15 Passenger Vans Banned

[Gregory Matthews]

Adventist Risk Management has totally prohibited the use of 15-passenger vans by the NAD.  There are no circumstances in which these vans are to be used.  Their use   has resulted in the death of a number of church members.

See:   https://adventistrisk.org/CMSPages/GetAzureFile.aspx?path=~\sitemedia\siteresources\pdfs\prevention\infosheets\15passengervan_eng_09062016_v2.pdf&hash=3ba0aec9c29e87db162c693572ba3f7f0405cfc23d437e8e9abafc0498a45787

Frankly, this is about time.  The following is a list of State laws that restrict such use for school children.  NOTE That this has been  known since 1999.

http://www.nasdpts.org/documents/VansSurveyFeb04.pdf

In the U.S.  Federal law has prohibited their use for the transport of high-school children and below:  See:

http://regioniv.usyouthsoccer.org/assets/927/15/RMHO15passenger.pdf

Federal law prohibits the sale of 15-passenger vans for the transport of school children.  See:

http://www.schoolbusfleet.com/news/682762/federal-agencies-speak-out-on-passenger-van-use

 

Folks the danger of such vans has been known for years.  The SDA Church should have done this a long time ago.

I am informed that the denomination has  known about this for  years.  NAD Policy S 60 31 is an extensive policy that establishes the use of denominational  vehicles. That policy has in the past recommended against the purchase, lease, rental or use of such vans.  But, the policy allowed such use.

My current question is:  Will this new policy be enforced?

Maybe Stan will be willing to tell us what Canada  is doing about this situation?

 

 

 

 

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

 

I agree with the decision to ban those 15-passenger vans!

 

Quote

Statement by Dan Jackson:  "Not only is the financial burden too great to ignore, but also we cannot afford to distract one soul from being reached for the kingdom."

Maybe I'm dense, but could you explain what the van have to do with "distract[ing] one soul from being reached for the kingdom"?  Was Dan Jackson trying to say that if a person died from a van accident that the person wouldn't "reach the kingdom"?  

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam, the following is an expansion of the statement that Jackson made.   I acknowledge that it is probably poorly worded and subject to misunderstanding.  But, whatever it was that he actually meant, I do believe that its context  is that of getting congregations to not use such vans.

We must remove these dangerous vans from our use. Not only is the financial burden too great to ignore, but also we cannot afford to distract one soul from being reached for the kingdom. We cannot lose another life. Friends, it is time to fully remove 15 passenger vans from use by Seventh-day Adventist organizations.”—Dan Jackson, North American Division of the Seventh-day Adventist Church president

 

[phkrause]

That's interesting, because when I lived up in Massachusetts, I saw many of these vans transporting public and private school children!! Now I could be wrong and they stopped this a number of years ago??

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

1 hour ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Pam, the following is an expansion of the statement that Jackson made.   I acknowledge that it is probably poorly worded and subject to misunderstanding.  But, whatever it was that he actually meant, I do believe that its context  is that of getting congregations to not use such vans.

I'm sure you're right.  I guess I just have an aversion to such obtuse statements that are undecipherable.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

24 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

I think you know better than that.

Indeed?!  

A mind reader you have become??

[Green Cochoa]

Banning the vans makes as much sense as banning ambulances.  You remember the poem, right?  Of course, each has its proper place.  Because some fatalities have occurred when perhaps other safety precautions were ignored does not make the vehicle at fault.  Shall we next ban buses too?  Do not buses carry even more people, thus causing even greater tragedies at times?  And they don't even require seat belts on buses...which, come to think of it, why not focus on that?  Maybe the seat belts are part of the problem.  I remember hearing a story about a 15-passenger van full of workers at the end of the day that went off a bridge into water, killing all but one of them--I think he was at the very back, and didn't have his seat belt fastened.  So let's ban seat belts, right?  Or shall we just ban buses for not using them?  Or shall we ban cars because people die in them?  Next we can ban _____________ (fill in the blank here) because people sometimes die when they are not used safely.

In my opinion, instead of banning the vans, states should provide education to their drivers.  I would have no problem with requiring 15-passenger vans to be driven by drivers with a passenger endorsement on their license.

[Gregory Matthews]

Green, if you read the documents you will see that vehicle is at fault.  It was not properly designed to safely Cary people.

 

[Green Cochoa]

2 hours ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Green, if you read the documents you will see that vehicle is at fault.  It was not properly designed to safely Cary people.

 

Maybe we should ban medical use of helicopters too.  Stiff-wing planes are loads safer!

[Gregory Matthews]

Of course, any vehicle can be involved in accidents.   A mention is made of a vehicle that went off of a bridge.  Probably not  in any way related to the design flaw that is inherent in 15 passenger vehicles.

Any vehicle with a design flaw that makes it more likely to injure people than would a correctly designed vehicle, should not be used to transport children/people.

