Stop-arm compliance programs should seek to make it clear that illegal school bus passing should be unacceptable to everyone, not just a niche issue for advocates. This attitude should be reflected by bus drivers, students, parents, law enforcement, and the broader driving public. The unacceptability of these violations may also be reflected in legislation, characterizing the offenses as more serious by virtue of the penalties recommended upon conviction, and the willingness of judges or magistrates to issue sentences accordingly. As more individuals operating within the school transportation system begin to treat these violations as unacceptable, reductions in the rates of these violations should follow.

Even among well-intentioned motorists and pedestrians, there is always the chance that people will make mistakes on the roadways. Such mistakes could have serious consequences. The dangers surrounding illegal school bus passing are no exception, with a variety of mistakes that could be made by different participants in this system. Motorists may misunderstand what exceptions to school bus passing are permitted in each situation or may fail to notice a school bus while driving (e.g., if driving while distracted). Similarly, students may misunderstand safe pedestrian behavior at school bus stops—forgetting to stop and look both directions before entering or crossing the street. In short, it is unrealistic to rely on consistent, predictable, and safe behaviors of people involved in traffic at school bus stops – even among those who have been educated on proper safety precautions.

Because people make mistakes, some methods of reducing stop-arm violations may benefit from removing human involvement from the equation. School transportation administrators should ensure proper selection of bus routes and stop locations to avoid unsafe loading zones (e.g., around a sharp curve, beyond the crest of a hill, or before an upcoming turning lane where motorists may be tempted to drive on the shoulder of the road). New technologies on school buses may proactively prevent crashes, particularly those technologies that do not require any manual input from the bus driver or that are capable of automatically registering violations and collecting evidence of the offense (e.g., automated stop-arm cameras). Legislative efforts may play a role here; by crafting laws that provide as few exceptions as feasible to restrictions on school bus passing, motorists will not be required to judge such scenarios on a case-by-case basis and can consistently treat stopping as the default behavior. In short, because humans make mistakes, efforts to reduce stop-arm violations should minimize the number of decisions or actions required of the participants.

Using the Safe System Approach, NHTSA has already developed resources to assist with planning safe routes and stopping locations for school buses. For more information, see https://www.nhtsa.gov/planning-safer-school-bus-stops-and-routes.

Although all people are vulnerable to injury on the roadway, illustrating the elevated risks to students – especially younger students with less roadway experience and more fragile bodies – during school bus pickup or drop off can help to underscore the fact that illegal passing is never safe. Given the prevalence of motor vehicles in the daily lives of people in the United States, it can be easy to forget that motor vehicles weigh multiple tons and travel at speeds dangerous to pedestrians – even in lower speed limit zones. Stop-arm compliance programs should highlight the unique risks to students that exist when motorists engage in driving behaviors that may be routine in other situations. The greatest risk to a child isn’t riding a bus but approaching or leaving one. That’s why as a driver it is especially important to pay attention. Students’ lives are on the line.

Making meaningful changes in a complex, multifaceted system such as school transportation safety requires combined action from all entities involved, including motorists, students, bus drivers, parents, school administration, law enforcement, prosecutors, and the courts. Encouraging a sense of collective responsibility for safety at school bus stops can come from many sources, particularly efforts in education (e.g., info provided to parents from schools, driver education) and outreach/awareness campaigns to keep the issue front-and-center.  Any of these groups attempting to take responsibility in isolation will have a limited impact on school transportation safety. However, addressing the problem together and showing how each person plays a part to help keep students safe has the potential to vastly shift the landscape of stop-arm compliance.

Unfortunately, the seriousness of illegal passing of stopped school buses is often most apparent after tragedy has already occurred. A key goal of stop-arm compliance programs should be to clearly and proactively explain the dangers associated with such violations so that these tragedies can be avoided in the first place. Technology may play a key role here: For example, developing and installing technologies that make school buses more noticeable to motorists or that alert students of an impending pass (e.g., by issuing an audible warning to stop if a vehicle is rapidly approaching). Education is another useful tool, informing motorists of both the legal requirements at school bus stops as well as the danger caused when these requirements are disregarded. Although efforts of enforcement and prosecution of stop-arm violations technically occur after a given occurrence, ensuring that the legal consequences of these violations are carried out and shared with the public can help to reduce repeat offenses and may serve to discourage would-be violators in the future. In short, preventing dangerous behavior is always preferable to reacting to dangerous behavior, so stop-arm compliance programs should seek techniques that not only punish individual offenses but also reduce subsequent violations.

Although promising methods exist to improve compliance with stop-arm laws, every technique has its own pros and cons. Because of this, programs designed to reduce illegal passing of school buses should not rely fully on any one method to improve safety. For instance, just because a school bus has an illuminated stop-arm does not mean there is no utility in having flashing red lights as well; in many cases, redundancy in the safety approaches can maximize their effectiveness. Moreover, safety techniques that are complementary to one another can be used in combination, such that the strengths of one approach are leveraged to make up for the potential shortfalls of another. For example, adding enhanced lighting technology on a school bus may improve the visibility of the bus and reduce violations, but adding in automated enforcement cameras can allow law enforcement to respond to motorists who commit violations even with this new equipment installed. As of now, no single approach has been identified as the “silver bullet” to eliminating stop-arm violations, so compliance programs should consider using a diverse array of techniques to improve safety at school bus stops.

