Issues in Pupil Transportation
Chapter 10, Evaluating the Seat Belt Issue, 1987
Published by the
Association of School Business Officials International

By Dr. Ernest Farmer
Tennessee Department of Education

The recent revival of interest in the long-standing controversy surrounding the installation of seat belts in Type I school buses has resulted in both positive and negative reactions from certain members of the press, some school administrators and the lay public in general. This renewed interest is due, in part, to an absence of information on the subject. Many are unaware of improvements in construction practices, variations in gross axle weight ratings (GAWR) and the enforcement of stringent regulatory procedures; or that buses, so equipped, provide the transported child with a greater margin of safety than is afforded those riding in family-type vehicles; or that the presence of required seat belts in one class of vehicle is not necessarily an indication that they are needed in the other.

The feasibility of equipping school buses with seat belts has been carefully researched by governmental agencies and private safety-oriented organizations. Such tests, conducted at considerable expense during the past 15 to 20 years, have contributed significantly to an understanding of the problem. They have, in some instances, dispelled myths, confirmed suspicions and verified previously stated facts but they have yet to provide acceptable answers to many of the questions voiced by concerned administrators, weary engineers and the worried parents of transported children. Are school buses, for example, unsafe without seat belts? Are seat belts cost-effective? Will children really use them if they are installed? Who is responsible in the event of an accident if the injured child was not using a seat belt? Answers to these questions, of course, will not be available until further research is undertaken and completed.

The Pros and Cons of the Issue
The seat belt issue, as it relates to school buses, is not of recent origin. It emerged as early as 1966, when many of today's graduate school enrollees were just entering kindergarten and, strangely enough, faded into oblivion before they completed elementary school. Shortly thereafter, a rash of both fatal and near-fatal accidents occurred, and the seat belt issue quickly moved from a position of obscurity to one of prominence. Seat belt opponents and proponents prepared to address the issue. Advocacy groups supporting their installation called for national studies, challenged the results of those that they would not accept and seized every opportunity to publicize their concern for the safety of children transported in non-seat belt equipped school buses; they enlisted the aid of the medical profession with its highly trained and respected professionals and played up major accidents involving school buses that resulted in pupil injuries.

State-level pupil transportation associations and other groups opposed to such usage were equally as adamant in expressing their opposition. They reminded proponents that the public was not overly enthusiastic about the prospects of installing seat belts in the family automobile, much less in a school bus and questioned the utilitarian value of the resulting investment; they expressed the concern that school bus seats were not structurally designed to support the added stress associated with seat belt usage and warned of such problems related to belt abuse by unruly children, entrapment in fire-related accidents, delays in time in transit and legal implications resulting from such usage or, more importantly, the lack of such usage by transported pupils.

Seat Belt Studies
Numerous studies have been undertaken on the subject of seat belt usage. The major studies are categorized into easily recognizable classifications: those conducted by governmental organizations, professional societies, state departments of education, transportation associations and university research facilities. Each has made significant contributions to the dissemination of information on the subject, but none have successfully resolved the issue.

Governmental Sponsored Studies
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has been in the forefront of the quest for information on the seat belt issue. Crash sled tests conducted during the period, 1968-74, confirmed that lap belts offered no additional protection for children unless they were used in conjunction with high back seats. This conclusion prompted the NHTSA to adopt and promulgate its widely acclaimed school bus safety package, which as to have a profound impact on pupil safety. The package, known as the Post-DOT bus, contained a number of major Federal Motor Vehicle Safety standards that became effective on April1, 1977. Each standard in the package was designed to regulate a certain aspect of the school bus operation. FMVSS 217, was to regulate window retention; FMVSS 220 was to strengthen the roof structure; FMVSS 221 was to reinforce current joint strength requirements, FMVSS 222 was to place the child in a fully padded highback seat within a "compartmentalized" cavity and FMVSS 301 was to enclose the gas tank in a protective cage to prevent rupture in collisions and excessive fuel leakage.

The major federal agencies, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) were in agreement on their assessment of the seat belt issue. The NHTSA determined that within certain limits of seat spacing, compartmentalizing the pupil between high strength, highbacked, well padded seats would avoid a number of the problems associated with seat belt usage and warned that seat belt usage in school buses with low back seats would actually increase the severity of injuries to passengers in certain crash situations. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) credited the Post-DOT bus with a satisfactory performance in the vast majority of school bus accidents and noted that justification for extending seat belts to the larger Type I buses is largely non-existent.

