Monthly Archives: September 2015

Can a petition really change federal rulemaking policy & reduce crash deaths?

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

Save Lives Not Dollars: Urge DOT to Adopt a Vision Zero Policy We launched a new petition yesterday afternoon:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

When you sign the petition, Care2 doesn’t indicate online what # you were–like they did with our AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition in 2014. So I don’t know what number I was. But I waited until this morning to sign so that I could think about what I wanted to write in the COMMENTS section as I signed the petition.

This is what I wrote: There is no one that this does not potentially impact in some way. We are asking for bold and decisive action to reduce tragic, preventable crash fatalities. Don’t wait until it touches you personally to move heaven & earth to identify and require the best possible protection. Once a loved one becomes a motor vehicle crash statistic, it will be too late–they will not come back to you.

Can a petition really change rulemaking policy & reduce crash deaths? There is only one way to find out. . .

Please join the 847+ (and steadily rising) people who have signed our petition thus far to let the authorities know that we want to shake things up; we want to see an end to unnecessary tragedies.

40,000 motor vehicle crash fatalities each year: MV-TRAFFIC-FATALITIES(1899-2009)

PetitionHeader_option2

Our crash story: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Urge DOT to Adopt a Vision Zero Policy: Save Lives Not Dollars

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , ,

On average, 40,000 people die each year in crashes.  Currently, the Department of Transportation makes highway safety rules based upon how much safety measures will cost. We are hoping to change that and promote a Vision Zero safety strategy model with goals of Zero Deaths, Zero Injuries, Zero Fear of Traffic.

MV-TRAFFIC-FATALITIES(1899-2009)

One of the biggest challenges to making change is the cost/benefit analysis. On the one side there are lives to be saved and on the other side there are companies working to make money. The trick is to try and meet everyone’s needs. The solution has to be effective in saving lives while still being affordable for companies so that they can make the changes necessary without a lot of struggle.

The problem comes in when human life and health get the short end of the stick. The result is that many safety measures are stopped because they would cost more to implement than the “worth” of the “small” number of human lives which would be saved. That’s just not right.

After losing two daughters in a truck underride crash on May 4, 2013, our family made a positive impact one year later by taking over 11,000 signatures on our AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Care2 Petition to DOT in Washington, DC. And we have set up a non-profit to promote highway safety research and federal regulations to protect motorists, pedestrians, & cyclists.

Sign our new petition to let DOT Secretary Anthony Foxx know that we want him to:

1. Change rulemaking policy to move away from an economic-rationalist cost/benefit model and adopt a more humanistic, rational Vision Zero safety strategy model. “Vision Zero states that the loss of human life and health is unacceptable and therefore the road transport system should be designed in a way that such events do not occur.” http://tinyurl.com/9uhzyux

2. Apply Vision Zero principles by requiring crash test-based performance standards for truck underride guards rather than force-based design standards along with success at higher speeds—to include rear (both centered and offset) and side guards for both Single Unit Trucks and trailers.

3. Apply Vision Zero principles by requiring NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to require forward collision avoidance and mitigation braking (F-CAM) systems on all new large trucks and buses with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 lbs. or more.

Please sign & share this petition in memory of AnnaLeah & Mary
and make the roads safer for us all:   http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

For more information: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Vision Zero: Zero Crash Deaths & Zero Serious Injuries

Truck Safety, , , ,

Let’s work together to implement every possible safety measure to prevent collisions and “second collisions.”

https://annaleahmary.com/2015/07/the-second-collision-does-not-have-to-be-so-prevalent-we-can-do-better-at-preventing-death-horrific-injuries/

Vision Zero*: Aim high for Zero Crash Deaths & Zero Serious Injuries

* “Vision Zero is a multi-national road traffic safety project which aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. It started in Sweden and was approved by their parliament in October 1997.[1] A core principle of the vision is that ‘Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society’ rather than the more conventional comparison between costs and benefits, where a monetary value is placed on life and health, and then that value is used to decide how much money to spend on a road network towards the benefit of decreasing how much risk.”

Sign our petition to promote a U.S. Transportation Vision Zero Policy:   http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Then, help us apply Vision Zero principles to underride protection.

Donate now to support underride research:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Underride Research Meme

HOW YOU CAN HELP: https://annaleahmary.com/how-you-can-help/

Public Comments Updated for Underride Guards on Single Unit Trucks

Truck Safety, ,

New comments were added yesterday to the Public Comments on the ANPRM for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks.

