DATE: 

Winter, 2018

TIME:

Approximately 7:30 a.m.

VICTIM:

Crossing Guard/Special 

Education Teacher in her 

50s

INDUSTRY/NAICS CODE:

Education/61

EMPLOYER: 

Educational service 

provider for public charter 

school

SAFETY & TRAINING:

Unknown crossing guard 

training

SCENE: 

Intersection crosswalk

LOCATION:

Michigan

EVENT TYPE:

Struck By

___________________________

INCIDENT HIGHLIGHTS

REPORT#: 18MI027 REPORT DATE: 6/24/20

School Crossing Guard Struck by Vehicle

________________________________________________________

SUMMARY

In Winter 2018, a female crossing guard in her 50s was struck by a 

vehicle while in the crosswalk attempting to stop oncoming traffic. 

The decedent was wearing a Type R (Class II) high visibility safety vest 

and using a hand-held stop sign with flashing lights. As she walked out 

into the crosswalk to stop motorists traveling east/west, she was 

struck by an eastbound minivan. The decedent struck the hood and 

front passenger-side windshield of the minivan. Emergency response 

was called and she was transferred to a local hospital where she died 

approximately one week later.....READ THE FULL REPORT> (p.3)

________________________________________________________

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS

Key contributing factors identified in this investigation include:

 No advance warning of school zone in speed zone of 35 mph

 Possibly not properly trained

LEARN MORE> (p.9)

______________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATIONS

MIFACE investigators concluded that, to help prevent similar 

occurrences, employers should:

 Evaluate school crossings at least once every 5 years to 

determine if current crossing practices are the best option to 

ensure safety of both students and, if utilized, school crossing 

guards.

 Municipalities should consider additional measures to 

increase visibility or slow traffic at intersections during school 

crossing periods.

 Set and enforce speed limits of not more than 20 mph in 

school zones where crossing guards are required for student 

safety.

LEARN MORE> (p.9) https://oem.msu.edu
Page 2

Michigan Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (FACE) Program

MIFACE (Michigan Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation), Michigan State University (MSU) Occupational & Environmental 

Medicine, 909 Fee Road, 117 West Fee Hall, East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1315; http://www.oem.msu.edu. 

This information is for educational purposes only. This MIFACE report becomes public property upon publication and may be printed 

verbatim with credit to MSU. Reprinting cannot be used to endorse or advertise a commercial product or company. All rights reserved. 

MSU is an affirmative-action, equal opportunity employer.
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 3

SUMMARY

In Winter 2018, a female crossing guard in her 50s was struck by a vehicle while in the crosswalk attempting to stop 

oncoming traffic. The decedent was wearing a Type R (Class II) high visibility safety vest and using a hand-held stop sign 

with flashing lights. She also had a walkie-talkie and whistle. As she walked out into the crosswalk to stop motorists 

traveling east/west, she was struck by an eastbound minivan whose driver stated that due to sun glare, did not see her 

and did not apply the vehicle brakes. The decedent struck the hood and front passenger-side windshield of the minivan. 

Emergency response was called, and she was transferred to a local hospital where she died approximately one week later.

INTRODUCTION

In Winter 2018, a female crossing guard in her 50s was struck by a vehicle while in the crosswalk attempting to stop 

oncoming traffic to permit elementary students to cross the street. MIFACE learned of this incident from the MIOSHA 

fatality reporting system. MIFACE interviewed the current school principal, who at the time of the incident, was the Grade 

3-5 dean and assumed special educational opportunity responsibilities. The principal at the time of the incident had left 

employment at the school. During the writing of this report, MIFACE reviewed the death certificate, police and medical 

examiner reports, and the MIOSHA file. The investigator also spoke with representatives from the local police agency who 

investigated the incident and had oversight of school crossing guards and a State of Michigan Department of Education 

representative. Pictures used in the report are courtesy of the MIOSHA compliance officer, responding police, and the 

MIFACE researcher.

EMPLOYERS

The employer was an educational service provider (ESP) for a charter school. The charter school had a service contract 

with the ESP.

The ESP had been in business for 22 years and managed 87 schools across nine states. The ESP service contract with the 

school included ESP provision of certain educational, business administration, facility, and management services, including 

without limitation, all labor, equipment, and materials necessary.

