended that both sets of evaluation cri t eria continue to be refined concomitantly wilh . f urther comparison with actual site-specific observations. The benefit of the evaluation criteria checklists are that they lend themselves to isolating the safety deficiencies at intersections and school bus stops and offer improvements (reduction in vehicles speeds constructing bike lanes, relocating cross i ngs to mid-block locations etc.) thai will increase the overall safety of students during the commute to and from schools and school bus stops and while waiting at school bus stops. They also afford the county flexibi l ity in applying different solutions at candidate locations based on physical, operational, and fiscal constraints. It is also recommended that Section 234.021, Florida Statutes that defines the hazardous walking criteria used by scnool district s to d efine hazardous walking conditions In their districts be reviewed First written in July 1981. and unchanged since, the statute defines the criteria that consti t ute hazardous walking conditions for "any public elemen t ary schoo l student whose grade level does not exceed grade 6." The guidelines are intended to be used by district school boards and local governmental entities to identify local conditions that are hazardous to students (only K through grade 6) who reside within two (2) miles from their school and are required by the statute to'willk to and from school (!hose students who reside outside the statutory two-mile boundary are eligible for transportation by their local school district). Once hazardous conditions are identified as defined by the statute, local and state governmental entities are responsible for correcting the hazardous conditions on roadways within a reasonable period of time and "state funds shall be allocated for the transportation of students subjected to such hazards, provided that such funding shall cease upon correction of the hazard or upon the projected completion date, whichever occurs first." 59 PAGE 70 However, other than the combination of specific traffic volumes and speeds, the statute does not clearly define what constitutes a hazardous condition(s) to public school students The combi nations of situations and the varying magnitude of potential hazardous conditions that students encounter during the commute to and from school are numerous For example, hazardous conditions are created by the absence of continuous, detached s i dewalks, b ike lanes, signage (right-turn restrictions, etc.), and marked crosswalks; presence of at-grade railroad crossings; presence of on-street parking; and poor roadway and sidewalk maintenance. The se and many other hazardous conditions are n ot taken into account by the current hazardous walking criteria. In addition, there are no legal provisions in the current statute that require loca l government entities to follow similar guidelines for determining what consmutes hazardous conditions for students above grade 6 and, no provisions are established for determining what constitutes hazardous conditions for students who bicycle to school rather than walk. Based, in part, on the incre ases in the amount and nature of vehicle traffic and student public school enrollment since 1981 in Florida, the current hazardous walking conditions criteria are inad e quate in a number of respects in defining the combinat ion of conditions that constitute a hazard to students. As a resu lt, there is a serious need to review the current criteria for content and applicability and to develop additional cri teria, in the form of a manual, that would clearly define the conditions and combination of conditions that constitute a hazard to studen ts. It is envisioned that this manual will update and replace the current statute tha t defines the hazardous walking criteria. As note d, a copy of the current hazardous walking guidelines are contained in Appendix D. In a d dition, based on the findings fro m t his study, it is recommended that Subsection 3, Section 316 .172, Florida Statutes, be reviewed to determine if the sight distance of 200 feet is adequate or if i t should be increased, for example, to a minimum of 500 feet, when possible. The statute specifically states that "Every school bus shall stop as far to the right of the street as possible before discharging or loading passengers and, when possible, shall not stop where the visibility is obscured for a distance of 200." F inally based on the findings f rom the analysis if FT AR, it appears that the most effective solutions to decrease the student pedestrian and bicyclist accidents In the county are primarily the education 60 PAGE 71 of students and motorists In combinat i on with the periodic enfo rcement of applicab l e traffic laws < for such traffic offenses as speeding, running stop signs and stop lights, disregarding no right tom on red when students are present signs, and failure to yield the right-of way to pedestrians in crosswalks for example. The results also show that thes e particular traffic offenses need to be enforced within a certain distance from schools (usually within a half of a mile) elementary and junior/middle schools. Further based on the Information extracted from the FTAR, there appears to be a need to routinely instrucutrain student bicyclists and pedestrians how to navigate the trip to/from sch o o l and school bus stops with confidence and awareness, particularly in complex environments/settings along high traffic volume roadways and at busy and complex intersections. 61 PAGE 72 62 PAGE 73 APPENDIX A State Plane NAD27 Coordinates for Public Schools 63 PAGE 74 64 PAGE 75 .9-97 Q2,0SP PROPERY APPRAIER / GIS 9, of JIM FORD, CFA Property Appraiser Geographic Information Services Fax Cover Sheet DATE: June 19, 1997 TO: Mr. Baltes FAX: 813-974-Sl.WifAAT 7t.fiW&II'RRITTII.V BARRY UNM:RS1Y -'1 l!' MERRITI AV fAERAITTWAf.IDOWUimANSC".HHOI 1<40 MhGNOI.lA.A.V 8l J.IA.RIQ .I.CAOE"'Y CK\JROH ll aATUAN 18Cl R.'NOC RD RnNAtD IAD&R MJOOLE 001 D.R cm'_smp U9dl:ITT lSI.ANO, R 3lU3 rL 3'2020 MEMtn iSLAh'DFL3te COCOA,fl!:llll COCOA Fl ,2021 COCOA, F\. 31&1& COCOAn.Ue22 MfRRiniSLAND, R3liS:J UUktft hltJJ.:t, Ft.S2052 MEAASntswm, R.Ut5' OOOOA. n l'2Ua OOCOA-fl'3ll22 C()(;OA e.EM"MFl32$31 coco-''L3H22 MERRin MCRRirt ISLANQ, n MEkHIO M'RRiniSW\DF\. ,19.51 COCOAFLJl9.U c:()('.()A, n 32:&2$ROCKI.EOOE, A. '"eobRO Y.OUORD l!ti411J .. a 1C525U2$ 828t0t.'.t3S 147&1et.12'6 U741!0S 250 U7AZ0t.6011 680&1$.!175 lo41t84U%6 &78$80.SI3 t-4718-111.1$0 fi7SUUSQ t4711 M .12J t471UU75 694'282.500 t4lOUI.I76. QOQaAU76 IMts.&l& l- PAGE 76 o1 9-97 02,08P PROPERY APPRAIER / GIS 9, Brcvotc! Count7 -School X Y Coonllnatu moF'It".AI. AOCtQ.BXlEMOH ROO.IHSCXX.UGf 00. 'THOMA.$ JEFFf.kSiclt.t .R H CH (.E)IJAAI. FIN;; CRCM! ROCJf, SSI><><""" 1\-EOOCIF1 AC:IOSI;VQ.1 tc a.trte e..e.en.aAY M::l.L>)B.),18(T,t,AV t:E\AIAt..uo:::>A J.O:ll-4 9-ERN:X:OB.EiemR'I rnYNAIC>COMMc::aJ..EOE e:sPe0."-1. '( f'Oft Utl..t:Aet atW.JO!E!Ln.EioeiTNCV k1..Y lW.EoF ..SI...It d.l)b,JU CCO. AfwCRsCie().Rs'JW(JoOi'CDI't atlTOHB.BEHTARI' 9UC".A:..UF.UQ.I t'AI<>UNO a ..01 CAS$.".8l.\O 254t POST FO 3it$6NWCf0-/.1.1.1 F) ''"' oe"'"D''Iron 3:m H Fn1:RS.t'E CR ... QIOfO!U09 IGWOCI-WlFO 1 CX.N:XX::FS.. \0 2'$:11 4IONWOOU.WR:) :t!OWI:IHt;"'-R)D't I Dt tru:lNPILt.tA.V tA nu ln'XlR.\tl A70 .. FFAY .. V 1COWU .rw$1.ttYRW 6W '/oi\I'CMJ!UtlY Pl w I tOt ElN\I:RSI"N'eLW 1(0 l1CO Ql\,'(6f t Pf\l.tE INE )SI:."'<)CI)HN(J.'E 121$0t.EN:W.EAVNN t:lCUSODOLa:t 625 P'EPF'fR sr -"'""""""" i.. Wilt f'B.ORO&W .($1 a..mac f't ') 172'Sw.aJSLW XliiO I:IUR( A) ecYMUQJ!!k\'D -""'"" "" ""'"""""' llU NUS t 3!!6 """91 S1 7{(10 8"'ARICAY 60lJl'H ST 30&"i 3CXOALYST 201 OU/MY AY 8:SOKNOX ..OW: tR OR 7JO.l MCGSAY 61JG rea. OR I IN:lNi 'r;UA,. P.02

PAGE 77

APPENDIXB Summary of All Student Accidents In Brevard County, 1992-1996 67

PAGE 78

58

PAGE 79

Riding bicycle against traffic (wrong direction) Walking along roadway with traffic (wrong direction) Motorist view obscured Pedestrian/bicyclist not exercising due care Dart-out into traffic Unique (not likely to occur again) Intersection dash Backing vehicle Pede-strla n/bicyclist not crossing at intersection Motorist not exercising due care Motorist misinterprets pedestrian/bicyclist's action Inclement weather (obscured vision) No improper actions UO.G% Pedestrian/bicyclist playing/standing in 0% Accident Type 20% 40% 60% Note: Graph represents data for an student accidenis (n=353).

PAGE 80

Day of W ee k Wednesday Not e : Graph r epresents data lo r all s t u dent acci dents ( n=353). 70

PAGE 81

. : ;-. . Lighting Condition Daylight Dusk Dawn Dark (street light) Dark (no light) "" '"' Note: Gra p h r e pr e s e nts d ata fo r all s t udent accidents (n= 353} 71

PAGE 82

Injury Severity None Possible Non-incapitating Incapa citating Note: Graph represents data for all student accidents (n=353) 72

PAGE 83

. Student Ge nder Note: Graph represents da t a f or all stud ent { n =353) 73

PAGE 84

8:01 am 9:00 am 9:01am -11:00 am 3:01 pm 4 :00 pm 4:01 pm 5:00 pm 5:01 pm 6:00 pm 6:00pm-7:00pm Time of Day Note : Graph represents data for al l student accidents (n=353). 7 4

PAGE 85

Student Type Bicyclist Pedestrian 1 Note: Graph represents data for all student acc i dents (n=353) 75

PAGE 86

Weather Condition (;lear Cloudy Rain 60% 100% Note: Graph represents data for all s tudent acci de nts ( n"353). 76

PAGE 87

APPENDIXC Extended Literature Review

PAGE 88

78

PAGE 89

At the Internet sHe http:llwww.childrens.com/Primerlbikehelm.htm a host of information is provided regarding student bicyclist safety including accident statistics. The site notes that about 400 chil dren under the age of 15 die each year wh il e riding bicycles and another 400,000 require emergency room treatment. The site notes a lso th a t bicycling injuries, especially head injuries, are a serious, yet highly preventab l e prob lem and that with the proper equ ipment, education, and training most injuries can be prevented. The first place to start is to make a bicycle helmet part of every child's rid ing gear. The site quotes a 1989 study reported In the New England Journal of Medicine [uncited] that found that children and adults who wear bicycle hel mets reduce their r isk of head Inj u ry by as much as 85 percent and their risk of brain injury by 90 percent. Parents should encourage helmet use by placing bicycle helmets on infants who ride in bicycle carr i ers. By the same token parents must set an example by wearing helmets wbenever they ride, even on bike paths. In addition to suggesting that child r en wea r proper safety gear such as a helmet whe n riding a bicycle, the site stresses that parents should teach their child r en a few basic rules of the road as well. The site offers the following basic safety rul es: Stop at the end of a driveway. Most accidents between a car and a bike happen when children fail to stop at the end of a driveway or when they cross a driveway or sidewalk and a car pulls i n front of them Always ride on the right side of the road. Obey traffic laws. Wear light-colored clothing. Last, the site notes that parents should also carefully plan the routes thei r chi ldren use to ride to. I school or to friends' homes, making sure to avoid major intersections whenever possible and they . should teach th .eir children to avoid riding at dusk or at night. The bicycle should be equipped w ith adequate front and rear lighting an<;l plenty of reflectors. In an unpublished article entitled "Evaluation o f the Effectiveness of a Pavement Stencil in Promoting Safe Behavior among Elementary School Children at School Bus Stops" the authors summa r ize a study that evaluated the effectiveness of a painted pavement stencil in promoting safe 79

PAGE 90

behavior at school bus stops. The purpose of the painted pavement stencil was to serve as a safety boundary beyond which the children were instructed not to go beyond when waiting for their school bus. In all a total of 13 school bus stops for elementary children were used in the study. The study was conducted in Farmington Connecticut. Seven of the 13 bus stops were used as control stops where a physical boundary such as a bush, sidewalk crack, or mail box was present and the students were instructed to stand behind the boundary. The painted pavement stencil (a yellow school bus) was painted about 10 feet from the curb at the other six stops. A total of 322 observations were collected, 147 from the stops with a stencil and 175 from the control sites. From the observations, the authors were able to conclude that the students at the control stops moved beyond the boundary twice as much as the students at the stops with stencils, thus drastically increasing the safety of the students at stops with stencils. In addition, the authors noted that the students at the stops with stencils afso were more likely to stand in a single-file line and not "monkey-around" as much as the other students A stencil kit and educational materials can be obtained from Bus Stoppers at 1-800-379-9040. Britt et a l. (1995) in an article enlitled "Law Enforcement, Pedestrian Safety, and Driver Complia'nce with Crosswalk Laws" published in Transportation Research Record 1485 summarize a four-year experiment with different approaches for enforcing the law requ i ring veh icles to yield to pedest rian s in crosswalks. In the article, Britt et al. suggest that the role of law enforcement is one of the least studied of all potential mechanisms for reducing such injuries to pedestrians, yet law enforcement is routinely recommended as one of the essent ial strategies for prevention. The authors note that limited traffic enforcement resou r ces competing departmental priori ties and a lack of awareness of the problem's significance are three common barriers to the enforcement of pedestrian laws The presence of a strong pedestrian safety program within the Seattle Police Department and willingness to collaborate with the Harborview Injury prevention and Research Center provided a unique opportunity to the authors to investigate the potential safety benefit of one type of enforcement. The authors note that, in 1990, a of safety groups, health professionals, citizen activists, and law enforcement repre senta t ives worked together to pass a stronger Washington State 80

PAGE 91

crosswalk law. The law focused the attention of the public on pedestrian safety by changing the obligation of the driver from yield to stop when pedestr ians. were attempting to cross at legal crosswalk locations. The new law set the stage for a change in Seattle Police Department policy concerning pedestrian law enforcement as well as the initiation of a public information campaign. Four separate traffic enforcement campaigns were conducted by the Seattle Police Department over the course of the 4 years. Although there were differences between each campaign, they all shared the following design features: A specific area of the city was identified to receive emphasized enforcement. The enforcement consisted of increased officer p resence in the designated area, with the purpose of citing drivers who violated the crosswalk law. A lime line for the campaign was i dentified. The shortest campaign lasted 3 weeks; the longest lasted for more than 1 year. Intersections were identified within the area. These Intersections were used to measure the compliance of drivers with slopping for crossing pedestrians. Data on historic traffic volumes and posted speed limits were also available for each location. Baseline measures of driver compliance were conducted before the initiation of the law enforcement efforts. Follow-up measures of driver compliance were obtained after the law enforcement effort stopped. From the study, the authors have been unable to demonstrate that law enforcement efforts directed at motorist violators of qrosswalk laws significantly or consistently increase drivers' willingness to stop for pedestrians. They note that it appears that even with a high degree. of commitment on !he part of law enforcement, the expectations from such programs should remain modest. .. .They continue by stressing that if inte nse enforcement efforts aimed at drivers do not elicit a positive . . effect at marked crosswalks, it is difficult to imagine that they will be effective in locations were the pedestrian r ight-of-way is more ambiguous. Finally, Britt et al. point out that it appears that other uncontrolled factors were responsible for the . wide fl uctuat ions in driver compliance such as day-to-day speed ;and volume fluctuations and their 81

PAGE 92

behavioral effects on drivers may have had a g reater effect on compliance than even the most aggressive enforcement campaign. This Internet site at http://hlunix.ex.state.ut.uslpedestrian.htmt points out that approximately 37 people die every year in motor vehicle-pedestrian accidents in Utah and many more are injured. Children ages 1 to 19 years are prime victims of pedestrian accidents in Utah and average 17 deaths each year. Adults 60 years and older are also another high risk group and average 9 fatalities per year. The site p o ints out that many motor vehicle-stude>nt pedestrian accidents are due to unsafe crossing behavior b y both children, much like in Brevard County The site notes that elementary-age child ren are at the greatest risk because of their lim ited developmental skills and offer reasons why as follows: They have a field of visi on one-third narrower than an adult's. They are unable to determine the direction of sounds. They cannot accura tely judge the speed or distance of moving vehicles. They lack the ability to understand how much t ime and distance is needed for a vehicle to stop. They overestimate their own abilities They are easily distracted, and tend to focus on one thing at a time l ike a ball or friend. They are easily hidden by bushes, parked cars, etc. Below are some tips and suggestions taken from the site for helping elementary-age children and adu lts become better pedestrians. First, set boundaries for small ch ildren. Show them where they can play safely and the limits beyond which they cannot go. Be prepared to enforce the rules. Second, as your children grow older teach them the basic rules for crossing the street safely. One of the best ways to do this is to lake a walk with them demonstrating and explaining the correct way to cross. Being a good example every time you cross the street with them, might be the most important thing you do in helping children become careful pedestrians. Childr e n will imHate what they see adults and teenagers do. If adults walk out between parked cars, jaywalk or cross against the light, more than likely ch il dren will too. 82

PAGE 93

Children need to be taught to STOP at the edge of the street and look left-right and left again for vehicles before crossing Ask children w hat they see to dete r mine that they know what they are looking for ar)d not just turn ing their heads Intersections are more complex. Child r en need to look over thei r shou l der fo r vehicles that may be turning as they are looking left-right and left that even if there is a stop sign or a signal light drivers do not a l ways obey the rules. Children should be taught to until the vehicle stops before venturing out I nto the street. And when the light turns green, they should look for turning vehicles before stepping o ut into the street or crosswa l k . Just becai.Jse they can see a driver doesn't mean the driver has n oticed them. No matter what age you are it is important to stop at the curb and look left-right and left again before stepping out into the street even when the light is green and the signal says walk. Especially be alert for turning vehic l es. Drivers of turning vehicles are usually so preoccupied with looking for that gap in traffic so they can proceed, that they are not paying attention to pedestrians O i Pi e tro and King (1970} .in an art i cle entitled "Pedestrian Gap Accept;mce" published in Highway Research Record 308 described the re sulls of a research siudy that investigated the gap acceptance of pedestrians at an unmarked mid-block crossing. Data were coll ected via time lapse photography and analy z ed with the aid of a photo optica l analyzer Various statistical analyses were utilized to investigate the relationship between size of gap acceptance and various facto r s such as waiting time at curbside, traffic volume number of persons waiting at curbside, the speed of approaching traffic, and the walking speed of the pedestrian. Several concl usion were reached by Di Pietro and K ing including: Female pedestrians were will i ng to wait longer at curbside for a suitable gap than male pedestrians. The minimum acceptable gap for all pedestrians was 3 seconds or 75 feet. gaps were accepted by groups of pedestrians rather. than by Individuals. Individua l pedestrians c r ossed the roadway at greater walking speeds than did a group of pedestrians. 83

PAGE 94

The Internet site at http://www.chwpr.org/pedestrian.htm/ points out that each year in the United States more than 50,000 children are injured as pedestrians. And, of these 50,000 children, 1,800 die, 18,000 are admitted to hospitals, and 5,000 suffer from significant long-term disabilities. In addition, the site notes that very few children under 8 years of age can deal safely with traffic and offers reasons why these children are at the greatest risk: They are impulsive and tend to do things without think ing first. They believe that If they can see a driver the driver can see them. Few can judge the speed of traffic or distances. A child's field of vision is one-third of an adult's. They do not recognize or react to unsafe situations. The site notes that the best advice is for parents to be exa mples for their children. Younger children are at the highest risk of being involved in an accident because they have not yet developed a sense of danger. Before letting children cross the streets alone, it is important for parents to cross the streets numerous times with them. Children deve lop skills through repetition and positive reinforcement. The site offers advice to parents about practicing certain safety skills with their children as follows: Learn to read and understand traffic signa l s and signs. Be alert to potential hazards. Look left, right, and left again before crossing roadways Stop at the curb or edge of the road before crossing the street. Never run into a street. Once a street is clear, it usually is safe to cross. However, keep looking for oncoming traffic until the street has been safely crossed When walking in a downtown a rea, stay on the sidewalks and cross streets at designated crosswalks. Never cross between parked cars When walking at dusk or during evening hours, make sure to wear bright cloths and some type of reflective device. Do not walk alone at n ight. 84