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0070-0049 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0049)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    09/28/2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: District Department of Transportation – Comments

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0070-0050 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0050)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    09/28/2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: New York City Department of Transportation – Comment

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0070-0051 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0051)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    09/28/2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: Anonymous

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0070-0052 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0052)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    09/28/2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: Tom Maguire – Comment

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0070-0053 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0053)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    09/28/2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: Kit Keller – Comment

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0070-0054 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0054)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    09/28/2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: Brendan Kearney – Comment

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0070-0055 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0055)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    09/28/2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: Seven Hills Engineering, LLC – Comment

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0070-0056 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0056)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    09/28/2015
DOCUMENT TITLE: National Propane Gas Association – Comment

Vision Zero: Avoiding collisions and “second collisions”

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , ,

Crash Avoidance is a broad topic and I am just beginning to write about it. The basic idea, of course, is to find a way to reduce the number of crashes that take place on our roads. The question is how to do that.

There are many devices and systems being produced and in the process of being developed which could, in fact, make a big difference in preventing collisions. I hope to find out more about them and to advocate for the implementation and regulation of appropriate crash avoidance technologies on large trucks, as well as cars.

Read this article from February 2015, when safety advocates were urging NHTSA to “initiate a rulemaking that would require forward collision avoidance and mitigation braking (F-CAM) systems on all new trucks and buses rated at 10,000 pounds or more GVW. The lobbies argue that specific technology exists that would markedly reduce truck-related crashes if it were mandated on commercial vehicles.”

http://www.automotive-fleet.com/news/story/2015/02/nhtsa-urged-to-mandate-truck-crash-avoidance-technology.aspx

In this same article, the ATA made a statement about the safety advocates’ petition:

“Sean McNally, Vice President of Public Affairs for the American Trucking Associations told HDT, that the trucking lobby ‘supports proven safety technologies that prevent crashes and, therefore, save lives. ATA plans to carefully review the data cited in this petition to make an informed decision on the efficacy of the recommended approach.

“’More importantly,’ he continued, ‘any organization truly interested in highway safety should be urging NHTSA to first take action on ATA’s 2006 petition -now almost nine years old – seeking a new rule requiring large trucks to be electronically speed-governed/limited at no more than 65 mph. [That’s] an approach ATA knows would reduce the frequency and severity of crashes.’”

Of course, there is no proof that the truck driver in our crash was going over 65–just going too fast for the traffic conditions.

IMG_4462

Our crash: We were driving in the right lane and had slowed down in response to stopped traffic ahead of us (due to another crash two miles ahead that happened two hours earlier). Suddenly, we were hit by a car carrier in the left lane, spun around, and hit again so that we were pushed backward into the rear of the truck ahead of us. A truck driver behind us had noted that the truck driver who hit us was going too fast for the conditions and didn’t look like he was going to be able to stop for the slowdown. And then he saw him hit us.

Charges: One count of failure to maintain lane & 2 counts of homicide by vehicle (2nd degree)

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/10/the-court-hearing-update-on-our-trip-to-georgia/

Result: Two lives abruptly ended

The other thing is that I want to emphasize that there are so many factors that lead to crashes and also to deaths and serious injuries that sometimes happen as a result of those collisions. So it is important to not focus on just one of these factors but to take a multi-pronged approach.

Take our crash for example:  https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/our-crash-was-not-an-accident/ . Could crash avoidance technology, had it been installed on the truck that hit us, have prevented our crash? But the crash did happen and the other thing was that perhaps it would not have had the same outcome if the underride guard had withstood the crash and the back of the truck ahead of us had therefore not made contact with AnnaLeah and Mary who were sitting in the back seat.

Let’s work together to implement every possible safety measure to prevent collisions and“second collisions.”

https://annaleahmary.com/2015/07/the-second-collision-does-not-have-to-be-so-prevalent-we-can-do-better-at-preventing-death-horrific-injuries/

Vision Zero*: Aim high for Zero Crash Deaths & Zero Serious Injuries

* “Vision Zero is a multi-national road traffic safety project which aims to achieve a highway system with no fatalities or serious injuries in road traffic. It started in Sweden and was approved by their parliament in October 1997.[1] A core principle of the vision is that ‘Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society’ rather than the more conventional comparison between costs and benefits, where a monetary value is placed on life and health, and then that value is used to decide how much money to spend on a road network towards the benefit of decreasing how much risk.”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vision_Zero

Sign our Vision Zero Petition: http://tinyurl.com/nhb88cq

Underride Research Meme

Donate to Underride Research at AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

It’s No Accident; the real story behind senseless death & injury on our roads by Lisa Lewis

Uncategorized, ,

Just saw this book by Lisa Lewis (1995), It’s No Accident: the real story behind senseless death and injury on our roads. I’ll have to check that out.

Always keep in mind that there are numerous reasons for crashes, crash fatalities and injuries. I am thankful for the many people who are addressing these problems from every which way.