This part of the problem includes three factors: 

1. Lack of knowledge of the law 
2. Lack of willingness to follow the law 
3. Lack of awareness of the school bus

Lack of knowledge of the law

Motorists may be unaware of the specifics of the stop-arm law and the consequences for breaking the law. A recent national survey of drivers revealed the great majority (over 90%) of people know they should stop and stay stopped in the most common situations (e.g., approaching from the front or rear on a two-lane road; approaching from the rear on a four-lane road) in which they may encounter a school bus with its stop-arm deployed and red lights flashing (Wright et al., under review-a). A demonstration project of stop-arm camera effectiveness found slightly lower knowledge of correct behaviors in those same situations at two locations with about 83% of respondents knowing they needed to stop and stay stopped (Wright et al., under review-b). While such levels of correct knowledge seem promising, the fact that about 10-20% of drivers in those two studies did not know they should stop and stay stopped for a school bus with its stop-arm and red lights flashing in these most basic/common situations is potentially problematic. The findings are indicative that more education is needed to make sure people understand their legal duties when encountering a stopped school bus and why it is so crucial they obey the law.  

The national survey and demonstration project surveys mentioned above found correct knowledge was much lower regarding required motorist behaviors when approaching a stopped school bus from the front on four-lane divided or undivided roadways. This is not surprising, however, given the differences in legal requirements across states as some jurisdictions require a motorist to stop in these situations while others do not (Wright et al., under review-c). Many of the “incorrect” responses in the above surveys involved people saying they would stop and stay stopped when they are not required to do so in each state. While stopping in this situation may appear to be okay even if it is not required, it could lead to other problems such as rear-end collisions if other motorists traveling in the same direction are not expecting a sudden stop by the vehicle they are following. Developing standardized legal requirements for these situations that are the same across all states would be one way to address this problem along with school bus transportation planning exercises that prohibit having a bus stop where children are required to cross roadways with four or more lanes. 

Education programs aimed at increasing public knowledge and awareness of stop-arm violation laws should be designed to achieve the following outcomes: 

• Motorists need to know what the law is and, in particular, what types of highways are covered (e.g., all roads or only non-divided highways) where they live and where they drive.  
• Motorists need to know what the penalty is for breaking the law. A recent national survey asked over 3,500 people to indicate the penalty for first-time offenders who illegally pass a stopped school bus in their locale (Wright et al., under review-a). Nearly three-quarters (74.1%) of participants reported they were unsure of the penalty for first time offenders.  Penalties associated with stop-arm violations take many forms and differ based on  
  • Jurisdiction 
  • Witness of the violation (e.g., law enforcement, bus driver, or automated camera) 
  • Outcome of the incident (e.g., a monetary fine for an illegal pass itself, but jail time in the event a pupil is injured or killed during the passing event) 
  • Whether it is a repeated offense 

For more information on school bus passing laws and penalties in the United States, see State Laws Digest on Illegal School Bus Passing (Wright et al., under review-a). NHTSA developed a social media playbook as part of its illegal school bus passing prevention campaign that provides examples of material to educate drivers about the basics of the law and what the red lights and yellow lights on a school bus mean. For more information, see www.trafficsafetymarketing.gov/safety-topics/school-bus-safety.  

Lack of willingness to follow the law 

Lack of information is only one reason why a motorist may not obey the law. Motorists may also intentionally disobey the law. A recent national survey asked more than 3,500 people why they think people illegally pass a stopped school bus, and the top two reasons involved drivers intentionally violating (Wright et al., under review-a).  

1. Didn’t care (30.5%) 
2. Were in a hurry (25.5%) 

Although there are many different driving situations that may contribute toward decisions to intentionally commit a stop-arm violation, some other example situations include:   

• Other vehicles pass a stopped school bus, so a motorist follows the general traffic pattern in a “follow-the-leader” type of situation. 
• From prior experience, the motorist does not expect any children to cross the road at the bus stop, so the motorist illegally passes the bus. In this case, the motorist is unaware of the potential safety consequences.  

Combined enforcement and education programs aimed at increasing traffic safety culture or increasing public knowledge of the reason behind illegal passing laws and awareness of the potential safety consequences of not following them may help prevent these types of violations.  

Lack of awareness of the school bus

Drivers may have less awareness of the presence of a school bus in certain situations. In urban areas, the school bus stop may be near a traffic light. When that light turns green, motorists may focus on the traffic light and pass the stopped bus despite the red flashing lights and deployed stop-arm. On open roads where the speed limit is higher and visibility might be reduced, stopping quickly may be harder. Once they see the school bus, speeding motorists may believe they are not able to safely bring their vehicle to a stop, choosing instead to continue past the bus. Depending on a district’s morning and afternoon route times, its geographic location, and the time of year, routes may be in total darkness, making the school bus harder to notice. 

Driver distraction may also limit motorists’ awareness of a school bus. The national survey discussed previously found that about 12% of drivers thought motorists illegally pass stopped school buses because they were distracted (Wright et al., under review-a). 

