Subscribe Today

May 02, 2013  |   Comments (8)   |   Post a comment

New York associations respond to alcohol interlocks bill

By Kelly Roher


SHARING TOOLS   | Email Print RSS
Paul Mori (left), an NYSBCA board member and school bus industry veteran, represented the association at a New York Senate hearing on Thursday on a bill that would mandate alcohol ignition interlock devices on school buses in the state. At right is John Corrado, president of Suffolk Transportation Services in Bay Shore, N.Y.

Paul Mori (left), an NYSBCA board member and school bus industry veteran, represented the association at a New York Senate hearing on Thursday on a bill that would mandate alcohol ignition interlock devices on school buses in the state. At right is John Corrado, president of Suffolk Transportation Services in Bay Shore, N.Y.

FARMINGDALE, N.Y. — The New York School Bus Contractors Association (NYSBCA) and the New York Association for Pupil Transportation (NYAPT) provided testimony during a Senate hearing on Thursday regarding a proposed bill that would mandate alcohol ignition interlocks on school buses.

As SBF previously reported, the legislation would require the devices to be installed in school buses as a way to prevent drunk drivers from getting behind the wheel of the bus.

The breath test device links to a vehicle’s ignition system and prevents it from starting if alcohol is detected in the driver’s breath.

NYSBCA was represented at the hearing by school bus safety expert and association board member Paul Mori. NYAPT was represented by Executive Director Peter Mannella.

“As champions of school bus safety, the New York School Bus Contractors Association believes there are better solutions to help prevent DWI and further protect our children,” Mori said. “When considering the excellent safety record of the industry, the technical challenges of ignition interlocks, and cost, the association believes that mandating ignition interlock devices on every single school bus in New York is simply not a rational response to a few isolated, yet widely publicized, incidences.”

Mori, who is a senior manager at Huntington Coach on Long Island, has 32 years of experience in school bus safety. Officials said he rejected the logic behind the push for mandatory interlocks on all school buses, and instead offered proven solutions used by industry leaders in pupil transportation safety.   

While he said any case of an intoxicated bus driver is unacceptable, Mori noted that school buses continue to be the safest mode of transportation for schoolchildren.

“School buses are by far the safest way for a child to get to and from school in New York — statistically almost 40 times safer than riding in a car,” Mori said. “Overall, New York’s school districts and contractors are doing a phenomenal job at transporting more than 2 million students to and from school every day.”

Mori went on to lay out the numerous flaws with the proposal for mandatory ignition interlocks on all school buses, from using a “guilty until proven innocent” approach with all school bus drivers to the technical problems with interlocks.

“The interlocks have to be engaged and re-engaged every time a school bus is started and re-started,” he said. “Any false positives (mouthwash) or other problems with the device would lead to significant employee and transportation management issues. And because these devices require activation from a driver while the vehicle is running to be effective, this could create major distractions for the driver and, ultimately, be very dangerous for students riding the bus.”

Mori also spoke about the cost of installation, maintenance, calibration, training and additional staffing involved with mandating the devices.  

“The estimated increase in costs to cash-strapped school districts and taxpayers could be over $100 million,” he said, “with recurring costs to school districts and taxpayers of more than $60 million a year when you factor in device cost, training, testing, maintenance and replacement.”

As alternatives to mandating alcohol ignition interlock devices on all school buses to help prevent DWI, NYSBCA suggests increasing and expanding random drug and alcohol testing of all drivers of all school vehicles.  

While many contractors already subject drivers to random testing, officials said that under the current law, drug and alcohol testing only applies to certain license holders. Some drivers, including those driving school buses with 14 or fewer passengers, are excluded from the testing pool.   

Another solution, the association said, is for New York to follow the federal minimum of 50% random drug testing, and increase random alcohol testing to at least 25% of the school bus driver pool, up from the 10% which is currently required.

Other expanded safety measures supported by the NYSBCA include additional employee and management education programs, increasing the training for supervisors in drug and alcohol use recognition, and better enforcement throughout the industry of laws requiring the “direct observation” of a school bus driver before his or her shift.  

NYSBCA also stated its strong support for increased penalties for drivers convicted of operating a school bus under the influence.  

In addition, NYSBCA suggested that the state could also help prevent problem drivers from getting behind the wheel of a school bus by having the state Department of Motor Vehicles keep a registry of drivers who have been disqualified from work due to failed drug or alcohol tests.   