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/our-crash-was-not-an-accident/

Brief description of the book: ” The author reveals that many dangerous behaviors are now promoted by businesses, and that drivers who kill often walk away with just a small fine. This expose is a must-read for anyone concerned about what’s happening on our roads and how to stop it.” http://tinyurl.com/pfcm9ca

Get it here:

IMG_4491

Underride Guards for Single Unit Trucks: More Comments Posted on the Federal Register

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , , ,

The Public Comments period has closed for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks. But there were 21 last-minute comments which have now been added to the Federal Register today.

Read them here:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

Newly-listed commenters include:

  1. Seven Hills Engineering (Perry Ponder),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0046
  2. Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, (Scott Schmidt),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0032
  3. Boston Public Health Commission BPHC (Lisa Conley),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0048
  4. Medical Academic and Scientific Community Organization, Inc. MASCO Area Planning and Development (Paul Nelson),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0043
  5. National Transportation Safety Board (Christopher Hart),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0030
  6.  3M Traffic & Safety Security Division (Daniel Hickey),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0022
  7. National Ready Mixed Concrete Association (NRMCA) ( ),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0026
  8. International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Sam Loesche),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0047
  9. ORAFOL Americas Inc. (Chris Gaudette),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0033
  10. Avery Dennison (a leading designer and manufacturer of retroreflective safety materials), http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0037
  11. Transportation Safety Equipment Institute (Christopher Grigorian),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0044
  12. Truck and Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA) (Timothy Blubaugh),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0031
  13. General Motors, LLC (Brian Latouf, Director),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0034
  14. Meehan Boyle Black & Bogdanow, PC,  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0041
  15. Texas Cotton Ginners’ Association (Kelley Green),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0038
  16. Southeastern Cotton Ginners Association, Inc. (Dennis Findley),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=25;dct=PS;D=NHTSA-2015-0070
  17. National Asphalt Pavement Association (Howard Marks),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0036
  18. National Cotton Ginners’ Association (W. Harrison Ashley),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0040
  19. City of Palo Alto-Planning & Community Environment (Joshuah Mello),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0035
  20. National Waste & Recycling Association (John Haudenshield),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0042
  21. Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety (Shaun Kildare),  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0039

Note: Previously-posted Public Comments on this issue can be accessed here:  https://annaleahmary.com/2015/09/truck-industry-engineers-safety-advocates-comment-on-truck-underride-protection-for-motorists-pedestrians-cyclists/

Underride Research Meme

Support Vital Underride Research

Donate online now through AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety at:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Truck industry, engineers & safety advocates comment on Truck Underride Protection for motorists, pedestrians & cyclists

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

The Public Comment Period is Closed now for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. I appreciate those who took the time to comment and I look forward to in-depth dialogue among these people and organizations at our Spring 2016 Underride Roundtable. You can find their published comments here:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

These include comments from:

With funds which we raise for underride research, we are hoping to cover the costs of the crash test for the innovative combined side & rear guard designed by this engineer, Aaron J. Kiefer MSME, PE . See his Comment:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0013

And we have been in correspondence with these two engineers in Australia who have researched solutions to deadly underride for 30 years.  Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre . See their Comments:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0021  & my posts on them:  https://annaleahmary.com/2015/09/australian-engineers-champion-the-cause-of-better-truck-underride-  protection/

Contrast their comments to the conclusion of the NTEA: “Based on the published data and expected benefits, there is no justification for requiring rear underride guards on single unit trucks.” Maybe they ought to watch this video from Australia.

Someone in Australia was asked this question: “So last year, 249 people died on our roads. What do you think would be a more acceptable number?”

See what he answered:

IIHS October 2014 Status Report CoverBefore & After Photos

Cover of IIHS Status Report on guards; photos of our car before/after

Support Underride Research to Prevent Unnecessary Deaths & Injuries.

Donate Now: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Australian engineers champion the cause of better truck underride protection

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

I have spoken and corresponded with George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta from the Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre in Sydney. I have also written about their work on underride protection in Australia.

Yesterday, I received from them a copy of their submission to the Public Comments on the Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. It is worth a read to find out what is being said in other countries about this vital issue.

NHTSA-Docket-Submission-Grzebieta&Rechnitzer 20 Sept 2015

Here are some highlights:

    • Whilst there are force based design rules, e.g. in USA, Canada and Europe, it is apparent that these rules are inadequate. In our submission we strongly recommend crash test based performance requirements for under-run protection catering for both centred and off-set impact.
      Around 10 people per year on average are killed in Australia in rear under-run crashes resulting in horrific injuries such as decapitation.13 Yet the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS)14 for Underrun Protection publish by the Vehicle Safety Standards Branch at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in July 2009 recommended that only front under-run protection be applied to all rigid and articulated trucks. Their conclusion was that the cost-benefit ratio for frontal under-run barriers was greater than one whereas for side and rear under-run the benefit was negative, and hence such protection should not be mandated in an Australian Design Rule. Yet despite these numerous calls for changes over the past three decades, we continue to consistently kill people in such crashes, ignoring the fact that practical low cost effective under-run barriers can be fitted. That is the real unforgivable tragedy.
    • The Vison Zero and Safe System approach adopted by most of the world now and on which Towards Zero Deaths is anchored, boldly moves away from the economic- rationalist ‘cost-benefit’ models (cited in this Docket as still being used by NHTSA), to a humanistic more rational model. The important aspect of a ‘Vision Zero’ principle is that it introduces ‘ethical rules’ to guide the system designers. In other words:
      • Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society
      • Whenever someone is killed or seriously injured, necessary steps must be taken to avoid similar events.
    • The Authors of this submission would further point out to those at NHTSA considering how the Rear Impact Protection for Single Unit Trucks should be revised; they should consider placing themselves in the position of the gentleman being asked in the following Australian Government advertisement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsyvrkEjoXI&feature=youtu.be. This advertisement was commissioned and paid for by the Victorian State Government in Australia. We would ask the NHTSA staff responsible for this NPRM which members of their family would they allocate to die that would be acceptable to them and would meet the NHTSA cost benefit ratios being considered?

  • To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016. The tests requirements are in part based on the US Manual for Assessing Road Hardware (MASH) and are presented below.
    We would strongly recommend that NHTSA consider such dynamic performance tests when they deliberate their development of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for under-ride barriers.
  • TUB’s are designed to prevent a vehicle impacting the rear of a stationary truck under-riding the back of the truck in a manner where the truck structure intrudes into the impacting vehicle’s occupant compartment. The TUB’s main function is to protect the occupants in the impacting vehicle.
  • If the car is designed to such ANCAP and IIHS test protocols with the maximum crashworthiness rating, it is likely that the occupants would not sustain serious injuries in a vehicle impacting such a TUB in the configurations shown in Figure 1.
  • The manufacturers of such TUBs and operators of heavy vehicles are encouraged to explore the application of energy absorbing systems for TUBs including rear air bags mounted on the rear of trucks.

This latter recommendation is relevant to our goal of seeking research money to provide to Dean Sicking whose proposal intends to do just that: explore the application of the SAFER Barrier — an energy absorbying system — to the prevention of truck underride tragedies.

Dean Sicking’s Research Proposal: Development of Trailer Underride Preventive Measures

As soon as their Public Comment is published, I will post a link so that you can read the entire document online for a better understanding of their detailed analysis and proposal for crash test based performance requirements for truck underride protection, for both centred and off-set impact, in contrast to the force based design rules in the current U. S. federal underride standards. The Australian recommendations are based on 30 years of research and experience. (Note: the document in its entirety can be accessed at the top of this post.)

The formal period for submission of Public Comments ends today, September 21, 2015. Upon the request of several groups, I made a request that the period be extended for a short time. That request is under consideration by the agency. All published Public Comments can be found at this site, which is updated as submissions are made:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta have, unfortunately, faced similar challenges in Australia in trying to persuade the powers that be to make rules which would prevent unnecessary and horrific deaths and injuries. However, they  are encouraged by potential upcoming changes in their country:

To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016.

Other posts on their work include:

We look forward to working with George and Raphael at the Underride Roundtable in the Spring of 2016 and know that our country can greatly benefit from their expertise.

Underride Research Meme

WarsawINFilmPhotographer_MIMemoria_Film_063

Donate toward the  Underride Roundtable & Research Now: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Be a part of this timely push to prevent unnecessary deaths.

It could save someone you love.

Children of the Heavenly Father

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

I always find this hard to sing in church — today was no exception. We sang it at my dad’s funeral and at AnnaLeah’s and Mary’s.

Father Daughter Dance 2.18.09 009

Two sisters sing Children of the Heavenly Father together. They have sung it many times and could do it in their sleep. This has special meaning as the duet is sung with a background of photos featuring their two younger sisters who are now, truly, with their Heavenly Father.

Children of the Heavenly Father
Safely in His bosom gather
Nestling bird nor star in heaven
Such a refuge e’er was given

God His own doth tend and nourish
In His holy courts they flourish
From all evil things He spares them
In His mighty arms He bears them

Neither life nor death shall ever
From the Lord His children sever
Unto them His grace He showeth
And their sorrows all He knoweth

Though He giveth or He taketh
God His children ne’er forsaketh
His the loving purpose solely
To preserve them pure and holy

Lo their very hairs He numbers
And no daily care encumbers
Them that share His ev’ry blessing
And His help in woes distressing

Praise the Lord in joyful numbers
Your Protector never slumbers
At the will of your Defender
Ev’ry foe man must surrender.

Carolina Sandell-Berg

http://www.semicolonblog.com/?p=5907