The school’s Board of Directors (Board) and the ESP partnered to operate the school. Subject to the oversight of the Board,

the ESP implemented operational practices and procedures that were consistent with Board policy, the Charter and 

applicable law including employment of personnel working at the school and management of all personnel functions. The 

ESP had the responsibility and authority, to select, hire, evaluate, assign, discipline, transfer, and terminate personnel 

consistent with the school budget, the charter and applicable law. Personnel working at the school were employees of the 

ESP unless otherwise expressly agreed to by the ESP and the Board.

A Michigan public school academy (PSA/charter school) can be located within the boundaries of a local education agency 

(LEA/regular public school) and not be affiliated with that district; charter schools are their own district. Like an LEA, a 

charter school has its own superintendent and its own school board. An ESP employee, a Director of School Quality, was 

designated as the charter school superintendent; this individual was the superintendent responsible for six area charter 

schools. 

There were 55 ESP employees working at the charter school, including the principal, teachers and staff who, as indicated 

in a school-developed duty roster, had multiple responsibilities prior to, during, and after school hours. 
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 4

WRITTEN SAFETY PROGRAMS and TRAINING

The ESP had a health and safety program and health and safety team. Employees were required, prior to the beginning of 

the school year, to watch several safety training videos, such as hazard communication and bloodborne pathogens. 

Attendees had an opportunity for follow-up questions prior to taking a post-test; a score of 80% was required to pass the 

test. The ESP and charter school’s health and safety program were both oriented toward student safety rather than 

employee safety; for example, the ESP provided crisis intervention training.

The school had a health and safety team whose members were the principal, deans of specific grade ranges (eg K-2, 3-5), 

a social worker and a gym teacher. The committee met two times per week. The school had a handbook which contained

building and charter academy policies, including a written disciplinary policy for safety and health violations. Safety was 

discussed at staff meetings as needed. If financial support was required to purchase a safety-related item, the school 

notified the ESP.

Employee training records were maintained by the ESP at the ESP headquarters. 

WORKER INFORMATION

The decedent was an employee of the ESP. The charter school served children from kindergarten through eighth grade. 

The decedent was an academic specialist and a Spanish teacher. She was a full-time, salaried, non-union employee with 

the school for more than 10 years. She worked an 8-hour day; her work day hours were 7:30 a.m. – 3:45 p.m. (school 

hours were 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m.). She arrived at work and left work 30 minutes prior to/after school hours because, 

pursuant to the duty roster, she also performed crossing guard duties. She had been performing crossing guard duties for 

at least seven years.

Two additional individuals also assumed crossing guard duties at other locations at the school.

The police department responsible for school crossing guard training designated three separate entities to provide the 

training. The MIFACE researcher contacted the three agencies named by the police department attempting to determine 

which entity provided the training and training topics presented. None of the entities would provide information regarding 

if they provided training to the decedent. 

The school principal did not have and was unable to procure training records for the decedent from the ESP regarding 

training related to her crossing guard duties.
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 5

INCIDENT SCENE

The school had two vehicle entrances, Driveway 1 accessed by Street A and Driveway 2 accessed from Street B. 

Street A was a heavily traveled east-west two-lane street with a center turn lane and a posted speed limit of 35 mph. The

location where the decedent was struck by the minivan was near the intersection of Street A and north-south Street B

(See Photo 1). Streets A and B were cement and were dry at the time of the incident. Street A had the right of way. Street 

B was a two-lane roadway with a stop sign at the intersection. Each roadway edge had cement curbs separating the 

roadway from grass and sidewalks. 

At the time of the incident, the decedent was providing crossing services for students walking south on Street B, crossing 

the hashed-painted crosswalk located on Street A. Just to the east of this crosswalk across Street A were a Children 

Crossing and School sign. Photo 2 shows the signage present at the incident scene; the sign was relocated after the 

incident. Photo 3 shows the incident scene and the actual location of the signage at the time of the incident. There was 

no other school signage on Street A west of Street B. 

There was an active rail road track, with flashing lights and cross arms just east of and abutting the school’s parking lot. 

Street A X 

Street B 

School 

Driveway 2 

Driveway 1 

School Exit Only 

Children Crossing and School Sign 

Photo 1. Overview of incident area. Red X shows location of incident. Photo courtesy of Google Maps. Note: crosswalk hash 

marks on east side of intersection on Street A. Red arrow shows direction of vehicle travel.
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 6

WEATHER

The weather at the time of the incident was noted in the police report. It was sunny, with sunrise at 7:29 a.m. Humidity 

was 86%, wind from the northwest at 7 mph with a wind chill of 170F. Visibility was 10 miles.

