Monthly Archives: March 2019

Media Reports & Video Footage Unveil Highlights of the Successful D.C. Underride Crash Test Event

If you were not able to witness the Underride Crash Tests in D.C. in person on March 26, then the next best thing is to see the media coverage of this important event and to view the video footage of all three tests of a car colliding at approximately 30 mph with the side of a tractor-trailer:

  1. The first crash test was into a trailer with an AngelWing side guard — SUCCESSFUL because it prevented underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI).
  2. The second crash test was into a trailer with a SafetySkirt side guard — SUCCESSFUL because it prevented underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI).
  3. The third crash test was into a trailer with NO side guard (as is the situation with 99.9% of the trucks on the road today) — SUCCESSFUL in that the devastating underride which occurred clearly showed what it is that the other two tests so importantly prevented.

VIDEO FOOTAGE from MGA Research of all three crash tests can be seen here:

First test into AngelWing:

Second test into SafetySkirt:

Third test with NO side underride protection:

Compilation of all three crash tests, including aerial views & views from inside the car:

Here is some of the media coverage of the D.C. Underride Crash Test Event:

MGA Research brought their high speed cameras to capture this video footage. Links to additional video will be shared when their creative team completes their work. WUSA9 had a GoPro camera inside the crash car.

Video of the Underride Panel discussion at the event can be viewed here.

  • David Friedman, Consumer Reports, VP, Advocacy, formerly the CR Director of Cars and Product Policy and Analysis, former NHTSA Acting Administrator
  • Malcolm Deighton, engineer with Hydro, which supplies aluminum for manufacturing underride protective devices and trailer parts and which produces comprehensive underride protection technology in Europe
  • Glen Berry, Safety Director for Thomas Transport Delivery, AngelWing installed since 2017, truck driver
  • Perry Ponder, inventor of AngelWing, engineer with an accident reconstruction engineering company
  • David Dorrity, worked for Stevens Transport for years and testifies all over the country on safe trucking practices.
  • Aaron Kiefer, forensic engineer & crash reconstructionist, inventor of SafetySkirt

Unsung hero of the event: Last year, on May 15, 2018 (what would have been the day my daughter AnnaLeah turned 24), after a hard day of hitting our heads against the wall in trying to convince legislative staffers to move the STOP Underrides! Act forward, I texted my son and said, “How are we going to get them to move?!” He texted back, “Hold a crash test at a field hearing.” I said, “What?!” It was a brilliant idea to let the leaders of this country, who can take action to end these preventable tragedies, witness crash testing in person!

Well, we couldn’t bring about a Field Hearing, but we quickly began the overwhelming process of organizing an Underride Crash Test Event right there in D.C.  — less than 2 miles from The Hill and 1 mile from the Department of Transportation.

Lois Durso and I, along with our families, friends and other underride victim families, want to thank the multitude of individuals, organizations, and companies (both named & unnamed) who have helped us as we work to pass the STOP Underrides! Act (S.665 & HR.1511) and bring about this amazing and totally volunteer-organized event:

Contributors to the STOP Underrides Initiative

Contributors to STOP Underrides! & DC Underride Crash Test

And I want to especially thank the skilled and dedicated Team Underride Crash Test Crew:

We also want to thank Akridge and ImPark for allowing us to use their D.C. parking lot (not an easy thing to find!), Northern Neck Auto Parts for providing the crash cars, and Sunbelt Rentals for providing safety barriers and equipment helpful in moving around the many vehicles to make the three crash tests go smoothly in such a short space of time. MGA Research captured amazing video footage, Mister Video ran the sound system, Andy Young served seamlessly as MC,  and Aaron Kiefer masterfully orchestrated the crash test crew in order to help us all see the clear-cut life & death difference which underride protection can make.

AngelWing crash car: 

SafetySkirt crash car: 

Unguarded crash car: 

We hope that this event will continue to raise awareness and that our message to Congress will grow stronger as people sign & share this petition: Congress, Act Now To End Deadly Truck Underride!

This event was brought about in memory of countless underride victims and in hopes of helping countless others walk away from truck crashes and live to tell about it. . .

Simulation of a Crash Test Into a Trailer Using a Pulley Towing System

Just for fun, watch these simulations of how the upcoming crash testing will be executed:

Isometric 2

Approach Isometric (2)

 

DC Underride Crash Test Event Media Alert

Compelling Documentary Tells the Stories of Underride Victims: Save Lives – STOP Underrides!

