Monthly Archives: August 2019

Congress, it’s time to act: Industry has proven they will not act voluntarily to protect vulnerable motorists from underride.

As I read a report of the recent jury decision on the lawsuit against the trailer manufacturer under whose trailer Riley Hein burned to death, I paid close attention to the comments made by the defense attorney. Apparently he did not pay close attention to the testimonies given by expert witnesses whom he had opportunity to cross-examine.

Jeff Croasdell, attorney for the manufacturing company, called Riley Hein’s death a terrible tragedy, but he said the jury had found the trailer involved in the incident was not defective so the company was reaching out to jurors to determine the basis for their decision.

Croasdell speculated the jury might have thought the company should have installed side underride guards on the trailer, but he said no such devices are currently on the market. Family awarded $42M in I-40 crash that killed teen driver

Hold on! His statement is totally not true. The AngelWing side guards have been available from Perry Ponder since 2012. Here is a video of an August 2017 AngelWing installation on an Ohio transport company trailer: Side Guards Save Lives; AngelWing Installation.

Another transport company recently posted about their installation of AngelWing side guards:

Of course, maybe the attorney is referring to the fact that none of the trailer manufacturers have a side guard “on the market” — despite the fact that DOT encouraged them to do so in 1970 (Exhibit 7 – 1970 gov’t req. for industry to develop side underride guards).

The Utility Trailer Manufacturer (UTM) lawyer was also quoted as saying, 

“In terms of a product that works, nobody has come up with something that doesn’t make the trailer more dangerous,” he said.

I’m not sure what he considers more dangerous than leaving motorists vulnerable to riding under trucks and having the truck shatter their heads and torsos — or put them at risk of a fiery death. The article does not give a clue as to his speculation in that regard, although I have previously responded to the industry’s stated concerns about side guards.

Another article, gives us a closer look at the attorney’s perspective:

 . . . two weeks of maddening arguments for and against side underride guards and the gruesome, painful details of how Riley died, screaming for help. . .

So gruesome was Riley’s death that jurors were told they did not have to look at photos of his charred remains.

A phalanx of attorneys for the California-based UTM, led by Jeffrey Croasdell, argued that side underride guards, which are not required by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, are ineffective, problematic, cost-prohibitive and unnecessary.

Moreover, he opined, a semitrailer fitted with such guards is even more dangerous than one without.

“You can’t force Utility to put a dangerous item on its trailers,” he saidParents hope verdict ‘a catalyst for change’

Unnecessary? Seriously, did he listen to two weeks of testimony and still make these statements to the reporters? What is he talking about? Did he cover his ears when Riley Hein’s terrible death was described? Did he not see the successful AngelWing crash tests? Would he have the trucking industry do nothing to prevent this unimaginable violence to the human body?

So what does this tell us about the trailer manufacturer’s defense team:

  1. Either he was misquoted by the reporters;
  2. Or he was very misinformed;
  3. Or he was not telling the truth — thereby misleading the public with false statements about a matter of life and death.

Well, I get that a defense attorney is paid to defend and that the trailer manufacturers, in 2004, actually signed a Joint Defense Agreement through the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) to enable them to “counter these activities and defend these lawsuits effectively.” Over the years, I imagine that company engineers have likely faced the frustration of knowing that an engineering solution could be found but having their hands tied from moving forward with any substantial R&D.

I can’t change the past. But I can challenge the leaders of our federal government to take the bull by the horn and pass the STOP Underrides Act — as is — to give the green light to creative engineers and force the trucking industry to put on comprehensive underride protection (front, side, and rear) which will, at long last, protect vulnerable motorists, pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists from horrific underride deaths and injuries.

And if our Congressional leaders do not take this action, what will that say?

 

Jury Found Trailer Manufacturer Negligent In Side Underride Death

A New Mexico jury found a trailer manufacturer “negligent” yesterday in a side underride fatality. “The family hopes the verdict ‘sends a message’ to the truck-trailer industry to take measures to prevent underride crashes.” Read more here.

Everyone, please call Congress at this D.C. phone no. and ask for your U.S. Senators and Representatives. When you get transferred to their office, simply tell the staffer that you want their boss to cosponsor the STOP Underrides Bill (S.665 and HR.1511): (202) 224-3121.

Thank you, Eric Hein and family. Thinking of you and all underride victims. Precious ones gone too soon. Never forgotten. 

#STOPunderrides Enough is enough!

September 3, 1969, Congressional Underride Discussion & Call for Immediate Action to End Deadly “Telescoping Under Trucks”

Last night, I was reading “Truck by Trailer”; The History of the Truck Trailer Manufacturing Industry, published by the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association(TTMA) in 2017. It had come in the mail this week, and I thought that I would see what I could discover. What I discovered was that there was a photo of a May 29, 1969, Western Union Telegram from the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau (equivalent of today’s NHTSA at DOT) to the TTMA. The message was:

THE TIME FOR COMMENT ON DOCKET 1-11–REAR UNDERRIDE PROTECTION–HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1969.