Professional Societies
Several medical organizations are actively involved in the seat belt issue. The Physicians for Automotive Safety (PAS) is most active in its support for the installation of seat belts on school buses. The organization makes a strong plea for seat belt usage on school buses but warns that such usage should be restricted to buses equipped with 28-inch-high safety-type seats, something that is noticeably missing on all buses manufactured prior to and most of those since April 1, 1977. The American Medical Association also came out in support of seat belt usage in school buses by adopting a resolution urging support for legislation that would promote the availability of effective seat belts in all school buses. Several practicing physicians also published papers theorizing that lap type safety belts will prevent more injuries than they will cause, that they can be expected to redirect the decelerating forces from the head and chest to the lower parts of the abdomen and that renal contusions and ruptures of the liver, pancreas and spleen are not likely to occur unless the seat belt is improperly worn.

State-Level Pupil Transportation Associations
Several state-level pupil transportation organizations have taken strong positions on the seat belt issue. The California Association of School Transportation Officials (CASTO) conducted an exhaustive search of the literature for evidence of documented research on the subject. Its findings are largely responsible for the efforts that are being made to inform the public of the pros and cons of seat belt usage and the reasons for its decision to oppose the installation and use of seat belts on Type I school buses.

The Pennsylvania School Bus Association (PSBA) supports its opposition to seat belts with impressive statistics compiled from a variety of reputable sources. The association introduces evidence by way of the NHTSA supposedly confirming a decline in seat belt usage in automobiles, utilizes data from the NHTSA's Center for Statistics and Analysis to support the fact that school buses experience fewer fatalities than any other mode of surface transportation and relies on National Safety Council data to provide additional support for its position.

The membership of the Tennessee Association of Pupil Transportation (TAPT), polled in a recent series of regional meetings, unanimously opposed the installation of seat belts on Type I buses and offered the following reasons to justify its position: First, the state has not experienced but two fatalities inside the bus since 1963, neither of which involved collisions with other vehicles. Second, pupil injuries have declined on Type I school buses by fifty-five (55) percent since 1977-78, without the use of seat belts. Third, the Association does not oppose the installation of seat belts on an optional basis, and finally, monies required for seat belts could be better spent in an effort to combat the loss of life to pupils on the outside of the bus where the vast majority are being experienced.

University Research Facilities
The most widely quoted research on passenger occupant protection procedures and vehicle performance grew out of a series of tests conducted by the University of California at Los Angeles. Many specialists in pupil transportation believe that the ITTE-UCLA tests should have laid to rest any thoughts about the need for seat belts on school buses even though it did conclude that utilization of the compartmental concept and the installation of seat belts on high back seats would effect even greater reductions in the fatality rate. The question left unanswered, however, was whether or not seat belts were essential to the attainment of an acceptable level of pupil safety.

Arguments for and Against the Major Aspects of Seat Belt Usage
The seat belt issue has been explored from every possible aspect of usage. Some persons, including school administrators, law enforcement officials and practicing physicians, are adamant in their support; others, including some parents of transported children, are equally as vehement in their opposition. Those supporting belt usage base their arguments on the negative consequences of side impact and rollover collisions and the positive value of carryover usage in later life. Those opposed emphasized the positive effects of compartmentalization and the negative aspects of unconfirmed need and excessive program expenditures. The pros and cons for each aspect of belt usage are as follows:

The Side Impact Collision
The Pro Position: Any impact from either side of the bus will result in a predictable lateral movement of the seated child. Children that are not restrained could easily be thrust into the aisle or against the side if a restraining device of some type is not installed and in use. In accidents of this type, there is likely to be more movement away from, rather than into, the protected padding of the body cavity. While injuries cannot be predicted as a result of such movement, it can be determined, with almost certainty, that the restrained child will remain positioned in its seat and, considering the severity of some accidents, this has to be a plus that cannot be ignored by school officials if they are truly concerned about pupil safety.

The Con Position. The installation of padded seat backs, top rails, seat frames and crash barriers minimizes the possibility of injuries and practically eliminates fatalities among pupils in Type I school buses. The National Safety Council reports that pupil fatalities inside the school bus declined from 60 in 1976, the year before the compartmentalized bus was introduced, to 15 in 1984. The fact that only 5,500 of the 21.8 million children transported on approximately 325,000 buses over more than three billion miles experienced injuries is even more astonishing. Compartmentalization obviously negates the need for seat belts on Type I school buses.

