Monthly Archives: February 2016

Underride Rulemaking: Will we get it right this time?!

February 9, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck SafetyIIHS, NHTSA rulemaking, underride crash, underride guards, underride researchMarianne

Now this makes me mad! I just found an IIHS Status Report from March 29, 1977: http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr1206.pdf

IIHS was reporting on a meeting that took place on March 16, 1977 — three days before I got married! That’s almost 39 years ago — long before any of my 9 children were born, let alone my two youngest daughters, AnnaLeah and Mary!

The government and industry apparently didn’t get underride rulemaking right then! And they clearly hadn’t gotten it right by May 4, 2013 — when Mary and AnnaLeah died from truck underride! But they better watch out, because I am not going to sit by and watch while thousands more die for no good reason!

See the testimony in May 2009 by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, in which they call for tougher underride guard standards and with an attachment of the history of federal rulemaking on underride guards (pasted below): http://tinyurl.com/phlaqon

“The history of Federal rulemaking on truck underride guards:

1953 Interstate Commerce Commission adopts rule requiring rear underride guards on trucks and trailers but sets no strength requirements.
1967 National Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB), predecessor to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), indicates it will develop a standard for truck underride guards.
1969 NHSB indicates it will conduct research on heavy vehicle underride guard configurations to provide data for the preparation of a standard. In the same year the Federal Highway Administration publishes a proposal to require trailers and trucks to have strong rear-end structures extending to within 18 inches of the road surface.
1970 NHSB says it would be “impracticable” for manufacturers to engineer improved underride protectors into new vehicles before 1972. The agency considers an effective date of January 1, 1974 for requiring underride guards with energy-absorbing features as opposed to rigid barriers.
1971 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommends that NHTSA require energy-absorbing underride and override barriers on trucks, buses, and trailers. Later in the same year NHTSA abandons its underride rulemaking, saying it has “no control over the vehicles after they are sold” and “it can only be assumed that certain operators will remove the underride guard.” The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS), predecessor to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, considers a regulatory change that would prohibit alteration of manufacturer-installed equipment. This would nullify the major reason NHTSA cited for abandoning the proposed underride standard.
1972 NTSB urges NHTSA to renew the abandoned underride proposal.
1974 US Secretary of Transportation says deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial.
1977 IIHS testifies before the Consumer Subcommittee of the US Senate Commerce Committee, noting that devices to stop underride have been technologically available for years. IIHS tests demonstrate that a crash at less than 30 mph of a subcompact car into a guard meeting current requirements results in severe underride. IIHS also demonstrates the feasibility of effective underride guards that do not add significant weight to trucks. IIHS petitions NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to establish a rear underride standard. The agency agrees to reassess the need for such a standard and later in the year announces plans to require more effective rear underride protection. BMCS publishes a new but weak proposal regarding underride protection.
1981 NHTSA issues a proposal to require upgraded underride protection.
1986 IIHS study reveals that rear guards designed to prevent cars from underriding trucks appear to be working well on British rigs.
1987 European underride standard is shown to reduce deaths caused by underride crashes.
1996 NHTSA finally issues a new standard, effective 1998.”

IIHS, 2009

I also found this underride research article tonight from 1998: http://papers.sae.org/982755/

Mariolani, J., Schmutzler, L., Arruda, A., Occhipinti, S. et al., “Impact Project: Searching for Solution to the Underride Problem,” SAE Technical Paper 982755, 1998, doi:10.4271/982755.

“Rear underride crashes kill thousands of people yearly worldwide. Underride guards did not follow the progress achieved by the automotive safety technology. . .”

And now, here we are in 2016: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118.

Let’s get it right this time. Somebody’s life depends on it. Lots of somebodies.

Underride Roundtable coming up soon: https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/underride-roundtable-save-the-date-may-5-2016/

Donate to our underride research here: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Missin’ you, AnnaLeah & Mary. . .

Share our Vision Zero Petition in memory of AnnaLeah & Mary: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

“Our grandma wants to make the roads safer.” Remembering 2 girls in the aftermath of a truck crash https://annaleahmary.com/2015/11/our-grandma-wants-to-make-the-roads-safer-remembering-2-girls-in-the-aftermath-of-a-truck-crash/

“What I Wish More People Understood About Losing a Child”

February 7, 2016AnnaLeah and Marygrief, memoriesMarianne

Losing someone is hard. Losing a child is very hard. Losing a child unexpectedly due to a traumatic event is excruciating. Losing a child unexpectedly due to a traumatic event, which you later find out was quite possibly preventable, is devastating. Losing two children unexpectedly due to a traumatic event, which you later find out was quite possibly preventable, is beyond description.

(Please note: I am not trying to compare losses or saying that one is greater than another. I am just trying to help you understand what I have faced in trying to cope with my own losses.)

