Content uploaded by Patricia Turner
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Patricia Turner on Mar 12, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
A Member of The Texas A& M Universit y System
Reducing School Bus Stop-Arm Violations in Texas
September 2008
Contract No. 588EGIA235
Pilot Test Results for the Application and Effectiveness of Digital Video
Technology in Identifying School Bus Stop-Arm Violations
REDUCING SCHOOL BUS
STOP-ARM VIOLATIONS IN TEXAS
Pilot Test Results for the Application and Effectiveness of Digital Video
Technology in Identifying School Bus Stop-Arm Violations
By
Patricia A. Turner
Associate Research Scientist
Texas Transportation Institute
Jesse Stanley
Research Associate
Texas Transportation Institute
Contract No. 588EGIA235
Charge No. 8SB18H1JA
Texas Department of Transportation
Traffic Operations - Traffic Safety Section
Austin, TX
2008
TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE
The Texas A&M University System
College Station, Texas 77843-3135
i
DISCLAIMER
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the
facts and the accuracy of the information presented herein. Mention of trade names or
commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation for use. This report
does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.
iii
iv
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to acknowledge the assistance of the following individuals (in
alphabetical order) for their participation, contributions, and support during this project:
Jon Agnew, City of Bryan Police Department
Donald Brown, Education Service Center, Region VI
Bob Burke, Seon Design, Inc.
Jeff Capps, College Station Police Department
William Cross, Police Officer, City of Bryan
Rhonda Ginnis, Bus Driver, College Station Independent School District
James Michael Guidry, Texas Transportation Institute
Myrna Hill, Brazos Valley Injury Prevention Program
Scott Hines, Brazos County Sheriff Department
Kristi Hosea, Master Officer, Texas A&M University Police Department
Jonathan Hunter, Texas Department of Public Safety
Charlie Kennington, Director of Transportation, Education Service Center Region IV
Romona Maxim, Education Service Center Region VI
Terri Miller, Traffic Safety Specialist, TxDOT, Bryan District
Dannell Price, Education Service Center, Region VI
Rebecca Rocha, Texas Department of Public Safety
Kaliska Ross, Texas Transportation Institute
Hector Silva, Director of Transportation, College Station Independent School District
Sam Sinclair, TxDOT School Bus Program Manager
Caleb Williams, Dispatcher, College Station Independent School District
Chris Willrich, TxDOT Program Manager
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
List of Figures...............................................................................................................................vi
List of Tables.............................................................................................................................. vii
Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
Background................................................................................................................................. 1
School Bus Stop-Arm Violation Survey...................................................................................... 7
Data Collection ...........................................................................................................................8
Results......................................................................................................................................... 9
Baseline Data .......................................................................................................................... 9
Stop-Arm Violations Per Bus ...............................................................................................10
Statewide Estimates of Stop-Arm Violations........................................................................... 12
Field Evaluation.......................................................................................................................... 13
Digital Video Bus Camera System Selection ........................................................................... 13
Selection Criteria .................................................................................................................. 14
Field Test Protocol.................................................................................................................... 16
Methods................................................................................................................................. 16
Field Test Implementation........................................................................................................ 19
Field Test Results...................................................................................................................... 20
Data Extraction .....................................................................................................................20
Data Results .......................................................................................................................... 24
Ease of System Use for School Bus Drivers......................................................................... 24
Ease of System Use for Other Transportation Employees.................................................... 25
Ability of System Software to Interface with Recorded Video............................................ 25
Ease of System Software Use............................................................................................... 27
Summary............................................................................................................................... 27
Recommendations....................................................................................................................... 29
References.................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendix A: School Bus Illegal Passing Survey Form............................................................ 33
Appendix B: Data Reduction Archiving Instructions............................................................... 39
v
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Children Exiting A Stopped School Bus......................................................................... 1
Figure 2. DPS Employee Prepares To Enter Survey Data.............................................................. 8
Figure 3. Images From Surveillance Video Recorded By School Bus Monitoring System......... 13
Figure 4. SEON Explorer™ Mobile DVR System........................................................................ 14
Figure 5. Lock Box And DVR Unit Installed On Bus Dashboard................................................ 18
Figure 6. Digital Cameras Installed On Drivers’ Side Of Bus 77 ................................................ 18
Figure 7. Digital Cameras Installed On Passenger Side Of Bus 77.............................................. 18
Figure 8. 4-Camera Configuration System And Range Of View................................................. 22
Figure 9. 3-Camera Configuration System And Range Of View................................................. 23
Figure 10. Quad Split Screen View Of Recorded Video.............................................................. 26
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. Stop Arm Violation Convictions, Texas, 2001-2006 ....................................................... 3
Table 2. Summary Statistics for School Bus Stop Arm Violations ............................................. 10
Table 3. Top 10 School District / Charter School
By Stop Arm Violations Per Bus.................................................................................... 11
Table 4. Top 10 School District / Charter School
By Number of Reported Stop-Arm Violations............................................................... 11
Table 5. Mobile Digital Video Monitoring Systems Reviewed ................................................... 15
Table 6. Hard Drive Exchange Schedule...................................................................................... 19
Table 7. Summary Evaluation of Mobile Video Camera System................................................. 28
vii
INTRODUCTION
The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) conducted this project to address the growing
problem of school bus stop-arm violations in Texas. The goals of the project were to 1)
document the magnitude of the statewide problem of stop-arm violations and recommend
methods for continued monitoring of the issue; (2) evaluate and test the application and
effectiveness of a mobile digital video camera monitoring system in identifying violators of the
State stop-arm law and determine potential for statewide deployment of this technology and 3)
identify potential strategies to reduce stop-arm violations in Texas. This report presents the
methods, results, and conclusions of the project.
BACKGROUND
Approximately 35,000 public school buses transport over 1.4 million Texas children
every day (Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). School buses are one of the safest forms of
transportation accounting for less than 0.5 percent of Texas roadway crashes (DPS, 2001) but
children must take care when boarding or leaving the bus. According to the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), children are at greatest risk when they are getting on or
off the school bus. Most of the children killed in bus-related crashes are pedestrians, five to
seven years old. Nearly one-third of the deaths occur in the 10-foot area surrounding the school
bus because of passing motorists who ignore the flashing red warning lights and disregard a bus’
deployed stop-arm (NHTSA, 2006).
Figure 1. Children Exiting a Stopped School Bus
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 1
Statewide, school bus crash statistics indicate that injury-producing crashes directly or
indirectly involving a school bus have increased from 701 in 1991 to 951 crashes in 2001, an
increase of 36 percent, according to the most recent available data1 (DPS, 2001). During the
same period, nine school-aged children were killed while loading or unloading the school bus.
An average of 20 student pedestrian injuries occurred each year (DPS, 2001).
The potential for injury or death caused by motorists passing a stopped school bus with
its red lights flashing and stop-armed extended is extremely high. All states have laws making
the passing of a stopped school bus illegal (commonly called a “stop-arm” violation). These laws
require that traffic in both directions stop on undivided highways, but state laws vary on the
requirements to stop on a divided highway. All states, however, require motorists traveling
behind the bus to stop on divided highways.
