In 2016, Aaron’s team conducted a full overlap rear crash test at approximately 35 mph closure. This test, which was conducted on a reinforced trailer that had already suffered significant rear collision damage. The lightly reinforced rear guard wasn’t able to prevent underride. (TrailerGuards.com)
Aaron’s team has continued to develop trailer underride guards. Recently, they crashed a reinforced trailer with a 2012 Chevy Impala at 38 mph and approximately 25% overlap. This test illustrated that bolt on reinforcements can prevent deadly underride and passenger compartment intrusion (PCI).
Video of Crash Test into a 2005 Vanguard Trailer with a reinforced rear underride guard at 38 mph on January 25, 2020:
Compare that to a crash test by IIHS of a Vanguard 2013 trailer with a weak rear underride guard at 35 mph — at 8:28 on this video:
Crash car after the 38 mph collision into the rear of a tractor trailer: No Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI) Hallelujah!!!
Compare that to the initial design of the Rear Reinforcement Attachments on March 12, 2016:
Now that we have proof that these lightweight aluminum plates can prevent deadly underride, should we simply encourage voluntary adoption of this life-saving safety solution? Or should we require every truck in the U.S. to install safety equipment which can meet that level of performance?
In other words, are we going to make it the law to install equipment which can prevent underride when passenger vehicles collide with the rear of large trucks?
1896 This patent for a side underride protective device for street cars was issued on July 14 1896 and cited by numerous more recent underride patents: http://www.google.com.pg/patents/US564027.
1913 A patent was issued in 1913 for a “Safety Device for Motor Vehicles” to provide underride protection for the sides of large trucks. https://www.google.com/patents/US1127241
Since that time, numerous patents have been published which refer to this 1913 patent (with the patent information organized in these columns: Citing Patent, Filing date, Publication date, Applicant, Title):
These can now be found in a post dedicated to listing UNDERRIDE GUARD PATENTS. To see this list, go here. (1/20/20)
1997 Study illustrates the discrepancies in The Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) underride fatality count when compared to the NHTSA database, highlighting that more people are dying from underride than are being recorded. INCIDE~1
2009 Patent filed for a “Side impact guard device for industrial vehicles, particularly trailers or semi-trailers”
Side impact guard device for industrial vehicles, particularly trailers or semi-trailers
2010 An evaluation of U.S. rear underride guards meeting federal requirements shows that these protections still allow for severe passenger vehicle underride, often resulting in serious or fatal injury. file:///C:/Users/LD46500/Downloads/22esv-000074.pdf
2012 Sapa Extrusions (inventor/engineer Malcolm Deighton) filed for a patent in 2012 for a “Semi trailer under-run protection device” which they later developed into a rear underride guard which was successfully crash tested on a trailer in April 2017. https://www.google.com/patents/USD703106
2015 NTSB recommends that regulators develop performance standards for side and front underride protection systems to improve highway vehicle crash compatibility with passenger vehicles. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl9_2015.aspx
2015 NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on: ANPRM Single Unit Trucks (withdrawn for not being cost effective) and NPRM improved rear underride guards (still in limbo as of 1/10/2020).
2015 Aaron Kiefer, crash reconstructionist and forensic engineer, was issued a patent for an innovative combination side & rear trailer underride protection system: https://www.google.com/patents/US9463759 Please see the numerous underride patents referred to in this patent.