INVESTIGATION

The decedent arrived at the school, donned her hi-vis vest and procured her 

hand-held STOP sign, whistle and walkie-talkie. She was positioned on the 

south corner of the intersection of Streets A and B. Students were walking

southbound on the sidewalk on Street B. 

The driver of the minivan worked nearby and had just left work, turning left 

out of the business’s parking lot. The police report did not note the minivan 

speed; the hospital report indicated the minivan was traveling approximately 

45 mph.

Responding police indicated the decedent stepped off the curb on the south 

side of Street A and was in the eastbound travel lane of Street A attempting to 

stop traffic when the minivan struck her. Witnesses to the incident told police 

that the minivan driver did not apply the brakes.

The witness statements in the police report did not mention the actions of the 

decedent, such as whether she held her STOP sign high in the air, whether the 

STOP sign lights were activated, whether she extended her arms or blew her 

whistle.

When the minivan struck the decedent, the decedent rolled up onto the hood 

and struck the windshield with the back of her head and then landed on the 

ground. The minivan driver drove around the crossing guard to leave the scene. A westbound pickup truck and another 

westbound vehicle tried to block the minivan driver from leaving the scene. The minivan was able to get around both 

vehicles. The pickup truck followed the minivan. Several individuals called 911. 

According to the police report, when the minivan driver realized that a person had been hit, the driver “freaked out” and 

kept driving eastbound on Street A. When the driver calmed down, the driver called 911. Dispatch told the driver to return 

to the school, park the minivan, and find a deputy. The driver followed Dispatch instructions. 

The minivan driver stated that she was blinded by sun glare and could not see the decedent in the road. On the crash 

report, responding police, indicated that glare was a contributing circumstance (Contributing circumstance is the verbiage 

used on the crash report).

The police report also stated that there was a layer of dirt or film on the inside front windshield and a smell of cigarettes

and cigarette ash within the vehicle inside. Police noted a haze on the glass looking through the windshield towards the 

sunlight.

Photo 2. Children Crossing and 

School sign originally east of the 

crosswalk on Street A. The sign was 

relocated to west of the intersection 

after the incident.
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 7

When emergency workers arrived, the 

decedent was laying in the eastbound 

travel lane. Her head was positioned to 

the southeast and her feet were 

positioned to the northwest along with 

debris from the scene. West of the 

decedent’s location in the eastbound lane 

were: small pieces of glass shards, a

Duracell battery near the southern curb, 

several black pieces of plastic, white/red 

plastic and her hand-held stop sign. 

Responding emergency personnel 

removed several items of clothing from 

the decedent. Police noted a safety vest

(Photo 4), black winter coat, grey gloves, 

black jacket, and a blue sweater. A towel, 

blankets, a black communication radio and a chrome whistle were located under the clothing on the cement.

The decedent was taken by ambulance to a local hospital where she died a week later following her injuries. 

NOTE: The staff person interviewed by MIFACE stated that the minivan driver pulled out from behind and around a 

stopped vehicle and then struck the crossing guard. MIFACE contacted the responding police department and the 

responding police were unaware of this potential scenario. 

Responding police indicated to the MIFACE researcher that it was 

difficult to get witness statements, that the minivan driver did not 

make note of this scenario to them, and that, at the time of the 

incident, the school principal gathered individuals to share what was 

known about the incident. None of the staff at this time indicated this 

possible scenario. Based on the hospital report indicating the minivan 

driver was traveling at approximately 45 mph and the extent and 

severity of the decedent’s injuries and the minivan damage, MIFACE 

relied on the responding police report indicating the minivan driver 

was the sole vehicle involved and did not stop at the intersection. 

Company Remediation

After the incident, the school made the following changes to their 

policies: 

 The school no longer provides crossing guard services for 

Streets A and B.

 Students are not permitted to cross Street A from the north or south without parental assistance. 

Photo 3. Overview of incident scene showing location of school signage and 

decedent after she was struck by the minivan

School crossing signage Street B Stop sign 

Decedent’s hand-held STOP sign 

Decedent location after 

being struck by minivan 

Photo 4. Class II (Type R2) safety vest worn by 

decedent
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 8

 The crosswalk lines on the cement were removed in 

consultation with school staff, the sheriff and county 

road commission. 

 School staff are permitted only in designated student 

drop off and parking areas. One crossing guard 

stationed at exit driveway to permit student access 

to/from school.

 Closed Driveway 2. Added fence to block access, and 

planted grass (Photo 5). Only one (Driveway 1) 

entrance to school.