The penalty for a stop-arm violation also varies among states. In some states, the penalty
for the first offense can be a large fine and / or a mandatory license suspension. In Texas,
violators can be fined up to $1,000 for the first offense. A second conviction under the statute is
a state jail felony. The requirements for motorists to stop for school buses and the penalties for
not complying with the law are contained in Transportation Code Section 545.066 of the Texas
Statutes, which states:
§ 545.066. PASSING A SCHOOL BUS;OFFENSE.
(a) An operator on a highway, when approaching from either direction a school
bus stopped on the highway to receive or discharge a student: (1) shall stop
before reaching the school bus when the bus is operating a visual signal as
required by Section 547.701; and (2) may not proceed until: (A) the school
bus resumes motion; (B) the operator is signaled by the bus driver to
proceed; or (C) the visual signal is no longer actuated. (b) An operator on a
highway having separate roadways is not required to stop: (1) for a school
bus that is on a different roadway; or (2) if on a controlled-access highway,
for a school bus that is stopped: (A) in a loading zone that is a part of or
adjacent to the highway; and (B) where pedestrians are not permitted to
cross the roadway. (c) An offense under this section is a misdemeanor
punishable by a fine of not less than $200 or more than $1,000, except that
the offense is: (1) a Class A misdemeanor if the person causes serious bodily
injury to another; or (2) a state jail felony if the person has been previously
convicted under Subdivision (1).
A previous NHTSA survey on speeding and other unsafe driving behaviors found that
respondents felt that passing a stopped school bus was more dangerous than any other unsafe
driving behavior including racing another driver, driving through a stop sign or red light,
1In 2007, the TxDOT Traffic Operations Division assumed responsibilities for the collection and analysis of Texas traffic crash
data. Data for 2002-2007 will become available for analysis in late 2008.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 2
crossing railroad tracks with red lights flashing, passing in a no-passing zone, and speeding
(NHTSA, 1998). Then why do motorists choose to ignore the law?
One explanation is that some drivers are just not well informed about the requirements of
the law. One survey found that motorists were unaware of their responsibilities under the law and
/or the specific requirements of the law (CUTR, 1997). A survey of Texas motorists revealed
motorists’ confusion about the law regarding stopping for school buses on multilane facilities
(Brackett et al., 1984). Some motorists just chose to ignore the law because they are in a hurry or
they do not think that they will get caught. Increasingly, distraction is a key factor in failing to
follow the stop-arm law. Many drivers simply do not see the stopped school bus until it is too
late.
For school bus drivers, this problem is not new. Drivers have long complained about
motorists illegally passing their school bus, but proving that a violation occurred can be
challenging. In many states, including Texas, a law enforcement officer must witness the
violation in order to write a traffic citation. Motorists can contest the citation and courts can
reduce the charge, throw out cases entirely, or dismiss the case due to insufficient evidence (i.e.,
vehicle make and color and license plate number). Texas DPS statistics show that the number of
stop-arm violation convictions is declining (see Table 1).
Table 1. Stop Arm Violation Convictions,
Texas, 2001-2006
Year # of Convictions
2000 1,451
2001 1,427
2002 1,432
2003 1,493
2004 1,491
2005 1,343
2006 831
Source: Texas Department of Public Safety, 2007
Building a comprehensive stop-arm compliance program addressing the safety concerns
caused by illegal passing of school buses requires elements of enforcement, engineering,
education, technology and policy/legislative changes.
Enforcement activities increase compliance with laws governing the passing of school
buses (NHTSA, 2000). Routine and selective enforcement activities can be effective for areas or
routes with high concentrations of stop-arm violations or “hot spots” and usually involve officers
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 3
patrolling intersections and streets during morning and afternoon school hours or riding on a
particular school bus. If an officer riding on the bus witnesses a violation, they forward the
offender’s information to a second waiting patrol officer who issues the citation. These activities
are typically short term and may involve the local media to bring heightened awareness of the
stop-arm violation problem and potential dangers of violating the law to the community.
Selective Traffic Enforcement Programs (sTEP) implemented in waves (education/publicity-
enforcement-publicity) have also been effective in several communities to bring awareness of the
issue and help reduce the number of illegal passings.
Engineering measures employ vehicle, design, construction, and signage to prevent
motorists from passing stopped school buses (NHTSA, 2002). Some districts have explored ways
to enhance the visibility of school buses such as installing flashing headlamps or strobe lights
and / or installing additional stop arms as a means to inform drivers of their responsibility to
stop. Some districts have made changes to routes to minimize dangerous crossing situations
(NHTSA, 2002; Griffin and Davies, 1995).
Public information and education (PI&E) activities are important to increase motorists’
awareness of the consequences of breaking the law and penalties if they disobey the law.
Additionally, outreach to other professionals such as the media, school bus drivers, law
enforcement, and prosecutors heightens awareness among the different groups needed to
effectively reduce stop-arm violations in their communities.
The use of technology is also an important tool in identifying stop-arm violators for
targeted educational efforts and to provide information to law enforcement for the issuance of
citations. To identify stop arm violators, several school districts have installed stop-arm cameras
outside of the bus or in front of the driver on the dashboard facing outwards through the
windshield. Cameras are positioned to capture information about the vehicle passing the bus
including the make, model, color, and license plate number. Some systems record information
about the location, date, and time of the incident - all required evidence for the issuance of stop-
arm citations and convictions.
Many of these systems utilized the industry standard at the time – VHS analog recording
– a technology that had largely been used for in-bus surveillance purposes. Two factors largely
prevented the widespread use of these systems: high costs and the issue of legality (e.g. the use
of the recorded image to prosecute violators in the courts). Since that time, technology
improvements have resulted in computer-based digital video systems equipped with high
resolution cameras, improved accessibility, and significantly lower costs. The availability and
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 4
performance of these systems in reducing stop-arm violations and improving school bus safety is
still relatively unknown.
Recently, school districts have explored the use high resolution cameras to photograph
license plates. In 2008, the New York Association for Pupil Transportation (NYAPT) conducted
a pilot study with the Syracuse City School District to track the number of motorists who
illegally pass stopped school buses using ELSAG North American digital cameras mounted
above bus drivers’ windows to photograph license plates (Cuthbert, 2008). During the six week
pilot period, the cameras captured 68 incidents of motorists illegally passing stopped school
buses - an average of two per day. The use of this technology provided the NYAPT with an
opportunity to educate the community about the dangers of illegal passing.
The use of this technology to address areas or routes with a high incidence of stop-arm
violations is also gaining momentum. The Christiansburg Police Department in Virginia is
working with the Center for Truck and Bus Safety at the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
(VTTI) to develop an automated video-based camera system that will record license-plate
information from illegally passing vehicles (VTTI press release, 2008).
Legislation in support of the use of such technology has been introduced in several states
and school districts are examining the benefits of these technologies in reducing the number of
violations and as an opportunity for public education about the consequences of violating the
law. House Bill 1843, introduced during the 80th Texas Legislative session, would allow school
districts to install video monitoring systems to capture images of vehicles that pass the bus when
the stop-arm is deployed; change the stop-arm offense to a civil penalty; and allow school
districts to prosecute an illegal passing offense providing that the recorded image clearly shows
the vehicle, license plate, and the time the offense allegedly occurred. The proposed legislation
was not enacted into law.