PAGE 95

PAGE 96

PAGE 97

how fast they d r ive on residentia l streets The radar trailer is a tool that helps educate the public. Pollee EnforcementIn working with City staff, the Po li ce Department will target spec ific areas for increased enforcement for a short period of time. Use of this targeted enforcement during appropriate times of the day has demonstrated a reductio n in traff i c violations as well as a greater awareness of driving habits. In conjunction w i th the radar trailer use on residential streets the Police Department can follow up with increased enforcement. A research study entitled "The Effect of Different Timing Schemes on Pedestrian Behaviour at Signal Controlled Junctions" was located at the Internet site http://www. vtt.fi/yki/yki6/abs94/abs_16.htm. The research study included a brief literature s urvey and extensive field observations of pedestrian behaviors. The field studies were made In Helsinki, Finland at three pedestrian crossings in signal controlled intersections. Two of the pedestrian crossings were in the center. of Hels i nki (field observations for 6 hours) and one was in the suburbs (field observations for 8 hours) The field observations were made with three different traffic signal t i ming schemes at all intersect i ons. Two of the timing schemes were traffic actuated : the present one and the fast mode contror and one was fixed-time control. During the fast mode control. the green phase for the vehicles w.as cut off more easily than, during the present control. If there was a clear gap (more than two seconds) io the vehicle flow the pedestrians got a green phase . The fie l d studies included conflicts, waiting times in samples for pedestrians c r ossing the street against r ed light and against green light (100 pedes t r i ans), accepted gaps for pedestrians going against red light, crossings outside .th. e pedestrian crossing, and traffic volumes . The findings from the study suggest that the risks _for all pedestrians was low and also for pedestrians crossing the st r eet against the red light. There was no safety difference observed between different timing schemes. In addition, the waiting times were longer for pedestrians crossing the street when the light was green than for those who crossed against the red light. The authors noted that this was due to over half of the pedestrians who crossed the street against a red . light did not stop at all but those who obeyed the law had to waH for the green light. During all of the timing schemes over 60 percent of the pedestrians crossing the street against a red light accepted a gap between five and tel) seconds. The vehicle flows over the pedestrian crossing remained just about the same then changing from the present control to the fast mode control. 87

PAGE 98

During the field studies, the number of pedestrians going against a red l i ght increased in all the pedestrian crossings that were observed. Observations in the suburb demonstrated that there were clea rly more pedestrians crossing the st r eet outs i de the marked crossing when changing from the present control to the fast mode control and stil l more when changing to the fixed-time control. On the basis of the field studies, the findings suggest that the fixed-time control was the worst choice of the three different signal control schemes from the pedestrian's point of view due to the fixed-time control being so inflexible The waiting times for pedestrians were also longest for the fixed-time control. Further the best choice from the pedestrian's point of view was the present signal control scheme The spec i al tailoring of the signal control scheme for each inte r section (all green phase for pedestrians, the active priority for publi c transport coordinated traffic signals, and so on) makes the crossing more comfortable for the pedestrians than just simply making the control faster. At the Internet site http://ouhvorld. compuserve comlhomepagesltoan/eng13.hlm severa l frequently asked quest i ons about pedestrian signals are l isted and answers are p rovided to the frequently asked questions The site comments that many years ago when traffic volumes were much lower than they are today, pedestrians could take their cues from the same traffic lights as motorists. It goes on to note that things a r e m ore complicated today, so it sh o uldn't be surp ris ing that questions are frequently asked about pedestrian signals which were introdu ce d to improve pedestrian safety. Among these frequently asked questions are: Why do t hey always change before I get across the street? Why do some Intersections have them and others don't? Pedestrian signals used to say walk or don't walk. What do those new symbo l s mean? Why are pedestrian signals available at some intersections and not at others? Shouldn't pedestrian signals be available at every intersection? W ou ldn't that make things safer? Why does it always say don't walk before I've completed crossing the street? Is it really necessary for me to push a button to activate the pedestrian signal? Can't I just wail for the light to change? 88

PAGE 99

Can I count on a safe crosslng.lf I carefully follow the pedestrian signals? The site notes that pedestrian s i gnals are installed for two main reasons: a high volume of.foot traffic at an intersection or the signals motorists do not sufficiently meet the needs of pedestrians. For example, some Intersections are laid ou t at odd angles and traffic signals cannot be seen by pedestrians. In other cases, turning and merging lanes make intersections so complex that special provisions must be made for pedestrians. If existing traffic signals meet the needs of people on foot (the signals are easy to see and allow plenty of time to cross safely) there is no need for pedestrian signals and pedestrian signals won't improve safety in such cases and are costly to purchase, install, and operate, the site makes clear. The site goes on to note that transportaiion engineers world-wide are moving toward the use of symbo l (walking pedestrian and upraised hand) signs in place of word signs because they are easier for people to comprehend In a shorter amount of time. Easily recognized symbols also accommodate people who can't read English. The ootes that, both word and symbol pedestrian signs are currently in wide use and t hat they mean the following: Walk or walking pedestrian symbol means you may begin crossing. A flashing or steady don't walk or an upraised hand symbol means that it is too late to begin crossing. Don't enter the street but finish crossing if you have already started. The flashing don't walk or upraised hand Is a warning to people who have not yet entered the intersections that it's too late to safely cross the street before the traffic signal changes allow(ng . .. . . cars to proceed. Signals are timed to allow plenty of time for people who have already started walking to safely cross the This sign is installed at many signal controlled intersections to help pedestrians cross more safely. Where buttons are available to pedestrians, it is because the traffic signal Is timed for cars, not for pedestrians. The site states that If a pedestrian does not activate the pedestrian signal by pushing the butt on the traffic light will not give him/her enough time to safely cross the street and that the button needs to be pushed once for it be activated 89

PAGE 100

The site stresses t hat the pedestrian signals assign legal rights to pedestrians in the inte rsection, However, i t is important to be cautious when crossing busy inte rsections The following suggestions are offered at the site in the interest of pedestrian safety: Cross interse ctions defensively. When crossing the street, regardless of the availability of signals, cross as qu ickly as possible. Minimize time in the roadway. Always watch for turning vehicles. Pedestrians have the legal righ t to be there, but that doesn't protect them from the carelessness of some motorists. Katz et al. (1975) i n an article entitled "An Experimental Study of Driver and Pedestrian Interaction During the Crossing Conflict" published in Human Factors Volume 17(5) described the results of a controlled experiment conducted to determine the relative importance of pedestrian, vehicle, and situational factors that influence drivers to heed the way to crossing pedes trians. Several variables were used in the analysis including: Type of crossing Distance between oncoming vehicle and p edestri an Orientation of pedestrian Number of pedestrians crossing Velocity of approaching vehicle Katz et al. instructed trained pedestrians to start an ordinary street crossing prior to an approaching vehicle reaching the crossing. The response of drivers was measured as their reduction in speed The experiments were replicated at two crossings and a total of 960 crossing tr ials were conducted. Katz et al. found that drivers slowed down or stopped, for crossing pedestrians when: Th e approach speed of the vehicle was low. The crossing took place at a marked crosswalk. There was a relatively long distance between the vehicle and the pedestrian's point of entry int o the roadway A group of pedestrians, rather than a single pedestrian, attempted to cross. 90

PAGE 101

The l*ldestrian did not look at the approach ing vehicle. Female drivers and older drivers slowed down more for pedestrians than other drivers. At the lntemet site http://ou!World.compuserve.com/homepagesltoanleng4.htm ll)e City of San Buenaventura California, defines crosswalks and their uses. The site offers the following: What is a crosswalk? Crosswalks are either marked or unmarked. A marked crosswalk is any crosswalk Which is delineated by while or yellow painted markings placed on the pavement. All other crosswalk locations are therefore unmarked How are crosswalks used? AI any crosswalk (marked or unmarked) drivers must yield the right-of -way to. pedestrians. Crosswa l ks are marked mainly to encourage pedestrians to use a particular crossing . Studi es [uncited] conducted on the relative safety of crosswalks support minimal installation of marked crosswalks. What causes accidents at marked crosswalks? Research suggests that marked crosswalks give pedestrians a false sense of security. Pedestrians often step off the curb into the crosswalk expecting drivers of vehicles approaching the crosswalk to stop However, drivers frequently fail . to stop and cause an accident. At a ll crosswalks, botli marked and unmarked, it is the pedestrian's responsibility to be cautious and a l ert before starting to cross the street. At mid-block crosswa l ks on multi-lane roadways, another frequent factor in causing accidents involves the driver of a vehicle In the lane nearest to the curb stopping for a pedestrian that Is .waiting to cross or who is already In the crosswalk. The driver of a second vehicle traveling in the lane next to the stopped vehicle tries to pass the stopped vehicle and hits the pedestrian, even though it is illeg ai for drivers to pass a stopped vehicle at a crosswalk. Pedestrians should be very cautious when walking in a crosswalk, especially when their visibility is limited by vehicles alreadY stopped at the crosswa l k. Where are crosswalks normally marked? Crosswalks are marked at intersections where there is substantial conflict between vehicle and pedest r ian movements, where signifi_93nt pedestrian concentrations occur, where pedestrians could not otherwise recognize the proper place .to cross, and where traffic movements are controlled. Examples of such locations are : Approved school crossings. Signalized and four way stop intersections where there is significant pedestrian traffic and one or more crossing locations have been prohibited. 91

PAGE 102

Last, the site summarizes a study conducted by the City of San Diego [uncited) in which the city studied intersections with both marked and unmarked crosswalks. The results were surprising. Although 2.5 times as many people used the marked crosswalks, 6 times as many accidents in the marked crosswalks. Further the site also notes a pedestrian safety study in Long Beach [uncited] that reported 8 times as many acc i dents in marked crosswalks compared to unmarked c rosswa lks At the Internet site ht/p:llourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/toanleng6.hlm the City of Ventura, California, offers reasons why the city developed a safe school route p rogr am. Fi rst the site notes that numerous studies conducted by the city have shown that school-age pedestrians and bicyclists are the group at greatest risk on the city's streets. In order to minimize t hat risk, the city has prepared a set of gui delines to help educate elementary grade school children on how to reach school as safely as possible. The site notes that when riding bicycles on city streets, elementary-age bicyclis t s should keep the following in mind: Keep your bicycle in good mechanical condit i on (tires, chain, brakes). Obey all traffic rules and signs and always give proper hand signals. Walk your bike across busy intersections by using the push button to activate the pedestrian signal Always ride with the traffic as close as possible to the right side of the road. Be sure the roadway is clear before en tering. Always ride single file and watch for opening car doors Most bicycles are built to carry one person: YOU! and you alone. If you must ride you bike at night be sure your headlight and ref lectors are in good condition. Select the safest route to your destination and use it. Avoid busy intersections Yield right-of-way to pedestrians. Always wear a bicycle helmet. The site continues by noting that when walking on city streets, elementary-age pedestrians should keep the following in mind: 92

PAGE 103

When walking along a road where a sidewalk Is not provided, walk on the left side facing oncoming traffic. Look in all directions before crossing the street for cars, pedestrians, bicyclists, and mopeds. Never cross the street from betVJeen parked cars because drivers cannot see you. Always stand on the curb, not in the street, while waiting to cross. Cross only at corners where drivers can see you. Always use a crosswalk when it is available, but remember, painted lines cannortorce drivers to stop. Do not take rides from strangers. Use the push button whenever possible and cross with the walk signal only. When crossing the street, watch for cars that are turning left or right. Last, the site offers the following advice to elementary-age students when using crosswalks with adult school crossing guards : Obey the directions of the crossing guard. Don't ruri across the street, always walk. Be alert for traffic, drivers sometimes fail to obey the crossing guard stop .s,igns. Don't ride bicycles or skateboards across the street, walk with them. The Internet site at http:llourworld.compuserve com/homepageslloan/engB.htm offers some reasons as to why bicyc.le accidents occur Studies by the City of Ventura, California, show that the single most common factor in bicycle accidents is that bicyclists rit;le on the wrong side of the street. The site notes that the reason for these accidents occurring Is that when vehicles are turning at intersections and bicyclists are riding the wrong way, drivers do not see them coming because .. . . . . . they are not expecting the bicyclists to be traveling in the opposite direction against the flow of traffic. This finding suggests that, to lessen accidents, bicyclists should ride with traffic and not . against it. Bicyclists should also use the push button at signalized intersections to cross the street. Signals are usually timed to handle vehicular traffic. Bicyclists frequently need extra time to cross . intersections which they can only receive by pushing the actuation button . The site also comments that the city has implemented an aggressive traffic safety improvement program which started 1987. This very successful program has reduced city-wide accidents from 93

PAGE 104

2, 700 per year to just over 1,800 accidents per year, a drop of nearly 900 accidents per year. The site notes that drivers can help to reduce accidents further by bearing in mind when driving the most common causes of acci dents as follows: Right-of-Way Violations D r ivers who select too short a gap in traffic when entering a busy major street from a side street or dr i veway are frequently involved in severe broads i de accidents. It is important to always wai t until there is a sufficient gap in traffic when entering a busy street from a side street or driveway. It is also important to yield to oncoming traffic when turning left by selecting a safe gap in oncoming traffic before beginning a left turn. Unsafe Speeds Drivers who follow vehicles ahead of them too closely cause rear-end accidents Drivers should maintain at least a 2-second gap between their vehicles and the veh i cles ahead of them In order to avoid r ear-end co lli sions. Drivers traveling too fast for the prevailing conditions are a major factor in causing rear-end type collisions. It is important to a l ways drive at or below the posted speed limit at all times Stop Sign and Traffic Signal Violations Drivers running red lights frequently cause severe broadside accidents Drivers should never enter signalized intersections on the red light. They may enter on the green light once vehicles lawfully in the i ntersect i on have cleared. Drivers running stop signs also cause broadside accidents. Drivers must always come to a comp l ete stop at all stop signs. Improper Turning Movements Right turns should begin and end i n the farthermost right l ane. Left turns should begin in the farthest left hand lane or turn pocket and end in any lane lawfully available to them. Side swipes are also caused by drivers changing lanes abruptly. Drivers should always look over their shoulders and signal whenever changing lanes to make sure that travel lanes adjacent to them are clear of traffic before making a lane ch ange Driving Under the Influence Drivers who are intoxicated or on drugs and alcohol cause a large number of accidents. Drivers should never drive while under the influence of any substance that will impair their ability to properly operate a veh i cle Kwei, et al. (1994) in a study enmled Pedestrian Accidents and Left-turn i ng Traffic at Signalized Intersections performed under a grant from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety found that the over presentation of left turning vehicles in accidents that occur at signalized intersections is an important problem In road safety. They noted that one particularly troubling aspect of this problem is the accidents between vehicles and pedestrians. Specifically in the study, the authors 94

PAGE 105

develop'ed models relating to the expected number of such accidents to the flow of left-turning vehicles and the flow of pedestrians. They examined how two typical schemes for accommodating left -turning vehicles influence the number of such accidents. These are a semi-p r otected scheme, where left-turn ing vehicles face no opp osing traffic but conftict with pedestrians and a permissive scheme, in which left-turning vehicles have to find suitab l e gaps in the opposing traffic The results from the study that semi-protected left turns tend to be.safer. for. pedestrlans at low vehicular flows. The opposite is tru e for high flows of left -turning vehicles. At the Internet sHe http://www.bikeplan.com/, Tracy-Williams ConsuHing comments that traffic signals should work for bicyclists as they work for all other vehicle drivers . The trouble Is, as they note, they often do not. At their site, they offer suggestions regarding the use of different types of bike-loop detectors in conjunction with traffic signal systems to improve the safety of bicyclists At the outset, the site discusses how most traffic s ig nals at intersections work. It states that there are primarily two types of traffic signal systems: . Pre-timed these signals turn green through a set rotation; in other if you wait through the cycle you'll eventua ll y g et a green light. These signals aren t too much of a problem. for bicyc li sts. Demand-actuatedthese signals turn green when the system detects traffic. The problem is that many such systems detect cars and trucks just fine but don't detect bicycles very well. They relate that, in general, demand-actuated signals consist of an electrified loop of wire buried in the traffic lane approache s to the i[ltersection, a sending unit behind the curb, a controller box attacped to one ofthe signal pol es, and .the signals themselves. When a large mass of. metal (such .. as a vehic l e) moves over the top of the buried l oop of wire, H aHers the eleclromagnetic fie ld which,' In tum, tells the sending unit to tell the controller to change the traffic signal to green. This Is what happens when a vehicle arrives at the intersection. And, it's why the signal can be red for hours until a vehicle comes along and it causes the traffic light to turn green. They further illustrate how these types of signals can work for bikes. They state that, in some instances, most biKes do not have enough metal to make a difference to a loop detector. However, that is not always the case. If, for exampl e, the loop has a special shape, It Is more likely to detect 95

PAGE 106

the presence of a bike. Or, if the bike stops injustthe right spot (i.e over the buried wire) it might be detected. They note that many traffic engineers have experimented with bike-sensitive loops and several designs have been developed that work best in different situations. Bike lane loop detectors often work best with "quadrupole" l oops which mirror figure-eights set on one side These are particularly sensitive over the center and they lose sensitivity to the outside. Traffic lane loop deteclors often do best with "diagonal quadruple" loops, which look like a figure-eight set at a 45 degree angle. These are sensitive over the whole width of the loop and allow bike detection even if you cannot predict exactly where the bicyclist will stop. The site notes that changing local standards to use bike-detector loops would, over time, make a big difference in how bicyclists are treated by signal systems and ultimately improve safety. The diagram below, obtained directly from the site, shows some popular loop detector designs Detector Loops Dlagona.l Quadrupole Quadrupole Rectangular _/ The site continues by noting that standard loops are rectangular or square In shape and are somewhat sensitive over the area in the center, most sensitive over the outer wires, and least sensitive outside of the loop. As a result, a bicyclist stopping at the curb would probably be outside the loop and would go undetected and, as a result, not obtain a green light. On the other hand, a bicyclist stopping right over the wire has the best chance of being detected. Unfortunately, the site points out that it is often difficult or impossible to tell where that wire is placed. The site suggests painting a pavement marking directly over the wire to let bicyclists know where to stop to compensate for this slight problem. The bicyclist could stop on the marking and 96

PAGE 107

obtain a green light. An example of such a pavement marking, obtained directly from the site, is provided below. > 8 i ':""" .........;.._a . -. -: : '> -The site notes that the primary benefits of making loops work for bikes are: o To allow bicyclists to safely cross signalized intersections. o To send bicyclists the right message: they count as part of the traffic scene. It's a bit hypocritical to tell bicyclists they should obey traffic signals if we don't make them work for bikes, In addition to discussing bike-loop detectors at the In terne t site hffp:llwww.bikeplan.com/, Tracy Williams Consulting discusses replacing or modifying dangerous drain grates as well to improve bicyc le safety. They note that dangerous drain grates are one of the most basic and easy improvements a community ca n make to Improve the safety of bicyclists. They continue by stating that it Js important to realize that a drainage grate, as part of a road's drainage system, is an important roadway feature since it allows stonm water runoff that has flowed from the roadway into the gutter to be taken away via a subsurface system of pipes or to enter the groundwater through a sump For this reason, any changes made to a drain grate must take hydraulics Into account. They continue by noting that a "bicycle safe" grate must allow water to pass without allowing common types and amounts of debris to clog the inlets without trapping bicycle wheels; the primary danger for bicyclists. Many traditional parallel-bar drain grates have slots wide enough to engulf some bicycle's wheels by allowing a wheel to drop in, perhaps up to the fork. As a result, the wheel abruptly stops and the rider catapults over the handlebars landing in either the gutter or in the path of traffic. They note that numerous government agencies have been successfully sued for allowing parallel drain grates to go unaltered. 97

PAGE 108

They also offer advice for replacing or modifying dangerous drain grates. The best approach is to replace them with "bicycle safe" grates with such models as the "vane" design. This particular drain grate is known for having good hydraulics (water flow) and being very safe for bicycles. There are many other grate designs that are also improve the safety of bicyclists. Steel grates designed in a honeycomb pattern work well and are the standard for the State of California Iron grates a herringbone pattern of holes also are good and are standard for the State of North Carolina. Also, they state that curbface inlets take the water Into a hole in the curb and have no slots on the road surface. While curb-face inlets offer an excellent solution, removing the grate entirely, can, however, cause handling problems if the roadway slopes excessively toward the inlet. The sites notes several alternatives to replacing dangerous grates include placing covers over the top and painting warning markings on the roadway to di r ect bicyclists away from the grates The firs t option tends to be a temporary fix and welded stee l straps over the top of a gra te can, over t ime come loose. A lso the site notes that sending a welder out into the field is a very expensive way to handle such problems Finally, the sites notes that the primary benefits of providing bicycle safe d r ain grates are a reduction in bicycling hazards, a lessened risk of injury for riders and a resulting reduction in the potential liability for the agency responsible for the roads. Retzko and Androsch (1974) in an article entitled "Pedestrian Behavior at Signalized Intersect ions" published in Traffic Engineering end Control Volume 15 described the results of a resea rch study that examined the relationship between signal timing and intersection crossing behavior of pedestrians. The authors identified four classes of pedestrians: Early walkers Green walkers Late walkers Risk walkers The collected data revealed relationships between pedestria n behavior, V(!hicle volumes, and signal timing. Relzko and Androsch found that younger pedestrians disregard signals more often than older pedestrians. In addi t ion they found that the number of pedestrians categorized as "early 98

PAGE 109

walkers" increased when the yellow signal for vehicles was longer than necessary Late walkers perceived that the yellow signal Is a protective phase for them to cross safely. An increase in risk walkers transpires as. the red signal is displayed to them for a greate r proportion oflhe signal cycle. 99

PAGE 110

100

PAGE 111

APPEND IXD Hazardous Walking Guidelines (Florida Statute 234 021) 101

PAGE 112

102

PAGE 113

PAGE 114

104

PAGE 115

. APPENDIXE Institute of Transportation Engineers Guidelines for School Studies 105 .