 Relocated the School Crossing signage west of Street B 

(See Photo 2)

MIOSHA Citations

MIOSHA General Industry Safety and Health Division did not issue a citation to the school at the conclusion of its 

investigation. The Division issued the following Safety and Health Recommendations to the school at the investigation 

conclusion:

Inspection/Investigation of your worksite revealed the following condition(s) that may constitute a safety or health 

hazard to your employee(s).

 Employee was struck by a motor vehicle after walking into the roadway to stop traffic for school children to cross 

the road. 

Re-training for crossing guard employees to ensure that the training curriculum establishes guidelines, tactics and 

precautionary measures when entering areas where there is moving traffic. Also include steps to ensure the 

crossing guard does not advance farther into a roadway when traffic does not seem to be slowing down.

 The roadway in which crossing guards frequent is a heavily traveled artery. Vehicular and pedestrian accidents 

have occurred along the roadway in the past.

Where crossing guard operations take place in the roadway the use of portable school crossing signs, such as the 

examples in documents #1 and #2 provided with this recommendation be used.

CAUSE OF DEATH 

The death certificate listed the cause of death as craniocerebral trauma with complications. No post-mortem toxicology 

was performed.

Photo 5. Driveway 1 no longer utilized as school entrance
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 9

CONTRIBUTING FACTORS 

Occupational injuries and fatalities are often the result of one or more contributing factors or key events in a larger 

sequence of events that ultimately result in the injury or fatality. The following hazards were identified as key contributing 

factors in this incident:

 No advance warning of school zone in speed zone of 35 mph

 Possibly not properly trained

 Sun glare on dirt/haze covered windshield of vehicle striking decedent

RECOMMENDATIONS/DISCUSSION

Recommendation #1: Evaluate school crossings at least once every 5 years to determine if current crossing practices are 

the best option to ensure safety of both students and, if utilized, school crossing guards.

Discussion: The school was established 14 years ago. Traffic volume and patterns were likely different than they are today. 

When the MIFACE researcher was at the school during school hours (not during the 30 minutes prior or after school hours), 

it was difficult to cross Street A due to traffic volume and speed. It appeared to the MIFACE researcher that traffic speeds 

were greater than 35 mph.

The utilization of school crossing guards is controlled by two Michigan regulations, the Michigan Vehicle Code Act 300 of 

1949 (257.613a-d) and the Michigan Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MMUTCD), Section 7. Together, these 

regulations provide some general guidance on how to determine the need for a guard at a particular location, including 

but not limited to, the establishment of school crossings, standards for signs, markings, and signals, outlines the 

requirements for crossing supervision, the general qualifications for adult crossing guards and specifies general operating 

procedures such as the use of the stop-sign paddle and requirement for wearing a high-visibility vest for an adult guard.

MVC Section 257.613(a)(1) identifies the entities which make the decision to establish a school crossing, one of whom is 

the school system superintendent. MIFACE recommends that school system superintendent, in consultation with the 

appropriate entities identified in MVC Section 257.613a(3) evaluate school crossings at least once every 5 years to 

determine if current crossing practices are the best option to ensure safety of both students and, if utilized, school crossing 

guards. It is unknown if the ESP superintendent followed up with local authorities to re-evaluate the school crossing to 

determine if additional safety measures were needed due to traffic volume and speed of travel, etc.

In conjunction with these laws, MIFACE recommends additional criteria that should be incorporated into the decisionmaking regarding placement of adult crossing guards, such as student age, sight distance, roadway speed limit, number 

of roadway lanes, etc. A good resource for the decision-making team is the Safer Routes to School guide webpage, which 

has an adult school crossing guard webpage.

Recommendation #2: Municipalities should consider additional measures to increase visibility or slow traffic at 

intersections during school crossing periods. 

Discussion: It was known by law enforcement and school personnel that during morning travel eastbound, the sun shone 

“directly down the street” (meaning Street A). Although the MVC and MUTCD standards provide guidance in setting up 

school crossings, the standards do not account for other factors like glare from a rising sun. Using both the MVC 

requirements of a traffic and engineering study and the informational criteria highlighted in the Safer Routes to School 

program, appropriate entities should consider additional measures to increase visibility and/or slow down traffic 
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 10

approaching school crossing guard posts. There are many options to enhance school crossing safety: in-road lighting 

systems, which use permanent in-road warning lights along the borders of the crosswalk activated by the crossing guard, 

speed bumps/humps to slow traffic speeds, use of radar speed-indicating boards, speed limit flashing signs, speed limit 

reductions in the school zone, and/or installation of school area signs to warn road users that they are approaching a 

school. 