The bottom line is that there are correctly designed vehicles that are safe to carry 15 people because they do not have that design flaw

It has been suggested that we train the drivers.  That might reduce fatalities, but it will not prevent them.  When I first got involved in this, there was an expensive fix that was suggested for the faulty vehicles.  That has not worked.  People did not want to spend the money.  In addition, while that fix may have reduced issues, it did not eliminate them.  The design flaw remained.

The bottom line is this:  In the U.S. society has determined that 15 passenger vans are not safe to transport children and laws have been put in place to prevent such.  Therefore, no denominational organization should use them for such.

Regardless, of the law, with those vans  having that design flaw, no denominational organization should take on the  legal liability to use them for the transport of people.  In addition, from the ethical standpoint, that should not be done.

 

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said in my quote below:

Green, I think that you probably know that your statement is false on its face.  Why?  Because medical helicopters are used under conditions where a fixed-wing airplane could not be safely used..  That is why.

A fixed wing aircraft requires transportation between the airport and wherever the patient is or is going.  Helicopters land on highways, where a fixed-wing aircraft could not land.  Helicopters land on the roofs of hospitals where a fixed wing aircraft could not land.  In many cases a helicopter can cut one or more hours off of the transport time thus saving the life of the patient.

Maybe we should ban medical use of helicopters too.  Stiff-wing planes are loads safer!

[Gregory Matthews]

Wanderer:  Yes, the center of gravity is the central issue.  People and the seats that are required raise the center of gravity to the point where they become dangerous.  Items placed in a roof rack complicate it even more.

Some years ago  it was suggested that this could be fixed by installing dual wheels on each side to the rear of these vans.  This probably helped,  when done, but, it did not eliminate the problem.  Further,  it really became impractical from the financial standpoint to install those dual wheels on the rear with the changes required to the suspension system, etc.

It should also be noted that the above suggested fix changed the steering characteristics of the vehicle which further complicated the safety issues.   It just was not a good fix from several standpoints.

 

 

[Green Cochoa]

Any idea how many 15-passenger vans are on the road?  In a ten-year period, from 2004-2013, about 1.3 persons per year per state died in one.  Not too bad, I'd say.  I bet more people died in Audi accidents.

The fact is, about 2.8 drivers (they didn't count passengers because not every car has a passenger) died per 100,000 on average for all vehicle types considered.  That's a higher rate than the 15-passenger vans, it seems.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/driver-death-rates

[Green Cochoa]

48 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

No they are not. A Stars Air Ambulance just flew over our place about two hours ago. One can always recognize them as they are bright red, like firetrucks. But they are highly trained professionals, and if they fly in somewhere; it will be pretty safe. It was headed for a big city hospital where a car accident victim will get the care they need, and no fixed-wing aircraft could have accessed the area where the accident took place in a safe manner. It would have jepardized the pilot's and all passenger lives involved. Your argument makes no sense. These vans are dangerous for carrying passengers. Its pretty simple.

The most recent statistics I found in a quick search suggest that about 4.5 fatalities occur per 100,000 flight hours on medical helicopters.  That means one would have approximately a 1 in 22,000 chance of dying on a one-hour flight to the hospital.  I wonder how that would compare to an ambulance (terrestrial) ride.  I know that's a far higher risk than that of boarding a plane.

[Gregory Matthews]

Again, helicopters fly where fixed-wing aircraft cannot fly.  One can not directly compare.

To directly compare them would be similar to comparing roller skating accidents with ice skating accidents.  They differ as to the circumstances.

 

[Green Cochoa]

44 minutes ago, Gregory Matthews said:

Again, helicopters fly where fixed-wing aircraft cannot fly.  One can not directly compare.

To directly compare them would be similar to comparing roller skating accidents with ice skating accidents.  They differ as to the circumstances.

 

Very true.  It is also true, however, that to compare fatalities between 15-passenger vans and 4-passenger cars is not a fair comparison either.  In the latter case, one would require more drivers, and at least 4 cars to carry the same number of passengers as the single van might accommodate.  Therefore, one would need to consider the safety of four such automobiles all traveling the same route in order to more fairly compare against the safety of the van.

[Green Cochoa]

7 minutes ago, The Wanderer said:

What on earth are you even arguing about here. For heavens sake if you really need to criticize a decision the church made atleast find something thats worth while and is actually true. They made a safety decision to save lives and based their decision on experts who know way more about it than you ever will.

Mr. Wanderer,

I have more than once found the church to exercise unholy "caution."  I say "unholy" because I don't know what else to call it.  Examples include not allowing any independent literature evangelist to enroll and purchase their books via Pacific Press until the LE has a bigger insurance policy than the Conference.  This put a stop to the LE work in my conference, and the department was closed for over a decade.  Another example was the case some years ago where the church organized a major evangelistic campaign in Thailand, involving a number of localities in eastern Thailand.  I know, because I was one who purchased plane tickets to go to help participate as an individual.  About three weeks before the event, the media came out with the big SARS scare, and two people died in Udon Thani, Thailand of SARS.  The church called off the entire event, affecting scores of participants and failing to render a spiritual balm to tens of thousands of precious Thai people.  It is likely that a single individual or small committee made the decision, but it matters not.  Shamefully, some Adventist(s) had no faith in Psalm 91--or was/were ignorant of it.