PAGE 116

106

PAGE 117

rear vehicle can keep the fron t vehicle barely in sight an d eomrnand.&umulative distance measures at check points. The recorded difference i s the sight dis t ance. Lines of sight may also be measured on foot using tapes or meosuring wheels. At low-volume interse c t i ons, the relative need for control and the sel ection between yield and stop signs often 'ate dependent on sight distance. See the MTES for a sight-angle board layout and appli c ation." Schoo l studi es Studies rel ated to schools may be grouped into three categories; walking routes, street crossings, and operations ad jacent to and on the school site." The most critical studies are related 10 crossings parti c ular l y of high-volume streets. Crossing protection criteria depend on an appraisal of street wi d ths, vehicular speeds an d v olumes, pedestrian volumes, and gaps in the uaffic suearn Fie l d studies are ..quired to determine the extent of pcdeslrian del ay prior to making a decision r egarding conuol. The minimum length of gap that will permit a group of pedeslrians to cross a street of width (W) depends on group A."'D 0Pm.1.A'lDEa Mallllaf cj E.tttlnuri,.,g Srwli41, pp. 87 ar.d $9. R. BoNMeTT. "'EtrecliYe Sdlooi'PedutrUn Tta.ns.port.ltioll SI'Oefies," Worll, p. 1S(Iur.e tM Uniform TiofficC.,-.uotDerktJ, 1)-;L(Jic COI'tlrOls tot School (Wuhin g:on, D .C.: H{Sbway MmiJtbtral!on, 1978); A ln;&TIIm/OT Sc"I Cr4Uffll tt6 Prxtkc (Ail frtstoa, Va. ln;tltut.c: ofTnn$JX)CWioR Eo,sincm. 1911); F'lu:o J., HOWJ A "1'nffic .Ertginceri"' (01' Pcc!esi:I:Un S:ltcty,'" Tr(II'IJ.pott, El'll pp. 16-21 (Jan. 1978), '"''rdfic PIQIItlli)JI on School Midi ipn Scctiotl m. ca Tn!&e E n gineering ucund Sdloob, m J., pp. 22-2.9 (A\1 1978). site. perception time reaction time, and walking time. It must equal the time needed by the group to cross the road way with o ut coming in conflict wit h p assing This m inimum gap tim e, G, is computed from the foll owing equation: w G = + P + K(N I) v (17.14) wher e W = width of t he pavement to be crossed, ft or m V = juvenile pedeslrian walking speed (usually taken at 3 5 ftls or I rnls) P = pedeStrian perception and reaction time, which is the number ofseconds required for t o look both ways, make a decision, : and start to walk across the street (usually tAken at 3 0 s) N = number of rows of pedeslrians (see below) K(N -I) = total added t ime required for tile entire group to enter the roadway, seconds; K is the time between the rows (usually taken as 2.0 s) The pavement width is mea s ured curb co cu rb. If the roadway is divided an d the center island is wide enough for the maximum-site group of pedestrians to s t and on it in safe t y, the width of on l y one roadway is used f"!'. W. This infonnation is obtained at the s ame time the pedestrian group size study is made, and the pertinent data recorded at the top of a fonn such as shown in Figure 17.11 It is recommended p ractice to assume for the size of Figure 17 .11. Sample pedwri.ang.roupsize &nldy field sheet. A Progr0 pedut r1a nrs 26-30 'IHIII 7 56 31-33 Ill 3 59 36-40 I l 6o 41-45 . 4S.5Q TOTAL NUMBER 60 OF GROUPS Traffic Studies 537

PAGE 118

PEOESiAIAH O!LAY TIME STUDY StudYd.au 'i/Loc.a*! End of IU""V (to ntartst om NumbH or rows. ... N .. (2 of surtty (to neares-t minutcl 080l RoldWIY wi d th. "W .. l!2 Tot4!1 survey ti me (mi n utes) 55 Adtqu&te Qap tii'M. ''G"' .ld:_ stc.t. Gap sltc Numbt-t of gt t M u ltiply l:ly Tally Total 9"P 5izc 8 9 10 12 13 Oi."i.J..,. i IS ,..,, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 I I ... 25 /Ill II /DO 26 /II & 1f 27 II 1 $'If 28 I I u 28 Ill } n 30 .ffrr 150 31 II .1 32 1111 ltl 33 34 Ill 10! :15 ,, 35 0 37 I I p 38 39 40 4 2 43 .. (total tim e o l all OIPt f'Qual or f!q than "G ") p crouing the sueet tlie 8Sth percentile or all 8J""P 1 observed in lhe field. The size or each row (number :desaians wallting abreast) is also musutcd; it is often d to be five persons. The number or rows (N) is then Jlated by dividing lhe group size by the row si%0 and dins up 10 the next integer. N is taken as an integer usc one pedestrian in excess of an even live will make .dditional row and will require extra clearance time. 10I crossing pedestrian counts are made on a normal ot day during the heaviest h our of crossing activity in naming and in the afternoon. he field srudy Includes measllfement of lhe gaps be n the passing vehicles. A convenient fonn is .shown in re I 7 .12. The gaps that are equal to or sre ater than the ptabte gap time for the established 85'J. gap ue the >ds when lhe child ren may cross the roadway slfely. time intervals between the aoceptable gaps are delay the sum of which is the actual pedestrian delay. If pan of the roadway is to be crossed during a given only the traffic ftow i n those Janes to be c rossed are idered Th e total available crossing time i s the sum of me by which each gap was equal to or gre a ter than lhe p!Jible gap. This total ( t) is subtracted from the total Trii\SpOrUOOn and Engineerlnv HMCibook .... T toUIIUI"\\IY ci.mt T .1L, x 60 T lotCI. 01:;'100 0. (, ... ,),, JJ .. 0. '10 0 ZQ flrure 17.12 S;ample study licl4$bed, SooJ.CE: A $lltQOI CroJilfll (Arlington, Va. : lNdNtc or TrliUpot Wioa nain n t971), p 20. survey time (T}. The following equation is then used to determine the percentage of pott.ntial pcdesaian delay, D: D (%) = T ; 1 X 100 (!7.1S) Methods of calculating dela y at signalized intersec t ions are similar, b ut substi tute cycle length C forT and measure only t he gaps be tween vehicles turning both riah t and l e f t across the crosswalk under study .26 Public transit stu dies The pu!pOSC of tramit studies is to evaluate the service within a alven aru and to estimate the use or ID&SS transit. Major regional trans portation studies develop information on II>Jisit service and nz.cds. Special studies may focus on loc al problems, such as the locat ion of stops or lhe effect of one-way streets on trans i t routlng. A numb er of .t ,,.,,_/9' Crossllt.l 0!1.cVn AHD WMJI.., "Ttafli<' EnPnecMa lot Pcda:lliaA pp. 16-22. PAGE 119 APPENDJXF Brevard County Student Accident Database for 1992-1996 109 PAGE 120 110 PAGE 121 TABLES DATA FOR All STUDENT ACCIDENTS IN BREVARD COUNTY,1992-1994 ClASS CITY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSEST I NTERSEC'nNG DATE TIME DAY ACCIDENT STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GENDER BicyeJe Bt.ms Boulevard Flotilla Club Dli\e 18-Apr-1994 1 512 Mond;ry 9 While Fefn8!e Bicycle Knox Mor.1e Drive VanguardAvtnue 14-.May-1993 1020 Friday 6 Willie Mal e Bicycle 3670 Alfan!lc Avenue 10-Mar-1994 1521 Thursday 10 1 7 White Male 8;eyole Gt'OYfl: Joy Rood Sea Horse taM f3Deo-1998 1530 Flid3y 4 10 Wllite ... le Blcyde Cape Canaveral Adams Avenue M3gnolia AVenue 17-Sap-1993 1S2S Friday 1 II Wllile Ma Cape C#tlaveral G:ltfield' A'o'OnUO Pojnseffa Avtnl)t 10..JanN 1855 Monday I 6 Whlfe FeBi::yd'o Capo Canavtta l A ltlntieAvenue AdamsA\ --day 13 While ..... e;eyae PolkAVOIWe Ma:gnolia Avenue 04$epo19S 6 1745 10 WI;, Male C
PAGE 122

CLASS CITY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSEST INTERSECnNG DATE nME DAY ACCIDENT STUDE NT STUDENT STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GENDER .,. Cocoa S .R, 5at Tate Street .1304 :Wcdnt$day :15 'Miite Molt Peclcsi!Un Cocoa Geotgia Avenue HOlmes Street 20-NoY-1992 1S12 Friday 14 Blacl< """ Bicycle coooe S.R..A1A SJt 5 12.S ep.1996 1530 TllurscSay 10 ....,,. .... I Blcyde Cocoa Potlsett Orive Hugh lett Av enue 19.feb199& 1821 -' 10 B lad< .... ,. 8 i eyde cocoa Be-.,st Avenue 1043 Wtclnesday 11 'Mille Mal e Cocoa S.R,5 S!rett 18S.C Thul'$4ay -Cocoa 3645 Ct UnktiO'Wli t3-FeJ>.1m 17 .. Th-;ty 1Ml Male ' BX:ycte Cocoa 904 Peacllll'ee Street O!M,.,afo 1 993 1722 Tuemy 15 Blad< Male Pedestrian Cocoa _,.AYO VagabondSt 20-Mar-1995 172.4 MoMay 7 Male I Bictdtt Cooo> Palm Street Bell vit:w R 034 0$-Dce-19$4 17.CO T ..... ;ty 1 8 M a l e cocoa 1900 Funnan C1 Ul\koown Name 08 Dee-1992 1 850 T""";ty 5 7 WNio Female --Cocoa Columbia w.r:t 31-Mar-1992 1732 Tuesday 5 s -.. Fema i Pe-1994 8 ....,, .. Cocoa 1225 Clealiak.e Road Camb!fdge SChOOl 3Q..f.W1992 745 Monday 1 3 B lael< ...... Cocoa P ineda Stree t Bri$1oJ Drive 1 3-Sep-1993 1I'Y flo 7386 Carillon Aveooe OS..Ot1995 1645 ThUI$dlly 10 11 wr.e ... ,. Pedestrian Cocoa Beach 1 500 Minutemsn Aug1993 1446 Monday 13 While Male Causeway Blc:yde Cocoa Beacll Oc:e3n B each L...,l.ono 15-Aug-1996 1 610 Thuraday VIJhi1c Male 8-Blcyc!e CoooiBcac:h I Sle$Boulevard Sari Road 28-Apr'9'2 1730 T uesday 8 \Aihito Female Pe PAGE 123 CLA S S C ITY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSEST INTERSECnNG DATE TIME D AY ACCIDENT STUOENT STUDENT STVDEHT O CCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RAC" GENDER B;c,.ele Coeoa 3n:l Stroot NOI1h 13-Ncw-1992 7 1 5 Ftldsy 4 1 2 Whi te Blcyde Cocoa Beacfl Brevard Avenu e C auseway 24J311S 859 T\IOSd:IY 14 Pedeslrlan CoooaBeseh S .R.AIA coeo:. ls.'es Boo.:levard { 439 Monday 17 IM'Ii!e Fema PAGE 124 CLASS .ciTY ROAD ACCrDEHT ct.OSEST INTERSECTlN.G DATE TIME DAY ACCIDENT STUDENT s ruoENT STUDENT OCCURREOON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GENDER BleyIle f ...... SiC(de Me210urr.e Saxton Sttett F a iM ew Drive te.feiH993 1608 Thunday 1 17 """" female Blcyde Me.boomoe Drive SOL(hland Street 11N0..,..1996 162S M\ltld>y 1 15 "'"' Bleyde Me!t>oume Brevard BabCOCk Stfeel 732 Mooday 3 14 ""'" Male Pel!estrian Melbourne Doftl'lelte r A\'ef'IUO K""' Slrcet 25-Jan-199<1 1540 l'llesday 12 1Nhi1e Male ; 8 1 eytle Mtlboume Cf'Oritl Avcn vo oo.oeo-19N ... Friday 4 10 Whi1c Male Bleyd e Uelboume E a u Gatne Boulevard Croton Road 01Ct 1992 840 Thllf$d#y 4 ,.,,. Bleyde MelbOurne CrCOOt'l Roofd U m c Street 23 Fef>1995 732 Thursday 4 11 Whit$Male Bleyde Metboul"'''e Mew Greenway D1tYe 800 .. 4 11 ""'' e ,...,... Bleyde Melbourne crooon ROftf Adeoms Avenue 11-J an-1995 826 wednesday 1 0 wtlite Fnale Bleyele Eau Gallle Bo..OO...ard Croton Road 05.0et 199 2 10 31 Monday 4 12 .... 1 .. Blcyde New Hoven AvtMie Airport 8ou18vatd 31-Msr199 5 .... Frida)' 4 'M'Iite Mc le S ic.yele Me!bol.lmc Eau Game Bourevard S .R. A1A 10.Junt992 14tS W9crnciday 4 15 IM>I!< Male Ptdmrion ...... utn. Eau Gallle BoUSeYatd Commodo:e BOI.Ilevard Apollo eoullmrd 1<40 1llursday 1 7 Male I p .. ......, Melbourne C-511 Croton Road 0100998 1 510 Tuesdf)' 11 Male I PedHtrian Espotlil i a Vbi 14 Mar-1995 1526 l'uesday 'Aitlile Fem31C -M el bourne Crolon Road Renee P lace 22Nle I Bleyde ........... Croton Road Tan Pine Road oa.sep.1992 154 8 Tuosda.y 9 Male I Bleytle Melbourne AI#JdROad Cfoton Roa4 21..Jan-199-4 1600 Th>rsdsy 4 12 Olhe< Male --------114 PAGE 125 CLASS CITY ROAD ACCrDENT C L OSEST INTERSECTING DAlE Tlt.IE DAY AcctDENT STUDEKT STUDEN1 STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GENDER Blcyde MeJbownc HOlland Street Avenue 20.Ncw-1992 160S F riday 4 9 ""He Male, Bi<)ol.me Oklahoma Street Street 23-Mar 1 620 ...... ., 4 14 """ Male Bicyo'e Melb Ma! e Bfcyo'e Melboomo King Richard R o&cf Welllnglon Ron8 Tuesday 1 2 Black Mal! BQcyde Harfock Roa4 AUrora Road 22-Se p1995 1740 Friday 12 White Male Bicyde Melboume Baboock Stt4et Nieman Drive 19No .... 1996 11104 ,..,.sy 4 11 Wh1l9 FemllfO Pedestrian "'"'"''"" Croton Royal Poir.ciana 27-Jan-1993 704 w...,_ .. Wl>ll! Ptcresbian Meltloume : Eber Road' Babcock S&-eer 1 7.Sep. t 996 ... rue,day 5 17 IM'Iile /.!ale PtOume SamoR.oO'd 'Mcktlam Road Z.C-Apr-199'2 1543 F ... y 13 """" ... ' Podoes1rian Melbourne Karber City Boulevard Law S1reet 20-Feb-1992 1549 """""' 14 ........ .... Pedestrian MelbOurne S .R. 5 OOdOaklane 09 Feb 1610 Fridoy 5 17 White Femal o Peeseslrlan Melbotme Wickham Road SamoRoad 23.Ja,..1995 t 736 : Monday Wh i l9 Female Padestrf3n ....... ,. ftosd AIJI"'ta Road 14Feb-1994 ,743 """"BY 11 """'" Biqdo Mclloume Sherwood Souftvard Robinh ood Otlvt 1.t.-Aprt993 8 37 Wecln$d3Y 8 8 White: Male B"Ye!c .. ..._ Aurora. Road Croton Road 10.N
PAGE 126

CLASS CITY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSEST UITERSECTING DATE TIME DAY ACCIDENT S T U DENT STUDENT STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GENDER Blcyde Melboumo While Rood 29-hn-1993 'Fr1day 9 5 B!OCI< Male; Pedes1rian Melboume 8aboodt Strnt ems street 1W.ay-1m 14!10 1htJ!1CIIlY 9 1 3 \\'l'ille Female P....,..n Melbourne S.R. 50G Wood S tr eet 1615 Wednesd a y 9 12 Male PedKtria n Melbourne Fairview 01' 18.feb1995 1750 Tl.lesday 7 813Ck Female Blcyde Meblume Croton Road Eau Gallie 8oufevard 11-0ee-19'96 64& __ .., 1 0 18 OO>et Male Blcyde -..... Eau Callie Sottevard Croton Road 1CYl Wednesday 10 12 Yw'hile Female -M c lbo vme Comma-t992 707 TtM.e King Rlehatd Ofive 03-Sep.1993 ,. .. Friday 10 9 ... Bicycle ............ 1880 Croton Road Unknown Name 09-Sep.1992 151$1 0 15 While Fema$! Bicycle Meii>Oume lroi'M'OOd Drive SamoRoad 22-Feb-1995 1$30 W9dncsclay 1 0 10 White Male 84cycle Melboume S.R. 500 25-May-1995 1533 ThUr$day 10 7 Wlite .. .,. Bicycle Melbo...ne New HavsnAYe11Ue Ellz.abeth Street 06-Se-p-1995 1538 Wed .... ay 10 17 Hispanic Male 84cyde Melbourne TtUrt\311\ Street S u ms Avenue 24May1994 1557 T uesday 10 11 ...,,,. ..... Blcyclo Mdboc.ltne Poinsett& Street S .R.A1A 13APr4t9 94 1720 Wednesday 1 0 15 v.tlil8 .. .,. Mclbou""' Camellia Jonquil Avenue 20Nov-1995 1 7 35 -ay 1 0 11 ..,;,. ..... PedH1rian Melbourne S1ewa:t Road S1ewart P lace 28-Sep-1 992 1600 Monday 1Z 12 81cyde Meft)c)Urne """"'Rood Stewatt Road 19May-1994 OS7 T-y 13 15 Wllte .,.., Bicycle Me!bo41rne Seaeh S R.A1A Oak Street 29 Aug t996 1600 Thursday 1 4 While Male 81cyde Melbourne Beach S .RAtA Ocean Rlo"ge Otlve 29-Aug-1996 1 .. 0 ThUt'$00, Y 10 11 Wille M;alc Bicycle Mcnitt lsla.'ld Couneaay Parkw'rtf zs..Apr-1996 800 Thursday 7 Willie Male Bicycle Menitt lal*fld Parkway Cone Road 1 1 -Jan-1996 820 Thursday 12 W11i1e Fe-----116 PAGE 127 CLASS CIJY ROAD ACC10ENT C\.OSEST INTeRSECTING DATE TIME DAY ACCI D E NT STUDENT S"ruuENT STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GENDER B icyole Merrittl:$';itnd Courtenay Parkway Ol'ana Boulevard 13-Sep-1995 1630 -ay 1 3 Wh i te MaSe Bicyde Merritt lsfand P twli$Drive Banana River OJfVe 02-Feb-1993 1700 The$d;1y 14 ""'"' Fomole Bicycle Merritt lmnd Cstalina Isle Drive Co1.1'!en3Y Paf1Ie female B i eyde Men'ltttstand Boulevard Garden Road 03-Apr.1992 750 Frl""Y 4 12 'Nhite M/ 10 8 \Vhi!e Male Bicycle Menitl: lslomcl Oueensfancf Avtnue Coortanay Parkway 16-0ec>1992 746 10 11 \Vhl1e Mal e Bicycle Merritt l tland Bn:lncfy Lane Courtonav ParkWaY .. ....,_199S 1455 Wednesday 10 13 \Vh.l!e Bleydc Metfitt Banana Boulevard Courtanay PaOOvay 02-0C"t895 1500 Monday 10 1 4 Male --117

PAGE 128

CLASS CllY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSEST INTERSECTING DATE nM E DAY .ACClOENT STUD ENT STUOEHT STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD lYPE AGE RACE GENOER ..., .. Merritt Island c"* Drive 09-0c;t-Hl92 1510 Fric:lay 1 0 IJI.JW.10 ...... BiCyCle Me,mt ISl and Cou-Parl Monday 10 Will!< Male Blcyde Palm Bay S\llf$16t BOtile:varcJ San3f'la River 0rtw 12o0c:t 1994 1500 Wednesday 8 'Miile Male -Pam Say PcttM311abat CheiiO Avtnve 27 -Mav-1m 1533 WedneSday 12 IM"Iite Male Boulevard Palm Bay Ttll)e Ro8!1 TuiOna Avenue 1 3-.Apr-1994 1545 Wednesday 9 """' Femd Bicyde Palm Bay Port c ...... "" Friday OO!or MOle Bk:yelo Palm Bay PortMalilr Sadnet Circle 12-Apr-199<4 1545 Tuesday 1 13 Male ....... ,. Bicyde Palm 88'j 460 1 Babcock 14-Feb-199$ 1820 T->y 1 16 WllHe Male Blcyde Palm Bay C8b31lero Avenue Richardson Drive 31 May 1 74 9 Tuesday 1 Y-lhile Fem3le Bieyde Pl!m8ay Sevetl Clrde 1 8cl-' 1749 Tue$dJY 1 17 Blac> Male -Palm Say BrickeD Stree:t Bdron Boulevard 1 3-Nov-1992 721 Friday 3 14 Willie Male Pedestl1an Palm Bay c.soo Emei'$Oil Drive 15-0ct-199'2 ... Thu11day 4 IS 1MII .. Male 118