We are thankful to Cool Breeze Studio for creating this recently-released underride documentary — telling the stories of underride victims to shed light on this preventable problem.

DC Underride Crash Test Event Media Alert 032218

The Significance of March 19, 1969, & Truck Underride

Of special interest to those concerned about truck underride is information which I discovered on March 2, 2016. It refers to a published statement by a U.S. DOT agency on March 19, 1969.

That information stuck in my mind more than it would for most people because March 19 is my anniversary and today I celebrated 42 years of marriage to my loving husband, Jerry. Only at the time, I was 13 — not even driving yet.

On that day, 50 years ago, the DOT said that they intended to extend underride protection to the sides of large vehicles. Why would they do that? Because underride is a potential risk all around the truck (except at the tires). They had mandated a weak (we found out thanks to IIHS) rear underride guard but not side.

Imagine. They still have not done so! Many years have come and gone. I have raised a family of nine and buried two of them due to truck underride. And, yet, this country has dragged its feet and neglected to make it a priority to solve the underride problem — despite the fact that technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in other areas.

From that March 2, 2016 post: A Public Comment on Underride Rulemaking re: original intent of NHTSA in 1969

I just read an interesting Public Comment on the Underride Rulemaking: Comment from 7-E Seven Hills Engineering, LLC – Transport Canada

Perry Ponder also commented on the Single Unit Truck Underride Rulemaking last fall: Comment from 7-E Seven Hills Engineering, LLC – Transport Canada

Of special interest to me was the information in both of his Comments on 1969 rulemaking:

“I will begin by pointing out that continuing to allow truck and trailer induced PCI to occur at otherwise survivable crash speeds (delta-V’s of 45mph and beyond) discards years of crashworthiness efforts and wastes the safety benefits we have come to expect and pay for in our cars.

From an engineering perspective the need for vehicle crash compatibility in the form of adequate heavy truck underride guarding is apparent in order to protect against the hazard of PCI which exposes the vulnerable head and neck region to severe, potentially fatal or crippling injury.

This hazard – easily remedied by readily available materials and simple structural analysis – is present also on the sides of heavy trailers and trucks. The FMVSS standard should be broadened to include guarding for the sides and rear of heavy straight trucks, as well as the sides of heavy trailers. This was the original intent of NHTSA rulemakers in the 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2.

Note: Perry Ponder later that year came to the First Underride Roundtable and through connections made there completed development of his AngelWing side guard — successfully tested on March 30, 2017 at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrL7AUMT4To

The AngelWing, along with the Safety Skirt, will be tested at the D.C. Underride Crash Test Event on March 26 — as well as a crash into the side of a trailer with no side underride protection.

Other March underride posts:

March has indeed been an eventful month for truck underride. And next week at this time, we will have hosted the first ever D.C. Underride Crash Test Event. 

 

Industry opposition to life-saving measures deepens my grief. Peace in my soul & pain in my heart.

There is peace like a river in my soul but pain does not leave my heart. The ongoing inaction and opposition of the trucking industry, to solutions which could prevent such grief for others, does not make it any easier. In fact, the frustration and anger it stirs up is one more grief too hard to bear.

The power of misinformation and subtle suggestions have the power to sway and delay decisive action. This has gone on far too long. May truth and mercy prevail.

To still my soul in the midst of this raging battle, I am reminding myself of the joy and love of life shared by my daughters during their short time here on this earth before their lives were so abruptly ended by a preventable truck underride crash.

Mary loved to capture every moment on her camera–from the mundane to the amazing. That included our walk on the trails of Battle Park on a beautiful day in January 2013 in her new home of Rocky Mount, North Carolina. Mary’s photo story of the walk with her sister, AnnaLeah, dad, and mom is set to Horatio Spafford’s well-known hymn, “It Is Well With My Soul.” Fitting in so many ways. Peace like a river attendeth my soul.

Photography by Mary Lydia Karth (and her mom)

A Mom’s Response to the OOIDA Letter of Opposition to the Life-preserving #STOPUnderrides! Bill

The STOP Underrides! Bill was re-introduced into Congress on March 5, 2019. On March 7, the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association wrote a letter of opposition and sent it to the bill’s sponsors.

The following is a combination of the OOIDA letter (bolded) and my response.