Given the advances in technologies over recent years, further studies are needed to
examine how effective these systems are in identifying stop-arm violations and their potential to
enhance school bus safety through the reduction of stop-arm violations. This study involves
conducting a pilot test to determine how effective a mobile digital video camera system is in
identifying school bus stop-arm violators and the potential application of the system in reducing
the incidence of stop-arm violations. The results of this pilot study will provide valuable
information to school districts about the availability and potential applications of this technology.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 5
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 6
This report presents the results of the first statewide stop-arm violation survey; the field
evaluation to test the potential application and use of school bus stop-arm cameras; and
concludes with recommended strategies to reduce stop-arm violations in Texas.
SCHOOL BUS STOP-ARM VIOLATION SURVEY
One of the goals of this project was to document the magnitude of the statewide problem
of stop-arm violations and recommend methods for continued monitoring of the issue. This
section describes these activities.
School bus drivers are increasingly reporting more and more heart-stopping near misses
involving motorists passing their school buses while stopped with red lights flashing and stop-
arm extended. Education and awareness is a major component of nearly every traffic safety
program. However, many people are just not aware of how often this serious and potentially life
threatening situation occurs. In the mid-1990’s several states conducted surveys to determine the
actual extent of illegal passing. The problem was worse than they had imagined (NHTSA, 2002):
• The School Transportation Management Section of the Florida Department of
Education conducted a study in 1995 through the University of South Florida. On one
day in May of that year, 10,590 vehicles illegally passed stopped school buses in 58
of Florida’s 67 school districts. Since approximately 11,150 school buses participated
in the survey, this meant an average of almost one illegal passing per school bus that
day. A follow-up 2000 study found an increase to 10,719 recorded passings during a
typical school day.
• A one-day study was conducted in September 1996 in 119 of the 131 school divisions
in the State of Virginia. On that day, 3,394 Virginia motorists illegally passed a
stopped school bus. Multiplying the results by a 180-day school year brings the total
number of illegal passings to over 600,000 a year. Of the 3,394 total in September
1996, 187 were right-side passes, on the side of the bus students use to enter and exit.
• In 1996, the Illinois Department of Transportation’s Division of Traffic Safety
conducted a probability–based sample survey of 250 school buses to estimate the total
number of stop–arm violations in the state. Drivers of 250 buses were asked to record
stop–arm violations during a 41–school day time period. The survey was completed
and returned by 135 drivers who reported 3,450 violations.
The stop-arm violation problem is not unique to Texas. Taking the lead from the Florida
study, the North Carolina pupil transportation community gathered baseline data in April, 1997.
Of 117 school districts in North Carolina, 114 participated in a one day stop arm violation count.
This yielded a result of 2,636 stop arm violations reported by drivers on April 15, 1997.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 7
DATA COLLECTION
Data collection is important component in monitoring successes of traffic safety
programs. The collection of baseline data establishes a benchmark for assessing any future traffic
safety efforts directed toward reducing stop-arm violations.
In 2006, the Texas DPS School Transportation Unit conducted the first annual statewide
survey of school bus violations. The survey was distributed to the 1,254 public and charter
school districts with instructions for school bus drivers to participate in the survey on November
8, 2006 (see Appendix A). Bus drivers were asked to observe the vehicles that illegally passed
school bus while stopped with the red loading lights activated on this date and record
information about the vehicle, bus, and roadway on the survey form. Drivers were reminded that
their primary concern was student safety and to exercise extreme care when completing the
survey form.
A total of 761 or 61% of the school districts participated in the one day survey. The
participating districts operated 24,580 school buses covering 27,258 routes across the state.
Completed surveys were returned to the DPS and data entry conducted by the DPS staff.
Figure 2. DPS employee prepares to enter survey data
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 8
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 9
RESULTS
TTI obtained an electronic file containing the data extracted from the survey from DPS.
Data were entered by school district which is the unit of analysis. Data were analyzed and results
are discussed next.
Baseline Data
School districts reported that a total of 12,850 stop-arm violations occurred on November
8, 2006 (see Table 2). Of the 761 districts and charter schools, a total of 481 (63%) reported that
drivers observed at least 1 stop arm violation during the day.
Analysis of the stop-arm violation data reveal no particular pattern regarding time of day
in which the violation occurred as 47% of the illegal passings happened during the morning
hours (6am-10am) while 53% occurred in the afternoon (2pm-6pm).
The majority (58%) of violations occurred while the motorist was traveling in the
opposite direction (coming toward) the stopped school bus. In more than one-third of the
violations (38%) the motorists was traveling in the same direction as the stopped school bus.
Most motorists were observed passing the left side of the bus (80%). Surprisingly, 11%
passed the stopped school bus on the right side. Due to data limitations; however, it is not
possible to determine if the right-side violation occurred in a right-turn lane adjacent to the
stopped school bus.
Table 2 shows that just over one half (53%) of all reported stop-arm violations occurred
on two-lane roadways. In addition, 13% of all stop-arm violations happened on four-lane
roadways with a median. This finding supports earlier studies citing motorists’ confusion about
stopping requirements on roadways with medians (Griffin & Davies, 1995; CUTR, 1997).
Table 2. Summary Statistics for
School Bus Stop Arm Violations
Frequency Percent
Total passes reported 12,850
Total districts surveyed 1,254
Total surveys returned 761 60.7
Districts reporting at least 1 passing 481 63.2
Districts with no reported passings 280 36.8
Time of Day Passing Occurred
AM 6031 46.9
Midday 1 0.01
PM 6818 53.1
Vehicle Passed From
Opposing 7443 57.9
Same 4901 38.1
Not Reported 506 3.9
Side of Bus Illegal Passing Occurred
Left 10,230 79.6
Right 1,456 11.3
Not Reported 1,164 9.1
Type of Roadway
2-lanes 6,802 52.9
3-lane 840 6.5
4-lane, no median 1,238 9.6
4-lane, median 1,707 13.3
5+ lanes 954 7.4
Not reported 1,309 1.0
Source: Survey of Texas School Districts on School Bus Stop Arm violations
conducted by the Texas Department of Public Safety on November 8, 2006.
Stop-Arm Violations Per Bus
The number of reported violations per bus was calculated for each school district and
charter school reporting at least one illegal passing and ranked. Table 3 shows that the highest
rate of violations per bus (7.8) occurred at the Girls and Boys Preparatory Academy in Houston,
Texas followed by George Gervin Academy in San Antonio, Texas (7.33). (Note that these
schools have very few buses). Red Oak Independent School District (ISD) in Ellis County
reported 3.5 violations per bus while Amarillo ISD in Potter County reported 3.4 violations per
bus. This information is useful for identifying locations to direct future countermeasure efforts.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 10
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 11
Table 3. Top 10 School District / Charter School By Stop Arm Violations Per Bus
Ranking School District/Charter
School (County) # of
Buses Stop Arm
Violations Violations
per Bus
1 Girls & Boys Preparatory
Academy (Harris) 5 39 7.8
2 George Gervin Academy
(Bexar) 3 22 7.3
3 Red Oak ISD (Ellis) 4 14 3.5
4 Amarillo ISD (Potter) 84 284 3.4
5 Leggett ISD (Polk) 3 10 3.3
6 Garrison ISD (Nacogdoches) 9 28 3.1
7 Zion Lutheran (Dallas) 1 2 2.0
8 Ysleta ISD (El Paso) 199 355 1.8
9 Alamo Heights ISD (Bexar) 23 41 1.8
10 Leakey ISD (Real) 6 10 1.7
Source: Survey of Texas School Districts on School Bus Stop-Arm Violations conducted by the Texas Department of Public
Safety on November 8, 2006.