PAGE 129

. CLASS CITY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSEST I.NTERSECTING DATE Tlf.IE DAY ACCIDENT S'RJDEIIT STUDENT STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE Bicycle Pa l m Bay Brickell Street t6-Scp.199'2 740 WodnO:Pd'ay 4 10 Blaek Bicycle Pal m Bay J141!ter Bourev#r4 Eldrcn Boulcvald 742 TUesday 4 14 Willie FatnaiC B!cyde Palm Bay Heather Avenue F allon B o ttevanf 06-Mar-199'2 744 Friday 4 s B lack Mare Bicycle P*Bay waco sourevard ZaOOer AOJetwe 2o.Dct 853 Thursday 4 Wlll12 IAalo Olcy<:le Pa l m Say 111 Tango Street 24-Jan-1994 1410 Monday 4 to \Nhlts Malt Bicycle Pal m Bay Malabar RoQd Eldron Boulevard 02-Feb-1995 1.434 Thwsclay 4 13 Female B i cycle Palm Bay Jaoobin Drtve Gienda\e Avenue 1 8Cl 1501 Monday 4 8 .. Female BlcyeJe Pal m 831 G leno:we Avenue 1<31$0 C\'c:le 2NIIay'95 1513 Monday 4 7 -.. Male Bicycle Palm B;))' Glendefe Avenue J;)C()bin sveet 1 7-0c t-1!)95 1 5 1 5 Tuesday 4 7 While lAaie 8/cydo Palm Bay Addison Avenue Sueet 05--Jan-19'9<1 1 522 Wtlftlesday 4 s W!ito Bicycle Pal m Bay Degroodt J upiter 09M3r 15,3 4 8 \1\'hilo Bicycle Palm Bay Bai Street Caberrero Stteel 22-.1\ilt-1993 152$ r .... ., 4 11 wtile Fom310' . B!cyde Palm Bay Emersori Drl..-e Ladson S1reet 02-Mar 1533 r .... .,. 4 10 Wlllto Fcmole Palm Bay 351 Collings Stre-et 04-NOV 1540 Friday 9 Wlite FCM3le Blcydo PalmBsy Eldron Boulevard Vln Rose C fn:t e 07J utl 15<3 FricSay 4 tG While Male Blcydo Palm Say Chartes Pigeon 24--NOV 1547 __ 4 12 1Nhite Blcydo P;rm Bay Prt M3fab3t 1 1.JanIMIS 1 550 Wednesday 4 7 """" Msle Bou!ova.d Bicycle Pal m Bsy Babooek Street Blalne Street 23-Aug-1995 1553 Friday 4 8 While MOle Pedes1rian Pal m Bay C-51G C-607 1030 Ftlda.y 4 14 Fema le B i cycle Pal m Bay Abbott Avenue Abelo S1roet 1 1MSV 1850 4 5 Whee MOle B!cyde Palm Bay Aviation Avenue n.e. 20NOV 1658 4 1 0 \Mlite Fem;>lc Pedutrlan Palm Bay . Jupiter Stroet n.w Lynbrook Street n.w. MFeb-1995 1717. Frid'ey 4 13 lMUte """ Bl.,... Palm Say Lari.p Ughtst Drive Emerson Orive 1721 Monday 4 13 White J.Aale Bicycle Palm Bay Bo-Jfevard Minton Road 07-Sep-1993 1742 Wednesday 4 13 Wlli!O JA;)I e ---119

PAGE 130

CLASS CITY ROAD ACCIOENT CLOSEST INTERSECTING DATE n"E DAY ACCIDENT STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AC>E RACE GENOER Blcyde Palm Bay S.R. S1$Dairy Road 1800 .Monday 16 81ac!< Male; P3fm8ay Babcock Street Blaine Stteel 01febo1996 1830 Th .... ay 1 2 W"'e Femote 81cyde Palm Bay Emenon Ortvc MiniOn Road 1831 TWSday 12 -.. Male Pedesb1811 Pilm Bay HamJ)ShircAvtnue Elbow Street 13-Apr-1992 n .e. 1556 Monday 5 s Blad< Male Pedestrian Slreet Gold Otive 28.Apr-1994 1 652 Tlwrsday s Wh>e Male Pedestrian Pakn Bay Glcn Carol Drive 08-0a-1994 1 630 Tuesday 13 Hispanic Male Ped'estrbn Palm Bay Waco BouiGYard w ...... ""' Thu!W3_y t Wli-Hov-1994 1730 Monday 11 Wliio Blcytlo Blcyde Palm Bay BaboOdc Street Fallon Bcn.teY PAGE 131 CLASS CIYY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSESTINTERS EC nNG DATE TIME DAY ACCIDENT' STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT OCCURRED O N ROAD l'YPE AGE RACE GENDER Blcyde Palrick ShOtes East Palm Orive SoUib Palm Drive 1 8.oct 92 92A """"' 5 VVhi ts Femaljl Port St.-John Ish Olive Fay Boulevard 10.1113'1-1994 1500 ,. .... ...., Wlllto Fem310 Pedestrian Poa1 Sl John Depot Avenue Fay sourevard f4 .SCp. 199 4 1730 We4riosd3)' 2 14 Whi!e Male 81eydC PM St. Jo l\n Corsica f!oulevard 1u1cs Avenue 800 Wednesday 13 Whlle ..... 8 icyclo Port St. Jo hn Brigg.s Curtis 80titcvard 80S Tuesday 4 9 Whlle ..... Blcyde P ort St. John Fay Bou le'lard Amor Drive 07NOV994 1450 ,.,.,y 4 1 5 Slack Malo -Port St. Jd'ln COrsica Boufc!l3rd Addie StreM 04-Nov-199S 1500 Monday 4 1 3 WlliiO Male P ort Sl Joll n Tulsa Boulevard Brambleton Stree1 18-Nav-1 992 151 5 W.ednesday 4 12 Whi" 8fC)'de POf1 Sl John Grissom Fay Botf.evard 1745 Wc'1C$d3)' 14 Whhe Male Bicydo PMSL John Ao Sll'oet Avenue 02-Mar-1993 1520 Tuesday Whlle F emale Bicyel o PM St. Joh n Fay C-19'93 16f9 Wedncs43y 12 '''"" Fi!malo Bic:)'efe Roeroedge MarTell RQ3d .....,,.,..... 14-Fe.b-1994 G3S Mon Female 81cyeiO RO"'Jde6ge F'ISke BOUIMrd Drive: 23-Apr-19!)2 120 lhumlay 12 Blael< Blcyde Rockledgo ASke B.!Jovard Road 25-Aug-1994 740 llwraday 10 While ..... B icycle Rocldedge Levitt P3rkway Fiske Bottevar d 17-Mar-1995 1440 Ftkloy 4 11 Whll> Fema!e B iC)'d e Roei
PAGE 132

ClASS CITY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSEST JNTERSECnNG DATE TIME DAY ACCJDENT STUDENT STIJDENT STUDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GEHDER Pt994 702 MOnd*Y 10 12 White Femal e BlcjI., Female -Rockledge Fiske Bot.levard Ot.Jun-1995 7 T00n;da; 10 ,,. Male Pedestrian Roc:kledge S..rton BovlevarCI ee. .. -1 0-Sept m ... Friday 10 1 8 Mal e Blcjel< Femal e Bleyde Sale!llte Beach Jay lane Patrid( Drive 15 15 lh .... ay 11 Wnite ..... Blcj
PAGE 133

CLASS CllY ROAD ACC.DENT CLOSEST INTERSECTING DATE nii!J! DAY ACCIDENT STUllEtn' STUDENT STUDENT OCCURREO ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GENDER B l cyde Satelle Beactl XaleStreet Wil'lchesttr Road 2$-Aug-1994 15SO Thonday 12 Pedestrian Satelil!e Beach Patncl: Avenue Ocean Boulevard 14-Feb-1995 1730 Tu- 10 While Male Pncloy 4 11 1M>He Female BOoyde Titusville BamaAvenue Ktlo:c McR:Ie DM'o 23-0cl 7 1 3 Monday 4 13 1M>IIe Male Blcyde libJsWfe Garden Stteet lnlersta!'9 9S 15-Sep-1995 743 Frid:ly 4 8 W.He Female BOoydo lii.US'IIIIe SoUihSv eer Fox Hol low OtiYO 14-Nov-1996 832 1lnnday 17 Whlle Male BOoyde SRS -s ... 18-0ct-1996 942 Fday 13 'M'l1.e Femele B!cyde TllusW!e 3395 oaoy Rood 08NOV'94 1438 TUesday 4 \1\Jtii!e Male 1 23 PAGE 134 cuss CITY ROAD ACCIDENT CLOSEST INTERSEcnNG DATE TIME DAY ACCfDENT STUDENT STUDENT STUDENT OCCURRE D ON ROAD 'IYPE AGE RAce GENDER Blcyde llbJsville Knox Metae Otiv& David Drive 28-Aug1 99& 14$2 We.'\< Male PaOOng Lot Bleyde ntus..nlle L>Grange Old Oilcie Highway 29Sep.19'93 1700 Wedrte$d3')' ......... Malo Bleyde Tl!U$ville Cheney Highway Sarna A\'CI'Iue 03-Ao<-1!106 1708 WOOM>day 16 _, Male Bleyde Titusville CoquinJ; MI. Vernon 16-Fe>199$1124 Friday II IMday 5 15 1M>Ite Male Pedeslrian TitUsville GratlriS AYenue Tropiesnet O)..Ju,...t99) ... s 81ael< Female Ptdctltian '""""'"" Unknown Name 08De-1992 1.C1S n.esday s IS 'Whi1e Female BOUi evatd Blcyo "'"'Rood S i ngltt PAGE 135 CLASS C I TY ROAD ACCIDENT ClOSEST IHTERSECTmG DAlE n".e DAY ACC1DENT SnJDENT STUDENT SltJDENT OCCURRED ON ROAD TYPE AGE RACE GENDER B icycle lltusvllle Deleon Avenu e Queen &.reel 27-oct1995 1643 Fricfay 9 IM>I"' fem31C B icycle musvllle Han1S01\ A\'eflu e B0$nSueet 18J.,nS 6he Male BO:ydo llluswr. Barna Avenue Qlen ey HigtrNay 21NovHI94 721 Monday 10 1S Blcydo TillJ$V11fa Knox Mcf30 Drive Le.JuMAvenue 12--Fet>-1993 723 friday 10 14 Wll?.e F.,..le Bicycle l'ltusvl ll e Beacon Avenu e Knox McRae [Mve 10-Msy1995 724 -.,.,.ay 10 14 IM>I!a Fema!o Sieydc r.tusville Hop).ins Avenue 23-Feb-1994 72S 1 0 9 \\'hitt Male B l cyde ntusvllle Knox Mcrae Drive Rose H&l Avenue 28-Msy-199 3 72S Frilfay 10 13 Blocl< Femal e Pedestrian Tltus...me Dllcre Avenue Blanton Street ffI!a Femalo 15 151Ite MiOO : BieycJa 'RUISVill a Pi necfo Drive Hopki n s Avenue O$.Apr-1996 1SS2 Tuosday 10 \AJhilt Mole B<,do lii.U$'Re P3:1'1< Awnue RavenswOOd 2e-Fal>-1996 1638 Mooday 10 14 ,._ Jl..ale -1ituslf.V. Hamilto n Cir'cfc HMiSOJI Avenue .26-0ct-199'3 725 T-" 10 While ,..,.,. Pedestrian Tlhisvill e Sycamor e &Jaet HopldnsAvenu e 19-0ct 14SS Wednesday 14 14 Blacl< ..... Pede$1rlan Melf)Oume V\Gcl<11am ROIJI(I S.R. 500 04-MM-199& 1050 Monctay 10 \M'Iil c 125

PAGE 136

126

PAGE 137

APPENDIXG Legal In t erpretation of Section 234 .01, Florida Statutes 127

PAGE 138

128

PAGE 139

MAGUIRE, VooRius & WELLs, P.A. Ms. Barbara Meyer PErlECTIONS Olf THE SUITE 303 1"99 SOUTH HA.ABOR Cil'Y I O'.JlEVARO MEL60URNE, 32901 ...
PAGE 140

Ms. Meyer September 26, 1997 Page 2 of the bus (as calculated Fla. DOE rules), whichever is greater. 2) Hollis v. School Board of Leon County, 384 So.2d 661 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980) Tiffany Hollis, age 5, was killed when she crossed in front of school bus. Both the School Board and the School Superintendent were sued by the estate of Tiffany Hollis for negligence. The appellate court determined that who is liable for the negligence of the bus driver is who has control of the bus driver and the bus. That would be both the School Board and the School Superintendent, and both have responsibility for the driver's negligence. The Board and the superintendent both have a responsibility to set up a training program for drivers and to inspect the bus system. Once set up, the operation of the system is an operational function, and the system must be operated without negligent. 3) Harrtson v. Escambia County School Board, 434 So.2d 316 (Fla. 1983) On his way to a school bus stop, an 11-year old stepped backwards into a roadway and was struck and killed by a passing car. The father sued the School Board for negligently locating the bus stop. The Court determined that a School Board owes a duty of care to pupils to careful transport them to and from school. That duty becomes effective from the time that a school bus picks up a student at a bus stop. at 319.2 If a student is injured on his way to the bus stop, or after leaving the bus stop, then the student is legally outside t h e Board's duty of care. In this case the student hadn't even reached the bus stop. Therefore, the School Board wasn't liable. As to the claim that the bus stop was negligently located, .112, Fla. Stat. requires that the board locate bus stops at the "most reasonably safe locations available." Citing a bus stop is a planning level function, and the School Board is protected by sovereign immunity for its planning level decisions. 2 In School Board of County v. Surette, 394 So.2d 147 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981), a 13-year old was struck by an automobile while waiting for a bus. She later died. At the time she was struck, she was standing 3 feet in the roadway in front of the bus stop. The driver of the car that hit her stated that she (the driver) was blinded by the early morning sun and did not see the child. The child was apparently forced to stand in the street, because the school bus stop (a vacant lot) was strewn with debris and overgrown with weeds. at 152-53. The Court found that the Board could be held liable, because the school bus stop was maintained in an unsafe condition.

PAGE 141

Ms. Ba.rbara Meyer September 26, 1997 Page 3 4) Duval Countv School Board y. Dutko, 483 So.2d 492 (Fla. let DCA 1986) Oscar Dutko, a 12-year old,, was killed by an automobile which struck him at a school bus stop. The Dutko estate sued the School Board. The evidence showed that the road was a heavily traveled 2-lane road with a 55 MPH speed. limit. .There .were no bus .stop signs at or near the stop, nor was there a stop:light at the intersection 200' from the bus atop. Witnesses testified that there had been several !'near-misses" at the bus stop, and that the School Board had been notified on several occasions of the dangerous nature of this bus stop. Notwithstanding this, the School Board argued that the bus stop had been located at this same location for 20 years without any prior injury or death to a school child. Based on this e.vidence, the jury awarded $175,000 to the Dutko estate. The Court noted that based o n Hq:rrison v, Escam!::>ia County School Board, locating a school bus stop was a .plann.ing level function, and the School Board is protected by sovereign immunity for its planning level decisions. However, ;Harrison does not foreclose an action for negligently failing to warn of a known dangerous condition created by a public entity. This is operational in nature, and given the evi.dence, the jury could have easily.concluded that the School Board negligently failed to warn of an obvious dangerous location. 5) Brantly v. Dade County School Board, 493 So.2d 471 (Fia. 3rd DCA 1986) Mr. Brantly was walking next to a school 'bus. A student aboard a school bus struck him i n tqe face. Apparently this was not the first time a student on the bus had tried to strike someone in the face walking near the bus. Brantly filed suit against the School Board, but the trial court dismissed the suit. The court found that pursuant to 28, Fla. Stat., school bus drivers have the authority, as well as a duty, to control students on a school bus. Because of the statute, the School Board also has this duty. The claim of Mr. Brantly is not barred by. sovereign immunity, because the implementation of school board policy to safely transport students is operational in nature. Mr. Brantly's suit should not have been dismissed by the trial court.' 6) Dixon v, Whitfield, 654 So.2d 1230 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995). Mr. Gelaro owned a school bus. He leased it to Bernice Duhart. They hired Jean Dixon to drive the bus. Gelaro and Duhart contracted with the Duval County School Board to provide school bus transportation for public s chool children. Doris Whitfield: s 15-year old son rode on a Gelaro/Duhart school bus driven.by Ms. Dixon. He got off of. the bus and tried to cross the street. He \qas struck and killed by a car driven by Ms. Roerig. The Whitfield estate sue Roerig, Dixon, Gelaro, Duhart, PAGE 142 Ms. Meyer September 26, 1997 Page 4 and the School Board for wrongful death. The Whitfield estate argued that the School Board was "vicariously" liable for the actions of its agents, Dixon, Gelaro, and Duhart: The jury returned a verdict of$962,250 in damages, finding Whitfield 5% at fault, Roerig 23% at fault, and Dixon, Gelaro, and Duhart 72% at fault. Of course, Dixon, Gelaro, and Duhart didn't want to pay out their share of damages (72% of $962,250). They wanted the School Board to pay for them. They presented two arguments: Argument 1: They argued that they were "employees" of the School Board. Pursuant to .28(9), Fla.Stat., no employee or agent of a county, city, or school board shall be personally liable for injury or damage, unless the employee or agent acted in bad faith, maliciously, or with wanton and willful disregard of human safety or property. The tr'ial court found that Dixon, Gelaro, and Duhart were not employees of the School Board but were independent contractors. The appellate court found that there was substantial, competent evidence to so find and affirmed the trial court on this point. Argument 2: Dixon, Gelaro and Duhart alternatively argued that they were actually agents of the School Board, and that the duty to transport school children was a duty that the School Board couldn't delegate to Dixon, Gelaro, and Duhart. Under Florida law, if a duty can't be delegated, the person hiring the independent contractor to perform that duty may still be held liable. This is a case of first impression in Florida. The Court stated 01 and 234.02, Fla. Stat. merely provide that the School Board shall provide for transportation of students and to have maximum regard for their safety in routing buses, appointing drivers, and providing equipment. In fact, Chapter 234, Fla. Stat., clearly allow the School Board to use outside contractors provided they have appropriate equipment and insurance. This does not translate into a non-delegable duty. Courts in New York State have so found, and it should be viewed as the law of Florida that,. since the duty to transport is delegable, the School Board is not "vicariously" liable for the acts of its independent contractors. 7) School Board of Leon County v. Ehrlich, 421 So.2d 18 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982) The School Board decided to restructure school boundaries to seek greater racial balance." School Board rules required students to attend the school serving their area, as defined by the re-defined boundaries, except that under certain limited circumstances a student had the option of attending another school with any needed transportation being supplied by the parent. PAGE 143 Ms. Barbara Meyer September 26, 1997 .Page 5 Affected parents fi).ed an administrative action contesting the new boundaries .and the School Board's .transportation policy. A hearing officer found that Section 234.01, Fla. Stat., requires that the Board supply free transportation to students to the nearest "appropriate school. II A school .that is .an option for attendance purposes is not an "appropriate school." . The School Board didn't haveto supply transportation. The.Court approved this ruling. If I can assist further, please me. PRG/vls enc. Very fYO'{lr,B Paj.ll R.J III PAGE 144 434 So.2d 316 12 Ed. Law Rep. 1027 (Cite as: 434 So.2d 316) John Frederick IIARIUSON, et al., Petitioners, v. ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCfiOOL BOARD, Respondent. No. 6262.9. Supreme Coun of Florida. July 7, 1983. Falher brought suit against school board seel PAGE 145 34 So.2d 316 :::ite as: 434 So.2d 316, *317) :oard, 419 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), as assing upon questions of great public lmponance. 'le have jurisdiction pursuant to article V, section (b)(4), Florida Constitution. We approve the istrlct court's affrrmation of the trial court's ismissal of the comp laint against the school board. iYhllc walking toward a s<:hool bus on th e 1orning of November 10, 1971, Harrison's eleven ear-old SO!\ stepped backwards Into the roadway nd was struck and killed by a passing car. (FNl] {arrison sued the driver of the car and, six months Iter, amended his complaint to include the :Scambia*318 County School Board. The amended omplaint charged, inter alia, that the school board iolated section 234.112 ; Florid a Statutes (1977), FN2) which reads as follows: FNl. As pointed out by the d.istricc coun, before that court Harrison referred to facts not pled in the trial court'. Harrison v. :&cambia County School Bd., 419 So.2d 640, 642 n. 3 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982). Harrison refers to those same unpled facts before this Court. FN2. The pertinent portions of tlle count against the school board read as follows: 2 Defendant, ESCAMBIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOAlU>. is a polittcal subdivision of the State of Florida and has waived. sovereign immunity pursuant to Sec. 455.06 anunty, Florida. In so designating said school bus stop, the defendant School Board violated Z34.11Z. Fla.Stat. (lm) in that said school bus stop was not designated Ill the most reasonably safe location avaJJable in the PageS Vlcmny. Tho violation of said statutory provision by defendant School Board constitutes negligence on its part as a mauer of law. 7 The school bus s top designated by defendant School.Board 111 the intersection of Candy Lane Road and C9SA was attended bY. traffic ltazards and by virtUe of 234.112. Fla.Stat. (19n), the defendant School Board was obligated to request the DefMnment of Transportation to place a sign at said scliool bus stop warning motorists of lcs location. The defendant School Board violated said statutory provision by failing make any such request and l.his violation constitutes negligence on its pan as a matter of law. 8. As of November 10, 19'11. the defendant School Board knew or should have known that its desigaated school bus stop at the. intersection of Candy Lane Road and C.9SA in Escambia C<>unty, Florida, was anended by unusual traffic hazards which created a dangerous condiljon for the children approaching or congregating in the vicinity of this school bus stop in anticipation of being picked up by school buses operated by the Scbool Board. Said defendant was negligent in failing to take appropriate rnt:a.Sures to warn motorists of the location of said school bus stop so as to thereby mitigate such dangerol;JS condition or in the alternative to arrahge a s afe.r location of said school bus stop. 9. At ahout 8:30 a.m. on November 10, 1977, Frederick Coley Harr&son, together .wilh two other cl>ildren, who were students in the Escombia County Sehool system, were enroute to the school bus stop located, maintained and operated by the defendaDL School &ard at the intersec:tion of Candy Lane Road and CA, Escambia C<>unty, Florida, for the purpose of boarding the scbool bus designated for ll\eir respective schools. In order to reach said school bus location, plaintiff's decedent found it necessary to travel along the perimerer of C-9SA in a northerly direction. At the aforementioned t i m e and place, Frederlclc Coley Harrison was struck and killed by an automobile operated along C-9SA In a norlhe.rly direction: The death of Coley Harrison. deceased, was directly and proximately cause d by n PAGE 146 434 So.2d 316 (Cite as: 434 So.2cl316, ) did PY nooe:ssary medic:aJ an41or funenl expenses d 'ue to decedent's injury and dealh. Bach district school board shall establish school bus stops as necessary at the most re .asonably safe locations available. Where unusual traffic lw:ards exist at school b\ls stops on. roads maintained by the state outside of municipalities, the Deputment or Transportation, in concurrence and cooper.ltion with and upon request of the district school board, shall place signs at sueh bus stops warning motorists of the location of tho stops (PN3) FN3. we, like the district coun., are \lnabte to determine the applicability of the second sentence of l34.112 to lllis case becau>e llle road design.ation, C.9SA, appe>rs to PCiuded !hat sufficient justification exists for a holding !hat the school board's function In selecting school bus stop sites is not one that should 'be subject to scrutloy by judge or Jury .. to the wisdom or their performance.' Jd. at 645, quoting Commercial Carrier 371 So.2clat 1022. Before this Court Harrison claims tlut: I) the school board is subject to tort liability because it created a lalowo dangerous condition not readily apparent to persons who could be injured by the coocliti on; 2) the school board failed to oomply with tho stat\ltory direction contained in section 234 .112; and 3} because the &ehool board acted pursuant to statutorily doftned policy it must show that deciding where to locate the bus stop represents a considered decision In implementing an overall policy or authority Bat trliUportation. Anno!., 34 A.L.R.3d 1210 (1970). School boards, however, are not insurers of rudcnts' safety, Bmlssed, 399 So.2d 1146 (Fta.l981), is distlngulshJble Copr. 0 West1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works PAGE 147 434 so.2d 316 (Cite as: 434 So.2d 316, *319) becaus e the acc ident oocurrcd a t a. designated school bus Slop which had been so poorly ma mwnecllbal students waiting ror Cheir buses had lo SWld in the roadway. [4) Harrison claims, however, that s e ction 234.112 imposes a mandatory duty on *320 the sch ool board to locate bus stops at the "most reaso nably safe locations availa ble. As d i d the district court we disag ree that this section abrogates the sovereign imnlunlty. In making this claim Harrison relies on A.L. Lewis Elementary School v. Metropoli tan Dade County, 376 So.2d 32 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979). That case, however, dealt with a dlfferent statute, sec cion 316.1895, F lorida Starute s (197.5) S ection 316.1895 mandates that the Department of Transportation adopt a uniform system of traffic-and pedestti81K0Dtrol devices for use on stre<:l>ility for the ncsllgen t location of a bus 5l0p or (or injuries oc:cw:rm, away from bus S!Dp$. The rew cases on poin1, howover, unifonnty find either soveR.l&n Immunity or no duty. Cool> v. Fox, 113 Mlch.App. 249, 317 N W.2d 583 (1982) ; Prau v. Ro binson, 39 N.Y .2d 554, 384 N.Y.S.2d 749, 3 49 N.E.2d 849 (1976); McNee s v. Schollcy, 46 Micl1.App. 702 208 N.W.ld 643 (197 3); Voj\1 v. Jolwon, 278 Minn. 153, 153 N.W.2d 247 (1967); Price v. Yorlc, 24 III.App.2d 450, 164 N.E.2d 617 (1960). . PagelO As noted by the district court, i t would be lllll?""sible 10 locate a school bns stop at any place whcch would not have some potential danger for some srudeot. Some locations may be more d angerous than others howevcr, and it is to those locati ons that se ction 234.112 Is dlrecled The decision as t o Where to locate bus stops necessarily requ ires the utilization of governmental planning and di.scretion. [S] We also hold that H arrison s amended compla int [FN6] fails to allege the creation of a dange rous c ondition or tra p which would nei:essitat e giving notico of the danger ; as necded lllldcr City of St. Petersburg v. Collom 419 So.2d 1082 (Aa.l982), tnd Dcpanmem of Transportatlon v. Neilson, 419 So.2d 107 1 (Fia. 1982), In order to circumvent the schoo l board's lmmwlity. In Collom we held thai FN6. Supra n. 2. once a governmental entity creates a known dangerous condition "!hich DillY not be readily apparent to one who could be iqjure d by the conditi on, !Uld the governmental entity has knowledge or the presence of peop l e lil
PAGE 148

