Tag Archives: crash testing

My Reactions to Comments on Inside Edition Underride Investigative Report

Inside Edition aired an underride investigative report on October 11, after having filmed underride crash testing at the North Carolina State Highway Patrol training facility on August 3, 2023. I think that they did a great job of bringing attention to this preventable problem. Watch it yourself: How AngelWing Side Guards May Prevent Underride Crashes & read it here: A Mother’s Mission to Save Lives and Prevent Underride Crashes

However, after reading the many and varied comments on the YouTube video of the broadcast, I decided to respond in detail by posting my thoughts here. I hope that, no matter how much you know about underride, you’ll take some time to hear what I have to say:

My Reaction to Comments on the Inside Edition Underride Investigative Report

Thanks for listening. I hope that you’ll do whatever you can to help me bring an end to preventable underride tragedies.

Video from STOP Underrides Crash Test Event

When there is no strong physical barrier under a truck bed, Death By Underride becomes a known unreasonable risk. Fortunately, engineers have developed effective physical barriers or underride protection – although it is not required by law. With that in mind, a group of engineers carried out R&D crash testing on August 3 at the Raleigh Underride Crash Test Event.

Four side crash tests were conducted into semitrailers:

  • Ford Fiesta into an AngelWing side guard from a 45 degree angle (39 mph)
  • Chevy Malibu into an unguarded trailer from a 45 degree angle (38 mph)
  • Chevy Impala into a SafetySkirt side guard in the rear area behind forward positioned trailer axles from a 90 degree angle (36 mph)
  • Chevy Malibu into a SafetySkirt side guard from a 90 degree angle (43 mph)

Crashed trailers were each ballasted with approximately 28,000 pounds in water tanks. Video footage in this LinkedIn post by Forensic Rock, highlights two of the crash tests:

We love working with passionate people in the AR field. And Aaron Kiefer is one of those super-passionate people we absolutely love working with.

We were lucky enough to help him and his great #StopUnderrides group collect data for an awesome test series they were running in North Carolina. His goal was to demonstrate the collision mitigation of different trailer guards on side underride collisions with lower-profile sedans.

This compilation video compares an unguarded 53′ van trailer to Aaron’s SafetySkirt design. Two Chevrolet Malibu’s were used in this test series.

The speed at impact in the unguarded test was 37.5 mph; the speed at impact for Aaron’s SafetySkirt test was 43.4 mph.

We won’t spoil it for you, but Aaron certainly knows what he is doing.

Underride Crash Tests – Unguarded Trailer vs Guarded Trailer

The guards prevented Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI) in each guarded test.

Note: More details will be shared in the days ahead as photos, video, and electronic data are compiled.

Global Underride Discussion

Soon after our crash on May 4, 2013, we learned about underride and began having conversations with engineers around the globe. This included emails, phone calls, and in-person meetings at our Underride Roundtables and DC Underride Crash Test Event (see DC panel discussion in above photo). On Friday, May 5, 2023, I appreciated the opportunity to continue our global underride conversation during one of our TEAM Underride Zoom discussions, which included presentations from Peter Schimmelpfennig and his dad Karl-Heinz Schimmelpfennig (Germany) and Iain Knight (UK).

Here is a PowerPoint Presentation (which might be updated in the near future) from Peter: Underrun_System_2023.Oktober (1)

Here is a PowerPoint presentation from Iain: Euro NCAP-Improving Commercial Vehicle Safety_Roadmap v5.5_IK (1)

This video describes the Schimmelpfennigs’ company, CrashTest-Service (CTS) in Germany:

Engineers love to solve problems. Together, we can solve the global underride problem with collaborative, innovative international collaboration. TEAM Underride – Together Engaged in A Mission to make truck crashes more survivable.

Ready For Crash Testing

Crash testing is always unnerving: Will it work — successfully preventing underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI)? Or will it fail — providing some useful information but sending the enthusiastic engineer back to the drawing board?

Either way, the adrenaline of anticipation followed by the jarring crash invariably leave me unsettled.

Successful 40 mph Crash Test of Sapa Extrusions Aluminum Rear Underride Guard

Malcolm Deighton, inventor of the SAPA rear underride guard, discusses how they tested their aluminum guard successfully at 35 mph and then at 40 mph.

