Amid renewed interest nationwide in advertising on school buses as potential revenue streams for struggling school districts, the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation Services published a position paper this month that points out the potential safety and legal consequences of similar programs.

New Jersey enacted a law in January allowing the external ads on school buses, and Utah's legislature recently sent a bill to Gov. Gary R. Herbert's desk for signing. Meanwhile, Idaho and Oklahoma are among a handful of states that have been considering similar moves. Colorado was the first to allow the school bus ads in the early 1990s and was followed by Arizona, New Mexico, Tennessee and Texas.

While recognizing that these states are or could soon authorize districts to use ads to raise revenue amid budget cuts, NASDPTS' position is that safety concerns and potential court cases could outweigh any financial benefit. Since 1939, NASDPTS points out, the distinct yellow color of school buses have served as a visible reminder to motorists that students are on board. NASDPTS said external ads could distract other drivers from the importance of the school bus as well as the flashing warning lamps and stop arm signals required by federal law and other optional safety equipment authorized by many states.

"These distinctive features send a message to motorists that children are present and
extreme caution is required," NASDPTS wrote. "Advertising will compromise these distinctive safety features of school buses, because it displaces some of them and is designed to catch the attention of passing motorists, thus creating a distraction."

NASDPTS admitted that there are no known studies that link increased motor vehicle crashes or students injuries with the use of advertising. The Florida Association for Pupil Transportation published its own paper in January that also opposes school bus ads and stated the same. But, according to the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey that investigated nearly 7,000 crashes between 2005 and 2007, looking at an external object instead of watching the road leads to an increased odds ration of 3.70 that a crash could occur.

The Indiana Department of Education's general counsel issued an opinion in April of 1996 that school bus ads could have First Amendment and equal access implications because school districts could find themselves unable to restrict or control content. And, in 1993, a U.S. District judge in Boston ruled that the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority's "G-rated" ad policy violated the U.S. Constitution because the advertisement in question pertained to the use of condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS. The federal judge stated that a transit service “cannot open its transit car door to public service advertising and hang only its favorite posters.”

But for those school districts that are allowed to advertise on buses, NASDPTS encouraged that any device used for securing advertisements on school buses are designed so that students’ clothing or related items do not become snagged on them.
NASDPTS also said school districts should develop criteria limiting the size and location of the advertising.