School Bus Occupant Protection Whats Next

1
School Bus Occupant Protection Whats Next?

• Lifesavers Conference
• Portland, OR
• April 13, 2008
• Susan Kirinich
• Office of Research and Program Development

2
Overview

• Relevant studies
• July 2007 public meeting
• Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
• Responses to NPRM

3
Relevant studies

• Safety Study - Crashworthiness of Large
  Post-Standard School Buses NTSB/SS-86/03,
  Washington, DC., 1987
• Seat belts would not prevent most serious
  injuries and fatalities
• Most fatalities and injuries due to direct line
  of crash forces
• Special Report 222 Improving School Bus Safety,
  National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1989
  
• Potential benefits of seat belts insufficient to
  justify Federal mandate.
• Rather, funds better spent on other school bus
  safety programs
• Highway Special Investigation Report, - Bus
  Crashworthiness Issues NTSB/SIR-99/04,
  Washington, DC., 1999
• Compartmentalization effective
• Examine other means of occupant protection

4
Relevant studies (cont.)

• Special Report 269 - The Relative Risks of School
  Travel A National Perspective and Guidance for
  Local Community Risk Assessment National Academy
  of Sciences, June 2002
• School bus travel far safer than any other means
• School transportation planners policy makers
  need to comprehensively analyze risks manage and
  reduce those risks
• Report to Congress on School Bus Safety
  Crashworthiness Research NHTSA, April 2002
• Compartmentalization works well
• Lap belts appear to provide little benefit in
  reducing serious/fatal injuries could increase
  serious neck/abdominal injury among young
  passengers
• Combination lap/shoulder belts could provide some
  benefit concerns with misuse, proper fit for
  wide occupant size variation, and reduced seating
  capacity

5
Target population

• National average annual large school bus
  fatalities
• Children under 19 years old
• 5 in school buses
• Rollover 2
• Frontal 1.4
• Side 1.1
• Rear/Other 0.5
• Pedestrians
• Injuries

6
Average Annual Injuries
8000
Published November 2006
7
July 2007 Public Meeting

• Issue of seat belts on large school buses
• Roundtable discussions
• State and local government policymakers
• School bus and seat manufacturers
• Pupil transportation associations
• Public interest groups
• Panels
• State Local Policy Perspectives
• Seat Belt Systems for Buses
• Economics of Belts on Buses
• Seat Belt UsageExperience, Education and
  Enforcement

8
What we heard in July

• Provide Federal guidance for belts on large buses
• Should or shouldnt lap belts be installed?
• Will they improve overall safety?
• Will they reduce school bus ridership?
• Data
• Reduced ridership experience with lap/shoulder
• Belt use rate experience
• Bus sales volumes with lap or lap/shoulder belts
• Costs
• Allow lap/shoulder while maintaining
  compartmentalization
• Federal mandate not appropriate (NSTA)

9
Reduced ridership

• North Carolina pilot
• Capacity change factors
• School starting times
• Local busing policies walking distances
• Bus routes
• Public transportation availability
• Usage by eligible students (NSTA)
• Median elementary load 80
• Median middle load 75
• Median high school load 50
• Capacity reductions range 5 15 (even 30)

10
Data Belt Usage

• Florida belt use rate experience (lap belts)
• Elementary 70
• Middle school 35
• High school 25

11
Allow compartmentalization with lap/shoulder belts

• Recognizes that not all students will be buckled
  up
• Potential for double loading of seat back
• From front via shoulder belt loading
• Limit seatback deflection to limit head excursion
• From rear via compartmentalization
• Requires seatback deflection to provide
  protection
• Is it feasible to simultaneously protect both
  belted and unbelted?

12
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

• Published November 21, 2007 (Docket No.
  2007-0014)
• Comment period closed January 22, 2008
• Proposed best practices guidance for seat belt
  installation on large school buses
• Amends the following
• FMVSS No. 222, School bus passenger seating and
  crash protection
• FMVSS No. 207, Seating systems
• FMVSS No. 208, Occupant crash protection
• FMVSS No. 210, Seat belt assembly anchorages

13
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

• Major provisions
• Increase seat back height from 20 inches to 24
  inches for all school buses
• Require small school buses to have a lap/shoulder
  belt at each passenger seating position
• Establishes test procedures for lap/shoulder
  belts in small school buses and
  voluntarily-installed lap/shoulder belts in large
  school buses
• Ensures both the strength of the anchorages and
  the compatibility of the seat with
  compartmentalization

14
Recommended Best Practices

• School bus one of the safest forms of
  transportation
• Lap/shoulder belts could enhance safety
• If ample funds, consider installing lap/shoulder
• Only if theres no reduction in number of
  children transported on school buses
• Reduced ridership ? students seek higher-risk
  alternative means of transportation
• Allows States flexibility in planning/addressing
  specific needs

15
Guidance on Lap Belts

• Have not proposed to prohibit
• Laboratory data poor performance _at_ severe
  frontal
• Influence on overall occupant protection
  undetermined
• Examined New York state data
• Limitations
• Small numbers
• Crash severity unknown
• Belt use not verifiable
• Cant conclude that lap belts either helped or
  hurt

16
Federal Funds

• Section 402 State and Community Safety Formula
  Grant Funds
• Not applicable to fund school bus purchase
• Incremental cost to purchase/install seat belts
  for large school buses eligible
• Must be identified in Highway Safety Plan

17
Additional Small School Bus Provisions

• Lap/shoulder at all seating positions
• Adjustability of belt system
• 6-year-old to average adult male
• Anchorage strength
• FMVSS No. 210 application
• 3,000 simultaneously to torso and lap belt
  segments for each seating position
• Seat belt retractors
• Seating width of 15 inches
• Extension of FMVSS No. 207 requirements
• Combined seat mass belted occupant loading
• New quasi-static requirement

18
Lead Times

• Seat back height 1 year
• Including seat cushion retention and barrier
  requirements
• Voluntarily installed seat belts 1 year
• Mandatory installation in small school buses 3
  years

19
Responses to NPRM

• Over 120 Comments Received
• 50 Comments from the general public
• Parents, students, others
• 9 Comments from seat and restraint manufacturers
• 7 Comments from bus manufacturers and their
  professional associations
• 47 Comments from school bus transportation
  providers
• Associations, state and local agencies
• 13 Comments from other organizations/groups
• NTSB, non-profit groups, legal or research
  organizations

20
Summary of Responses

• General Public
• Installing seat belts generally favored (28/38)
• 25 expressed opposition or felt that belts on
  buses would be unsuccessful (10)
• Manufacturers, School Transportation Providers
• Generally support NPRM proposal to develop
  voluntary standards for 3-point belts for large
  school buses
• Reconsider proposed 15 minimum seat width for
  positions with 3-point belts to allow for greater
  flex seating

21
Docket Information

• www.Regulations.gov
• July Public Meeting
• NHTSA-2007-28103
• NPRM
• NHTSA-2007-0014
• Comment closing date January 22, 2008

22

• Thank You!