Response to the OOIDA Letter of Opposition

(dated March 7, 2019)

To the STOP Underrides Bill

Dear Senator Gillibrand and Senator Rubio,

The purpose of this letter is to convey the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association’s (OOIDA) strong opposition to S. 665, the Stop Underrides Act, which would mandate the installation of rear, side and front underride guards on all commercial motor vehicles (CMV) and trailers that exceed 10,000 pounds in gross vehicle weight (GVW).

OOIDA is the largest trade association representing the views and interests of small-business truckers and professional drivers. We have more than 160,000 members nationwide, all of which would be directly impacted by S. 665.

This raises an interesting question. I have personally asked the management of OOIDA to provide me with information about how many owner-operators own their own trailer. He said that he did not have those numbers. Although numbers (1.2 trailer/owner-operator) are listed online, I have seen no documentation that this is the case. I’d love to have proof of this claim but, until then, it does not seem valid to make a blanket statement that all of the OOIDA members would be directly impacted without spelling out what that means.

Over the last several decades, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has considered numerous options involving underride guards, but has consistently concluded federal mandates would be impractical and costly, thus outweighing any perceived safety benefits. The reintroduction of the Stop Underrides Act intentionally disregards this reality and ignores the safety, economic, and operational concerns we raised with you last Congress.

Many Public Comments were submitted to the Federal Register, in response to NHTSA proposed underride rulemaking, which raised questions about the validity of the NHTSA cost/benefit analysis. Additionally, Senator Gillibrand responded to all of the concerns, which OOIDA raised in their January 2018 letter, in a letter which she sent to OOIDA on March 16, 2018. Read her reply here.

To be clear, OOIDA supports efforts to improve highway safety. In fact, we agree the existing rear underride guard on trailers – commonly referred to as a “DOT Bumper” in the United States – could be enhanced to reduce the risk of rear underrides for personal automobiles. If the Canadian standard was applied in the U.S. on the manufacture of new trailers, we would not oppose it.

Actually, many of the trailers on the road today in the U.S. already meet the Canadian standard because U.S. transport companies which cross the border need to comply with it. So the U.S. trailer manufacturers responded to that situation. However, those are the same guards which have been tested by the IIHS and found to be ineffective and too weak to withstand offset crashes — even at 35 mph. So simply upgrading the U.S. standard to meet the Canadian standard would not solve the problem — underride, with deadly Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI), would still be occurring.

The eight major trailer manufacturers have exceeded the Canadian standard by stepping up to meet the new de facto standard of the IIHS ToughGuard award. It is that standard which we are requesting be mandated by the STOP Underrides legislation to ensure that it is installed on every new trailer manufactured. As of this date, some manufacturers are still selling the older, ineffective rear guard as Standard with the improved guard being offered as Optional.

In addition, there are millions of existing trailers on the road today which still will allow deadly passenger compartment intrusion upon collision. Yet, there are Retrofit Kits available for $500 (or less) which can be installed to upgrade the safety level of rear guards — compared to the $125 it would cost to replace rusted, cracked or bent horizontal tubes at the existing level of ineffective protection.

Unfortunately, S. 665 goes too far. Regarding rear underride guards, it would mandate truckers install them on trailers that can’t physically accommodate them, such as low boys, household goods trailers, auto transporters, etc. The mandate would retroactively apply to all trailers, including those nearing the end of their service.

This comment ignores a basic fact about federal standards. If a CMV is designed in a way that underride is not possible (i.e., there is no geometric mismatch because the truck body is low enough to engage with the passenger vehicle bumper), then, of course, the manufacturer or owner can apply for an exemption. Why would we demand installation of unnecessary equipment?

665 would also mandate the installation of side underride guards. While existing technologies may reduce passenger compartment intrusion in certain situations, the bill fails to recognize numerous other issues limiting the real world practicality of side underride guards. For example, installation of the equipment would unquestionably create challenges for truckers navigating grade crossings and high curbs, backing in to sloped loading docks, properly utilizing spread-axle trailer configurations, conducting DOT-required trailer inspections, and accessing vital equipment located under the trailer – such as brakes. We also want to reiterate S. 665 would mandate side underride guards on trailers that can’t physically accommodate them, such as intermodal, bulk, specialized, and flatbed trailers.

This comment uses an interesting choice of words, e.g., claiming that side guards would “unquestionably” create challenges for truckers. As far as I can tell, these statements are all based on speculation rather than proven fact or documentation. As far as ground clearance (a complaint heard over and over), please see this University of West Virginia study: Development of Design Vehicles for Hang-Up Problem

Here is a quote from the inventor of the AngelWing side guard, Perry Ponder:

AngelWing has undergone extensive standard industry testing and analysis including durability track testing. Designed by a trailer engineer (me), AngelWing works in harmony with existing trailer designs with no effect on the trailer structure or durability.