434 So.2d 316 (Cite as: 434 So.2d 316 ) not rcadUy apparent, constitute s a crap for the unWaJY. Neilson also requires the plead[Qg of a known trap or known dangerous condition Collom and Neilson require specific aUcgallons of fact Instead of general iti es Harri soo's amended comp l ain t did not meet this burdeo The complaint merely alleges "unusual t raffic buards and is lnsufficleotlo st.tte a cause of action under Collom or Nelboo. [FN7) FN7. Cornpuelhe ponions of Collom's comp!Jint set out > t 419 So.2d atl084-85. We hold that the designatio o of school bus stops is a planning level decision which is itliiDUOC from tort liability under the doctrine of sovereign immunity Pagtll and that Hurison's amended complain t failed to allege sufficleDlly the existence of a koown uap or danger ous coodllion which would cre ate an operational l evel duty to post warolllg s. We approve the district court's affirming of the uta! court ruling. It is so ordered. ALDERMAN, C. J., and BOYD, OVERTON and SHAW,ll., concur. ADKINS and EHRL ICH, 11 ., dissent. J!ND OP DOCUMENT Copr. 0 West 1997 No Claim to Orlg U.S. Govt. Works

PAGE 149

101 So 24 145. :cue as: 30 1 So.2d 145) Sharon Patricia HOlMES, Appellant, v. The SCHOOL BOARD OF ORANG E COtJmY, a body corporate, et at., App ellees 0 No. 73-1028. District Court of Appeal of Flori da, Fourth District. Oct. 11, 1974 A!> tho re.sult of an accident involving a school bus, 1uit was brought against board of public instruction, :be bus driver, and board's insuranoe carrier. The :ircuit Court for Orange County, B. C. Muszynski, J., granted motion to dismiss, and plaintiff appealed. fhe D i s trict Court of Appeal, Downey, J., held that 'he board of public instruction enjoyed aovereign immunity as to any claim in excess of Its insurance :overage, but driver of the bus did not enjoy .mmunity; however, arrt suit against the bus driver "' ucess of the insurance coverage was barred by teUOn of the fact lhat plaintiffs oounsel, at hearing motion of school board to settle for the policy .imlts, e.nnouDced it,s acquiescence in the dismissal u t o the driver if the court should rule that the )Oard had not waived immunity by ini t ially stating :he policy limits to be $100,000 rather than only$10,000. AffmnCd. Ul ESI'OPPEL ;:::>91(1) LS6lc9l(L) Board of public instruction enjoyed sovereign Immunity as to any claim in excess of its insurance :x>verago, but driver of school bus involved in 1ccldcnt with plaintiff did not enjoy Immunity ; b.ow ever, any suit against the bus driver in excess of tho insuranc e coverag e was barred by reas on of the fact that pla intiff's coun.sel, at hcarlni on motion of u:hool board to settle for the policy limits, announced its acquiescence in the dimlbsal as to the If the court should rule that the board had not waived immunity by inillally stating the policy limits t o be $100,000 ratber than only$10,000. West's F.S.A. 234.03. [1] SCHOOLS ;:::>89.1 34Sk89.1 Board of public instruction enjoyed sovere ign Immunity as to any claim in ex<>!ss of its insurance P age26 coverage, bU1 driver of schoo l bus Involved in accident with p laintiff did npt enjoy Immunity; however, any suit against the bus driver in excess of the insurance coverage was barred by reason of the fact lhat plaintiffs counsel, at hearing on motion of school boArd to sett l e for .the policy limits, announced ita acquiescence in tbe d lsmlssol as t o the driver if the court should rule that the board had 110t waived immunity by initially stating the policy limits to be $100,000 rather than only$ 1 0,000. West's F.S.A. 234.03 [Z) APPEAL AND ERROR <8=883 30kS83 One may not assernrror upon an action of the trial coun in which be himself bas acquiesced T 0. LaGrone, of LaGron e & Baker, Orlando, for appellant. Jeffrey E. S t reitfeld, of H offman, Hendry, Parlcer & Smith, Orlando, for appellees. DOWNEY, Judge. As a result of an accident involving an Orange CoUnty school bus, appellant Sharo n Paticla sued th e Board of Public Instruction, th e bus driver and the insurance carrier for the Board, appellees herein. Initially the appellee insurance carrier advised appellant that its policy limits were $100,000 for eacll penon injured. However, just prior to trial appellees determined !be policy limit was only$10,000. Based on that kDowledge appellees made an offer of judgment for the policy limit and moved to dismis.s the cause on the ground that the School Board was protected by the doctrine of aoverel gn immunity as to any damages In excess of $10,000, citing s 23 4.03, F.S., .In support of its modo n. The c ourt granted said motion as to all appellees and Ibis appeal resulted. We have reviewed all of the points designated and fmd them to be withoo!t merit. W e do feel compelled to comment on one of the points however. [I) Even though the board of Public Instructi on enjoyed soverei gn immunity as to any claim in excess of Its insurance coverage, th e driver of the bus does not. Annat. School Offie'?"'Copr. 0 Westl997 No Claim to O'rlg. U.S. Oovt. Worlcs PAGE 150 301 So.2d 145. (Cite as: 301 So.2d 145, ) Negligence-Liabilily, 32 A.L.R.2d 1163, s 8 at 1194. However, at the hearing on motio n to dismiss counsel for appeUant announced his acquiestence in !he dismissal as to the driver if the court ruled that !h e School Board had not waived immunity by stating its policy limits were$100,000. It was appellant's position !hen !hat !here was no point in proceeding to trial against an impecunious driver. [2) One may not assert error upon an action of the trial court in which be bimself has acquiesced. Karl Page27 v. David Riner Sportservice, lnc., Fla.App.1964, 164 So.Zd 23, 24. Accordingly, the judgment appealed from is affirmed. CROSS, J., and VANN, HAROLD, Associate Judge, concur. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. 0 West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

PAGE 151

554 So.2d 1230 100 Ed. Law Rep. 827, 20 Fla. L Weekly Dll48 (Cite as: 654 So.2d 1230) Jean Fl-eeman DIXON, David B. Gelaro and Bernice E. Duhart, Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. Doris A. WHITFIELD, as the Personal Representative of the .Estate of John Dwayne Whitfield, Deceased, Duval County School Board, and Barbara A. Roerlg, Appellees/Cros s -Appellants. No. District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. May 9, 1995. Rehearing Denied JWle 13, 1995. Parents of student who was struck and killed by a oar after he depaned from scbool bus b r ought wrongful death action against school board, school bus driver school bus lessee and school bus owner (who had contract with school board to provide transportation services for students). The Circuit Court, Duval County Charles 0. Mitchell, J., directed verdict for school board, and subsequently entered judgment on jury verdict fmding driver, lessee, and owner 72% negligent. D r iver, lessee, and owner appealed. The District Court of Appeal held that: (I) appellants were "independen t contractors," and not school board's employees, and (2) school board's duiy to provide transportat ion for its students, and to have maximum regard for safety in doing so, w a s not "nondelegable." AfflriUed. Benton, J., concurred in result [1] SCHOOLS o$=:>159. 5(1) 345k159.5(1) Formerly 345kl591n(l) Driver, owner, and lessee of school bus from which student departed immediately before he was struck and killed by car were "independent contractors," rather than employees" of school board, with whom lessee and owner contracted to provide transportation services; thus, driver, owner, and lessee were not entitled t o immunity in wrongful death action by student's parents West's P.S.A. Page37 768.28(9)(a). See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and defmitions. [1] SCHOOLS o$=:>159.5(6) 345kl59.S(6) Formerly 3451<159112(6) Driver, owner, and lessee of school bus from which student departed immediately before he was struCk and killed by car were "independent contractors, rather than "employees" of school board, with whom lessee and owner contracted to provide transportation services; thus, driver, OWDer, and lessee were not entitled to immunity in wrongful death action by student's parents West's F S .A. 768.28(9)(a). See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and defmitioo.s. [2] MASTER AND SERVANT o$=:>315 255k31S Party who hires independent contractor may still be liable for contractor's actions where nondelegable duty is involved; such duty D)ay be imposed by statute, by contract, or by common law. [3] SCHOOLS o$=:>89.13(4) 345k89.13(4) Fact that school board was required by law to provide transportation for its stude.DIS, and was required by law to have maximum regard for safety in doing so, did not translate into "nondelegable duty, and school board was thus not vicariously liable for negligence of school bus driver, lessee, and contractor, in action for wrongful death of student whom c ar struck after he departed from bus; school boards are allowed to avoid liallUity by choosing to contract for buses from outside soUI<:es, provided that contractors have necessary Insurance coverage and buses are properly inspected and maintained. West's F.S.A. 230 23(8),' 234.0\(l)(a), 234.03(4), 234.041 ; Fla. Admin. Code Ann. r. 6A-3.017(4, 7) . See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and defmitlons. *1231 Harold H. Catlin and Holly M Gillespie of Saalficld, Catlin & Coulson, P.A. Jacksonville, for appellants/cross-appellees. Thomas R. Brown of Brown, Terrell, Hogan, !lUis, McClamma & Yogelwel, P.A. and Michael J. Korn Copr. C West 1997 No Claim to Orig U.S. Govt. Works