That was referencing the rulemaking which was posted in the Federal Register on March 19, 1969, and in which DOT had stated their intention to add underride protection to the sides of large trucks. Interesting, I thought. So I started searching online to see if I could find a copy of that telegram to post online. After all, I was reading it 50 years later on August 1, 2019.

What I found instead was a Congressional Record from September 3, 1969, which included discussion of the National Traffic & Motor Safety Act of 1966 to fund, extend, & expand upon it. After some in-depth discussions about safety head gear and tire safety, Congressman Vanik from Ohio was given the floor. He made a lengthy statement, with noteworthy comments about underride protection, including the inadequacy of the proposed regulation for rear underride and the absence of regulations for smaller straight trucks, as well as protection on the sides and front of trucks.

Wait! What? Imagine! Fifty years ago, not only was DOT proposing rulemaking, but the U.S. Congress had become informed on this issue and wanted to see immediate action taken to make comprehensive and effective underride protection on all trucks THE LAW!

Are you listening, Congress? NOW is the time to act! What are we waiting for? Too many people — maybe well over 50,000 — have already paid the price since that public Congressional discussion which took place on September 3, 1969.

Congressional Record for September 3, 1969: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1969-pt18/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1969-pt18-2-1.pdf

Relevant excerpts from:

Congressional Record on Underride 9.3.1969 pp. 13-14

Mr. VANIK. . .  I would like to take this time to ask the chairman of the committee whether any consideration was given in this proposed legislation to direct the Administrator to provide for regulations which would bring about uniformity of bumper levels. With the intermix of automobiles and trucks on our Interstate Highway System, I ride in terror, as does everyone else on the public highways, when approach is made to trucks which have no bumper levels to meet those of an automobile. The fear of telescoping under a truck is something that haunts every driver on our highways.

There are thousands of accidents and hundreds of deaths that occur every year as a result of the telescoping problem. Some people have been decapitated in this way. And, it seems to me that some definite action should be taken to provide for uniformity of bumper levels between all vehicles. . . I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether or not your committee considered this matter in connection with this legislation?

Mr. STAGGERS. I might say that the Secretary and the agency or the bureau has this authority now. I am informed that they have probably been looking into it. We do not know whether they plan to come up with any recommendations. But this is their duty and I might say that we can call to their attention now the fact that they should come up with some recommendation in the manufacture of trucks and cars so that there might be, as nearly as possible, developed some safety device as the gentleman has suggested that will prevent these accidents in order to keep these vehicles from overlapping upon impact.

I think the gentleman has raised a very good point. When this bill was brought up in 1966 this authority was given to the Secretary and to the National Safety Bureau.

Mr. VANIK. . . I understand that the Department of Transportation has published, as of March 19, 1969, a proposed rule which would become effective as of January 1, 1971, to provide rear underride protection for trailers and trucks with gross vehicle weight of over 10,000 pounds. . . {this rule was actually not finalized and effective until 1998}

But the Department’s rule is inadequate. The rule does not “apply to truck tractors, or any vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.” What these smaller trucks lack in danger in weight they make up for in speed. The standard should be applicable to all vehicles and trucks so that the risk of damage and fatalities resulting from nonmatching bumper guards is permanently and forever removed from American highways.

All trucks should be covered under the ruling and the ruling should have the force of law behind it. If such a regulation is not adopted during this year, I hope that your committee will issue a mandate for this regulation next year.

Following is a letter which I received on this subject from Mr. Robert Brenner of the National Highway Safety Bureau on August 4, 1969:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C., August 4, 1969. Hon. CHARLES A. VANIK, House of Representatives, Washington, D .C.

DEAR MR. VANIK: This is in further reply to your letter of July 14, 1969, requesting that the Secretary of Transportation issue regulations to improve bumper surface relationships between heavy trucks and passenger cars.

We concur with your views on the benefits that can be realized in reducing highway injuries and collision damage by requiring improved performance capabilities from motor vehicle bumpers. The National Highway Safety Bureau is, in fact, in the midst of developing several regulations that should alleviate, to some extent, the problems created by mismatched vehicle bumpers. . .

For your added information, the unsafe conditions resulting from the use of high front bumpers on heavy trucks are to be evaluated for eventual development of a regulation. . .Sincerely, ROBERT BRENNER, Acting Director.

He then lists specifics of the proposed rear underride rule, including this statement which was also included in the March 19, 1969, Federal Register:

It is anticipated that the proposed Standard will be amended, after technical studies have been completed, to extend the requirement for underride protection to the sides of large vehicles.

STOPunderrides! PETITION: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/104/712/045/congress-act-now-to-end-deadly-truck-underride/