Here is a video of a trailer with Aaron Kiefer’s SafetySkirt side guard backing over a raised median without any problem:

Further, because the bill applies the underride guard mandate to all CMVs in excess of 10,000 pounds GVW, it would require dually trucks pulling wedge trailers – commonly referred to as “hot shots” – to install these devices. Yet, the exact same dually not operating commercially wouldn’t be required to have them. Here again, most wedge trailers can’t physically accommodate what this bill would mandate.

As stated previously, this comment ignores a basic fact about federal standards. If a CMV is designed in a way that underride is not possible (i.e., there is no geometric mismatch because the truck body is low enough to engage with the passenger vehicle bumper), then, of course, the manufacturer or owner can apply for an exemption. Why would we demand installation of unnecessary equipment? If it is a matter of a unique truck design, which would allow underride if there were no added protection but presents installation challenges, then I would call upon the engineering community to create collaborative solutions. In fact, the bill encourages such communication through the establishment of a Committee On Underride Protection.

665 also mandates a front underride guard on CMVs. Admittedly, we’re less familiar with these devices, because they aren’t currently commercially available in the U.S. However, similar to the rear and side underride guard provisions, this requirement would likely be extremely problematic for reasons we can discuss in more detail at a later time.

I am confident that, if OOIDA genuinely delved into the front underride/override problem — as I did — they would find that there are practical solutions available to change the outcome of crashes which involve trucks rear-ending passenger vehicles or head-on collisions. In fact, U.S. truck manufacturers have patents for front underride protection devices and some are already selling them in countries which have a FUP mandate — including Europe, India, Japan, and Australia.

We would also point out that the bill would require the creation of performance standards for underride devices. Meaning, if an underride guard fails to meet the standard while in operation, the vehicle would be placed out of service and unable to operate. We have no idea how a trucker would get a side underride guard, weighing approximately 1,000 pounds, delivered to the roadside.

Admittedly, it is a challenge to get trucks safely off the road to a repair facility when they have underride protection in a condition which makes them unsafe to travel around. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ( CVSA ) has addressed this concern in their consultation with the bill sponsors regarding the bill language. But do we just ignore the problem when it is challenging? Do we simply allow the truck driver to continue on with business as usual? Besides, ideally, the truck driver/transport company will do regular pre-trip inspections of the underride protection and address the problem with preventive maintenance or appropriate repair BEFORE the truck ever gets on the road.

Furthermore, OOIDA does not appear to have done their research regarding the weight of side guards currently available. The AngelWing upon early production was weighing in at 800 pounds and has, since then, been reduced to about 500 pounds. Likewise, the Wabash Trailers side guard prototype was reported to weigh approximately 500 pounds.

Nor do we have any idea how the equipment would be installed on the roadside. In sum, the bill mandates devices that aren’t practical, that don’t physically work, and that would create operational impossibilities. We should also note that the bill impacts millions of CMVs, trailers, straight trucks, and other vehicles. With an estimated price tag of tens of billions of dollars, S. 665 would implement the single most costly federal trucking mandate in history.

It seems irresponsible to make a claim about an estimated price tag of tens of billions of dollars. DOT is reportedly a data-driven agency. Please provide specifics as to the equation for reaching conclusions about a safety countermeasure which could save countless lives. In fact, the previous cost/benefit analysis reported by NHTSA actually uses underride data which is well-known to be undercounted. As is also a widely-accepted fact, once the safety equipment is mandated, solutions and manufacturers are likely to rise up to meet the need. Costs will likely go down from their current amounts with competition in the marketplace and improvement of designs/products.

Let’s do some of our own back of the envelope math. Just for the sake of discussion, let’s say that a tractor-trailer owner put $3,400 into underride protection equipment — and that’s for a retrofit. Divide that $3,400 into 15 years average trailer life and you have $227/year or $0.62/week. Don’t forget IRS Section 179 allows a tax deduction for business equipment.

And on what information does OOIDA base their claim that “S. 665 would implement the single most costly federal trucking mandate in history”? From what I read, the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate cost truck owners on average $495/truck/year. And read what that website says about the rumors spread about prohibitive costs of ELDs which would put trucking companies out of business (sound familiar?): Considering the overall operational costs of a trucking business, ELD investment doesn’t rank when compared to operating expenses, like fuel, liability insurance, tractor-trailer equipment, and permitting costs.