“We realize that even one DWI or incident of driving under the influence of alcohol among school bus drivers is one too many, but again, now is the time to be rational and judicious in our approach,” Mori concluded. “There are a number of smart improvements that can be made to our current laws to keep our school buses as safe as possible; all of which will be more effective than mandating expensive and untested ignition interlock devices.”

NYAPT also opposes the legislation under consideration in the state Legislature, for many of the same reasons as NYSBCA, including the cost of alcohol ignition interlock devices, operational issues and concerns about their reliability.

Like the contractor association, NYAPT attested to the positive safety record of the state's school bus drivers, and the rigorous testing, training and monitoring that school bus drivers undergo was explained.

Mannella also provided recommendations for alternatives to the legislation under consideration. For example, the association suggested requiring that each school bus driver is observed at least once per day, preferrably before the beginning of each run. Another suggestion was to increase the random alcohol testing annual percentage rate for school bus drivers to 100% of the drivers on the roster for each operation.

Mannella offered suggestions related to discipline and penalties as well, including providing that a school bus carrier (either a private contractor or a school district) may terminate as a school bus driver any individual who tests positive on a valid drug or alcohol test.

Also important is the school board's roll, according to Mannella. He suggested on behalf of NYAPT that school districts be allowed to implement practices related to the frequency and nature of driver observations and drug/alcohol testing that exceeds federal or state minimum requirements, provided that the practices are carried out in accordance with the school board's adopted policy.

To read Mori's testimony in full, click here. To read Mannella's testimony in full, click here.


Post a Comment

Read more about: New York


I'm with Alexander on this one. New York overreacts to everything and wants to spend tax dollars lawlessly. First the soda ban, then smoking, and then regulations like these which will eventually make driving a bus like walking on eggshells. They're trying to catch them with everything they do. Cameras, Zonar, and then the IID. $60 million is not pocket change, NY! Even if you do have the best buses in the union!

Archie    |    May 09, 2013 06:02 PM

Its easy the people behind this are the ones selling the device.

roger    |    May 04, 2013 10:14 AM

Maybe I missed the lead-up issue. Like has there been a flood of school bus drivers being caught impaired and driving their bus? I can think of one sole incident in the entire Metro Toronto area where a driver was nabbed drunk. His fellow drivers boxed in his bus and then called the Police. Any issue can be pushed on the basis of what-if; what-if. This law is an over reaction.

BeeBopEh    |    May 03, 2013 06:52 AM

I'm with Rich...who thought of this? Please have them shadow a school bus driver for a day....see what's involved, then Think about a proposition like this,with some informed knowledge of our job....We don't just jump behind the wheel of a bus, start it up and go....Really, who thought of this?

Christy    |    May 03, 2013 06:39 AM

I think this is a crock, we anti idling laws, now we will have todo a breath test everytime the vehicle is started. Maybe some of these lawmakers ought to do a DOT inspection where the vehicle gets started 4-5 times in 20 minute period, talk about a pain,or maybe fuel a fleet over 2 hours. This seems rediculous.

Russell Groff    |    May 03, 2013 03:54 AM

How about alcohol interlocks on state legislators before they walk into the state house to work for the day.

Rich    |    May 03, 2013 01:38 AM

I hope they listen and through this bill out. I emailed the author of this bill when it was introduced and said basically the same thing. I never received a reply.

Allen Graham    |    May 02, 2013 05:40 PM

How about this fix: Don't drive drunk! If you drive a school bus, don't drink anything that can impair your driving! If you drive a van, personal vehicle, boat, plane, or whatever else that can cause injury to someone else through impaired operation, don't touch any drink or drug that can impair your driving! The upfront and continuing costs of the nanny state trying to regulate the behavior of stupid people should not be passed to the people who have nothing to do with the problem. If there's an area that has a lot of drunk drivers, buy new drivers. That $60 million a year could buy a lot of new bus seats, seatbelt systems, alternative energy conversions, and additional buses and drivers.

Alexander Rogge    |    May 02, 2013 04:46 PM

Post a comment





Related Stories

Premium Member

Get bus sales numbers, transportation statistics, bus specifications, industry survey results, bus loading and unloading fatality statistics and more in the School Bus Fleet Research Center. Become a premium member today!
Log in Button Register Button

Newsletter

Get breaking news, industry updates, product announcements and more.