Table 4 ranks school districts and charter schools by the total number of reported stop-
arm violations. The highest number of stop-arm violations was reported by Northside ISD (Bexar
County) with 870 violations, followed by 787 violations reported by Aldine ISD (Harris) and
427 violations reported by Dallas ISD (Dallas).
Table 4. Top 10 School District / Charter School
By Number of Reported Stop-Arm Violations
Ranking School District/Charter School
(County) # of
Routes # of
buses Stop Arm
Violations Violations
per Bus
1 Northside ISD (Bexar) 1,250 680 870 1.3
2 Aldine ISD (Harris) 536 675 787 1.2
3 Dallas ISD (Dallas) 742 842 427 0.5
4 Ysleta ISD (El Paso) 137 199 355 1.8
5 Cypress-Fairbanks ISD (Harris) 643 819 319 0.4
6 United ISD (Webb) 204 183 286 1.6
7 Amarillo ISD (Potter) 65 84 284 3.4
8 Pasadena ISD (Harris) 189 253 271 1.1
9 Fort Worth ISD (Tarrant) 1,483 804 259 0.3
10 Corpus Christi ISD (Nueces) 133 230 233 1.0
Source: Survey of Texas School Districts on School Bus Stop-Arm Violations conducted by the Texas Department of Public
Safety on November 8, 2006.
STATEWIDE ESTIMATES OF STOP-ARM VIOLATIONS
Survey results show that almost 13,000 stop-arm violations were recorded on November 8,
2006 by 761 of the 1,254 participating public school districts and charter schools (61%).
Statewide estimates can be determined two ways: by calculating the estimated number of daily
violations and the number of violations per calendar school year (180 days). To determine
statewide estimates of daily stop-arm violations based on the survey sample, the total number of
reported stop-arm violations (12,850) is divided by the total number of buses in the sample
(27,258) resulting in 0.47 stop-arm violations per bus. The estimated number of school buses
operating in the State on any given day is 35,000 (DPS). Multiplying 35,000 times 0.47 provides
a statewide estimate of 16,450 illegal passings occurring each day in Texas. If this number is
multiplied by the number of school days in a typical school year (180), then an estimated 2.96
million stop-arm violations will occur during a typical school year in Texas.
These estimates translate into a significant risk for our children. Continued monitoring of the
occurrence of stop-arm violations on an annual basis will provide the State and local
communities with the 1) knowledge of where these violations are occurring so that PI&E,
enforcement, and other countermeasures can be effectively targeted; and 2) ability to compare
changes in the incidence of stop-arm violations over time in communities that receive targeted
countermeasures to reduce stop-arm violations to determine effectiveness.
The survey conducted by the DPS establishes a baseline from which to start. Future statewide
surveys of stop-arm violations should follow the standardized procedures established during this
initial survey such as using the same survey instrument and conducting the survey on the same
day (November 8). The use of standardized methods allows for improved data reliability and
greater external validity by allowing year to year comparisons under similar conditions.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 12
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 13
FIELD EVALUATION
TTI conducted a field evaluation on the potential application and use of school bus stop-
arm cameras to assist school districts in addressing stop-arm violations. The evaluation included
selecting a digital video monitoring system for testing; developing a field test protocol;
implementing the testing protocol; and evaluating the results. This section describes these
activities.
DIGITAL VIDEO BUS CAMERA SYSTEM SELECTION
Most camera monitoring systems on the market are used for school bus surveillance to
improve the driver’s field of vision and monitor behavior and activity of people both inside and
outside the bus (Bryant, 2006). As Figure 3 shows, cameras can be used to monitor children’s
behavior while boarding and exiting the bus and while riding on the bus. Video monitoring also
provides a means to assess a bus driver’s skills and safety risk and detect stop-arm violations
around the bus. As a result, several systems have been adapted for use outside the school bus to
record stop-arm violations.
TTI conducted a review of mobile digital video camera systems and contacted several
vendor representatives to discuss the potential of their system to capture information on vehicles
that illegally pass stopped school buses.
Figure 3. Images from surveillance video recorded by school bus monitoring system
Selection Criteria
Several criteria were considered in the selection of the mobile digital video camera
system for pilot testing. System cost was a major factor as the project budget allocated up to
$5,000 for purchasing two systems. Other system features considered included recording
channels, video resolution, storage medium; and hard disk capacity of the digital video recording
(DVR) unit; network interface; date and time stamp capability; available camera lenses; and
system add-ons such as a global positioning system (GPS) capable of recording vehicle speed
and location, and the ability to record driver inputs such as stop-arm use, speed, turning and
warning lights, and brakes.
System costs varied from $2,500 to $6,000 per unit depending largely on the selected
quantity and quality of digital cameras and the storage capacity of the hard drive. Table 5
compares system features of mobile digital video monitoring systems reviewed and considered
for the pilot test.
Based on these criteria, the Seon Explorer
™
Mobile Surveillance 4-channel DVR system
was obtained for pilot testing. The system was equipped with four cameras (12mm), one lock
box, one DVR unit, one 60 gigabyte (GB) hard drive and installation instructions and hardware
(see Figure 4). Seon also provided a bus warning light and stop arm wiring harness hookup, and
a GPS unit. Two complete systems were obtained for the pilot test.
