Monthly Archives: November 2017

Grateful for commitment to Underride Prevention R & D, but is it enough?

I am very grateful for the seemingly sincere commitment to research and development of underride prevention technology on the part of engineers whom I have met in these last four years. I often thank them personally. And, as I participate in crash testing and discuss the outcome of the testing with them, I gain an appreciation of the complexity of the problem.

But I have to ask myself if it is enough, if it is made the priority that solutions to save lives could and should be given. How much faster could we start making truck crashes more survivable if we put our mind to it?

I was reflecting last night on the three crash tests which I viewed in the last week in three different states. They involved the testing of underride prevention technology designed by three different engineering teams. All of a sudden, the question popped into my head, “How much faster would we be able to get effective underride solutions available to install on trucks if everybody that is working on the problem — or even thinking about it — would truly be collaborating?”

It is totally ridiculous that we allow marketplace competition to inhibit communication and slow down the process. Isn’t it, or is it just me? How many more lives could be saved if we more effectively put our heads together?

That was the original idea when we conceived of the Underride Roundtable.  Are we willing to do it like it’s never been done before and make this a joint effort?

Let’s follow the lead of medical researchers:

One of the most important ways the CMTA accelerates the research process is by putting together teams of top scientists recruited from an international body of scientific and clinical Key Opinion Leaders in CMT. The STAR program’s unique character stems from the willingness of the scientists to come together to advance CMT research collaboratively, sharing and communicating ideas, discoveries and research findings.

The CMTA’s funding and operations focus is on translational research that will lead as directly as possible to therapeutic treatments of CMT.  Truck Industry Could Take a Cue From Collaborative Medical Research Strategy

People are counting on it — whether they know it or not — because every day we delay is costly . . .

Afterthought: Why would manufacturers & engineers not collaborate on underride research?

 

Imagine if engineers collaborated to create effective underride solutions!

I was reflecting tonight on the three crash tests which I viewed in less than seven days in three different states with underride prevention technology designed by three different engineering teams. All of a sudden, the question popped into my head, “How much faster would we be able to get effective underride solutions available to install on trucks if everybody that is working on the problem — or even thinking about it — would truly be collaborating?”

It is totally ridiculous that we allow marketplace competition to inhibit communication and slow down the process. How many more lives could be saved if we more effectively put our heads together?

That was the original idea when we conceived of the Underride Roundtable.  Are we willing to do it like it’s never been done before and make this a joint effort?

Previous post on a similar topic: Urgent Underride Discussion of Deceleration Forces/High Speeds. Don’t Dawdle.

Why would a stronger rear underride guard be offered as optional on new trailers?!

When a stronger more effective rear underride guard has been designed by a manufacturer, why would they offer it as optional rather than standard on their new trailers?! And we’re talking about an insignificant increase in cost for the improved guard, according to one guard engineer.

For that matter, why do we offer any proven safety equipment as optional on vehicles?

Do we want people to die?

People get killed in collisions with single unit trucks (EXEMPT from underride stds.).

People (real living people, who left home not expecting to die) get killed from crashing into single unit trucks as well as tractor-trailers. Like these two young men in New York this week: 2 Killed In Crash Involving Garbage Truck, Car In Westchester County
 So why are these trucks exempt from underride regulations?
STOP all Underrides! #stopunderrides

No one needs to die this way.

Find out how your state fares on truck underride deaths from 1994 through 2015. There is quite a range of numbers. But whether you live in Hawaii  — which reported 1 underride fatality in that time period —  or California — which reported 426 people killed because a large truck entered their occupant space during a collision between the truck and a passenger vehicle,  it’s too many in my book.

And remember, Death by Underride is definitely undercounted — some crash report forms don’t even have a check box for underride. And underride can happen to anyone at anytime and anywhere.

Underride Fatality Data from FARS by State

Let’s STOP Underrides!

The Retrofit Question: Should we add underride protection to existing trucks OR decide to let people die?

Some might be hesitant about the comprehensive underride protection legislation mainly out of concern over the Retrofitting Requirement of the STOP Underrides! Bill.

Ask me if I would be willing to compromise and take out the retrofit requirement! How many people might die as a result? The trailer which we crashed into is probably still on the road with a weak rear underride guard. Along with millions of others.

Why is it that they are being allowed to “get away with murder” just because it will cost the industry some money to strengthen these rear guards?

Just imagine for a moment that somebody had done something in 2008 to introduce a Comprehensive Underride Protection Bill. But let’s say that they decided not to require retrofitting;  so only new trailers would be improved starting in perhaps 2012.

So the Great Dane trailer built in 2007, which we crashed into on May 4, 2013, would not have been required to be retrofitted. It would have been left with its original rear underride guard which was designed to meet the 1998 federal (current) standard and, therefore, would have been weak and ineffective.

My daughters still would have been killed! They would not have been protected from Death by Underride — despite the fact that a solution would have existed which might have prevented their untimely deaths.

So, ask me again. . . “Do you want to compromise and take the retrofit requirement out of the STOP Underrides! Bill?” What do you think?

After all, we have decades of deaths and neglect to make up.