Is it truly inappropriate to think that safety equipment, like underride protective devices, should be considered a normal, acceptable Cost Of Doing Business (CODB)?

While we’re at it, please answer a question which I have had for several years now. . . even if you estimate the industry’s safety budget at $9.6 billion, as Chris Spear did in a conversation with me in March 2017, please tell me what percentage that is of the total operating budget — or revenue or profit or whatever figure you want to use — for the trucking industry.

Well, if they don’t want to tell me, I’ll have to estimate it myself. This article quotes ATA as saying that in 2017 the trucking industry revenue was $700.3 billion. That would mean that the safety budget (which included drug tests for drivers) was 1.4%. What is included in that?

These investments include technologies on the truck such as collision avoidance systems, electronic logging devices for driver hours of service compliance and video event recorders. They also include driver safety training, driver safety incentive pay, and compliance with safety regulations (e.g., pre-employment and random drug tests and motor vehicle record checks). The largest investment category is in driver safety training, equaling 36% of all investment. Driver safety training was followed by expenditures in compliance with safety rules (26%), on-board safety technologies (25%) and driver safety incentive pay (13%). https://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/News%20and%20Information/Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statistics/06%2028%2016%20-%20Trucking%20Industry%20Invests%20%249%205%20Billion%20in%20Safety%20Annually.pdf

OOIDA hasn’t shared with us their back of the envelope math equation. But here is mine:

Let’s say that there are approximately 2 million existing trailers and 300,000 new trailers/year. Make that 2,500,000 or even 3,000,000 x $3,000/tractor-trailer = $9,000,000,000 or $9 billion. That would be 1.3% of the revenue amount. Is that an unreasonable cost of doing business?

If 1000 lives were saved (plus untold catastrophic, debilitating injuries prevented), that would be $9,000,000/life saved. The DOT sets the Value of a Saved Life (VSL) at $9.6 million.

Obviously, that amount includes retrofitting existing trailers which would not have to be repeated every year. But, even with this rough math calculations, I’m having a hard time seeing what is causing a panic.

Furthermore, is OOIDA helping their membership to look at the broad picture of how comprehensive underride protection can actually benefit the trucking industry? That includes the greatly decreased insurance risk when truck crashes lead to fewer fatalities.

We would encourage you to learn more about the trucking industry, including its incredible diversity, before continuing to promote S. 665. One-size-fits-all solutions simply don’t work.

I would encourage OOIDA, and others in the trucking industry, to thoroughly do their due diligence on the underride problem and solutions. Take it on as collaborative challenge to reach a mutually-beneficial goal: safer trucking. Take advantage of the upcoming opportunity to witness an underride crash and two successful side underride protective devices firsthand at the D.C. Underride Crash Test on March 26.

As a bonus, here are my responses to concerns expressed by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) about the STOP Underrides! Bill:

Question for the ATA: Is it necessary to choose EITHER crash avoidance OR occupant protection — not BOTH?

My knee-jerk reaction to the ATA Letter of Opposition to the STOP Underrides! Bill

Back-of-the-Envelope Math for Underride Protection Retrofit Cost/Trailer Equation

Back-of-the-Envelope Math for Underride Protection Retrofit Cost/Trailer Equation

Let’s do some simple back-of-the-envelope math. How much would it cost to retrofit a trailer? The current estimated cost would be:

Rear guard $ 500

AngelWing Side guard $2,900

Equipment total $3,400

(TrailerGuard SafetySkirt side/rear underride protection system estimate $2,500)

Estimated years of service for a trailer = 15 years

$3,400/15 years = $227/yr

$227 yr./365 days = $0.62/day

So, for $0.62 per day, the trailer owner has the following benefits:

  1. An underride crash with fatalities or life-altering injuries can take a settlement beyond insurance policy limits. Current minimum liability is $750,000; many carriers carry $1 million — large carriers may carry more.
  2. Underride crashes can lead to bankruptcy for independent owner operators and small motor carriers.
  3. Those opposing the bill are not doing a favor to truck drivers, owner operators, and small carriers.
  4. Truck drivers, in general, don’t understand that underride protection will benefit them. It will save their livelihoods.
  5. It will keep truck drivers, who are at fault in a crash, from going to jail if an underride death can be prevented.
  6. It will decrease liability costs, which should decrease their insurance costs.
  7. It could prevent PTSD from being involved in a fatal truck crash (no matter what caused the crash).
  8. A “closed casket crash” impacts truck drivers for a lifetime.
  9. If truck owners would break down the costs of adding the protection over the life of a trailer (10-15 years), it comes out to a very small amount/month — approx. $ .62/day.
  10. Tax deduction from IRS Section 179 for safety equipment purchase.
  11. When side guards are combined with side skirts, it can provide additional fuel savings.
  12. By the way: Allowing underride crashes wastes all of the safety R&D which the auto industry has put into improving the safety features of cars (crush/crumple zone, airbags, seatbelts).