Figure 4. SEON Explorer™ Mobile DVR System
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 14
Table 5. Mobile Digital Video Monitoring Systems Reviewed
Feature Seon Explorer Package Seon Trooper Package Honeywell
Case Study Equipment
Safety Vision
Route recorder 5Cmobile
DVR
Recording Channels 4 video, 2 audio 9 video, 2 audio Configuration dependent 5 channels
Video Resolution up to 720 x 480 720 x 480 (record/playback) 6640 X 480 720 X 480
Compression MPEG4 M-JPEG M-JPEG Wavelet
Quality adjustable adjustable NA NA
Recording Rate 30 fps per camera 60 fps per camera 40 fps aggregate 30 fps per camera
Storage Medium Dual swappable 2.5" or 3.5"
hard drive Dual swappable 3.5" or 2.5"
hard drive hard non-removable drive removable hard drive
Disk Capacity 40 - 750 GB 160 - 600 GB up to 80 GB 80 GB
Removable Memory hard drive, USB drive hard drive, USB drive NA NA
Network Interface Ethernet port (TCP/IP) LAN (TCP/IP) LAN NA
Playback Rate 1/32 to 600x 1/32 to 600x NA NA
Search Function segment, alarm or date/time event or internal timer time date NA
User Interface front panel, on screen display front panel, on screen display on screen display computer
connection laptop computer, computer
connection
Time Stamp real time real time real time real time
Battery Backup Time and programmed
information Time and programmed
information NA NA
Delay on/off up to 60 minutes on/off up to 60 minutes on /off up to 255 minutes NA
GPS optional optional optional optional
Operating Temperature (- 4)°F to 122°F High and low temperature
protection with heater standby (- 40)°F to 150°F /
recording 41°F to 131°FF (- 40)°F to 149°F
Weight DVR 7 lbs, DVR lock box 9
lbs DVR 7 lbs, DVR lock box 9
lbs 4.85 lbs 9.5 lbs
Available lenses (mm) 2.9, 3.6, 6.0, 8.0, 12.0, 16.0 2.9, 3.6, 6.0, 8.0, 12.0, 16.0 3.6, 6.0, 8.0, 12.0 multiple camera options
Cost Range* $2,500-$4,000 $2,500 - $4,000 $3,000-$6,000 2,500 - $5,000
Web location www.seon.com/ www.seon.com/ www.honeywellvideo.com/ www.safetyvision.com/
Notes: NA= no information available
* System costs vary from $2,500 to $6,000 depending on the number of cameras, lens length, and size of hard disk.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 15
Texas Transportation Institute
Center for Transportation Safety
15
September 2008
FIELD TEST PROTOCOL
This section describes the protocol for conducting the field test to determine the
application and effectiveness of a mobile digital video camera system in identifying motorists
who illegally pass school buses with stop arms extended. System applications under review in
the pilot test include the:
1) quality of the image recorded by digital camera
2) ability to identify detailed vehicle characteristics (make, model, color, etc) from
digital image
3) ability to identify vehicle license plate number from digital image
4) ability to identify driver characteristics from digital image
5) ability of the system to record a stop-arm violation incident
6) ability of the system to record stop-arm violations in multiple lanes and in multiple
directions
7) ability of the system to record stop-arm violations under varying lighting conditions
8) ability of the system to record stop-arm violations under varying weather conditions
9) ease of system use for bus drivers
10) ease of system use for other transportation employees
11) ability of system software to interface with recorded video
12) ease of system software use
The overall goal of the pilot test was to determine if the mobile digital video camera
system is an effective means of capturing information on vehicles that violate school bus stop-
arm laws.
Methods
Participants
Bryan/College Station, Texas was selected as the pilot test location based on prior interest
in the project, in addition to their proximity and access to TTI. In March, 2008, Mr. Hector Silva
was hired as the new College Station Independent School District (CSISD) transportation
director. Mr. Silva agreed to participate in the pilot test and was instrumental in organizing and
hosting the local project kick-off meeting and facilitating all aspects of the pilot test. The CSISD
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 16
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 17
Transportation Services operates about 70 school buses over 53 routes, the majority of which are
urban.
Bus Route Selection
Bus routes with the highest number of driver reported stop-arm violations were
considered for participation in the pilot test. Based on vehicle availability and accessibility,
CSISD identified Bus 77 to participate in the pilot study. Bus 86 was identified as a back up for
participation.
Bus Camera Installation
TTI coordinated with the CSISD bus maintenance technicians to schedule a day and time
for installing the Seon Explorer™ on Bus 77. The date of installation was April 9, 2008. The
CSISD mechanic installed all necessary electrical equipment while a TTI technician installed the
cameras, DVR unit and lockbox. Because of size and required ease of access, the lock box and
DVR unit were installed on the dashboard (see Figure 5).
A total of four digital cameras were mounted on the outside of Bus 77 (see Figures 6 and
7). Camera 1 and Camera 2 were mounted on the outside driver’s side of the bus. Camera 1 was
adjusted to record video of vehicles that pass the front of the bus. Camera 2 was aimed to view
vehicles driving in the opposing lanes of traffic.
Camera 3 was mounted on the inside of the bus facing forward to view activity from the
front bus window and record any vehicles that might pass on the right side of the bus. Camera 4
was mounted facing forward on the passenger side of the bus to record the bus door opening and
closing. A red “panic” button was also installed on the driver’s side dash board for the driver to
push if a stop-arm violation was observed. This action marks the event for easier locating and
allows for quick searches. The system was set up to automatically start recording at the
beginning and end of the AM and PM bus routes.
Figure 5. Lock box and DVR unit
installed on bus dashboard
Figure 6. Digital cameras installed on
drivers’ side of Bus 77
Figure 7. Digital cameras installed on
passenger side of Bus 77
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 18
Post Installation Modifications
After installation, the system operated for one day and TTI reviewed the video for image
quality and recording angles. Cameras were adjusted to better view and potentially record
vehicle license plate information of opposing traffic lanes. The camera resolution was also
changed to record at a higher resolution. Finally, timers were set to record at specific times of the
days between the hours of 6:30 am to 8:30 am and 2:30 pm to 5:30 pm.
FIELD TEST IMPLEMENTATION
Data collection took place from April 9th through May 30, 2008. It was estimated that the
60 GB system hard drive could store approximately 5 days of AM and PM video recordings.
Because the test system included two hard drives, a schedule was established to exchange the
hard drives weekly (see Table 6). Hard drive #1 was retrieved after the first week of data
collection and then archived while hard drive #2 recorded for the week. Hard drive #1 was
returned to the system the following week. This process repeated throughout the 7 week data
collection period. A total of 209 hours of video was recorded during this period.
Table 6. Hard Drive Exchange Schedule
Date Hard Drive Function
21-Apr-08 1 Install
2 Archive
28-Apr-08 1 Archive
2 Install
5-May-08 1 Install
2 Archive
12-May-08 1 Archive
2 Install
19-May-08 1 Install
2 Archive
26-May-08 1 Archive
2 Install
Special Circumstances
During the data collection period, Bus 77 experienced mechanical problems and was
taken out of service for engine repairs. TTI discussed removing the installed video system from
Bus 77 and re-installing the system on the designated alternate bus. But repairs were scheduled
to be completed within one week so the system remained on the bus. After it became apparent
that the bus repairs would take more time than anticipated, the second system obtained from
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 19
Seon was installed on the alternate Bus 86. Bus 77 returned to service shortly after the second
installation was complete, and for a short period of time (1 week), both video monitoring
systems were in use.
Data Storage
Each DVR unit was connected to a laptop PC pre-installed with Seon HD Reader™
software for viewing and archiving the recorded video. The archival process involved identifying
a specific time period to archive, such as the AM route on a Thursday. This video was archived
and saved with a file name denoting the camera, date, and time period (AM or PM). Video
segments were saved to an external 500 GB hard drive as MPEG and EDR files for later review.
Instructions for video archiving are contained in Appendix B.
FIELD TEST RESULTS
Data Extraction
Reducing the recorded video to usable information was very labor intensive. The process
required that a person (hereafter referred to as “reviewer”) watch 209 hours of video captured
during the data collection stage and record information about each stop-arm violation in a data
entry spreadsheet. Separate data entry spreadsheets were created to reduce information from
videos recorded by the 4-camera and 3-camera configured systems used in the pilot study (see
Figures 8 and 9).
