Specifically tell me the "original intent" of Sec. 14 (c). More
specifically, was it intended only for school owned or controlled
properties vs state highways? |
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
30 Jan 2005 14:00 PST
Bill,
Just to be sure, is this the section you're asking about:
-----
IC 20-9.1-5-14
Arm signal device
Sec. 14. Arm Signal Device. (a) Whenever a school bus is stopped
on a roadway to load or unload school children, the driver shall use
an arm signal device, and the arm signal device shall be extended
while the bus is stopped except that a school bus driver need not
extend an arm signal device when the school bus is stopped at an
intersection or other place where traffic is controlled by a traffic
control device or a police officer.
(b) For the purpose of this chapter, "roadway" means that portion
of a highway improved, designed or ordinarily used for vehicular
travel, exclusive of the sidewalk, berm or shoulder even though the
sidewalk, berm or shoulder is used by persons riding bicycles or other
human powered vehicles.
(c) A public school governing body may authorize a school bus
driver to load or unload passengers at locations off the roadway which
it shall designate as special school bus loading areas. The driver
need not extend the arm signal device when loading or unloading
passengers in the designated areas.
(Formerly: Acts 1973, P.L.218, SEC.2.) As amended by Acts 1977, P.L.123, SEC.7.
-----
If so, there's nothing in section c that indicates it is restricted
only to school grounds. What sort of "intent" information are you
looking for beyond the language of the law itself?
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
bill1940-ga
on
30 Jan 2005 16:54 PST
This is the correct section I was inquiring about. I feel the
original intent of Sec. 14 (c)was intended for school properties, not
for the open highway. Stopping without benefit of the stop arm device
and warning lights seems to fly in the face of Sec. 14 (a)of IC 20-9,
1-5-14.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
30 Jan 2005 17:07 PST
Bill,
Section c specifies that special loading-unloading areas (where the
signal arm is not needed) can be designated ONLY in areas that are
"off the roadway".
I don't see how this contradicts other sections of the law, which are
clearly addressed towards school bus loading-unloading "on a roadway".
Can you elaborate just a bit as to your concerns here.
Thanks.
paf
|
Clarification of Question by
bill1940-ga
on
31 Jan 2005 01:39 PST
The reason for the problem is in the word "roadway" vs "highway." See
their explanation of roadway in Sec. 14 (b). Highway allows us to use
the berm and shoulder and requires use of the signal devices. Roadway
does not. FWCS is also using "Home Rule" to side step this problem.
It is the considered opinion of our drivers that "Home Rule" is to be
applied to school owned properties such as "eyebrows, athletic fields
and parking lots" not to open roads such as highways. It is our
opinion that "stopped cars and truck cannot run over children."
|
Clarification of Question by
bill1940-ga
on
31 Jan 2005 14:09 PST
It is my feeling the original intent was for school properties, not the
open highways. Stopping to pick up and discharge students without benefit
of the stop arm and warning lights flies in the face of Sec. 14 (a). It
effectively negates (a).
Bill
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
01 Feb 2005 02:49 PST
Just wanted to let you know that I've had a look through several
databases for Indiana case law or newspaper articles that might have a
bearing on this question, but came up empty-handed so far.
Good luck with it, though...keep the kids safe!
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
bill1940-ga
on
01 Feb 2005 03:25 PST
Very frankly, I do not care if they call it roadway, highway or a cow
path. If I am to pick up and discharge children on a school bus, the
law needs to specifically state "you will use your arm signal device
and overhead warning lights." "STOPPED CARS AND TRUCKS CANNOT RUN
OVER CHILDREN."
As it currently stands in IC 20-9, 1-5-14, Section 14 (a,b and c) law
says to use the above mentioned. Policy from FWCS says not to in (c).
It is my opinion that "law" should take precedence over "policy."
Therefore, it is past time for the Indiana State Police, who are
pledged to enforce laws from the Indiana General Assembly, to bring
FWCS into compliance.
|
Clarification of Question by
bill1940-ga
on
01 Feb 2005 03:56 PST
I am not sure you have gotten the full picture. I am not very clear
sometimes. It is extremely dangerous on "roadways, highways or cow
paths" to be picking up and discharging chilren on a school bus.
Therefore, the drivers at FWCS schools were stunned when a state
trooper, whose duty it is to enforce law, not make law, suggested to
FWCS we just pull off on the berm and use only our hazard lights,
which are only 4 feet off the ground, versus the arm signal device
which triggers the caution and warning lights, which are 8 feet in the
air, and extends the flashing stop arm. I guess he thinks he does not
have to abide by the law. I say this policy is shot through with
"flawed policy" and potential danger to kids, drivers, both on the
buses as well as those who are being thoroughly confused on the road.
Do we have to wait for a tragic event before someone gets the picture
and begins to listen to experienced drivers who totally disagree with
the current interpretation of said law? Pete Baxter, head of the
Indiana State School Bus Committee and the IU Safety Training School,
admitted to me he has never driven a school bus, yet he is doing all
he can to deny my proposed bill, HB# 1798. I am frustrated with his
interference and his throwing his weight around in a field he is not
qualified to speak.
|
Request for Question Clarification by
pafalafa-ga
on
01 Feb 2005 06:24 PST
Thanks for adding to the background on this...I think I have a pretty
clear idea now of the issues at hand.
My question to you is: Is there anything in particular I can do to
assist you? What sort of information are you looking for as an answer
to your question?
Or is this, perhaps, one of those questions where the answer is too
elusive to really pin down?
Let me know what you think.
pafalafa-ga
|
Clarification of Question by
bill1940-ga
on
01 Feb 2005 08:26 PST
My original question was about "original intent" behind this law. You
said you could not find anything pertaining to this. I believe there
has to be an answer to that question. I understood you could not find
that answer and I appreciate your responses. It would seem to me that
"policy" will reign over "law." It will take a terrible tragedy to
get someone to see the error of their way. By then it will most likely
be too late!
|