The Rollover Collision
The Pro Position. Many school bus accidents involve one or more roll-overs after the bus leaves the roadway. Unrestrained children are likely to be tossed from their seats and hurled against the unpadded walls and ceiling during such accidents. The use of seat belts will keep the child in its seat and minimize the possibility of serious injuries. The argument that the smaller children will not be able to release their seat belts while sitting upside down or that they will suffer potentially more serious injuries after releasing their belt is without sustaining merit.

The Con Position. The likelihood of avoiding injuries in accidents of this type is difficult to explain to emotional parents. Such accidents immediately conjure visions of children in non-seat belt equipped buses suffering with broken bones, fractured skulls and a variety of painful facial lacerations when, in reality, the use of seat belts may actually subject them to the possibility of even more serious injuries. Who, for example, will have the presence of mind to free helpless children trapped in their seat belts if the bus overturns and plunges into a stream or lake? Can the bus driver, without the assistance of an aide, meet the needs of so many children in such catastrophic accidents?

Carryover Value
The Pro Position. Psychologists, educators and many members of the public have long recognized the importance of repetitive behavioral responses. They contend that children exposed to the same stimuli for sustained periods of time, in this case twelve years, will develop and exhibit more conditioned and predictable behavioral responses. They are confident that children subjected to the habitual use of wearing seat belts on school buses will continue the practice long after their riding experiences are over. The Con Position. Any carrover value is totally dependent upon the daily use of the seat belt and the district's commitment to safety. Few school districts have the funds to employ aides to enforce seat belt usage on their Type I school buses. Most school officials are in agreement that the bus driver cannot operate the bus, supervise belt usage and make his or her route on time. They also question the right of parents that cannot enforce seat belt usage in the privacy of the family automobile to expect the driver to do so on a school bus loaded with more than 50 restless and energetic children.

Seat Belts and Variations in Construction Practices
The seat belt issue for Type I school buses has been a controversial subject for many years, and yet opposition to their installation and use in the smaller Type II vehicles was practically nil from the beginning. This prompts many of those in favor of seat belts on Type I vehicles to ask the question, why not seat belts on "regular" school buses if they are needed on the smaller van-type vehicles?

The answer is fairly obvious to those experienced in the operation of both types of equipment. The small Type II vehicles do not contain the protective features incorporated in the large type school buses; consequently, the transported child assigned to the structurally inferior vans must be provided with special safety features that are not needed in the larger school buses. Type I vehicles, for example, are heavier, sturdier and more readily recognized as pupil carriers; therefore, it is felt that they are less likely to be involved in serious accidents and more likely to merge with fewer injuries if they should happen to be. For this reason, seat belt opponents are convinced that children in Type I vehicles are as safe, or safer, without seat belts as those children in Type II vehicles are with them.

Summary
The current seat belt issue is a carryover from the mid-1960's when things were less complicated and people were more compromising, when seat belt proponents were not as well organized and school officials did not feel as challenged. But, of course, that was yesterday. Today, things are altogether different. Issues are more critical, people are more emotional and time is fleeting.

Many organizations, including agencies of the federal government, state transportation associations, professional societies, university research facilities and the equipment manufacturers got involved in an effort to bring the issue to an amiable solution. All made notable contributions but none was able to resolve the problem that seems to center on the side impact, rollover and carryover aspects of the issue.

The seat belt controversy continues to languish as both opponents and proponents pursue their efforts to resolve the problem. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) delighted the opponents of belt usage on school buses with the results of its recent completion of a long awaited study but the supporters of belt usage are not all that discouraged with its contents. As of this moment, time appears to be the best ally in both camps. The opponents are waiting for a vindication of their position; the proponents are waiting for legislative assistance. Both would welcome the miracle it will probably require to resolve the issue, once and for all.

Footnotes:

1) "School Bus Seat Restraints and Seat Anchorage Systems", National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1972
2) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Protection for School Bus Occupants, DOT HS 806 000 1981, p.1
3) Naitonal Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), School Bus Crashworthiness Study, 1987, p. 153
4) National School Transportation Association NEWS, Aug. 1984, p.2
5) Drs. Ritchie, Ersek, Buch and Simmons, Combined Visceral and Vertebral Injuries from Lap Type Seat Belts, Surgery, Gynecology and Obstetrics, 1970.