Technologies such as enhanced lighting for school buses are on the market to increase visibility of the bus or the loading/unloading zone during a bus stop.

This part of the problem includes four factors: 

1. Lack of information 
2. Little consequence of reports 
3. Lack of standard procedures  
4. Difficulty in establishing a baseline 

Before discussing each of these factors, please keep in mind that a school bus driver’s main role is to drive safely and monitor the students’ behavior. While some state laws permit a school bus driver to report violations for enforcement purposes, any methods or policies to reduce burden in this reporting should be considered to ensure bus drivers can accomplish their main role safely. NHTSA offers a School Bus Driver In-Service Curriculum that contains modules “Student Management” and “Loading and Unloading.” For more information, see School Bus Driver In-Service Curriculum.

Lack of information

School bus drivers may also be unsure of the specifics of the law in different jurisdictions, so bus drivers may need to review as part of the continuing education requirements what is and is not a violation if a state permits them to report. 

Even if they do know that a violation has occurred, school bus drivers may be unsure about what exactly needs to be reported. They should review what must be included in a stop-arm violation report (e.g., license plate number, vehicle description, other specified details of the incident). Failure to record some information may unintentionally jeopardize future potential law enforcement actions. 

To reduce some of the burden on school bus drivers, districts might consider the deployment of stop-arm cameras to record violations, if these cameras are permitted in the jurisdiction. This approach could allow bus drivers to focus more fully on their primary role of safely transporting and monitoring students. 

Little consequence of reports

Remember that, for school bus drivers, the problem of illegal passing is not new. For many bus drivers, reporting stop-arm violations may seem to have little impact on reducing violations. School bus drivers may choose to not make a report if previous reports have not been pursued by law enforcement, or charges are ultimately dismissed, time constraints with the judicial system, and/or the incidence of the violation does not seem to decrease. Again, districts might consider the deployment of stop-arm cameras to record violations, if these cameras are permitted in the district, so bus drivers do not have additional burden from their already demanding role. 

Lack of standard procedures

In many states and communities, there is no clear guidance on what a school bus driver should report and to whom the report should be made. Even when there are policies established by law enforcement for notifying motorists of probable violations or for monitoring high-incidence areas, there may not be an easy mechanism for passing information from the school bus driver to the notification agency or to the enforcement agency. 

Again, districts might consider the deployment of stop-arm cameras to record violations, if these cameras are permitted in the district, so bus drivers do not have the additional burden.

This part of the problem includes three factors: 

1. Misgivings about the violation report 
2. Difficulty enforcing the law 
3. Difficulty getting convictions 

Misgivings about the violation report  

One reason for a lack of follow-through in prosecution of a reported stop-arm violation is the gray area of this violation. In many states this violation is one of the few violations (if not the only violation) that a civilian can report. Law enforcement is often uncertain about the accuracy of reports submitted by members of the public. Concerns about the accuracy and details of such reports may be alleviated by stop-arm cameras, as such technology provides objective and reviewable evidence.  

Difficulty enforcing the law 

Even in cases where violation reports provide complete and accurate information regarding the incident, it may still be challenging to enforcing stop-arm laws. In some states, only a law enforcement officer who witnesses the act directly can write a citation for a stop-arm violation. A violation reported by a school bus driver cannot be written up in such states, reducing the likelihood that violations will be prosecuted. It is not possible to always predict where violations will occur—even at locations with a high incidence of reports. Add to this the shortage of law enforcement officers and there is almost an impossible situation:        

• To have a citation issued, a law enforcement officer must witness the violation, but  
• Violations occur haphazardly, often in places that officers can't routinely patrol because they are required elsewhere. 

To alleviate this issue, states may consider empowering school bus drivers not only with the authority to report events, but the training to ensure that such reports are of sufficient quality to improve the chance of successful prosecution. As stated before, stop-arm camera systems may also assist in filling this gap as they allow law enforcement to review alleged violations after the fact from a central location rather than relying on being in the right place at the right time. 

Difficulty getting convictions

Even when a citation has been written, the process is not over. If a motorist chooses not to pay the fine and contests the citation, the motorist goes to court. Unfortunately, there are situations in which the charges are reduced or thrown out entirely at the judge’s discretion which reduces the effectiveness of enforcement of these risky behaviors. In certain situations, the case is dismissed for insufficient evidence. There must be evidence that a particular vehicle committed the violation. Typically this requires not just the vehicle make and color but a license plate number. In those areas where a citation can be issued based on a driver's report, bus drivers often find it hard to get a license plate number when they also have to watch the road, operate the bus, and manage the students. Indeed, it could be argued that tasking bus drivers with the responsibility of reporting such incidents could serve to distract them from the more critical task at hand: ensuring safe operation of the school bus.

Sometimes the charge is reduced because of the penalty for the violation. In some states, the penalty for a first offense is high (e.g., large fine, mandatory license suspension). Although the severity of these penalties is presumably designed to underscore the serious safety risks posed by illegal school bus passing, magistrates and judges may be reluctant to impose such penalties for a first offense.