PAGE 152

6S4 So.2d 1230 (Cite as: 654 So.2d mo, !231) of Prom, Korn & Zchmer, P.A., J acksonville, f o r appellee/cross appellant Doris A Whitfield. John A. Delaney, General Counsel and David C. Caner, Deputy General Counsel Jackso nville, for appellee/cross-appellan t Duval Counr.y School Bd. Michael A. Durant and William Stone of Cole, Stone & Stoudemire, P.A., Ja<:ksonvllle, for appellee/eross-appeUant Barbara A. Roerig. PER CURIAM. Appellanu Jean Dixon, David Gelaro and Bernice Duhart, three of five below, appeal from a final judgment fanding them to be 72% negligent in a wrongful death action brought by plalntllC Doris Whitfield (plaintiff). On February 8, 1989, plaintifrs fifteen-year old son was struck and killed by a car driven by co-defelldant Barbara Roerig when he tried to cross the street after getting off a public school bus after school Appellant Dixon was driving the scbool bus. which was leased by appellant Duhan and owned by appellant G elaro. The Duval Counr.y School Board (Scbool Board) bad contracted wit h Duhart and Gelaro co provide school buses to transport students in Du val County. Plaintiff brought a w r ongful death action, suing Roerl g Dixon, Gelaro, Duhan, and the School Board. She alleged the School Board was directly liable for its negligent selection of the bus stop where the incident occurred, and i ts neglig e nt tr aining and supervision of the school bus nnsporta tion system. Sbe further alleged the Board was vicariouily liable for th e ltgllgence of its "agena (i.e. school bus :ontractors and ope rators ) under sec tion 768 .28, F lorida Stat utes (1987}. A jury trial was held in December 1992, on the ssues of nes!igen<:e and damages; the issue of 1gency was severed for subsequent determination by he court. AI trial, the court directed a verdict in a vor or the School Board on the issue of the seleetion of the bus ltop and ne g ligent raining and supervision. That ruling Is not appealed y any of the parties. The jury found th e decedent vas negligent, Roerig was 23% negligent, '123land appellants were 72% neglig ent. The jury warded the plaintiff $926.250 in damages. The tsue of agency was tried non -j ury, with the trial ourt fanding that the appellants were independent Page38 contractors rather than agentt of the School Board, and awarding damages against them personally. This appeal followed. [1) Appellants c laim the trial court erred in fmding they wer e no t entitled co immunity under s ec tion 768 .28, F lorida Statutes (1987) Section 768 28(9)(a) provide s in relevant pan: No officer, employee, or ageD! of the state or any of its subd i visions shal l be held personally liable in tort ... for any injury or damage suffered as a result of any aa, event, or omission of action in the soope of his employmen t or function, unless such officer, employee, or agent a cted in bad faith or with malicious purpose or in a manner exhibiting wanton and willful disregard of bumao rights safer.y, or property. Appell ants arg ue they were employees of the School Board Review of the undisputed facts in the r ecord reveals competeD!, substan tial evidelWC to support the trial court' s finding tha t appeUIIIIS '"re indepeodem concraaors rather !ban employees or the Seboo Board See Florida Sod Co. v. M yers, 432 So.2d 645 (Fla. 1st DCA 1983 } (trial court's fln PAGE 153 6S4 So.2d 1230 (Cite as: 654 So.2d 1230, t232) as demoNtrating the Boar d bas a nondelegable duty to transpOrt public school childnn with safety is rol!p la ced. T he Florida ConstitUtion does provi d e In genecal terms, that 'the scl!ool board shall operate, control and supervise all free public sch ools within the school di strict. Art. !X, 4(1;>), Fla. Canst. Review of the cited statutes reflects the School Board also has a statutory duty t o 'make provision' or provide" for the transportation of public school children where such Is deemed necessary. 230.23(8), 234.oJ(IXa), Fla.Stat. (1987). In providing s uch transportation the Scl!ool Board must hi.ve maximum reprd. for safety in routi11g buses, appointing drivers, and providing and operating equipmen t. 234.02 Fla.Stat. (1987). Neverthele s s, the fact the school board is required by law to provide transportation for its students and is required by law 10 have maximum regard for safety In so doing, does not translate into a nondelegable duty. School boards owe their pupils a dury of reasonable care in providin& them with safe transportation, but they are not insurers or students' safety. Harriso n v. Eseambia County Sell. Bd., 434 So.2d 316, 319 (Fia.l91!3). Wbll e appellants argue the Board shou ld not be allowed to avoi d li ability by cho osing to contract for buses from outside sources, the statutes thermelves as well as the rciiJlations promulgated punuant to chapter 234, clearly allow the School Board t o do so, provided the contractors have the necessary insurance coverage and the buses are properly Inspected and rna.intaiJic:d. 234. 03(4) 234.041, Fla.Stat. (1987); Fla.Admln.Code R.. 6A.017(4), (7) (1987). Pag e 39 In short, the parties cite no controlling Florida authority, and w e could find none In our own researcl!, for the proposition that the safe transportall on of public school students> Is a nonde legable duty.. At least one state bas held as we bold today. See 01233 Settles v. Incorporated Village of Freeport, 132 Mise.2 d 240, 503 N.Y.S.2d 94S (N.Y.SUp.Ct.l986) (fact thai school board Is required by law 10 provide transportadon for pupils and must do so safely is oot sufficient. standing alone, t o state cause of action against school board for the ncgligeoec of the independent contractor it hired to transport pupils); see also Cba.WAol v. Boar d of Educ., 201 A D.2d 693, 608 N.Y.S.2d 283 (N Y.Sup.Ct.1994) (board of education ool vicariously liable for school bus driver's violation of statute requiring careful supervisioo or children crossing roa d where driver was employee of iudej>endent contractor the board hired to prov ide transportlition to its students). Aceordin&ly, we reject' appcllarits' arguments in lhls regard and affirm. We have reviewed appellants' other arguments on: lj)pcal and fand them to be without merit . Accordingly, we the fmal jud gmen t In all respec t s. JOANOS and LAWRENCE., JJ. cooeur BE.NTON,J., coocurs in resul L I!ND OP DOCUMENT Copr. Cl Westl997 N o Claim to Orlg. U.S. Govt. Works PAGE 154 483 So.2d 492 30 Ed. Law Rep. 985, 11 Fla. L. Weekly 445 (CUe as ; 4&3 So.2d 492) The DUVAL COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Appellant, v. Patsy Ann DUI'KO, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Oscar Woodrow Russell, n, deceased, Appellee. No. BC-166 District Court of Appeal of Aorida First District. Feb 14, 1986. Rehearing Denied March 11, 1986. S u it was institu t ed against school board for death of 12-year-<>ld student when struck and ldlled by an automobile at a school bus stop. The Circuit Court, Duval County John E. Santora J r., J., entered judgment on verdict for student, and school board appealed. The District Court of Appeal Smith, J held that: (1) designation of a sch ool bus stop location . tho ugh one involving planning level, judgmental decision malting as to which school board enjoyed immunity, did not preclude holding board liable for death of 12-year-old student when struck and killed by an a u tomobile at school bus stop where. io addition to dangerous conditions created by heavy traffic and absence of any traffic signals, signs, markers or barriers designating area as a school bus stop, there was evidence of prior near misses oceuning at location when vehicles left roadway and drove upon grassy shoulder, requiring waiting children to scurry out of the way of wayward veh i cles, and (2) whether school board's actions, or failur e to act, upon receiving complaints and warnings concerning dangers ro children waiting for school bus at location, due to heavy traffic and enatic actions of drivers noted on prior occasions. contributed to creation of an wueasonable risk of injury o r death was questio n for jury in resolving issues of school board's liability. Affmned. [1] SCHOOLS <:=>89.13(4) 345k89.13(4) Formerly 345k89114 Designation of a school bus stoj> location, though one involving planning level, judgmental decision Pagel making as t o which school board enjoyed immunity, did not preclude holding board liable for death of 12-yearold student wben struck and killed by an automobile at school bus stop where, in addition to dangerous conditioos created by heavy traffic and absence of any traffic signals, signs, markers or barriers designating area as a school bus stop, there was evideru:e of prior near misses oceurring at location when veblcles left roadway and drove upon grassy shoulder, requiring waiting children to scurry out of the way of wayward vehicles. [2) SCHOOLS <:=>122 3451<122 Whether school board's actions, or failure to act, upon receiving complaints and warnings concerning dangers to children waiting for school bus at location, due to heavy traffic and erratic actioos of driver noted on prior occaSions. contributed to creation of an unreasonable risk o f Injury or death was question for jury in resolving issues of school board s liability for death of 12-year-old student when struck and killed by an automobile at school bus stop. [3] SCHOOLS <:=>121 345k121 Mere absenee of prior accidents or deaths was insufficient to absolve school board of liability for death of 12-year-<>ld student when struck and injured by an automobile a t school bus stop given eviden c e of tire scuff marks and gouges on and off pavemen t at location together with testimony of witnesses conecming near misses and complaints from parents and neighbors concerning conditioos at location on prior occasions. [4] SCHOOLS <:=>89. 13(4) 34Sk89 13(4) Fonnerly 345k89114 Rule in Harrison precluding ton liability from being imposed upon a school board for making a p l anning level decision as to location of a school bus s top did not foreclose an action for negligence for breach of an operational level duty to warn of a known dangerous condi t ion created by the public entity not readily appare n t, coostituting a trap for the unwaty. (5] SCHOOLS <:=>89.13(4) 345k89.13(4) Formerly 345k89114 Copr. 0 West 1997 No Claim to Orig U.S. Govt. Works PAGE 155 183 So.2d 492 :cite as: 483 So.2d 492) in Collum of the creation of a known lange rous condition was satisfied by evidence th:it h e school board continued to m.alntitin the location IS a designated school bus stop, whhout protective ... ncasures or warnings of any kind, after the >ccurrence of events and the receipt of complaints hich should have alerted the school board to lhe xistence of dangers to which lhe waiting children vere being exposed. *493 Daniel C. Shaughnessy, of Coker, Myers & lchickel, P.A., Jacksonville, for appellant. Michael J. Kom, Jacksonville, C. Wayne Alford of >Jford & Kalil, P.A. Jacksonville, and T. Edward dcCJamma of Brown, Terrell, Hogan & Ellis, '.A., Jacksonville, for appellee. *494 SMITH, Jud ge. This appeal by lhe Duval County School Board Board) seeks reversal of an adverse judgment endered in appellee's wrongful dealh action after a ury trial. Two grounds are urged for reversal: (1) hat there was n o evidence to support a jury fmding nat any act or omission on the part of the Board vas a legal cause of the decedent's death; (2) lhat he Board is entitled to judgment as a matter of Ja w o n its sovereign immunity defense in that its action n designating the location of the school bus stop in tuestion was a planning level governmental activity. Jpon review we fmd that the evidence was ufficient to go to the jury on the issue of proximate ause, and that the trial coun correctly determined bat the Board was not inunune from liability under lie facts of this case. We affmn. ,O,ppellee's twelve-year-old son, Oscar, was s truck nd killed by an automobile at a school bus stop in acksonville. The bus stop was located on Beaver :treet, a he avily traveled two-lane street wilh a osted speed limit of 55 mph. There were no bus top signs at or near the designaled stop, nor was 1cre a traffic signal at the Beaver Street intersecllon tith Edna Lee Avenue, some 200 feet f;tom the bus top. lbe manner in which lhe accident occurred is ndisputed. Bye witnesses testified that an utomobile traveling in the same direction as the c hool bus approached the bus and attempted to pass rior to its arrival at lhe bus stop. At the time of lhe uempted passing, the bus stop had on its flashing yellow waming lights, which were designated t o indicate that the bus was preparing to stop. As the first automobile was attempting to pass the bus a second automobile entered Beaver Street a few hundred feet ah ead of the passing vehicle, ohltructing the roadway ahead of the passing vehicle, and necessitating abrupt action by the driver to avoid striking the second car. Unfortunately, the driver of lhe passing automobile lost control of his vehicle, left the roadway, and angled toward the bus stop where the decedent and another child were waiting for the approaching bus. The decedent had been standing in the grassy area of the bus stop, off lhe paved s urface, and, seeing the approaching vehicle, attempted to move out of its pall\. Despite these efforts, lhe cblld was struck by .the passing automobile resulting in his death three days later. Appellee filed her wrongful death action against the drivers of the two automobiles, the school bus dri ver, and appellant Duval County School-Board. After senlement with all defendants, except the Board, lhe case proceeded to jury trial. Tbe trial court denie d the Board's motion for directed verdict based upon insufficiency of the evidence; and the Board's sovereign immunity defense. Tbe jury returned a verdict in favor of the p laintiff, awarding damages of$175,000. . On the proximate cause issue, the Board urges that none of lhe allegedly hazardous conditions such as the heavy traffic, lack of signalization, speed limit, and a yellow line in the middle of Beaver Street designating it as a "passing area" were conditions created or maintained by the Board. The Board also urges lhat the evidence clearly demonstrates that lhe sole cause of lhe dealh was the negligence of the two automobile drivers, particularly the driver of the passing vehicle; and that the Board's on!y connection with the occurrence of the accident was the mere act of designating lhat particular location as a school bus stop. On lhe other hand, appellee urges that no attempt was made to predicate liability on the Board's simple act of designating the locat ion of lhe bus stop in question. Instead, appellee urges here, as in the trial court, that wblle it may be true that the negligence of the rwo automobile drivers was the primary cause of decedent's death, the Board may nevertheless be liable, since its actions in maintaining the school bus stop at that place, under Copr. 0 Westl997 No Claim to Orig. U.S Govt. Works

PAGE 156

483 So.2d 492 (Cite as: 483 So.2d 492, *494) the dangerous and hazardous conditions then existing, was at least a "substantial factor in causing the death, since the actions of motorists such as occurred here are reasonably foreseeable. Appellee urges also the principle that in order to recover for neglige nce it is not necessary to sbow that a tonfeasor could foresee the precise manner in which injuries might occur, but only that it was foreseeable that some injury would likely result as a consequence of the tortfeasor's neglig ence [I] Much of the argument contained in the school board's excellent brief is devoted to a discussion of the Board' s evidence demonstrating that the designation of a s chool bus stop location is particularly one involving planning level, judgmental decision making. That conclusion bas already been fully accepted by this court and the Florida Supreme Court in Harrison v. Escambia County School Board, 419 So.2d 640 (Fla. 1st DCA 1982), approved, 434 So .2d 316 (Fla.l983). It is clear, therefore, that if the complaint and the evidence supporting it were directed solely to the negligence of the school board in initially designating the location or this school bus stop, the law would compel us to reverse the judgment of liability agains t the Board here. We conclude, however, that liability was not predicated upon the mere act of the Board in designating the bus stop. [2] In addition to the dangerous con ditions created by the heavy traffic and absence or any t r affic signals, signs, markers or barriers des ignating this area as a schoo l bus stop, plaintiff presented evidence of prior "near-misses"' occurring at this location when vehicles left the roadway and drove upon the grassy shoulder requiring waiting children to scurry out of the way of wayward vehicles. There was also evidence albeit disputed, of complaints and warrtings being communicated to school board personnel concerrtlng the dangers to children waiting for a school bus at this location, due to the heavy traffic and erratic actions of drivers noted on prior occasions, with no action by the Board. [3] The school board presen ted evid ence that the bus stop had been in that location for 20 years without an injury or death to a school chtld. While this evidence would tend to negate the e>
PAGE 157

483 So.2d 492 (Cite as:. 483 So.2.d 492., ) did not err in refu$ing to apply the doctrine of sovereign immunity to bar recovery against the Board. We are also of the view that reasonable men could differ on the issues of cauSation, foreseeability. and negligence on the pan of the Board. Page6 The judgment appealed from is AFFIRMED. WENTWORtH and JOANOS, JJ., concur. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. Q West 1997 No Claim to Otlg. U.S : Govt. Works PAGE 158 384 So 2d 661 (C ite as: 384 So.2d 661) Marsha HOLLIS, as Personal Rtpresentatlve for the Estate of 11ffo.ny Hel!na Hollis, Appellant, The SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON COUNTY, Florida, Ned B. Lovell, as Superintendent of the School Board or Leon County, Florida, tl Ill., Appell ees. No. JJ-496 District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. May 19, 1980. Rehearing Denied Jun e 27, 1980. Appeal was tal300 2SSlc300 In the private sector, If person acllvely responsible for iq)ury was in the employment or two or more persons as joint employers, both or all of them may be held liable. [2] TORTS <=22 379la2 General rule is that pers ons who combine to commil wrong are joint tortfea sors and are responsible for the acts of each other. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial ;on.structions and defmilion.s. (3] STATES =>112.1(1) hgel9 360kll2. 1(1) Primacy test as to whether a person causing an injury is an employee of the goverruncnt is who controls or has the right to control that person's work [4] AUTOMOBILES <=197(7) 48Ak197(7) For purposes of detennlniog tort liability for acu of public scbcol bus driver whose bus StrUCk and lcilled five-year-old child, both superiotende.nt, wbo had respon.slbUity for adminisllltion of the school aDd supervision or in.struct,on, who bad right to exercise general oversight over district school system In order to determine problems and needs, to recommend improvements, and to recommend to school board adoptio n of policy, and wbo recommended ill writing to the board the employment of all instructional and nonlosiiUetiooal penoonel, and !he school board controlled actions of the bus driver and therefore both would be considered driver's "jcint employers West's P.S.A 230 03(2, 3), 230.23(S)(b), (8), 230.32(1, 3), 230.33(1), (7)(b), 2'34 .01, 2'34.02(2). Sec publication Word$ and Phrases for other judicial constructions and definitions: [5) AUTOMOBILES <=197(7) 48Akl97(7} For purposes of determining tort liability for actS of public cbool bus driver whose bus struck aDd lcilled cbUd, superintendent who acted as admi.oistrator and chief executive officer of lhe school board was an integral part of the government and must be considered agcocy of the state West's F.S A 768.28(2). [6] AUTOMOBILES <=197(7) 48Akl97(7) Any negligent act comm.ined by public school bus driver wlthill the scope of his employment would subject both school board and superintendent tc' liabUity. West"s F S.A. 768.28(1, 2). [7] STATES <=112.2(1) 360k112.2(1) Discreliona.ry function exception to tort claims against llatc is limited to functions occurring only at the "planning level, not at the "operational level, defined as the leve l at which policy ls implemented. West's F.S.A. 768.28(1). Ccpr. 0 West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Worlcs

PAGE 159

384 so.2d 661 (Cite as: 384 So.2d 661) [8] JUDGMENT <;:;;>181(33) 228k181(33) In action 10 recover for wrongful death of five-year old child who was struck by public school bus, material issue of fact exist e d as to whether superintendent negligently failed to inspect or main tain school bus adequately, precluding summary judgment. *662 Edward S. Jaffry of Home, Rhode s, Jaffry, Stephens, Bryant, Home & Chapman, Tallahassee, for appellant. J. Lewis Hall, Jr Michael L. Granger of Keen, O'Kelley, Field & Ellis, Tallahassee, for appellees. ERVIN, Judge. This is an appeal from a fmal summary judgment absolving the SUperintendent of Leon County [FNl) from any !lability to the estate o f Tiffany Hollis, aged five arising from her death, caused by the alleged negligence of a school bus driver whose bus ran ove r her while she was crossing in front of it.[FN2] The court held that the record. including lhe estate's two-count complaint charging generally lhe superintendent with (I) vicarious negligence, and (2) negligence in failing to have the school bus properly Inspected or e.arnined; showed only that the superintendent's aetivltles pertained "to %Ovemmental discretionary functions which do not give rise to tort liability." We agree with appellant !hat genuine issues of material fact remain undecided 10d so reverse and remand. FNl. The Leon Cou nl}' School Board and an employee, the bus driver, were joined w ith lhe superintendent as parties in the same complaint; however, during lhe peod.eocy of this appeal, the board and the drlver &etded the claim with the estate in the sum of $40,000. which was approved by the trial c:ourt. The release of the active tortfeasor does not of course serve also to discharge ,lhe tonfeasor \licarioU$Iy liable because the Contribution Among Tortfeasors ACJ., specifically Section 768.31(5), bas been interpreted to app1y to all tortfeasors. whether their liability is or derivative. Hertz Corpora.tion v. Heltens. 140 So.2d 73 (Fla.2d DCA 1962); Florida ToJ!!ato Packers, Inc. v. Wilson, 2% So.2d 536 (Fla.Jd DCA 1974); sim First National Banlc of Melbourne v. Batchelor. 321 So.:ld 73 (Fla.197S). FN2. The bus driver was uoabte to see the 5maJI child by because the bus's side mirrors were Page20 positioned in such a way as to inhibit bis vision. I. SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO COUNT I, ALLEGING THE SUPERINTENDENT'S UABILITY UNDER RESPONDEAT SUPERIOR The superintendent's vicarious responsibility for the bus driver's negligence is determined by an answer to. the following questions: Was the bus driver the employee of the superintendent as well as of the school board? If so, for. purposes of suit under Section 768.28, is the superinlendcnt an age ncy or subdivision of the state? Section 768.2&(1) permits actions against the state, its agencies or subdivisions for h\furies, death; etc., caused by the negligent employee of the agency or subdivision while aCling within the scope of his employment under circums!.Jces in which 1he state or such agency or subdivision ; if a private person, .would be liable to the claimant (emphasis supp l ied) *663 [1}[2) In the private sector, if the person actively responsible for an injury was in the employment of two or more persons as joint employers, both or all of them may be held liable. 53 Am.Jur.2d Master and Servant, s 412, at 420 (1970). The general IU!e is that persons who combine to commit a wrong are joint tortfeasors [FN3] and are responsible for the acts of each other. Therefore if both the superintendent and the board are considered joint employers of the driver, both may be vicariously liable to the same extent as private employers. We fmd the superintendent Is an employer of the driver. FN3. We that technically a private employer and his employee are not considered joint tortfeasors when a negHgent aet is committed by the latter while actiag within the scope .of hi; employment. S... Phillips v. Hall, 297 So.:ld 136 (Fla.1st DCA 1974), stating that because the employer's negligence Is merely derivea fromthe active nt:gligenee Or the employee. lhe plainti!f could not, after obtaining a judgment against an employer. bring a separate action asalns.t che employee. Still, the qUfSiion whether or not the employer and employee come strictly within the classification of joiru tortfea.sors is immaterial to this action. Here, the school board, the superintendent and the employee were all joined in one sulc. A nongovernmental employer and his Copr. 0 West 1997 No Claim to Orig U.S. Govt. Works

PAGE 160

384 So .2d 661 (Cite as: 384 So.2d 661, 663) employee may be jointly liable to a plaintiff because. from their relationship, they are identified in the same tortious act resulting in the plaintiffs inju ry. Weave< v Hale, 82 Fla. 88, 89 So. 363 (1921); Stinson v. Prevatt, 84 Fla. 416.94 So. 656 (1922). Moreover, Section 768.28 pennits an accion jo ining both the public employer and employee. See Dis tric& School Board of Lake County v. Talmadge, 381 So.2d 698, (Fla.l980). (3) In cases involving interpretations of the Federal Tort Claims Act, after which the Florida act is modeled,[FN4) federal courts have held the primary test as to whethe r a person causing an injury is an employee of the government is who controls or has the right to control that person' s work. See e .g., Logue v. United States, 412 U S 521, 527, 93 S.Ct. 2215, 37 L.Ed.2d 121, 128 (1973); Gowdy v. United States, 412 F .2d 525, 534 (6th Cir. 1969); Eutsler v. United States, 376 F.2d 634 (lOth Cit. 1967); Yates v. United States, 365 F.2d 663 (41h Cir. 1966); Strangi v United S t ates, 211 F.2d 305 (5th Cir. 1954); Lavin v. United States, 177 F .2d 527 (2d Cit. 1949). The rule in Florida as to non?Ublic employers is the same. See, e.g., Mumby v. Sowden, 25 Fla. 454, 6 So. 453 (1889); St. Johns & ii.R. Co. v Shatley, 33 Fla. 397, 14 So. 890 ;1894); Oulf Refuling Co. v Wilkinson, 94 Fta. i64, 114 So. 503 (1927). FN4. Compare Section 768.211(1) with 28 U.S C. s 1346(b), the latter exposing the United States: to liability for money damages caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government .... [4] Applying the same test here, (FNS] we fllld .bundant statutory aulhority placing contrOl of the us driver under the board and the superintendent Vhile the board is given organization and control f the public schools of the disuict ... Section 3().03(2) (eD)phasis supplied), we consider that rhb.in the broad statutory scheme, control is in fact iffused between both the school board and the uperintendent. The superintendent, as Che xecutivc officer of the school board, Section 30.03(3), has responsibility for the adminisUation (the schools and the supervision of irtstruction. !d. te has the right to exer cise general oversight over 1e district school system in order to determine roblerns and needs, to recommend improvements. nd to recomme n d to the schoo l board the adoption f policy. Section 230.32(1), (3). Additionally be :commends in writing to the board the employment Page21 of all instruct i onal and nonirtstruefiooal personnel Section 230.33(7)(b) He recommends plans and procedures for providing facilities for the economical and safe uansportation of pupils, Sections 230.33(1), 234.01 and he notifies tbe board of any school bus whlcb does not meet all requirements of l aw. Section 234 02(2). Only after recomrneodations bave been p r oposed by tbe superintendent does the board *664 exercise its option either to reject or adopt them. See for example, Section 230 23(8). Finally the board may not reject th e recommended employment of school bus d r ivers except for good cause. Section 230.23(S)(b). FNS. The Florida Supreme Court, when it adopted the opecationaVplanning level ltSt, also fo11owed federal c.ases oonscruing the discretionary fuoclion exception to tort claims, observing that the language in 28 U.S.C. s 1346(b) was praetically identical to that in Section 768. 28(5). Conunercial CaHier Corp. v Indian R've r Cty. 371 So.2.d 1010, 1016 (Fla.l979). We conclude th e district school system is a hydra headed o r ganization whose day-to-day operations are overseen by its chief administrator, tbe school superintcndeot, but whose control is technically vested ln the school lioard. Dual control, !hen is placed in both the superintendeD! and the school board for tbe operation and administration of tbe district school system in Florida. It necessarily follows !hat both the superintenden t and tbe board controlled lhe actions of tbe bus driver, and bolb must be c onsidered his joint employers. This conclusion is supported by our previous examinations of the superintendent's and tbe board's shared responsibili t ies. For example, we bave refused t o hold a school board immune from an unfair labor practice wben it argued it acted In good failh on a superintendent's recommeodalion not to, rehire a non -tenur ed refrigeration mechanic, Columbia Cty. Bd., etc. v. Public Emp. Rei. Comm., 353 So.2d 127 (Fla .lst DCA 1977) We there observed that when the board routinely accepted lbe superlnteodent's biting recommendations, it was sufficient proof of an unfair labor practice if the recommendations were tainted by the impermissible motives of tbe superintendent or olber subordinate. More recently we sustained a trial court's order allowing a blind person the opportUnity to demonstrate that be could Copr. Q West 1997 No Claim to Orlg. U.S. Oovt. Works