 

Underride Protection Retrofit Cost_Trailer

 

 

Nat’l Sheriffs’ Association Resolution Advocates to STOP Underrides & Improve Commercial Vehicle Safety

Law enforcement officers might not always be familiar with the term underride, but they all too often are familiar with the devastation of an underride crash. For that reason, the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) Traffic Safety Committee was eager to provide us with a Letter of Support when the STOP Underrides! Bill was introduced.

Additionally, the NSA Board of Directors included this public health and traffic safety issue in their 2018  Resolutions. Find the NSA Underride Resolution here.

Of particular note, the Resolution states:

Be It RESOLVED, that the National Sheriffs’ Association and The National Sheriffs’ Association’s Traffic Safety Committee believe that retrofitting commercial vehicles is vital to the efforts to prevent these crashes from occurring, first and foremost and also to lower roadway deaths, injuries, and property damage.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Sheriffs’ Association and the National Sheriffs’
Association’s Traffic Safety Committee encourages further collaborative efforts by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the Federal Highway Administration; the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; the Governors Highway Safety Association; the National Sheriffs’ Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police to monitor and collect data that properly identifies underride deaths caused by Commercial Vehicle-involved crashes.

My heroes! Thank you, NSA!

Senators Gillibrand & Rubio and Representatives Cohen & DeSaulnier Reintroduce Bipartisan Underride Bill

March has been a momentous month for truck underride. Continuing along that line, the STOP Underrides! Bill has been re-introduced to Congress by its sponsors, Senators Gillibrand and Rubio and Representatives Cohen and DeSaulnier, on March 5.

See Senator Gillibrand’s Press Release here and Senator Rubio’s here.

To convince Congress of the importance of this bill to end Death By Underride, we will be hosting an Underride Crash Test Event in Washington, D.C., starting at 10:00 a.m. on March 26 (watch for livestreaming from Eric Flack & WUSA 9).

Consumer Reports urges Congress to pass the Stop Underrides Act

The STOP Underrides! Bill is now S.665 (referred to the Senate Commerce, Science, & Transportation Committee) and HR.1511 (referred to the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee).

@NTSB & @NHTSAgov didn’t call for side guards after 2016 Tesla underride fatality; will they after a 2nd?

NHTSA investigated the May 2016 side underride crash of Joshua Brown’s Tesla. Here is the report which they published in January 2018.

Special Crash Investigations:
On-Site Automated Driver Assistance
System Crash Investigation of the
2015 Tesla Model S 70D 812481

Read this description of the injuries which the driver suffered as a result of Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI) from truck underride:

The front plane of the Tesla underrode the mid-aspect of the semi-trailer in the intersection, and the first crash event occurred as the base of the windshield and both A-pillars of the Tesla impacted and engaged the sill/frame of the semi-trailer’s right plane/undercarriage. Directions of force were in the 12 o’clock sector for the Tesla and the 3 o’clock sector for the UTI semitrailer. The Tesla maintained its momentum and completely underrode the semi-trailer, which sheared the entire greenhouse and roof structure from the Tesla.

During the underride impact, the driver’s face and head contacted multiple intruding components. These contacts produced fatal injuries to the driver. Intruding components and the semi-trailer also contacted and deformed both front row seatbacks and all of the Tesla’s structural pillars. The sheared roof and tailgate/hatch of the Tesla were captured by the right plane of the semi-trailer as the vehicle continued beneath it, and became deposited in the roadway at the location of the impact.

Please explain to me why NHTSA did not suggest that side guards might have changed the outcome of the crash and, furthermore, took no action to initiate rulemaking to mandate side underride protection.

NTSB also investigated the May 2016 Tesla crash and made no side guard recommendations.

Another Tesla Side Underride Tragedy Points to Need for Truck Side Guard Mandate

Congress, Act Now To End Deadly Truck Underride!