4 – Camera Configured System
For the 4-camera configured system, video was archived as a MPEG file for viewing in
Windows Media Player. Using this file format required that each camera video be viewed
independently. To start, the reviewer watched the Camera 4 video and recorded the bus door
open and close time. This information was necessary to identify time frames for review on
Cameras 1, 2, and 3 to identify possible stop-arm violators. Any stop-arm violations that
occurred on the right side of the bus were also noted and recorded from the Camera 4 video.
Next, the reviewer watched the Camera 1 video. During this step, the reviewer forwarded
the video to the “door open” time and played the video in real time to determine if any vehicles
passed through the video frames between the time the door was open until the door closed. This
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 20
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 21
step was repeated for each “door open” and “door close” time noted during the Camera 4 video
review. Vehicles identified during this step represented “possible” stop-arm violators.
To determine if the vehicle actually passed the extended stop arm and committed a stop-
arm violation, the reviewer had to view the Camera 2 video. The same process was used to
identify the location on the video when the suspected violation occurred. The reviewer forwarded
to the location on the video and watched in real time to determine if the vehicle noted in Camera
1 was also seen in Camera 2. This step was necessary because Camera 1 faced toward the front
of the bus and Camera 2 faced toward the rear of the bus creating a “blind spot” in the recording
area around the stop-arm (see Figure 8). If a violator was viewed on Camera 2 between the
“door open” and “door close” time frame, then a stop-arm violation was recorded. The “blind
spot” issue was resolved with the 3-camera configured system. This extraction process was
repeated each day that the Seon system recorded both AM and PM videos and the video was
successfully archived.
3 – Camera Configured System
In the 3-camera configured system, Camera 1 remained in the same place while Camera 2
was moved below the stop arm facing perpendicular to the bus (see Figure 9). Camera 3 was
removed and Camera 4 remained in the same place to monitor any potential passings on the right
side of the school bus and also to record when the door opened and closed. This configuration
corrected the blind spot and allowed for the reviewer to see when a vehicle crossed the plane of
the stop arm.
Video for the 3-camera configured system was archived as an .EDR file which allowed
the reviewer to watch all three camera videos simultaneously. Although this file type was easier
to reduce, the reviewer still had to watch the majority of the video in real time which made the
data extraction process very time consuming.
Figure 8. 4-Camera Configuration System and Range of View
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 22
Figure 9. 3-Camera Configuration System and Range of View
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 23
Data Results
Over the 4-week data collection period, Bus 77 recorded for 31 days and captured a total
of 26 stop-arm violations, an average of 0.84 violations per day. The 3-camera system on Bus 86
was operational for 7 days and recorded 7 violations, an average of 1 violation per day.
If the same method to estimate daily stop-arm violations statewide is applied to the pilot
test data, an estimated 50 illegal passings occur each day in the College Station ISD (0.84
multiplied by 60 buses). If this number is multiplied by the number of school days in a typical
school year (180), then an estimated 9,072 stop-arm violations will occur during a typical school
year in College Station, Texas.
More than one half of all violations occurred during the morning routes (54%). Most
stop-arm violations occurred on 4-lane roadways with a center turn lane (14 violations) and 4-
lane roadways with a median (10 violations). The majority of passings occurred while the
motorist was traveling in the opposite direction (coming toward) the stopped school bus. Vehicle
make and model were easily identifiable from the video. The majority of violations were
committed by cars (21 violations) followed by light trucks or vans (10 violations).
Out of the 33 recorded violations, only one license plate number was readable. In the test
system, camera lenses were 12 mm and capable of reading license plate numbers from
approximately 15 to 20 feet. The position of the cameras (high on the bus) also made it difficult
to read license plate numbers. To adequately read vehicle license plate numbers would require
cameras positioned toward multiple lanes and capable of reading license plate numbers from
longer distances. This finding warrants further investigation and testing to determine cameras
capable of capturing license plate numbers from the vehicles in multiple lanes and to determine
the appropriate size and position of such cameras.
Ease of System Use for Bus Drivers
A bus driver’s primary concern is the safety of the children on the school bus and a
mobile digital video camera system should not interfere with those duties. The DVR unit tested
successfully met the criteria as it automatically activated when the school bus was started,
recorded only a preset length of time, and turned off automatically when the school bus was
turned off. This feature helped the bus driver as they were not distracted by turning the DVR on
and off when they exited the bus or temporarily parked.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 24
The DVR unit was hard wired to the bus ignition circuit and received power only when
the bus engine was running. An internal voltmeter allowed the unit to monitor the voltage being
pulled from the bus circuitry. If the voltage to the DVR dropped below 12 volts the system
would automatically shut down. This is a helpful feature in that the DVR unit can operate
independently of the bus driver. It also prevents the DVR unit from draining the battery when the
bus is not operating or is parked.
The DVR also had an internal timer which recorded only between the hours of 6:30 am to
8:30 am and 2:30 pm and 5:00 pm. This feature was helpful in that the bus driver did not have to
manually start the recording, thus the system did not add to the driver workload.
The Seon system was also equipped with a red panic button. This feature allowed the bus
driver to press the button if they observed a vehicle illegally passing the stopped school bus. This
action imprinted a “time stamp” on the recorded video which made it easier to locate the
violation when reducing the data. According to the bus driver, the system presence and the panic
button allowed for the driver to focus on the driving task and provided some level of comfort in
knowing that the system was there to monitor illegal passings and, thus, improve the safety of the
children.
Ease of System Use for Other Transportation Employees
A mobile digital video camera system should be easy to use. Feedback from TTI staff and
school district employees indicated that the Seon system met this criteria. Installation of the
camera system was not difficult but did require knowledge of the school bus electrical system.
Minimal tools were needed to install the system and included a screw driver, power drill, socket
set and wire crimpers.
The DVR unit was equipped with a lock box secured by screws and the hard drive within
the unit was locked into place to keep from disconnecting during normal bus operations. Two
keys were needed to remove the hard drive from the DVR. One key unlocked the outer box
housing the DVR unit and another key unlocked the hard drive located within the DVR.
Removal of the hard drive from the DVR unit was simple and could be performed by school
district employees with minimal instruction and no special training.
Ability of System Software to Interface with Recorded Video
A proprietary hard drive reader program was needed to view and archive the recorded
video. The program allows for the video segments to be archived as MPEG or .EDR file. An
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 25
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 26
.EDR file extension is Seon’s system file and allows for playback in the quad split screen view as
shown in Figure 10. MPEG file format allowed for viewing video segments in Windows Media
Player. However, each camera video had to be archived as a separate file, thus preventing the
quad split screen viewing. This feature would require that school district personnel be trained to
use the hard drive reader program.
Figure 10. Quad Split Screen View of Recorded Video
Another issue is the size of the hard drive space required to store the archived video
segments. One day of video (morning and afternoon) required 2.3 GB of storage space as an
.EDR file and 11.5 GB of storage space a MPEG file (MPEG files included a total of eight video
files while the .EDR format included two video files). The DVR hard drive is capable of storing
60 GB of video (or about 1 week of recording) and would require a large amount of hard disk
space for subsequent storage of the archived files. .