PAGE 161

PAGE 162

384 So.2d 661 (Cite as: 384 So.2d 661, 665) FN8. Section 768.'2.8 cloes noc contain any provision Jpec-ifia.lly immunilin.J &he awe from liability for negligence caused by che exercise of a discretionary function. Similar faces exist here. To c.\rry out statutes mandating the creation of plans to provide for tbe safe transportation of studenu,[FN9] plans were not only proposed and adopted, but in fact implemented. Before the accident. a trainitlg program for bus drlvero bad been instituted in the Leon Coumy school ciUtrict, supervised by the superb>tendel)(, which, among otber things, instructed the drivero to submit monthly reporu reflecting tbe number of miles driven, the date of the buses' last mechanical inspec ti on and the number of pupils transported. The district school's transportation department, supervised by tbe superintendent, IIlio bad the respon.slbllity to all buses periodieally, as required by Section 234.02(1),[FNIO ] and a1 each a safety cbcek list including 22 componenu was filled in. The list, however, contained no space for improper placc.mcnt of mirrors Nor did the trainitlg sessions attended by the drivers include instroctions for them to report to tbelr supervisors the eJespite the law's demand that the superintendent administer &D inspection system designed to guard against potential hazards, be like the bus driver also failed to take any measures to correct the hazard. The general policy of the superintendent was Dot to anticipate &ny possible defective conditions in a school bus because his administration of the distriCt school system was one of "management by , meaning that no inspectio n for potentlal hazards was undertaken unless a problem was specifically called to his atteJltion. The end result of this curious managem ent policy is that no one assumed the respon.slbllity to correct the improper placement or the mirrors. OllCC the ochool board and the superintendent Implemented policy ealling for both the training of school bus drivers and the inspection of the school bus transportation system, they were required to carry out the resulting operations without negligence The ft11al summary judgment in favor of the superintendent is reversed as to both counu and the ease remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. MASON, ERNEST E., Associate Judge, c:oacurs. MILLS, C. J dissenting with opinion. MILLS, Chief Judge, dissenting: I dissent. On IS October 1975, Tiffany Hollis, age S, was, run over bY a Leon Ceunty School Boord bus and ltilled. Marsha Hollis, as peroooal represenwive of the esute of Tiffany Hollis. biOIJ&ht suit against Ned Lovell, as Supednlendent of the School Board of Leon County; the School Board of Leon Coumy; Alphonso Srnitb, the bus driver; Shield Insurance Compuy; and the Horace Mann Insurance Company. Count I of the complaint alleged that "the Board and Superintendent, recommended approved Copr. C West 1997 No Claim to Orlg U.S Govt Work>

PAGE 163

384 So.2d 661 (Cite as: 384 So.2d 661, ti) employed, directed and supervised . Smith and Smith was acting within the course and scope of bls employment by the Board and Wider the s upervision of the Superintendent. It was further alleged that' . . not' having been adequately t rained or supervised by Defendants Board and Superintendent, . Smith recklessly and oegligcnUy operated or maintained or controlled the bus causing it to strike the decedent. Count II of the complaint alleged that the Board and Superintendent failed to have the bus inspected or oxamined and allowed the bus to operate even :hough the lnlrrors placed around the bus would not : eveal the presence of a small child in front of lhe >US, Final sumrnaty judgment was entered in favor of he School Board, as to its active negligence, and in 'avor of the Superintendent, on ihe grounds that . the alleged improper activities of Ned B. Lovell ndividually and as Superintendent and . the activities constituting the alleged active t cgligcnce of the School Board of Leon COIUity oertain to governmental discretlonaty functions vhlch do not give rise to tort liability. After this appeal was taken from the ftnal summaty a settlement in the amount of $40,000 ctwcen Hollis and the defendants School Board, :ntlth, and Shield was approved by the trial court. The question before us is whether ftnal sullUTIJU)' Jdgment was properly entered in favor of the :Uperintendent. The Superintendent cannot be icariously liable for the al leg ed negligence of Smith ince the Superintendent was not Smith's employer. 'berefore, we must determine only whether the : uperintendent can be held liable for his own alleged .egligence. Basi cally, Hollis alleges that the Superintendent was ogligent in two reSPects: (1) in falling to properly tSpect, examine and maintain the school bus so as > permit its operation when the mirrors would not a small child in. front of the bus; (2) in falling J properly train and supervise Smilh. 667 Section 230 33(10) sets forth the duties of the uperintendent which relate to the transportation of :boo! children. "(10) Transportation of pupils. Ascertain which Page24 pupils should be transported to school or to school activities determine the most effective arrangement of transportation routes to a"!'oromodate the pupils; recommend such routing to the school board; recommend plans and procedures for providing facilities for the economical and safe transportation of pup)ls; recommend such rules and regulations as may be necessaty and see that all rules and regulations relating to the transportation of pupils approved by the school board, as well as regulations of the state board, are properly carried into effect, as prescribed in chapter 234. Section 234.02 sets forth the responsibilit ies of the Superintendent and the Sehool Board for the safety of school children being transported. "234 .02 Safety and health of' pupils, Maximum regard for safety and adequate protection of health shall be primacy requirements which shall be observed by school boards in routing buses, appointing drivers, and providing and operating equipment, in accordance with all requirements of law and regulations of the state board. (I) Each school board shall designate and adopt a spec ifi c plan for adequate examination, maintenance and repair of transportation equipment. Examination of the mechanical condition of each school bus shall be made by a capable mechanic at least once each month that the bus is in operation. (2) The superintendent shall notify lhe school board of any school bus which does not meet all requirements of law and regulations of the state board, and the school board shall, if such school bus is in an unsafe condition, withdraw it from use as a school bus Wllil the bus meets said requirements. .. It is apparent that the statotory responsibility for the safe transportation of school children lies primarily with the School Board, not with the Superintendent. See Surette v. Gallardo, 323 So.2d 53 (Fla.4th DCK 1975). The superintendent's duties are limited. He is to see that the r:itles and regulations of the local school board and the stat e board arc earried into effect and notify the school board if any school bus does not meet all the requirements of law and the state board's regulations. His only other duties involve making recommendations to the school board In the instant case, there Is no allegation er Copr.@ West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works PAGE 164 384 So.2d 661 (Cite as: 384 So.2d 661, ) contention that the school bus did not meet all the requirements or law and the state boards regulations. Further. the documentation attached to motion for summary judgment establishes that the school bus in question was equipped in accordance with state law and regulation. Therefore; the only duties which the Superintendent allegedly could have breached in connection with the placement of the mirrors on the school bus, were those of recommending to the School Board ... plans and procedures for providing facilities .for the economical and safe transportation of pupils. .. and recommending "rules and regulations as may be necessary."' I agree witll the trial coun that these duties constitute discretionary functions which cannot provide a basis for ton liability. See Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Co., 371 So.2d 1010 (Fla.l979). It was also alleged that the Superintendent did not adequately train or supervise Smith. Section 230.33(7) sets forth the duties and responsibilities of the Superintendent in directing the work of the personnel of the school system. "(J) PERSONNEL. Be responsible, as required herein, for directing the work of the personnel, subject to the requirements of chapter 231 and in addition he shall have the following duties: (i) Direct work of employees and supervise instruction. Direct or arrange for the proper direction and improvement, under regulations of the school board, of the work of all members of the instructional staff and other employees of the district school system; ... In Commereial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Co., supra, the Supreme Coun suggested that the preliminary test set forth in Evangelical United PagelS Brethren Chureh v. State, 67 Wash.2d 246, 407 P.2d 440 (1965), be utilized to determine whether a certain function is an "operational" level function or a "planning" level function. Those functions which are "planning" level or "discretionary functions are immune from ton liability. For a function to be considered a "planning" level function, the foUowing questions must be answered in the affarmative: "(I) Does the challenged act, omission, or decision necessarily involve a basic governmental policy. program or objective? (2) Is the questioned aet, omission, or decision esseOiial to the realization or accomplishment of that policy, program, or objective as opposed to one which would not change the course or dire eli on of the policy, program, or objective? (3) Does the act, omission or decision require the exercise of basic policy evaluation, judgment, and expertise on the part of the governmental agency involved? (4) Does the governmental agency involved possess the requisite constitutional, statutory, or lawful authority and duty to do or make the challenged act, omission, or decision?" In my judgment, the above questions must be answered in the affumative. In essence, Hollis is challenging the method the Superintendent has chosen for directing. training, and supervising the school bus drivers. It is my opinion that the determination of the proper direction of school personnel is a planning level function, the wisdom of which cannot be scr;utinized by the judiciary. See Commereial Carrier Corp. v. Iodian River Co . supra. I would affum the summary fUlal judginent. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. C> West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Oovt. Works PAGE 165 493 so.2d 471 34 Ed. Law Rep. 1261, 11 Fla. L. Weel118 '45kll8 >uty owed by school bus driver to supervise tudents on board was also owed by school board, vblch had duty to protect health and safety of tudents using school buses through its interest in are and well-being of students, and which was ilerefore proper d efendant in action for driver's Ueged negligence. West's F.S.A. 232.28, :34.02. Z] SCHOOLS :=>120 45k120 ndividual Injured by student on school bus stated !aim for negligent hiring against school board in Ueging school bus driver's past derelictions in duty nd driver's knowledge of previous bad behavior by tudent who allegedly assaulted plaintiff. West's '.S.A. 234.02. !] SCHOOLS :=>89.13(1) 45k89 .13(1) 'onnerly 345k89 .13 :1airns against school board for alleged negligence Page 1 of school bus driver were not barred by sovereign immunity, as transportation of children was operational function. *471 Mark J Feldman, Miami, for appellant .. Peters, Picl PAGE 166 493 so.2d 471 (Cite as: 493 So.2d 471, ) rea.sooably [J(teSSat)' co proccct chc pupils on his bus. FN2. Sect io n 234.02 re1d.s in pcnine.f\l pAI1: Safety and beallh of pupils.-Muimum rec.trd for ufety and adequate protec1ion or heallh man be primary requiremrnu which ll>all be observed by school boards ift routing buses, ppointing drjvers, and providing and operatln& equipm""' in accordance with aU requirements of law and n:plations or the ..... beard. (lj Witb regard to tbe driver's alleged negligence, inc the school board ;. ultimate ly entrusted \Vllb the care and weU being. of the students, lhe duty c re ated by sec tion 232. 28(3) is owed by tbe board as well. See Collins v. School Board of Broward County, 471 So.2d 560 (Fla. 41h DCA 1985) (teacher's duty to supervise students is owed by 1he school board as well becaus e 1he srudcnt' s we ll being Is ultimately the board's responsibuiry). Therefore, eomplalllt properly llotes a clam. for ocgligence. (2} The school board contends Brantly's complaint fail to allege facts establisbing lhatlhe school board bad prior notice of the driver's past derelict i ons of duty, a neceuary element to a claim for negligent hiring. We fwd that thecomplaint alleges sufficient facu t o state such a daim pur suant to the duty imposed by section 234 .01. S pecifically paragraph eight or the compl aint alleg es that "[t)be conduc t or the srudeot on 1he ous was f oreseeable and Page 2 ill that the srudent on the bus had assaulted and injured another student walklog beside the bus sbonly before this student usaulted and il\iured Daniel Braolly, Jr. See Friedman v Mutual Broadcasting System, Inc., 380 So.2d 1313 (Fla 3d DCA 1980). Any dispute over these facl3 is not a proper consideration in a m otion to dismiss. Temples v Flor ida Industrial Construction Co. Inc., 310 So. 2d 326 (Fla. 2d DCA 1975). [3) Unquestiotubly, these claims are not barred, u the school board cootends, b y sovereign immunity. Rolli! v Scbool Board of Leon County, 3&4 So.2d 661 (Fla 1st DCA 1980) (implementation of the school board' policy to safely transpon childreo is operalional) ; see Willis v. Dade County Scboo l Board, 411 So.2d 245 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982) (hiring proces s or teachers is operational) ; see gener ally, Commercial Carrie r Corp. v. Ind ian River County 371 So 2d 1010 (Fia.l979) (operational fUnctions of 1he state are not prot PAGE 167 394 So.2d 147 (Cite as: 394 So.2d 1 47) The SCHOOL BOARD O F BROW AliD COUNTY, Florida and Pacllic Indemnity Insurance Company, a foreign corporation, Appellants, y; VIrginia L. S'URETI'E, as adminiStratriX or the Estate of Diane Surette, dec..,.ed, Joan M. Gallardo ond Liberty Mutual Insurance Compa.n,y, a foreign corporation, ApptUte$. No. 78-191. District Court of Appeal of Florida, Founh District. . Jan. 28, 1981. Rehearing Denied March 16, 1981. Admini.luatrlx of CSJate of minor child killed when he was sttuck by car while waiting for sdlool bus "ouabt action agaiDst school board, its insurer, !river of ear and driver's insurer, seeking damages or wrongful of child and survivorship :amages. The Circuit Court, Broward County, Jose Gonzalez, Jr., 1., enter<.! judgment in favor of dminlsuatrlx, and school board and Insurer ppealed. Driver of car and her Insurer cross' ppealed. The District C ourt of Appeal, Moore, 1 eld Chat: (I) lnsunonce policy i uued by Insurer unuant to school board's waiver or Immunity rovlded coverage for alleged injuries; (2) severaoce r insurer as defendant in suit was not required; Ol olcllng by Supreme Court that llllgUage of statute oveml.ag liability insurance, which prohibited 1ggestion of insurance coverage at trial, was oeonst!tut!onal was the "law of the case; (4) 'stimony of safety engineer to establish dangerous >nditlon of school bus stop vias adminib le; (S) 1idencc supported claim that bus stop was .ailltaincd in unsafe condition; (6) decedent :longed t o special class of persons to whom school lard owed duty to provide safe uansportation; (7) :gUgcllt acts of drl-wen: DOl active and efficient .tcrvening cause which broke t:baln of causatioo ltilted by school board; and (8) ameaded >mplaint did not come within "relation back" >Ctrillc and was barred by statute of limitations. ,(firmed In part and rev ersed in part. J INSURANCE c$;:>435.38 Page 12 2171<435.38 Wbere decedent was allegedly struck and ldlled by automobile driven by person who had no relalion to school board or any of Its activities, clause ill school board's comprehensive general liability insurance policy, which excluded bodily lnjwy and property damage liability arising out of owntrsblp maintenance, operation or use of .atf/ automobile owned, leased o; operated by ,cchool board, was inapplicable, and such p(.ucy : ;"ued punuant to school board's waiver of sov=ign ilnmunlty thus provided coverage for the accident F.S.I977, 455.06(2). [2] APPEAL AND ERROR c$;:>949 30k949 Severance of trlals under rule governing consolldallon of trials is cliscretioDM)' matter and decision or trial court will !lOt be distutbed ab$cnt clear showing of.abuse of discretion . 30 West's F.S.A. Rules of CivU Prooedure, Rule 1 .270(b). [2] TlUAL c$;:>3(1) 388k3(2) Severance of trials under rule goveming consolidation of trials is discretionary matter and decision of trial court will not be disturbed absent clear showing of abuse of discretion. 30 West's F.S.A. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule !.270(b). [3] TlUAL 0=>3(4) 388k3(4) Wbere insurance policy of school board provided coverage for alleged injuries sustained by clec:edent when she was suuck and ldlled by automobile while waiting for school bus, severanoc of insurer as defendant In trial eommeneed by administratrix of estate of decedent for wrongful death and survivorship damages against Insurer, school ]loud and others was not required. West's 46.021; F.S.I971, 768.02; 30 West's F.S.A., Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.270(b). [4} APPEAL AND ERROR c$;:>1097(1) 30kl097(1) Since t&DgUage or sta!Ute governing transpo!Ut!on of pupils and waiver of school board Immunity Is identical to language of statute govemlDg liability insurance, and since action for wroogful death and survivorship damages Instituted by adnlinlsrratrlx of student's estate against school board and insurer was considered by Supreme Court to be part of same Copr. C West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works PAGE 168 394 So .2d 147 (CUt as: 394 So.Zd 147) cause as separate action instituted by student's parent& for their own pain and suffering and loss of support, prior holding by Supreme Court that provision of !lability insurance atanite which prohibits mention of insurance is WICOUStitutional operated as "Jaw of the case" in the instant action brought by administratrix. Wool's F.S.A. 46.021, 234.03(4); F.S.l971, 768.02, 768.03; 30 West's'F.S.A. Rules or Civil Prooedure, Rule 1.270(b); F.S.1977, 4SS.06(2). [5] EVIDENCE S08 IS7kS08 geoeral. Expert's testimony is admissible if subject about whlcb he testifies is beyond common understanding of average layman and witness has auoh koowledge as will assi>t jill)' in aniving at truth. [6] EVIDENCE SU JS7kS12 Testimony of safety engineer, io action for wroogful death and survivorship damages instituted by administratrix of estate of deceased child killed when she was allegedly hit by ear while waiting for school bus, was admissible to establish dangerous condition of scbool bus stop [7J APPEAL AND ERROR =>1050.1(12) 30k10S0.1(12) Improper expert testimony may be considered hannless error where there is other sufficient evideoec to justify jury io reaebillg c:onclu.sion supported by opinion of expert. (8) SCHOOLS =>121 34Skl21 Evidence, In wrongful death action ins t ituted by administratrix of estate of child killed when hit by a ear While waiting for scbool bus, Including evidence that weeds In vacant lot which was used as bus stop were overgrown and lawn was In sucb a debristrewn condition that student& were effectively forced to stand DCat or on roadway, was sufficient to support claim that school bus stop was maintained in unsafe condition. SCHOOLS 89.13(1) 34Sk89.13(1) Formerly 34S k8 9.13 Where decedent, who was killed when sbe was struck by a ear while waiting for bus at school bus Page1 3 stop, was member of special class of persons to whom school board owed duty to provide safe transportation, doctrine that school board was shielded from liability on theory that it did not owe special duty to decedent as member of general publi c was illappllcable. [10) SCHOOLS 89.13(6) 34Sk89.13(6) Fonnerly 3451<89.18 Whtre scbool bus stop was 10Jintint4 io unsafe condition, negligent act& of driver of car whlcb struck decedent as sbe was waiting at school bus stop were not active and efficient Intervening cause which broke cbain of causation Initiated by school board. [II) LIMlTATION OF AcnONS U7(11.1) 241k127(ll.l) Formerly 24lk127(11) Although amendment& to complaint should be permitted liberally, ooe cannot defeat bar of statute or limitations by filiog new cause of action labeled as amended complaint. [12) LlMlTATION OF AcnONS 12 7(12) 24lkl27(12) Where original complaint was fded by decedent's parents for their own damages, where amended complaint med more than four years after cause of action arose, was ftled by decedent's estate for different damages, and wbere the amcncled complaint 110t only alleged a different ea.SC of action from that alleged in the original complaint, but was also filed by a different party, there was no "relation back" and the cause of action alleged in the ameoded complaint was thus barred by the applicable four year statute of limitations West's F.S.A. 95.11(4); 30 West's F.S.A. Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.190(c). !49 William S. Gardella of Walton Lantaff, Schroeder & Carson, Fort Lauderdale, and James E .' Tribble of BlackweU, Walker, Gray, Powera, Flick & Hoehl. Miami. for appel!anl$ School Board of Broward County and Pacific llldeomity Ius. Co. Frank E. Maloney, Jr., and Paul R Regemdorf of Fleming, O'Bryan &. Fleming, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees/cross appeUant&, Joan M. Gallardo and Liberty Muruallns. Co. Edward A. Perse of Hortoo, Perse &.
PAGE 169

394 So.2d 147 (Cite as: 394 So.2d 147, *149) Miami, and Robert M. Sussman, Miami, for .. appellee, Virginia L. Sure t te. MOORE, Judge. The tragedy in this case has spawned a number of cases in the trial court as well as a number of appeals and petitions in the appellate sys tem. The appellees' decedent, Diane Surette, age thirteen, was struck by an automobile owned by Arthur Gallardo, Jr. and driven by Joan Gallardo on September 15, 1971 while she was waiting for a school bus. She passed aw.ay twentynlnc days later. Two suits were commenced as a result of this unfortunate accident. In Case No. I, Virginia and Gilbert Surette, as parents of the decedent, sued the School Board of Broward County, its insurer, Pacific Iildemnity insurance Company, Joan Gallardo, her insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, and others who are not parties to this appeal Th e parents soug):lt damages pursuanl to S e ction 768.03, Florida Swutes (1971) for the wrongful death of their minor child. Althoug):l this ease is not bef9re us. we will necessarily refer to it as Case No. 1 in this opinion. In Case No. 2, Virglnia Surette, a s administratrix of the Estate of Diane Surette, sued the School Board, Pacific Indemnity, Arthur and Joan Gallardo, Liberty Mutual and others who are not parties to this appeal. In a single complaint damages were sought for the wrongful death of Diane punuanl to Section 768.02, Florida Statutes (1971) and for survivoC$blp damages puC$uant to Seclion 46.021, Florida Statutes (1971). A jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff against the Sehool Board, Pac ific Indemnity, Joan Gallardo and Liberty Mutual. The jury found the School Board 50% negligent, Joan Galiardo 15% negligent, and the decedent 35% negligent. Wrongful death damages were found to be $25,000 and the survival action damages were found to be S121,000. After an aj>proprlate fmal judgment was entered, the School Board and Pacific Indemnity appealed. We affirm the judgment against the School Board and Pacific Indemnity. Gallardo and Liberty Mutual cross-appealed and we reverse the judgment against Galiardo and Liberty Mutual. The School Board and Pacific Indemnity argue four grounds for reversal of the fmal judgment. They Page i4 contend that the Pacific Indemnity insurance Policy V(as a general comprehensive liability policy wblch specifically excluded liability for bodily iiijury arising out of the ownersblp, maintenance, operation, use and loading and unloading of school busses. In this regard, they contend .the trial court erred in not severing Pacific Indemnity as a defendant pursuant to Pla.R.Civ.P t.270(b) because there was a genuine and justiciable issue concerning insurance coverage.. Their second ground for reversal is the alleged error in denying their motion to sever the insurance company and suppress any mention of insurance coverage to the jury pursuant to Section 234.03(4), Florida Statutes (1973). The appellants' next contention is that the trial court erred In admitting the expert testimony of a safety engineer in proof of the Board's negligence in the selection and maintenance of the school bus stop. Their fma! contention i.s that the evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, .to.establis!La breaeh of any duty owed by the School Board to the decedent. Rather, they contend the evidence established, as a matter of law, that the proximate cause of the accidental death *150 was the intervening negligence of Gallardo and the decedent: On the cross-appeal, Gallardo and Liberty Mutual contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismlss the survival action because the statu t e of limitations had run prior to the commencement of the action. I. [1][2][3) The School Board had a policy of insurance with Continental Casualty insurance Company wblcb provided coverage for injuries arising from the owneC$blp, maintenance, operation, or use of school busses and other veblcles whlle transporting pupils to and from school. This policy was designed to provide coverage concomitant with . the School Board's waiver of sovereign immunity pursuant to Se<:tion 234 . 03(4), Florida Statutes (1971) The appellan!s contend that if the Sehool Board i.s liable, .Its liability Is covered under the Continental policy as opposed to the Pacific Indemnity policy. This contention is erroneous. As we opined in Surette v Gallardo, 323 So.2d 53 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975} in discussing the Pacific policy: The record reflects that ihe school board purchased a comprehensive general liability Copr. 0 West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt Works