As pertains to 15-passenger vans, I am personally acquainted with church situations in which many members have no transportation and need a ride to church.  Because the church does not have members in possession of a CDL (commercial drivers license), a 15-passenger van is the only practical solution.  Again, it is a shame for the church to prohibit such.

[debbym]

This restriction on the 15 passenger bus is about transporting church school kids.  It is not about church members personally transporting friends to church.

Since 1966 there have been state laws regarding the dangers of using this kind of van, not designed for transporting loads of people esp. in public transportation.

Transporting school kids for school functions involves corporate church insurance.  and since there has already been warning by other agencies against it, there would be greater liability for ignoring publicly made known cautions.

[Green Cochoa]

On 12/16/2016 at 3:54 AM, Gregory Matthews said:

Adventist Risk Management has totally prohibited the use of 15-passenger vans by the NAD.  There are no circumstances in which these vans are to be used.  Their use   has resulted in the death of a number of church members.

 

6 minutes ago, debbym said:

This restriction on the 15 passenger bus is about transporting church school kids.  It is not about church members personally transporting friends to church.

I guess I need more explanation then.

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

16 minutes ago, Green Cochoa said:

 

I guess I need more explanation then.

I think for liability reasons more than anything else, the church doesn't want a 15-passenger van used, but I think it's more than just regarding school children.  I don't think a privately owned 15-passenger van would be approved for use in transporting Pathfinders, as part of a church-sponsored event.  I may be wrong, but I think the church would have to accept liability when someone is using their own vehicle in the transportation of Pathfinders.

Gregory might have an answer to that...

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, in my quote below:

I am not aware of any comparison every having been made by a person who knew what they were talking about between a 15-passenger van and a 4 passenger automobile.  In fact, I am not aware of any comparison between a 15 passenger van and any automobile.

15 passenger vans have an inherent design flaw that makes them dangerous to transport people.  Period.   No comparison needed.

However, any comparison would be made between a 15 passenger van and  a 15 passenger vehicle, not a van, which has been built and is available for sale that does not have that design flaw and is able to safely carry 15 persons.

Very true.  It is also true, however, that to compare fatalities between 15-passenger vans and 4-passenger cars is not a fair comparison either.  In the latter case, one would require more drivers, and at least 4 cars to carry the same number of passengers as the single van might accommodate.  Therefore, one would need to consider the safety of

four such automobiles all traveling the same route in order to more fairly compare against the safety of the van.

[Gregory Matthews]

Pam is correct.  The NAD has totally prohibited the use of 15 passenger vans for any purpose, by any denominational agency, regardless of ownership of the van.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Debbym:  The design flaw present in a 15 passenger van makes them danger for the transport of people of any age.   For this reason, the NAD has ruled that the SDA denomination cannot use those vans for   transporting people under any conditions.  It is not limited to children.

The State and  Federal laws that govern this situation generally apply to the transport of children.  E.G.  Federal law makes it illegal for a licensed vehicle dealer to sell such a van in a situation where it is known that the van will be used to transport children.  The sale of such vans to transport adults is not illegal under Federal law.

I have provided the links in my OP as to State laws and their application.

 

[Gregory Matthews]

Green said, in my post below:

1)  My OP cited the NAD decision.  That decision does not apply to other countries.  I am not aware of what restrictions may be in place in those countries.

2)  The denomination has no right to tell a member what they drive, but only as the denomination is not involved in any way in coordinating the transport of those people.

3)  The church (Denomination) has both a legal and ethical responsibility to abode by laws that protect members.  This means that if the local congregation wants to purchase a vehicle to transport such members, it should purchase on that is legally safe and authorized to do so.

4) By the way:  A CDL is NOT generally required to drive such a vehicle that carries passengers.  An endorsement may (?) be required, depending upon the specific situation and State law.  But, your mention of a CDL is simply not generally required.

5)  I am speaking from personal experience.  In 1968, the Conference President told me that I should not be driving one of those vans.  But, the Sr. pastor in the district to which I was assigned had me do that.  One evening I put the front and back, passenger side,  wheels off the side of a mountain drop off.  At that time, I was the only person in the vehicle and there was neither personal injury to me or damage to the  vehicle.  But, it could have been tragic.  The bottom line was:  In the name of getting people to church, and doing the Lord's work, the local congregation was endangering the lives of the people who were so transported to church.  We have both a legal and an ethical responsibility to not do such.  If a congregation wants to transport people they can do so in a legally responsible and ethical manner.

NOTE:  As a result of my experience the local congregation had to make some changes in their transport of people.

 

Quote

As pertains to 15-passenger vans, I am personally acquainted with church situations in which many members have no transportation and need a ride to church.  Because the church does not have members in possession of a CDL (commercial drivers license), a 15-passenger van is the only practical solution.  Again, it is a shame for the church to prohibit such.

[Stan]

We have lost to many kids that were in this size of van.  I have heard for 15 years that Risk Management would not allow them.