Which is why I really appreciated a link shared by a friend last week. It was written by a mother who had lost her son and shares what she has learned about that kind of grief. If you want to get a glimpse of what my life is now like, please read it (or for whatever reason because I hope that it helps many people–both those grieving and those who come alongside them):

What I Wish More People Understood About Losing A Child

Paula Stephens, the author of that article, talks about these things related to such a loss:

“Remember our children.
Accept that you can’t “fix” us.
Know that there are at least two days a year we need a time out.
Realize that we struggle every day with happiness.
Accept the fact that our loss might make you uncomfortable.”

“Grief is the pendulum swing of love. The stronger and deeper the love the more grief will be created on the other side. Consider it a sacred opportunity to stand shoulder to shoulder with someone who has endured one of life’s most frightening events. Rise up with us.”

In case you hadn’t already figured it out about me, I have become obsessive with advocating for safer roads because I will do all within my power to stop these senseless tragedies. How I wish that ours had been prevented!

And I am obsessive about preserving memories of AnnaLeah and Mary. I hate that their lives are frozen in time while the rest of us go on. That wasn’t the way it was supposed to be. So, it isn’t that I am putting them on a pedestal; I just want them to still be a part of my life–one way or another.

And, if it seems like I’m not handling it very well, ask yourself how you would be doing if you were in my shoes. I hope that you never are.

Here is what I wrote about this topic not too long ago: https://annaleahmary.com/2015/05/how-a-truck-crash-changed-the-month-of-may-or-what-happens-when-nobody-takes-responsibility/

By the way, my friend who shared that link with me, Lauri Drosendahl, only knew our family for six months before the crash that took Mary and AnnaLeah–from November 1, 2012 — May 4, 2013. But, because our two families spent lots of quality time together during those six months, and were our church family, they were and have been a lifeline to hold us up. Along with countless others.

Here you see Lauri’s family with AnnaLeah and Mary (Mary is filming the fun and you can hear her laughing and see AnnaLeah laughing):

Lauri walked with me through the sewing of Rebekah’s wedding dress–with Mary as my model at each step along the way. https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.475812149167971.1073741844.464993830249803&type=1

Lauri’s husband, John, preached the sermon at their second funeral in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Before:

Mary & Leah–a sleepover in Rocky Mount

Minolta DSC — AnnaLeah at Woods on the Lake in Michigan

After the funeral:

The Drosendahls at Woods on the Lake.

And Lauri was the inspiration for my completing the first of two quilts with squares from the girls’ clothes.

Remembering Mary & AnnaLeah in a Patchwork Quilt of Memories

I think that I am forever changed. I hope you all understand.

“Controlling risk during crashes is an energy-management problem.”

February 7, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck SafetyDean Sicking, NASCAR Safer Barrier, underride crash, underride researchMarianne

“Basically controlling risk during crashes is an energy-management problem. Our knowledge and understanding of energy management today is a lot better than it was in 1998. And in 1998, it was a lot better than it was in 1988.”

–DEAN SICKING

Let’s give Dean the chance to apply his expertise in NASCAR safety technology to improving truck underride protection: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

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

Printable & clickable brochure: ALMFTS Underride Guard Research Brochure

IIHS Report on truck underride crash tests and our story: IIHS Status Report October 2014

Listen to the discussion of Dean Sicking’s SAFER Barrier at Daytona, DAYTONA TO RING ENTIRE TRACK WITH SAFER BARRIER :

For more information about AnnaLeah & Mary’s story and for details about the underride guard issue, go to: https://annaleahmary.com/underride-guards/

“Death & Big Data: It’s time for NHTSA to get in on the action – in the interest of saving lives.”

February 7, 2016Safety AdvocacyNHTSA rulemaking, Vision ZeroMarianne

Roger Lanctot points to the increase in traffic fatalities in 2015 and raises timely questions:

“Nothing focuses peoples’ attention quite as effectively as death and there’s been a lot of it on U.S. highways lately. Preliminary figures released this week by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reveal that for the first nine months of 2015 traffic fatalities increased 9.3%. . .

“NHTSA’s current policies and procedures enable too much bargaining, delay and backsliding and car companies have not been cooperative. . .

“It may be time for NHTSA to step up its data reporting requirements, thereby giving car makers an excuse for gathering more data while setting the stage for improved processes for mitigating the 100-fatalities-a-day carnage on U.S. roads. Sharing a little data seems like a small price to pay to solve a big problem.

“Increased and improved data sharing, aggregation and analysis is sweeping the car industry. It’s time for NHTSA to get in on the action – in the interest of saving lives.”

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Soon to come: The Delivery of a Vision Zero Petition to Washington, DC

February 6, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck SafetyVision Zero, Vision Zero PetitionMarianne

Our family will be delivering the almost 16,000 Vision Zero petition signatures to Washington, D.C., on Friday, March 4, 2016. At that time, we will meet with Department of Transportation policy officials to discuss our concerns and requests.

