Unsafe driving during school drop offs at ‘unacceptable’ levels

(Press-News.org) Risky driving by parents and other motorists who do the school run is putting children in danger, according to a study published in the peer-reviewed journal Traffic Injury Prevention.

Double parking, not obeying traffic controls and other unsafe behavior occurs at the majority (98%) of elementary schools during morning drop-off times. 

The authors analyzed data from more than 500 schools in Canada and say hazardous driving is an “urgent and serious” issue. The most observed misdemeanour was to drop a student on the opposite side of the street which meant the child had to cross in the middle of the block with no traffic controls.

The researchers warn that unsafe driving increases (by 45%, as demonstrated in previous research) the chance of a car crash involving child pedestrians and other vulnerable road users such as cyclists. In addition, parents are even more likely to drive their children to lessons instead of them walking or using other active forms of transportation.

‘Kiss-and-rides’ where designated spaces are provided for private vehicle drop offs are among reforms suggested by the authors. They also say accessible parking should be available for families with a disabled child.

Although the researchers didn’t monitor speeding, the schools with the fewest types of risky driving behaviors had more adjacent roads with speed limits of either 30km/h or 40km/h (versus 50+ km/h).

They also had more direct access to school entrances, and more parking restrictions on both sides of the roadway than those with the most recorded types of risky driving behaviors.

“The results indicate the unacceptable level and types of risky driving behaviors in school zones,” says Tona Pitt, a Research Associate at the University of Calgary, in Alberta.

“Risky behaviors can have a doubly negative effect. They increase collisions involving vulnerable road users and potentially dissuade active school transportation.”

Tona adds: “We have often heard from parents, residents, teachers, and other stakeholders, that school drop-off is a chaotic time.

“This study helps to quantify that a bit and we do observe some sort of dangerous driving behaviour occurring a nearly every school on randomly selected days.

“Drop-off locations, physical changes to the roadways, and crossing guards might help to reduce these behaviours in the meantime, but at the end of the day parents feel the need to drive their children to school and this is often due to systematic issues related to urban planning and/or limited access to schools.

“The findings suggest improvements to the built environment around schools that may help to address this serious and urgent situation.”

Use of private vehicles to take children to school has increased substantially. For instance, in the US, from 1969 to 2009, by 47.5%. Conversely, there has been a drop in active forms of school transportation such as walking and biking which improves child health and development. Previous CHASE data indicates 45.8% of children in Canadian schools use some form of automotive transport to get to school.

As such, school drop-off times can result in high volumes of traffic. This situation means drivers may park illegally and resort to other unsafe practices which can put children at risk.

The Child Active Transportation Safety and the Environment (CHASE) study was based on morning drop-off time data collected between spring 2018 and 2019. A total of 552 elementary schools in seven cities were included.

Audits were done of the physical environment at roads adjacent to the schools. Speed limit signs, designated parking areas, and presence of a crossing guard were among features documented for CHASE.

In addition, the authors classified how much the built environment around each school promoted physical activity and health using the Active Living Environment (ALE) measure.

Research assistants positioned themselves from 20 minutes to five minutes after school start at either side of the main entrance. Their checklist was based on nine risky driving behaviors as follows:

U-turns backing up dangerously double parking not obeying traffic controls parking blocking crossing controls parking in such a way as to block sightlines of road users texting while driving talking on the phone while driving dropping a child off on the opposite side of the street with the child subsequently crossing in the middle of a city block where there are no traffic controls. Schools with the highest and lowest occurrences of a type of unsafe behavior were identified. Any association between this behavior and the physical environment near schools was documented.

Results from CHASE showed that at least one behavior affecting road safety took place at all the elementary schools. The risky behavior that occurred the least was using a phone/texting (20%) – although, this varied by city with cellphone use observed at 38% of Calgary schools.

Schools with the fewest types of risky behaviors had more favourable ALE scores, fewer roads directly adjacent, and more kerb extensions – features that narrow lane width to reduce vehicle speeds. They also had more signage to restrict parking and more access to entrances to the school.

Overall, more than half (55%) of schools had child or adult crossing guards (or both). Schools with the fewest types of risky driving behaviors were less likely to use children, a finding which the authors say represents a cause for ‘serious concern’. They suggest the presence of an adult may be more effective in curtailing risky driving behavior than a child guard on their own.

Some differences between cities were also observed. U-turns in front of a school were most common in Toronto (82%) whereas parking that blocked an entrance view came top in Peel Region (75%).

A limitation of the study was that the research assistants did not count the actual number of risky behaviors, only whether they observed at least one at a school.

END