PAGE 170

394 So.U 147 (Cite as: 394 So.2d 147, ) insurance policy from Pacific Indemnity which provided for bodily injury and property damage liability coverage for an "occurrence" which was defined to embrace an accident, including injurious exposure to conditiolU, which results, duriog the policy period, in bodily injury or property damage neither expected nor intended from the standpoint of the insured .... The policy in question specifically excluded bodily injury or property damage liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance, operation or use of any automobile owned, leased or operated by the school board Clearly, therefore, as the trial court cor rect ly observed, the policy in question did not cover an accident resulting from an automobile (or bus) owned, leased or operated by the school board. However, the circumstances in the instant case do not involve the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of a school bus. The ptaintlfrs minor child was allegedly struck and lcilled by an automobile driven by one Joan Gallardo who had no relation to the school board or any of its activities The presence of the school board and its insurer in the action below was not occasioned by the ownership, maintenance, operation, use, loading or unloading of a school bus, but, rather, by the school boar d's alleged negligence in its selection. designation, location and maintenance of school bus stop sites. ld. at 55-56 Thus. although. we decline to expressly h.old that th e Pacific policy provided coverage for the aocide nt involved here, we certainly intimated that the language of that policy was sufficiently broad to encompass this accident. Since we are now asked to determine coverage, we hold that the Pacific Indemnity policy issued pursuant to the Board's waiver of immunity under Section 455.06, Florida Statutes (1971}, provided coverage for the alleged mJures. We therefore find no merit in the appellants' arguments that severance should have been granted pursuant to Fla.R.Clv.P. 1.270(b}. Severance under the rule is a discrelionary mauer and the deeision of the trial court will not be disturbed absent a clear showing of an abuse of discretion. That showing is conspicuously absent in this case II. Our determination of appellants' next contention necessitates a brief summary of the parallel courses PagelS which these cases have taken through the courts. In Case No. I. Pacific lnde!llllity moved for severance pursuan t to Section 455 .06 (2), Florida Statutes (1971) which provides for the waiver of governmental immunity or political subdivisions of the State to the extent of their insurance coverage, and prohibits the suggestion of such coverage In any trial. The trial court held Section 455 .06(2) uncoustltlllional and Pacific Indemnity sough! common law ceniorarl review in this Court. We transferred the cause to the Florida Supreme Court. School Board of JSl Broward County v. Surette, 277 So.2d 604 (Fla 4th DCA 1973) The Supreme Coun affirmed lhe trial court holding Section 455.06(2) unconstitutional to the extent thar it prohib ited the sugges tion of insurance coverage. School Board of Broward County v Surette, 281 So.U481 (Fla.l973). Trial then commenced io Case No. 2. A direet verdict was entered in favor of the School Board and Pacific Indemnity; the plaintiff thereupon voluntarily dismissed her claim against the Galiardos and Liberty Mutual. The fmal judgment which was entered pursuant 10 the directed verdict was revel'$ed by th i s Coun and the cause was remanded for a new trial Surette v. Oaliardo, 323 So.U 53 (Fla 4th DCA 1975), ccn. denied, 339 So.U 194 (Fia.l976}. In Case No. l the School Board and Pacific filed a renewed moti on to sever the insurance company and to suppress lhe mention of insurance, notwithstanding the Supreme Court's prior ruling. They contended that Caner v. Sparkman, 335 So.U 802 (Fia.l976) impliedly overruled the Supreme Coun's prior bolding in School Board v Surette, 281 So.U 481 (Fia.lm) and that Caner should control the disposition of their motion. After the trial coun hel d that the principle of law announced in School Board v. Surette, 281 So.2d 481' (Fla.l973) was the established and controlling law of the case, a direct appeal was lalcen to the Supreme Court. The trial court was affi11Ded, the Supreme Coun stating: This marks the third appearance of this cause in this Court. School Board of Broward County v. Surette, 281 So.2d 481 (Fla.l973); School Board of Broward County v. Surette, 339 So.U 194 (Fla.l976). The oocasion for its most recent visit stems from an order entered by the Circuit Court Copr. Ci West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works PAGE 171 394 So.2d 147 (Cite as: 394 So.2d 147, ) of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida, ruling upon a motion by the appellants to suppress an d to seve r.. By their motion appe l lants urged that the appellant insurance carrier named in the third amended complaint be severed from the trial and/or any mention of insurance to the jury be suppressed. Appellants contended that such resu l t is compelled by the provisos contained in Sections 234.03(4) and 455.06(2), Florida Statutes (1975) .. Although jurisdiction vests in this Court by virtue of the trial court's ruling upon the constitutionality of the indicated sections of tho Florida Statutes, we do not deem it necessary or appropriate to reach the constitutional issue presen ted. This is so because the trial court was eminently correct in determining that our decision in School Board of Broward County v. Surette, 281 So.2d 481 (Fia.l973), established the law of the case in this cause which is unaffected by our decision in Carter v Sparkman, supra See Airvac, Inc. v. Ranger Insurance Co., 330 So.2d 467 (Fla.l976); Harwell v. Sheffield, 112 So.2d 377 (Fla.1959); 2 . Fla.Jur. Appe als s 398 (1963). School Board of Broward County .v Surette, 348 So.2d 301 (Fia:l977).[FN1] FN I. The Supreme C PAGE 172 394 So.2d 147 (Cite os: 394 So.2d 147, !52) Considering these criteria, we find the trial coun correctly admitted the test imony of the safety engineer in this case. Moreover, we are persuaded that even if it was error to allow the introduction of expen testimony, such error was harmless. Improper testimony may be considered harmless error where there is other sufficient evidence to justify the jury in reaching the conclusion supported by the opinion of the expert. Hughes v. Canal Insurance Company, 3Q8 So .2d 552 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1975); Seaboard Coast Line R. Co. v. Hill, 250 So.2d 311 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971); Brevard County v. Ape! 246 So.2d 134 (Fla. 4th DCA 1971) and Delta RentA-Car, Inc. v. Rihl, 218 So .2d 469 (Fla 4th DCA !969). IV. The appollants' fmal point on appeal is that the trial coun erred -in denying their motion for a directed verdict beeause: (I) The evidence was insufficient, as a matter of law, to establish a b r each of any duty owed by the School Board to the decedent; and (2) The evidence did establish, as a matter of law, that the proxbnate cause of the accident was not the negligence of the School Board, but rather the efficient and intervening negligence of the driYcr and the decedent. Diane Surette died as a result of the injuries she sustained when the automobile driven by Joan Gallardo struck her. At the time of the accident, Diane was staoding approximately three feet in the roadway in front of a designated sehool bl!S stop at a vacant lot. Joan Gallardo claimed that sbe was unable to see Diane because she was blillded by the of the early morning stm. The plaintiffs' case was founded upon !53 the negligence of the Sehool Board in designating the particular comer as a ;chool bus stop because the weeds in the vacant lot Ncre overgrown and the lot was in such a debris arewn condition that the students were effectively 'orced to stand ncar or on the roadway. The >lalntiffs also alleged that a buS driver for the )ehool Board had contributed to the accident by 'ailing to report students standing ncar or on the oadway on p revious occasions whieh the bus driver vitnessed. The plaintiffs also read to the jury mmerous statutes and State regulatiol'l$ dealing with Page17 the obligation of the Sehool Board to insure a safe bus system. There was also testimony that some parents had complained to employees of the Sehool Board about the hazardous bus stop. [8] Appellants first argue that there was no evidence that the school bus stop was maintained In an unsafe condition. We fw.d substantial competent evidence to support the plaintiffs' claim of negligence In this regard. Helman v. Seaboard Coast LineR. Co 349 So.2d 1187 (F!a.l977); Herzog v. Herzog, 346 So.2d 56 (Fla.l977) [9) Appellants next assert that the Scbool Board did not owe a special duty to the decedent, and thus, was shielded from liability under the doctrine of Modlin v City of Mlatni Beach, 201 So.2d 70 (Fia.l967). Although Modlin is of doubtful validity in view of Cheney v. Dade County, 371 So.2d 1 010 (Fia.l979), this contention is nevertheless without merit. The decedent was not just a member of the general public; she was a member of a special class of persons, i. e., students to whom the Sehool Board owed a duty to provide a safe transportation system Under such circumstances, the Modlin doctrine is not applicable. [10] Appellants finally argue that the trial ooun should have foUDd, as a mat ter of law, that the negligent acts of Joan Gallardo were an active and efficien t intervening cause which broke the ehaln of causation initiated by the appellant Board We summarily reject thi s contention tmder the facts of Ibis case. Accordingly, for all of the foregoing reasons, we afftrm the judgment against the School Board of Broward County and Pacific Indemnity Insurance Company. v. The cross-appellants, Gallardo and Liberty Mutual, contend the trial coun erred in denying their motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint as it related to the survival cause of action. We are concerned only with the survival cause of action because lhe trial court properly denied recovery against these cross appellants on the wrongful death aspects of the complaint. grounds for their motion to dismiss, che cross-Copr. 10 West 1997 No Claim to Orlg .. U.S. Govt. Works

PAGE 173

394 So.U 147 (C ite as: 394 So.2d 147, *153) appellants raised the statute of limitations. The peninent sequence of events is as follows: Diane Surette was Injured in an accident on September IS, 1971. On October 4, 1973, the administratrix of her estate filed a complaint for wronsful death and survival damages against the School Board, Pacific lndemnlty, Joan Galwdo and Liberty Mutual. We have referred to this as Case No. 2. A separate complaint was filed. by Diane's parents for their own pain and suffering and for the loss of suppon of their minor child.. We bave referred to ihis as Case No. t wbich remains pending in the trial coun. Case No. 2 was volunlarily dismissed as to the cross appellants in June 1974. Apparently attempting to revive that cause of acllon, the parents med a new complain! in August, 1975 wherein they sought damages for their own pain and suffering and for loss of suppon of their minor child, a complaint identical to the one in the pending Case No. I. Because It was identical to the pending case, the eross-appcllanlS moved to d.ismlu the secood. complalnl. Tbal motion was subsequently granted; however, on September 22, 1975, the administratrix of Diane's estate filed an amended complaint without leave .of coun wherein the estate sought damages for the decedent's pain suffering, loss of prospective earnings, and funeral expenses, 154 (II] When the survival cause of action arose in 1971, the applicable statute of limitations was four years. s 95.11(4), Fla.Stat (1971). Thus, the statute of limitations became a bar t o the survival aclion on September 16, 1975, four years after the accideru. The "amended complaint" which was fded without leave or ooun on September 22, 1975 was therefore untiroe1Y unless the "rebtion back doctrine a.s stated In Fla.R.Civ.P. 1.190(c) applies. Ride 1.190(e) prov ides: PagelS (c) Relation Baek of Amendments. When the claim or defense assened in the amended pleading arose out of the cood.uct, transacti on or occurrence set fonh or anempted to be set fonh In the orlglnal p leading, the amendment shall relate back to the date of the original p leadin g. : .. .. Although amendments : should .. "be ..... permitted liberally, one cannot defeat the bar -of the statute of limitations by fi1ing a oew cause .. of aellon tabeDed as an amended complainL The rule of liberality does not authorize a new cause .of aclion : Cox v. Seaboard Coast Line R. Co., 360 So,U 8 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1978); Versen v. Versen 347 So. present case not only alleged a different cause of action from that alleged in the original eompWnt, but it was also filed by a diffcre.ot party. The original complaint was filed by tho -parentS "of the dc.:eased for their own damages; the amended eompla!Dt was fi1ed by the estale different damages. We hold that the bar of the statute of limitAtions was apparent on the face of the complaint and the trial coun erred by denying the cross appellants' motion to distniss. Accordinsly, the fiDal judglllent is reversed as t o the cross-appellanlS, Joan Gallardo and Libetly Mutual, and ihis cause is remanded with directions to enter judgment for the cross-appeUanta. AFFIRMED IN PART and REVERSSD IN PART. ANSTEAD, J., and TENDIUCH, MOm, J. L., Associate Judge, concur. END OP DOCUMENT Copr. 0 West 1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Wo.tlcs

PAGE 174

421 So.2d 18 7 Ed. Law Rep. 471 (Cite as: 42l So.2d 18) SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON COUNTY, Florida, Appellant/Cross Appellee, v. Joseph & Piercle EHRLICH, et al., Appellees/ Cross Appellants. Fred H. WHITE, Jr., et al., Appellants/Cross Appellees, v. SCHOOL BOARD OF LEON COUNTY, Florida, Appellees/Cross Appellants. Nos. AG-314, AG-315. Dis t rict Court of Appeal of Florida, First District. Oct. 8, 1982. Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1982. Appeals were taken from fwal orders of the Division of Administrative Hearings concerning cballege to two proposed amendments to school board rules pertaining to school attendance zones. The District Court of Appeal, Owen, William C . Jr., (Retired); Associate Judge held that a student who elected to attend a school outside of the attendance zone of his or her residence was not eotiUed to free transportation Aff=ed in part and reversed in part. SCHOOLS :;:>159.5(1) 345k!S9.5(1) Formerly 345kl591/2(!), 345k1591/2 When school board created exceptions to school attendance zones whereby a qualified student could elect to attend a school outside of the attendance zone of his or her residence the alternative school was not an "app ropri ate school within contemplation of statute requiring free transponation to the nearest appropriate school. West's F.S A. 234.01. See publication Words and Phrases for other judicial constructions and defiJiitions. Charles A. Johnson, Tallahassee, and C. Graham Carothers of Ausley, McMullen, McGehee, Carothers &. Proctor, Tallahassee, for School Bd. of Leon County, appellant/cross appellee. George L. Waas of Slepin, Slepin, Lambert & Page28 Wass, Tallahassee, for Joseph & Piercie Ehrlich, appellees/cross appellants. J.D. Boone Kuersteiner, Nicholas Yonclas and Lawrence W. Smith of Akerman, Senterfin & Eidson, Tallahassee, for Fred H. White, 1r., appellants/cross appellees. OWEN, WILLIAM C., Jr., (Retired), Associate Judge. These consolidated administrative appeals are from substantially identical fwal orders entered by bearing officer William E Williams of the Division of Administrative Hearings on separate Section 120.54(4), Florida Statutes (1980), rule challenges to the proposed amendments to the School Board's rule pertaining to school attendance zones for the district's middle schools and high schools, respectively. The School Board bas appealed from that part of the orders holding a portion of the proposed rule amendment invalid, and the petitioners separately have appealed from that portion of the orders upholding the validity of the remainder of the proposed amendment. We conclude that the only error requiring reversal and discussion is the School Board's forst point relative to its obligation to furnish transportation for any student who, under the grandfather clause of the proposed rule, elects to attend a school outside of the attendanc e zone of his or her residence. Consequently, the recitation of facts is limited to those necessary for our discussion of that issue. The School Board of Leon County determined on its own initiative to restructure attendance boundaries for the district's schools io order "to make more effective use of school facilities and to seek greater racial balance among the high schools and middle schools. At that time the School Board had in effect Rule 6Gx37-3.02 entiUed' Assignment of Pupils, subsection (2 ) of which included the statement, "all students enrolled in any school operated by the School Board shall attend the school offering their grade level located io the attendance zone of their residence except as hereinafter provided This sub-paragraph was then followed by several subsub-paragraphs (a-d) dealing with exceptions to this general rule on student assignments. One of the criteria which the Board had established for guidance in structuring the Copr. 0 West1997 No Claim to Orig. U.S. Govt. Works

PAGE 175

121 So.2d 1 8 :cue as: 421 So.2d 18, ) ICW aueoclance bowldarles was !hat studeocs in :ettain specified grades be pcrmilled UJlOll request to -emain in lbe same school attended in lbe preceding 'eat ahould the rezoning result In the anendance :one of their r e sidence placing them ill another wilh any needed transportation being lfovlded by !he parent and not the school board. In order to plaee iD!O effect this provision for :candfathering as an additional exception to !he ;eneral rul e on studen t assignments, it was proposed o amend Rule 60x37-3.02(2) by adding a sub-sub aragraph (c) as follows: (e) Grandfatherlng. The following standard$shall be f or grandfathering cemin studencs provided th a t their resldenee remains unchanged, in order to preseJ:Ve edue atlonal continuity a student has indicated his or her choice, in writing. changes may be made through application to the Board Subcomminec. (i) The Board sball, upon request, allow studtnl$ who were enrolled in a hlgb school during the 1980..81 school year to remain at that same high scboot I! new zones for the 1981 -82 school year put them in the attendance zone of a different high school so long as the parents shall be responsible for all necessary t ranspo rtation (ii) Middle school students who will be in the eighth grade and e l em entary students who will be in the fifth gra d e during the 1981-82 school year shall, upon request, be allowed to remain at !he s e hool a tt ended during the 1980.81 school year even though the 1981-82 school attendanoe zones place them In a new school so long as the parents shall be responsible for all nooessary t ransponation. \ group or parents of studeots affected by the :zoning of blah school attendance boundaries filed tim ely rule challenge pursuant to Section !0.54(4), F l orida Statutes as did a separate group parents of students affected by the rezOning of the iddie schoo l boundaries. The School Board's .otlons t o di smls fo r lack of standing were denied llowing which a consolldated hearing on the two 1 litloos was held b e fore the he.aring offleer. Jn parate but substantially identical orders the hearill g 'ficcr comprehensively and meticu lously dealt with ery !\$sue raised by either the School Board or the : titionera. He fiut concluded that the rezonin"g !nstltuted rule making and that the petitioners had mdlng to challen&e the rule. He then uphe l d ll>e of tho proposed rule as agains t the attacl
PAGE 176

421 So.2d 18 (Cite as: 421 So.2d 18, 0 20) trall.sportation by school bus when it is economical .and practical. The school board bas provided for transportation for those studelliS who qualify and who are in attendance at the zone school. The board should not be made to bear the expense of providing a second transportation system for those who opt to attend a nonzone school. We hold that the School Board s proposed rule (whereby it was relieved of its f10anc1a1. responsibility to transport certain students who, under a grandfather clause of th e rule, opted to attend a district school other than the school Page30 designated by the Board to serve the zone in which the student resided) was a valid exercise of delegated legislative authority, and thus, that it was error for the hearing officer to hold that portion of the proposed rule invalid That pa,n of the appealed orders which holds the proposed rule to constitute an invalid exercise of delegated legislativ e authority is r eversed In all other respects, the appealed orders are affirmed. JOANOS and WIGGINTON, JJ., concur END OF DOCUMENT (:opr. 0 Wes t 1997 No Claim to Orig U.S. Govt. Works

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
controlfield tag 001 026183881
005 20110908121407.0
008 070222s1997 flua b s000 0 eng d
datafield ind1 8 ind2 024
subfield code a C01-00221
035
(OCoLC)84849154
040
FHM
c FHM
043
n-us-fl
090
HE5614.3.F6
b P76 1997
0 245
Promoting safe school access in Brevard County, Florida :
final report /
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), College of Engineering, University of South Florida ; [Michael Baltes ... [et al.]].
260
Tampa, Fla. :
Center for Urban Transportation Research (CUTR), College of Engineering, University of South Florida,
[1997]
300
ix, 128, [38] p. :
ill. ;
29 cm.
500
"September 1997."
5 FTS
504
Includes bibliographical references (p. [107-108]).
530
Also available online.
FTS
536
The conduct of this study was made possible by a research grant funded by Section 402 Safety Funds from the State Safety Office of the Florida Department of Transportation and the Brevard County Metropolitan Planning Organization.
650
Traffic safety and children
z Florida
Brevard County.
Schools
Florida
Brevard County
x Safety measures.
1 700
Baltes, Michael R.
2 710
University of South Florida.
Center for Urban Transportation Research.
773
t Center for Urban Transportation Research Publications [USF].
4 856
u http://digital.lib.usf.edu/?c1.221
FTS
y USF ONLINE ACCESS
910
tp3043
951
10
SFU01:001758207;
FTS