Ease of System Software Use
Reducing the video requires that a person view the footage either before or after the
archival process. For the pilot test, Bus 77 was archived as MPEG files while video from Bus 86
was archived as .EDR files. As discussed previously, videos saved a MPEG files required
watching camera files in a particular sequence to identify the number of stop-arm violations
which proved to be a very lengthy and time consuming process.
For video saved as .EDR files, a person must view the file through the Seon hard drive
reader program. This program requires some exploring to understand its full potential as many
features are buried under multiple pull down tabs or right clicks of the mouse button. Menus are
not clearly defined and features are not easily accessible.
Another challenge using the hard drive reader program is that it lacks the ability to
quickly search or locate specific time segments within the video. As with any computer program,
the program takes some time to master and gain proficiency. However, a person with some
computer experience should be able to learn how to archive and view videos within a minimal
amount of time.
Summary
The technology advancements of digital video cameras and recording units have yielded
systems capable of capturing information about vehicles that illegally pass stopped school buses
with their stop arms extended. This pilot test evaluated several system applications of the SEON
Explorer™ Mobile DVR System for use in identifying stop-arm violations (see summary in
Table 7).
Overall, the Seon system performed well and was capable of recording high quality video to
monitor the incidence of stop-arm violations. The system cameras performed well in recording
high quality color images of vehicles that passed stopped school buses with their stop-arms
extended easily identifying information about the vehicle such as make, model, color, and
direction of travel. However, the camera lenses (on system tested) were not adequate to read
vehicle license plate numbers. This information is essential if school districts and communities
wish to use this technology to identify the driver of the vehicle committing the stop-arm
violation for targeted PI&E and enforcement efforts.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 27
Table 7. Summary Evaluation of Mobile Video Camera System
Feature Evaluated Results/Comments
quality of the image recorded by digital camera Good.
ability to identify detailed vehicle characteristics (make,
model, color, etc) from digital image Good. Identified vehicle characteristics clearly
ability to identify vehicle license plate number from
digital image Could only identify 1 license plate. Image was not clear
enough most of the time to identify tag number.
ability to identify driver characteristics from digital
image Could not identify driver characteristics from image.
ability of the system to record a stop-arm violation
incident Good. Was able to identify all cases of stop arm
violations during the test period.
ability of the system to record stop-arm violations in
multiple lanes and in multiple directions Good. Cameras were capable of adjustments to allow for
multiple lanes of viewing and recording.
ability of the system to record stop-arm violations under
varying lighting conditions Feature not tested as all recordings occurred during
daylight hours.
ability of the system to record stop-arm violations under
varying weather conditions Feature not tested as all recordings occurred during good
weather conditions.
ease of system use for bus drivers Good. Did not detract from driving tasks.
ease of system use for other transportation employees Good. Very limited instruction needed.
ability of system software to interface with recorded
video Good. Need proprietary software.
ease of system software use Requires time for video review, some difficulty in
learning program, training needed, lacks ability for quick
searches.
Based on the pilot test results, the minimum recommendations for selecting a digital
video camera system to monitor stop arm violations should include:
• The ability to capture the time and date of the violation
• A minimum of 4 channels to maintain a field of view around the bus
• One camera facing forward
• One camera facing backward
• One camera viewing the plane of the stop arm (viewing perpendicular to the
direction of travel for the school bus)
• One camera monitoring the opening and closing of the school bus door
• A camera lens capable of reading license plate numbers across multiple lanes of
traffic including a center turn lane
• Ability to record to a removable hard drive
• Hard drive storage space with a minimum of 60 GB or larger capacity to record
multiple days of footage
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 28
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are based on the study outcomes.
• Review Texas Crash data as they become available to examine trends since 2001.
• Continue to monitor the incidence of stop-arm violations and changes by
conducting annual stop-arm survey.
• Develop a comprehensive program to reduce the statewide incidence of stop-arm
violations through the emphasis of awareness and education of the public.
• Utilize survey data to evaluate engineering, enforcement, and education
components of a stop-arm violation program.
• Educate school bus drivers on the subject of stop-arm violations and develop
training materials such as brochures, and an instructional video on how to
correctly identify stop arm violators.
• Develop pamphlets targeted at the public to educate them about stop-arm
violations and the consequences of violating the law.
• Conduct further testing to evaluate technologies and / or cameras capable of
capturing license plate information from vehicles that illegally pass stopped
school buses so that drivers can be identified.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 29
REFERENCES
Brackett, Q., K. Mak, and T. Carnahan. Preliminary Study of Illegal Passing of School Buses.
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Texas Transportation Institute, 1984.
Bryant, L. “Mobile School Bus Video Surveillance Systems – Improving the Safety of Our
Children. www.video-surveillance-guide.com/ November 15, 2006.
Center for Urban Transportation Research. Motorist Comprehension of Florida’s School Bus
Stop Law and School Bus Signalization Devices. Tampa, FL: Center for Urban Transportation
Research, June 1997.
Cuthbert, J. “Study: Drivers Passing Stopped Buses.” Observer Today, Posted June 22, 2008.
Griffin L. and B. Davies. School Bus Illegal Passing Study. College Station, TX: Texas
Transportation Institute, 1995.
Institute for Transportation Research and Education. A Cooperative Program to Reduce
Incidents of Vehicles Passing Stopped School Buses in a Coastal Region of North Carolina.
Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, Transportation Services
Section, 2000.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. School Transportation –Related Crashes.
Traffic Safety Facts: 2006 Data. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. DOT
HS 810-813, 2006.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Best Practices Guide: Reducing the Illegal
Passing of School Buses. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. DOT HS 809
288, January 2002.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. National Survey of Speeding and Other Unsafe
Driving Actions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation. DOT HS 808 749,
1998. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/aggressive/unsafe/
Texas Department of Public Safety Public Information Office. DPS Backgrounder: School Bus
Safety. Austin, TX: Texas Department of Public Safety, accessed September 2008 at
http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/Backgrounder/index.htm
Texas Department of Public Safety Public Information Office. DPS Texas School Bus
Transportation Statistics 2001 Austin, TX: Texas Department of Public Safety, 2001.
Texas Transportation Institute September 2008
Center for Transportation Safety 31
APPENDIX A:
SCHOOL BUS ILLEGAL PASSING SURVEY FORM
33
SCHOOL BUS ILLEGAL PASSING SURVEY FORM School District Name:
Driver Name:
Bus Number: Route Number:
AM MID PM
Date:
DEAR SCHOOL BUS DRIVER: The Texas Department of Public Safety School Transportation Unit is conducting an
annual study to obtain information about vehicles that illegally pass your stopped school bus while you are loading
and unloading students. THE 2006-2007 SURVEY WILL BE CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2006. Please observe the
vehicles that illegally pass your school bus while it is stopped with the Red Loading Lights activated on this
date and put an X in the appropriate blank on the form that best fits the illegal passing. Each row on the form
represents one (1) vehicle that illegally passes your stopped school bus. There are six spaces provided for your
convenience. Additional sheets may be used, as necessary. REMEMBER: Please take extreme caution when
completing the form – YOUR MAIN RESPONSIBILITY IS THE SAFETY OF YOUR STUDENTS. Time permitting, please
complete as much information as possible. Should you have questions, call SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION 254.759.7111. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
TIME OF PASS # OF STUDENTS
AT BUS STOP VEHICLE PASSED
FROM THE: PASSED ON WHICH
SIDE OF THE BUS TYPE OF VEHICLE TYPE OF ROADWAY
1.
