The American Trucking Associations (ATA) sent a letter, on June 4, 2018, to the sponsors of the STOP Underrides! Bill — including Senator Gillibrand — listing the reasons that they are opposing this life-preserving legislation.
ATA letter to Commerce TI on Safety and the STOP Underrides Act FINAL 6.1.18
Here is my knee-jerk reaction written as soon as I read the ATA’s letter. If there is a more official response, I will update this post.
-
- What % of the industry annual revenue and profit is the $10 billion Safety Spending?
- What is the industry annual revenue and profit for the same time period?
- ATA states that, “Without question, these investments are paying dividends in highway safety. Over the past decade, the number of truck-related fatalities has decreased by 11 percent despite steady growth in the overall number of trucks and truck-miles traveled” RESPONSE: NHTSA: Large truck crash fatalities increased in 2016 According to data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 4,317 fatalities occurring last year in crashes involving large trucks, which is 5.4% higher when compared to 2015 and is also the highest level of large truck crash deaths since 2007. http://www.trucker.com/safety/nhtsa-large-truck-crash-fatalities-increased-2016
- ATA states that: “significantly increased likelihood of high-centering of the side guards on steep changes in highway and street levels, such as elevated railroad crossings, and at warehouse docking wells. High-centering incidents already occur when operators of low frame trailers misjudge clearance heights at railroad crossings, which can result in tractor-trailers becoming stranded on railroad tracks. If all trailers were to have substantial side underride guards extended beneath the trailer sides, high-centering incidents would likely become more frequent.” Response: In fact, that is not a true statement. The engineers who have worked on trying to solve the side underride problem are ENGINEERS; they think about every aspect of the problem. They listen to truck drivers and motor carriers. Here is a reaction to that concern from Perry Ponder, an engineer for a small trailer manufacturer and designer of the AngelWing side guard: A 2002 Study by the University of West Virginia showed that trailers and trucks must be much lower to the ground than an underride guard to hang up on regulation railroad crossings and driveway and dock slopes. One need look no further than how low semi-tractors are to the ground, or low-boy trailers. or car hauling trailers, to dispel the notion an underride guard at 16 to 18 inches from the ground cannot operate safely over the road. Development of Design Vehicles for Hang-Up Problem (https://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/1847-02) , 2002 “Design vehicles were developed to evaluate the operation of low-ground-clearance, long-wheelbase, overhang vehicles on extreme hump or sag profile alignments. The literature review indicated that although formal studies had been conducted to develop design vehicles, these vehicles did not include the information needed to assess hang-up susceptibility on a particular vertical alignment. Relevant design vehicle dimensions for 17 vehicle types prone to hang-up were developed. Relevant dimensions included wheelbase, ground clearance, and front and rear overhang. These vehicles can be used in conjunction with the HANGUP software or other tools in designing vertical alignments that reduce the likelihood of hangup problems. Because they are based on representative samples of both field-collected and manufacturers’ data and have been evaluated using the HANGUP software, the design vehicles are reasonable and have a rational basis. The proposed vehicles should receive broad review with an eye toward inclusion in appropriate design policies and guidelines.”
- ATA states that, “ the bill is not based on science, data or safety benefit. Moreover, the bill ignores the potential technical issues it raises, as well as the diversity of our industry and other technologies for addressing these and other crashes. In trucking we know unequivocally that one size does not fit all, and that investments in certain technologies that one company makes may not make sense for another. Standards for new and in-service truck equipment should be based on sound economic and engineering principles that enhance safety, take into account real-world operations, and weigh the potential unintended consequences.” Response: Their statement ignores the multitude of research studies (including NHTSA’s own Texas A&M virtual side underride study which was recently completed) and crash tests which have been done by engineers for decades. And, in fact, the ATA — knowing that the underride problem is vastly undercounted — could have been conducting their own research or putting tangible support behind ongoing research when they were predicting underride regulations in 2002. How much money could have been devoted to solving this problem if they had contributed $1 billion every year for 16 years since that time? See this ATA/TMC 2002 paper: A Brief Look at the Far Horizon An Exploration of What’s to Come for Trucking
- ATA states: “Recently, twenty automakers representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. auto market committed to make automatic emergency braking a standard feature on virtually all new passenger vehicles by 2022, which will help reduce many of the crashes where a passenger vehicle strikes a truck.” Response: How long before this will be present in 100% of the passenger vehicle fleet? What about weather-related conditions when that technology will not be effective? What about front override? What about side underride?
- ATA states: “the Stop Underrides Act would divert a significant amount of both NHTSA and industry resources away from important crash avoidance technologies with wide-ranging benefits in all types of crashes to focus on a narrow type of crash and a specific countermeasure that is unproven in real-world applications.” Response: Please specify exactly which resources will be taken away from crash avoidance technologies. What is now being put toward them? What will be required to be put into underride protection technology?
- ATA states: “Regrettably, the bill is not based on science, data or safety benefit.“ Response: What do they call what the IIHS has done for years if not scientific, data-driven, safety-proven research? Jerry says, “The bill is based upon the NTSB Truck Underride Safety Recommendations to NHTSA in 2014.
The bill was developed by a
team of experts, engineers, manufacturers, academic both national and international, lawyers, safety advocates and victims. The research by IIHS is scientific data driven and safety benefit research and testing. I recommend a field hearing at IIHS to not only disprove this point but to inform and educate the House T&I Committee and Senate Commerce Committee on the facts of underride.
“The courts differ on this as the
Dodgen vs PJ Trailers case demonstrated through crash testing that the trailer design was dangerous and added known safety measures would have prevented the fatality in that situation.”
- ATA states: “a narrow type of crash and a specific countermeasure that is unproven in real-world applications.” Response: Terry Rivet is a good example of a proven countermeasure.
We know for certain that Terry Rivet is alive today because Stoughton trailers voluntarily upgraded the rear guard on their trailers. Mr. Rivet had an accident in snowy weather in New York and collided with a new Stoughton trailer with an improved rear underride guard on March 2, 2017.
Tractor trailers need to be safer to prevent underride deaths, Gillibrand says Maybe we should ask him if we should have waited until 2022 to see if the crash avoidance technology works. On January 3, 2018, there was another traffic pile-up in New York during whiteout conditions with dozens of vehicles involved. The only fatality was from a car rear-ending a tractor trailer with an older, weak rear underride guard — resulting in an underride death.
1 dead, 1 critical from Thruway crash involving dozens of vehicles Unfortunately, we cannot ask that driver how he feels about the idea of waiting until crash avoidance technology is available to end truck underride tragedies.
I Survived Because Of Stoughton.
Here are some other relevant trucking industry communications related to Underride Technology Mandates (with a response from Senator Gillibrand & a blogpost from a truck driver advocate):
It is unfortunate that the regulated industry has such power over how they are regulated. Their decisions and actions are apparently informed by a strong inclination to protect the bottomline rather than by the conscience of individuals within that industry. How frustrating that they do not truly take into account the “honest bottomline” for, if they did, they would know that it would be to their ultimate advantage to make full use of every safety technology available to them.
Here is a FAQ document with answers to frequently asked questions about the STOP Underrides! Bill: FAQ STOP Underrides Bill. I hope that it helps to get us all on the same page and moving more quickly toward effective collaboration to end truck underride tragedies with Win/Win solutions.
After all, this is not about making the truck industry get in line — or else. To quote Rose in The Last Jedi: That’s how we’re gonna win. Not fighting what we hate, saving what we love.