You can see the 40 mph crash test at about 5:36 on this video:

Here is the engineering report on that crash testing: Sapa 40-30 RIG Test Engineering Report Version 1.3 (1)

Rear Underride Guard Facts:

  1. The current federal standard for rear impact guards has specifications for preventing underride at impact speeds of 30 mph (though not requiring a crash test).
  2. The proposed standard in limbo at NHTSA now would upgrade it to 35 mph to meet the Canadian standard (although most manufacturers are already meeting the Canadian standard). However, the NPRM and the Canadian standard do not require that the guards stop a vehicle for the full width of the guard. That’s what the IIHS has proven with their crash testing program.
  3. The IIHS has tested the new designs of the 8 major trailer manufacturers and given them each a TOUGHGuard Award for being able to pass a crash test at 35 mph across the full width of the back of the trailer.
  4. These stronger guards are being sold on new trailers — some as a standard feature and some as an Option.
  5. There are retrofit kits which can be installed on existing trailers to provide TOUGHGuard quality underride protection at the rear of trailers. There have been very few of these sold — a mere drop in the bucket compared to the 11 million+ trailers on the road which have the older, too weak rear guards.
  6. Additionally, Sapa Extrusions (now Hydro), an aluminum extrusion company, has designed an aluminum rear underride guard which has been successfully tested at 40 mph. Since this is now known to be possible, why would we not mandate a standard which would require this amount of protection at minimum?
  7. The STOP Underrides! Bill calls for research to be completed to ascertain the outer limits of underride protection — so we know what level of protection can reasonably be required.
  8. The STOP Underrides! Bill also calls for establishment of a Committee On Underride Protection to facilitate collaborative and effective discussion among all stakeholders.

Eighth Major Trailer Manufacturer To Have Improved Rear Underride Guard Crash Tested at IIHS on July 10

For several years before our underride crash, the IIHS had been doing crash testing into rear underride guards on trailers from eight major trailer manufacturers. Their research showed that even though these guards were designed to meet the current federal standard, they were too weak and failed to stop cars from going under upon collision.

We are grateful that seven of those manufacturers have designed improved rear guards as confirmed by crash testing at the IIHS Vehicle Research Center at 35 mph — receiving a TOUGHGUARD Award for their efforts. Here is an example of one of those seven:

While we are thankful, we know that the work isn’t over yet. Still needed:

  • The eighth manufacturer, Strick Trailers, will have their newly-designed rear underride guard tested on July 10.
  • Research is needed to demonstrate whether these improved guards are also successful at speeds higher than 35 mph. (We know that a guard developed by an aluminum extrusions company has been tested successfully at 40 mph and perhaps higher.)
  • Some manufacturers are selling these improved rear guards as Standard on all new trailers, while others are actually selling them as an Option (thus weak guards are still being sold and going on the road). Can you believe it?!
  • As the bill indicates, there are still millions of trucks on the road which will be hazardous to drive around until they are retrofitted with effective underride protection. For example, I bet that the trailer with which we collided is still on the road and likely still has a weak rear underride guard and so could kill someone else.

Stoughton Underride Guard Earns Kudos from Crash Survivor, Insurance Institute

Stoughton’s improved rear guard was successfully crash tested at 35 mph at the first Underride Roundtable at the IIHS on May 5, 2016 (3 years after our crash). They were the fourth manufacturer to do so (preceded by Manac, Vanguard, and Wabash — and later followed by Great Dane, Utility, and Hyundai):

Stoughton® Trailers New Rear Underride Guard Lauded Important for Safety

Mandates take burden off manufacturers. Crash tests in labs better than crash tests occurring in real world.

Lou Lombardo has written a thought-provoking opinion piece, Creating a Demand for Crash Testing (CTTI, September 2011). It holds great value in confirming the need for comprehensive underride protection legislation to be introduced and passed in a timely manner.

“From Sweden, Germany, Japan and Korea, to Australia and the USA, there are excellent safety engineers and scientists the world over in both the private and public sectors. But, as safety legend Ralph Nader has pointed out, these people have more problems than they deserve, and more solutions than are deployed.

“The basic problem is that safety engineers in auto companies and suppliers have to convince their managements to fund safety RDTE & D (research, development, testing, evaluation, and deployment). Managements are reluctant to allocate capital unless they can see a return on investment, have to meet legal (governmental and/or liability) requirements, or face competitive imperatives (pressures or opportunities). Information, as published in magazines such as this, can increase the motivation of managements to allocate resources for crash testing — especially when there is public demand for safety.

“Demand for safety can be stimulated. How? By people, organizations, and events, both planned and unplanned. . . Think Lee Iacocca’s marketing initiative of using images of a dramatic head-on crash of two airbag-equipped Chrysler cares in which motorists walked away, saved by airbags. . .

“First, start with very important goals. . .

“Secondly, we must create lead measures of progress toward meeting these goals. . .

“The third measure is to create a safety-stimulating scoreboard that shows how corporate auto makers rank at protecting their customers and other motorists; how well insurers stimulate safety; and how well Federal and State governments improve the performance of preventing and treating needless deaths and treating people injured in crashes. Can we do this? Yes we can! . . .

“All motorists prefer more crash testing in laboratories to the millions of crash tests occurring in the real world each year.”