A.M.
P.M.
1 TO 5
6 TO 10
11 OR MORE
FRONT
(opposite way)
REAR
(going same way)
LEFT
(driver side)
RIGHT
(door side)
CAR
LIGHT TRUCK / VAN
HEAVY TRUCK
2 LANES
3 LANES
4 LANES, NO MEDIAN
4 LANES, W/ MEDIAN
OVER 4 LANES
Please Report only violations t at meet th ollowing criteria: h e f
2.
A.M.
P.M.
1 TO 5
6 TO 10
11 OR MORE
FRONT
(opposite way)
REAR
(going same way)
LEFT
(driver side)
RIGHT
(door side)
CAR
LIGHT TRUCK / VAN
HEAVY TRUCK
2 LANES
3 LANES
4 LANES, NO MEDIAN
4 LANES, W/ MEDIAN
OVER 4 LANES
3.
A.M.
P.M.
1 TO 5
6 TO 10
11 OR MORE
FRONT
(opposite way)
REAR
(going same way)
LEFT
(driver side)
RIGHT
(door side)
CAR
LIGHT TRUCK / VAN
HEAVY TRUCK
2 LANES
3 LANES
4 LANES, NO MEDIAN
4 LANES, W/ MEDIAN
OVER 4 LANES
4.
A.M.
P.M.
1 TO 5
6 TO 10
11 OR MORE
FRONT
(opposite way)
REAR
(going same way)
LEFT
(driver side)
RIGHT
(door side)
CAR
LIGHT TRUCK / VAN
HEAVY TRUCK
2 LANES
3 LANES
4 LANES, NO MEDIAN
4 LANES, W/ MEDIAN
OVER 4 LANES
5.
A.M.
P.M.
1 TO 5
6 TO 10
11 OR MORE
FRONT
(opposite way)
REAR
(going same way)
LEFT
(driver side)
RIGHT
(door side)
CAR
LIGHT TRUCK / VAN
HEAVY TRUCK
2 LANES
3 LANES
4 LANES, NO MEDIAN
4 LANES, W/ MEDIAN
OVER 4 LANES
6.
A.M.
P.M.
1 TO 5
6 TO 10
11 OR MORE
FRONT
(opposite way)
REAR
(going same way)
LEFT
(driver side)
RIGHT
(door side)
CAR
LIGHT TRUCK / VAN
HEAVY TRUCK
2 LANES
3 LANES
4 LANES, NO MEDIAN
4 LANES, W/ MEDIAN
OVER 4 LANES
(1) BUS IS COMPLETELY STOPPED (2) RED LIGHTS ARE FLASHIING AND STOP SIGN (if equipped) IS EXTENDED
(3) VEHICLE PASSES BY THE RIGHT SIDE OR LEFT SIDE OF THE BUS WHILE STOP IS BEING MADE.
This data collection form should be completed by each bus driver on the day of the illegal passing count and should be turned in EVEN IF THERE ARE NO VIOLATIONS TO REPORT. Bus Driver,
after p.m. route, please return completed form to transportation director (or designee) who will collect all forms and return to TX DPS no later than November 17, 2006. Should you have questions,
please call SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION 254.759.7111.
Texas Transportation Institute
Traffic Safety Center
35335
September 2008
Texas Transportation Institute
Center for Transportation Safety
35
September 2008
SCHOOL BUS ILLEGAL PASSING SURVEY
DEAR SCHOOL SUPERINTENDENT / TRANSPORTATION DIRECTOR:
The Texas Department of Public Safety School Transportation Unit is conducting an annual study to
obtain information about vehicles that illegally pass stopped school buses while loading and unloading
students. THE 2006-2007 SURVEY WILL BE CONDUCTED ON NOVEMBER 8, 2006. Please instruct your drivers
to observe the vehicles that illegally pass their school bus while it is stopped with the Red Loading
Lights activated on this date and put an X in the appropriate blank on the form that best fits the illegal
passing. Each row on the form represents one (1) vehicle that illegally passes the stopped school bus.
There are six spaces provided for your drivers convenience. Additional sheets may be used, as
necessary. Instructions are on the survey at the top and bottom of the form. REMINDER TO DRIVERS to
please take extreme caution when completing the form – THEIR MAIN RESPONSIBILITY IS THE SAFETY
OF THEIR STUDENTS. Time permitting, please have them complete as much information as possible on the
attached form.
Please copy the form as necessary and distribute to all drivers with instructions to complete and return to
you on November 8, 2006. Please complete and attach this cover sheet and return with all forms to the
address below no later than November 17, 2006.
Please print all information below.
School District:
Superintendent:
Transportation Director:
Person completing this form:
Contact phone number:
Email address:
Total number of routes for your district: Total number of buses:
My district bus routes are mostly: Rural City
Complete and return this form with all surveys no later than November 17, 2006 to the following:
School Transportation
Texas Department of Public Safety
1617 East Crest Drive
Waco, TX 76705-1598
Thank you for your cooperation. Should you have questions please call CHARLEY KENNINGTON OR PAM
MCCURDY, 254.759.7111 or email charley.kennington@txdps.state.tx.us or
pam.mccurdy@txdps.state.tx.us
37
APPENDIX B:
DATA REDUCTION ARCHIVING INSTRUCTIONS
39
Archiving Instructions for School Bus Cameras
Set up:
1. Insert Seon Hard Drive in Seon Hard Drive Read.
2. Plug in power cord to outlet. Do not turn on.
3. Plug USB cord in to computer.
4. Turn on Hard Drive Reader.
5. Open Seon Hard Drive Read program
Archiving Instructions
1. Select time frame for archiving
2. Click the top button to indicate when you want to start archiving. For example the picture
shows the start time of 2008/04/15 14:52:17. That is April 15, 2008 at 2:52 PM.
3. Click the bottom button to indicate when you want to stop archiving. For example the
picture shows the start time of 2008/04/15 16:57:24. That is April 15, 2008 at 4:57 PM.
4. Once that is done, right click on the camera you wish to archive. The camera order is
1,2,3,4 going top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right.
1 2
3 4
5. After right clicking on the camera select archive from the drop down menu.
41
42
6. After selecting archive name the video file Cam # date am/pm. This would be Cam 2
4_15_2008 PM.
7. Click Ok.
8. You will need to select the video compression style next. You will pick MPEG 4 V3.
9. Click Ok.
10. After this you will see a pop up box that will display the progress of the archiving. The
longer the video the larger the video file and the longer it will take to archive the video.
11. Archive all 4 videos before turning off Reader or shutting down the program.
