It is my hope that we can pursue a recommendation, made by a participant of the Underride Roundtable during the afternoon panel discussion, and organize a group of affected individuals and organizations/companies to meet together and develop a proposal to take to NHTSA in order to bring about a comprehensive negotiated rulemaking.
I am willing to do the organizing necessary to bring this meeting about. First of all, we need a location for the meeting and therefore I am asking if anyone would like to step forward and host this Negotiated Rulemaking Underride Roundtable. Once that is arranged, then we can proceed with selecting a date, developing an agenda, and sending out the notice.
After our family was instrumental in getting underride rulemaking initiated in July 2014, I realized that, though we had made it over one hurdle, in reality the battle had only begun. I became concerned that the cost/benefit analysis, which had so often compromised past underride rulemaking, was still a very real threat.
Earlier this week, I wrote a post explaining why I think that a negotiated rulemaking process could be important in overcoming compromise and a possible stalemate (“a situation in which further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems impossible.”): Is Cost/Benefit Analysis Appropriate for Life & Death Matters? Were their lives worth saving?
The participants, of the May 5, 2016, Underride Roundtable at IIHS, would be qualified to help meet the mandate given to NHTSA to prepare a thorough Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the underride issue: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently issued Circular A-4 guidance on regulatory analyses, requiring federal agencies to “prepare a CEA for all major rulemakings for which the primary benefits are improved public health and safety to the extent that a valid effectiveness measure can be developed to represent expected health and safety outcomes.” Appendix G–Health Based Cost Effectiveness Analysis.pdf
A Negotiated Rulemaking Underride Roundtable could provide a format for development of a more effective and comprehensive underride rule, which would cover all the bases with existing and proposed technology to save as many lives as is humanly possible. It would also get the manufacturing companies out of limbo so that they can make long-term plans and move forward with designing and producing safer products. Win/Win. N’est-ce pas?
Now that the formal comment period is over for the NPRM on Rear Underride on Trailers, the next step is for NHTSA to review the comments and develop a final rule. Let’s strike while the iron is hot and present them with a unified recommendation to enhance their efforts. Before it’s too late.
Let’s send the message to NHTSA that we are all willing to do the work to bring about an acceptable, all-inclusive underride rule.
See other posts related to the Underride Roundtable here: Tag Archives: Underride Roundtable
AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is ready to roll. How about you?
Cost-benefit is an giveaway to corporate interests without citizen input which makes it inherently undemocratic. You cannot calculate the cost of emotional distress of every citizen to fear of death of loved ones such as our friends, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, and spouses. You are increasingly less likely to die in a car crash with obstacle detection technology, except in crashes with trucks and trees. Must we accept human life has such little worth as would be assigned by corporate billionaires, must we give up democracy and citizen participation? I vote that all cost/benefit is against God and humanity and I am a conscientious objector to this war on Democracy and humanity.
I would also add that safety groups have blocked efforts at the most effective way to save the most underride victims lives. It is now legal to park on all Interstate Highways and Interstate Ramps in the U.S. In twenty years of safe parking activism I have seen thousands of deaths thru high-speed rear underrides crashes. NHTSA should perform a rulemaking requiring pre-trip planning in writing of parking locations and banning all non-emergency parking on Interstate Highways and Ramps including banning all high-speed non-emergency parking on roadways with speed limits above 35 mph which is the fatal limit of U.S. rear underride guards. This would save more lives and cost less than any other action in the issue of underride. I would rate front underride guards next in line to save the most lives.
I would just add that the voter has already made his or her cost benefit analysis by casting a vote, over-ruling this process with a higher level corporate benefiting process ends the citizen democracy we have cherished. You are no longer qualified to vote, only the corporate experts are capable of informed democracy, citizen participation no longer has value.