The city could also have put in another pedestrian crosswalk feature like a "HAWK" system where the lights flash when 

pedestrians are crossing. It is used frequently at mid-block crossings. At a HAWK crossing, drivers receive multiple cues to 

emphasize the potential presence of a pedestrian. These cues include a unique configuration of the HAWK beacon (two 

red lenses over a single yellow lens), high-visibility crosswalk markings (ladder-style markings as opposed to only two 

transverse white lines), a stop bar approximately 50 ft from the crosswalk, 8-inch solid lane lines between through travel 

lanes, signs that can be illuminated and read "CROSSWALK," and School Warning signs. When activated, the HAWK uses a 

red indication to inform drivers to stop, thereby creating a time period for pedestrians to cross the roadway. The HAWK 

beacon is not illuminated until it is activated by a pedestrian, triggering the warning flashing yellow lens on the major 

street. After a set amount of time, the indication changes to a solid yellow light to inform drivers to prepare to stop. The 

beacon then displays a dual solid red light to drivers on the major street and a walking person symbol to pedestrians. At 

the conclusion of the walk phase, the beacon displays an alternating flashing red light, and pedestrians are shown an 

upraised hand symbol with a countdown display informing them of the time left to cross. During the alternating flashing 

red lights, drivers can proceed after coming to a full stop and checking that pedestrians have already crossed their lane of 

travel. Each successive driver is legally required to come to a full stop before proceeding during the alternating flashing 

red phase.

The prime objective of a HAWK is to provide pedestrians with safe crossing opportunities. The Federal Highway 

Administration Research and Technology report found that there was a statistically significant reduction in pedestrian 

crashes when the HAWK system was installed. 

The alternating flashing red phase allows the driver delay to match the actual crossing needs of the pedestrian. Drivers 

can proceed with a stop-and-go operation during the flashing red phase if a pedestrian walks faster than the assumed 

walking speed and clears the lanes or roadway, as appropriate. If pedestrians need more time, then the drivers remain 

stopped until they finish crossing.

MIFACE also encourages municipalities and schools to keep records of infractions, violations, and “near-misses” at school 

crossing posts. Using these records to monitor traffic problems would be helpful in designing traffic controls to prevent 

injuries to guards and children.

Recommendation #3: Set and enforce speed limits in school zones at no more than 20 miles per hour in school zones 

where crossing guards are required for student safety.

Discussion: The likelihood that the decedent would have sustained fatal injuries would have been reduced if the speed 

limit in the school zone was no more than 20 mph, rather than 35 mph. The AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety study 

estimated of the risk of severe injury or death for pedestrians struck by vehicles in the United States using data from a 

federal study of crashes that occurred in the United States in years 1994 – 1998 in which a pedestrian was struck by a 

forward‐moving car, light truck, van, or sport utility vehicle. Risks were standardized to represent the average risk for a 

pedestrian struck by a car or light truck in the United States in years 2007 – 2009. Analysis determined that the average 

risk of severe injury for a pedestrian struck by a vehicle reached 10% at an impact speed of 16 mph, 25% at 23 mph, 50% 
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 11

at 31 mph, 75% at 39

mph, and 90% at 46 

mph. The average risk 

of death for a 

pedestrian reached

10% at an impact speed 

of 23 mph, 25% at 32 

mph, 50% at 42 mph, 

75% at 50 mph, and 

90% at 58 mph. (See 

Figure 1).

Recommendation #4: School districts utilizing crossing guards should ensure that the guard meets the requirements of 

the Michigan Vehicle Code and Michigan Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 

Discussion: MIFACE was unable to procure the decedent’s crossing guard training records. School districts, including any 

charter school or an education service provider providing services to a charter school should ensure that the crossing 

guard meets the Michigan legal requirements for qualifications, training, visibility and use of signage. The decedent was 

wearing the appropriate high visibility vest and utilizing an appropriate had-held STOP sign. Unknown is whether, initially, 

the decedent received a minimum of 4 hours of instruction before performing the duties of the adult crossing guard and 

the required annual two hours of instruction before the beginning of the school year using courses of instruction approved 

by the Department of Education and the Department of State Police and conducted by the local law enforcement agency 

having jurisdiction or its designee.

Recommendation #5: Municipalities should ensure appropriate school signage is installed 

at school crosswalks.