Read more here: https://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/lombardo-CTTI-Sept2011.pdf

This is very relevant to the state of underride protection in our country. In fact, it reminds me of a comment made to me recently by someone in the trucking industry. Among other things, he said that “legislation takes the burden off of the manufacturers.”

In other words, when the Roya, AnnaLeah & Mary Comprehensive Underride Protection Act is passed, then the truck and trailer manufacturers will no longer have to work to convince their customers that it is to their advantage to have effective underride protection installed. It will just be the way it is — comprehensive underride protection on every single truck on the road. The new normal.

And, thankfully, it will no longer be inevitable that a truck crash will result in an underride tragedy. Imagine.

Someday, people might even forget that truck underride used to happen hundreds of times a year. It will be a piece of our past. And that is just fine with me.

NBC News Updates Article on Today Show Side Underride Report

NBC News received a letter from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association about the Today Show investigative report on Side Underride. After further investigation, NBC News added this to their article on the report:

Update and correction: After the publication of our story, we received a letter from the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA), which argues that our report overstated the simplicity of the side guard fix and that prototypes have been technical and commercial failures. TTMA made the same argument to NHTSA in a letter we referenced in our report, which you can read here. They also told us that TTMA has not made any political donations to lawmakers on the issue of side underrides, including to Senator Thune. In response to other points made by TTMA, we have updated our online report with TTMA’s response that guards in Europe are focused on protecting bicyclists and pedestrians, not automobiles and that NTSB said injuries and deaths “could” be reduced by side guards, instead of “would.” We also have updated campaign finance data, broken out donations from the trucking sector of the transportation industry, and corrected the period during which those donations were made.

I previously wrote about the TTMA’s May 13, 2016 letter to NHTSA about side guards. Read it here.

Despite the TTMA’s objections to the report, the fact remains that almost as many people die from side underride crashes each year as from rear underride crashes. And, furthermore, I have seen with my own eyes the difference that side guards can make in stopping deadly underride.

Will we let the technical and commercial failures of side guard prototypes in the past stop us from keeping at the task of solving this problem? I thank God for people like Aaron Kiefer and Perry Ponder who have kept at it until they successfully proved what human ingenuity could do to save lives.

Note:  In fact, Europe’s side guard standards are designed to protect pedestrians and cyclists — which the U.S. should do, too! But Europe does not require the prevention of cars from underriding trucks. I have been in communication with a global automotive regulation specialist, and I hope that what happens here in the U.S. will have a ripple effect globally.

Innovative combined side & rear guard promises better underride protection

One of our Underride Research funding goals is to cover the costs of crash testing at IIHS ($25,000) of an innovative underride prevention system designed by Aaron Kiefer, a forensic engineer (he does crash reconstructions) here in North Carolina. Jerry and I went to see his prototype a few weeks ago. Very cool. It combines side & rear guard protection.

See his Public Comment on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) for underride protection on Single Unit Trucks posted today on the Federal Register:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0013

Underride guard design by Aaron Kiefer 059

Donate here to support crash testing to verify the effectiveness of Aaron’s vital invention: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

“Automatic emergency braking in all new cars, a step transportation officials say could significantly reduce traffic deaths and injuries.”

“Ten automakers have committed to the government [NHTSA] and a private safety group [IIHS] that they will include automatic emergency braking in all new cars, a step transportation officials say could significantly reduce traffic deaths and injuries.”

But I am glad to see that those “watchdogs” plan on pursuing regulations for that technology.  http://tinyurl.com/oc4cqy2

What do safety ratings really mean? http://ht.ly/PlP4h

Michael R. Lemov in his book, Car Safety Wars, describes the impact of the passing of the Motor Vehicle Safety Act and the Highway Safety Act in 1966:

“Detroit had lost its bid to prevent federal regulation of the safety of motor vehicles and highways. The companies promised to ‘live with the bill.’ But the industry continued its efforts to weaken key safety standards under the new act. It had only temporarily lost its political clout. It raised objections to the first standards issued by NHTSA in 1968 and later, to most things the safety agency proposed. Manufacturers sent their chief executives to the White House and to President Nixon. They pressed Secretaries of Transportation. They lobbied administrators of NHTSA. They argued, often successfully, to the House and Senate Appropriations committees for restrictions on the safety agency’s funding. The car safety wars did not end.

The enactment of strong federal motor vehicle and highway safety laws marked the single biggest milestone in the century-long fight for safer cars and roads. But the long struggle against death and injury on the highways was really just beginning.” p. 106

It is important for verbal commitment to safety to be followed up with regulatory provisions to ensure that it, in fact, becomes a reality.

A Twitter Conversation About Improved Auto Safety Compromised by Truck Safety Flaw  https://annaleahmary.com/tag/iihs/

Car Safety Wars book cover