One month from now, when we head out to D.C. , we will be closing the petition. Before that happens, please help us to get as many signatures as possible.

Please sign (if you have not yet done so) and share the petition in every way you can: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

The Vision Zero Petition Book will contain the almost 16,000 petition signatures & all comments. It will be delivered in print form and also available digitally.

Together we can call for

a National Vision Zero Goal: Towards Zero Crash Deaths & Serious Injuries!

Needed for an Underride Crash Test: Beat-up 53′ Box Trailer & a Chevy Malibu

February 5, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyside underride guards, truck underride, underride crash test, underride researchMarianne

Aaron Kiefer is making plans to do a preliminary crash test of his innovative side/rear underride protection system – before taking it to the Underride Roundtable at the IIHS on May 5, 2016.

He has asked us to be on the lookout for two things which he needs for the crash test:

a used 53′ box trailer with its rear underride guard and its landing gear intact (not bent or rusted) and
an older model Chevy Malibu–from the year 2000 or younger.

If you have either one of those which you could donate (or sell for almost nothing) to make this important crash happen, please email me at marianne@annaleahmary.com.

Here is more information about Aaron’s hard work to make trucks safer to be around:

Aaron plans on using the crash test results to refine his design and make it as effective as possible. Please spread the word about this need. Thank you.

Cost-effectiveness vs Cost/Benefit Analysis & Vision Zero

February 5, 2016Safety Advocacycost benefit analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis, Vision ZeroMarianne

I am hard put to think of a better way to show the opposite, of what we are asking Obama and Foxx to do with our Vision Zero petitions, than what is being suggested here:

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-01-20/5-smart-ways-to-cut-red-tape

According to this article, Cass Sunstein apparently is encouraging the increase of cost/benefit analysis at the price of costly delays in needed safety regulations. Cost in terms of lost human lives.

We, on the other hand, are calling for suspension of overdependence on the cost/benefit analysis process–if it leads to delays and blockage of safety regulations which have been proven to save lives.

After I discussed this concern with another safety advocate, he suggested the alternative approach of cost-effectiveness analysis vs cost/benefit analysis. I have taken a quick look at a description of it online and will be thinking about it further.

“Cost–effectiveness analysis (CEA) is a form of economic analysis that compares the relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more courses of action. Cost–effectiveness analysis is distinct from cost–benefit analysis, which assigns a monetary value to the measure of effect.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-effectiveness_analysis

My question is, “Would such an approach lead to a reduction in crash deaths & serious injuries?” In other words, would it further the goal of Vision Zero? Towards Zero.

[Note to self: Look into this further.]

Weak, ineffective underride guards yield yet another underride crash–in Canada

February 3, 2016Truck Safetyunderride crash, underride guardsMarianne

Another truck underride crash. . . this time in Canada.

Oh, yes, they have the standards which we propose to match.

Truck underride crash in Canada. Stronger standard needed to reduce risk. https://t.co/OcK6mSsDr6 pic.twitter.com/vxnSisbTwH

— IIHS (@IIHS_autosafety) February 2, 2016

Monitor truck loads with a weight-identifying sensor/camera system

February 3, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyenforcement, FMCSA regulations, safety technology, truck weight limits, Vision ZeroMarianne

If Indiana’s experiment is successful — monitoring overweight trucks by using weight-identifying sensors connected to a camera which will take a picture of their license plate — why would we not extend this enforcement technology nationwide?

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2016/01/04/indiana-to-use-cameras-to-crack-down-on-overweight-trucks/

Here is another opportunity to utilize a Vision Zero goal for dispersing traffic safety technology to enforce federal safety regulations nationwide. . .

https://annaleahmary.com/2016/01/why-on-earth-dont-we-establish-national-traffic-safety-standards-require-them-to-be-adopted-by-states/

See this description of a New Hampshire’s motor carrier vehicle examiners/enforcement team:

“Weigh Team – Troopers assigned to the Weigh Team are responsible for enforcing state statutes as they pertain to maximum gross allowable weight limits on the roads and bridges of the state of New Hampshire. Overweight vehicles are typically more dangerous on the roads because of the extra effort needed to stop and control the overweight vehicle. Also, the damage caused to the roadways and bridges by each overweight vehicle is significantly more than legally loaded vehicles. The Weigh Team utilizes a state-of-the-art scale facility on Route 93 in Windham and portable scales to check compliance. The goal of the Weigh Team is to protect the lives of the riders traveling on New Hampshire roads while also prolonging the life of the roads and bridges.” http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/fob/troopg/motorcarrier/http://www.nh.gov/safety/divisions/nhsp/fob/troopg/motorcarrier/

Why should every state reinvent the wheel? What’s the point?

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration website: https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/