Discussion: The interviewee indicated that the school crossing sign originally at the 

crosswalk was moved to its current location after discussion with the appropriate entities

(Photo 2). The signage as shown in Photo 2 was not the signage required by Part 7 of the 

MMUTCD. Part 7, Section 7B.12 requires a school crossing assembly to be installed at 

established marked crosswalk(s) or as close to it as possible as per section 257.613a of the 

Michigan Vehicle Code. The school crossing assembly shall consist of a School (S1-1) sign 

supplemented with a diagonal downward pointing arrow (W17-7P) plaque to show the 

location of the crossing (See Figure 2). Municipalities should ensure school signage is 

selected and installed according to the requirements of the MMUTCD. 

Figure 2. Required school 

crossing assembly at 

crosswalk
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 12

Recommendation #6: To minimize the effects of sun glare, vehicle operators should take appropriate precautions, 

including regular cleaning of both the inside and the outside of the vehicle’s windows and windshield.

Discussion: Police described a layer of dirt or film on the inside front windshield and when the sun shined through it, the 

windshield was hazy. Dirty windows scatter light, which makes it harder to see through the windshield when the sun hits

it. Particles on a dirty windshield intensify the glare as opposed to blocking it. AAA Exchange offers several tips to drive 

safety when in a sun glare situation. This glare can make it much harder to see the road ahead and potential hazards 

creating an added risk to drivers and pedestrians. When sun glare is an issue slow down and use extra caution especially 

while driving through school zones.

AAA offers these tips for motorists when driving into the sun:

 Invest in polarized sunglasses – they can help reduce glare.

 Utilize your sun visor – it can help to block out the sun.

 Leave more following room – when the sun is in your eyes it can be hard to see what the car ahead is doing. This 

is one more time when it pays to leave more room between you and the next vehicle.

 Drive with your headlights on to increase your visibility to other drivers

Additional tips:

 Keep your windshield clean, inside and out

 Check your windshield for pitting and cracks

 Avoid storing papers or other items on the dashboard

 If having a difficult time seeing the road, use lane markings to help guide you.

It is unknown if the minivan driver was wearing polarized sunglasses, used the vehicle’s sun visor, had papers or other 

items on the dashboard or slowed down because of the inability to see.

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

 National Center for Safe Routes to School – Adult School Crossing Guard Guidelines: 

http://guide.saferoutesinfo.org/crossing_guard/index.cfm

 Tefft, B.C (2011) Impact Speed and a Pedestrian’s Risk of Severe Injury or Death. AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/ 

 New Jersey Case Report: 05NJ090, School Crossing Guard Struck and Killed by a Sport Utility Vehicle 

https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/face/stateface/nj/05nj090.html

 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Motor Vehicle Safety, Pedestrian Safety. 

https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/pedestrian_safety/index.html

 AAA Adult School Crossing Guard Training Program. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj5_JP

Pl-rkAhUORKwKHWH-gEQFjAAegQIABAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fmichigan.aaa.com%2Fassets%2FPDFs%2FAdultCrossing-Guard-Presentation.pdf&usg=AOvVaw14_bCqfQwpldCZ6hwhz6x0
REPORT#: 18MI027 Page 13

 Federal Highway Administration Research and Technology Report. Safety Effectiveness of the HAWK Pedestrian 

Crossing Treatment. FHWA-HRT-10-042

DISCLAIMER

Mention of any company or product does not constitute endorsement by the Michigan FACE program or the National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). In addition, citations to websites external to NIOSH do not constitute 

NIOSH endorsement of the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible 

for the content of these websites. All web addresses referenced in this document were accessible as of the publication 

date.

REFERENCES

MIOSHA standards may be found at and downloaded from the MIOSHA, Michigan Department of Labor and Economic 

Opportunity (LEO) website at: www.michigan.gov/mioshastandards. MIOSHA standards are available for a fee by writing 

to: Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Opportunity, MIOSHA Regulatory Services Section, 530 West Allegan, 

P.O. Box 30643, Lansing, Michigan 48909-8143 or calling (517) 284-7740.

Michigan Motor Vehicle Code Part 300 of 1949, TRAFFIC SIGNS, SIGNALS, AND MARKINGS, Section 257.613 (a-d)

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(t0u4ivhacmff3cutqlv1uxzf))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-act-300-of1949 

Michigan Department of Transportation, Traffic and Safety/Standards and Special Details. Michigan Manual of Uniform 

Traffic Control Devices. https://mdotjboss.state.mi.us/TSSD/tssdHome.htm 

ACKNOWLEDGEMEMENT

The Michigan FACE Program would like to acknowledge the school principal and a representative for the State of Michigan 

Department of Education for providing assistance and information for this investigation.