2017IIHS TOUGHGuard Award Announced for improved rear underride guard design by trailer manufacturers, March 1, 2017
2017 IIHS tests side underride guards at 35 mph, and illustrates the dramatic impact side guards have in preventing serious injury and death. IIHS Announces Side Guard Crash Testing Results :
2019 FMCSA Volpe Transportation Center Study Final Report Completed by February 2019 but not available publicly (as of 1/10/2020). Goals include — Despite three decades of international experience, the operational, cost-benefit, and regulatory aspects of requiring truck side guards in the United States has not been studied. This research project addresses this gap. Five key tasks are included in this project: (1) study interaction of a potential side guard with other truck parts and accessories (e.g., fuel tanks, fire extinguisher, exhaust system) and the implications for a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation; (2) investigate applicable international side guard standards; (3) perform a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of truck side guard deployment; (4) propose recommendations; and (5) propose means for voluntary adoption.: Study of Truck Side Guards to Reduce Pedestrian Fatalities
2020 Consensus Side Guard Standard developed by an Engineering Subcommittee in follow-up to an April 17, 2021 Zoom Side Guard Task Force Meeting. Consensus Side Guard Standard
2021Engineers, Trucking Industry, & Victim Advocates Collaborate at Side Guard Task Force On a Friday afternoon — February 26, 2021 — over 50 people met via Zoom to discuss comprehensive underride protection. The purpose of the meeting was to report on progress which has been made by several subcommittees since an earlier meeting in 2020 — including Industry Engagement, Research, and Engineering Subcommittees.
Examples of some of the thousands of underride crashes can be found at these two places online (neither of them being the least bit exhaustive compilations):
Crash testing is always unnerving: Will it work — successfully preventing underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI)? Or will it fail — providing some useful information but sending the enthusiastic engineer back to the drawing board?
Either way, the adrenaline of anticipation followed by the jarring crash invariably leave me unsettled.
After seeing the latest segment of the WUSA9 Underride Investigative Series by Eric Flack, Teresa Woodard at WFAA in Dallas interviewed Rebekah Karth Chojnacki on January 22, 2020. Here’s the result of that interview:
WUSA9 interviewed OOIDA (Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association) about the STOP Underrides Bill. Watch the latest segment of their truck underride investigative series in which OOIDA publicly committed themselves to supporting strengthening rear underride guard standards.
That’s great news. They’ve apparently seen the value of making truck crashes more survivable when cars rear-end trucks. However, it is puzzling to hear them, at the same time, oppose side guard technology which can also prevent people from dying under trucks — in this case, at the sides.
OOIDA said all the research – and crash tests like the one staged last year, just blocks from Capitol Hill, to draw attention to the fight for new underride safety requirements – doesn’t convince their organization side guards will be worth the investment.
“My last semi-trailer was $42,000 just with that trailer,” Pugh said. “So now we’re looking at upping the price another $2,000 to $3,000. That’s hard for a little guy to eat. That’s hard for a big guy to eat. There’s not that much profit in this business and if you want me to buy this technology and buy into this technology, you’re going to need to show me it works.” Lewie Pugh, executive vice president of the Owner-Operated Independent Truck Driver Association or OOIDA, which represents more than 160,000 members nationwide.
Pugh wants more government (read that taxpayer) funded side guard research:
Pugh says that means real-world testing. Prototypes, paid for by the government, studied by a federal agency like the Department of Transportation for effectiveness.
Perhaps he’s unaware of the side guard study conducted by Texas A&M on a contract from NHTSA (with taxpayer money) published in April 2018.
Is he aware of the untold number of hours put in by researchers and engineers to study and solve the underride problem over the past five decades? Here it is in a nutshell: History of Underride Research & Reports: 1896 to 2019
Maybe he doesn’t realize that the AngelWing side guard — successfully tested by the IIHS at 35 and 40 mph and by its inventor at 47.2 mph — has been installed on multiple trucks for several years and traveled thousands of miles without operational issues.
What exactly wouldconvince him that underride protection on the sides of large trucks — promised by DOT on March 19, 1969 — can truly mean the difference between life and death? Or that they are not “too costly”?
There are major developments in the fight to require lifesaving equipment on big rigs driving next to you on the road. Safety advocates say it could help prevent devastating crashes known as underride accidents.
One of the nation’s largest trucking groups now says it is open to some of the proposed requirements. But the question remains if the industry’s concessions will go far enough for the families of accident victims.
Wonderful news! WUSA9 interviewed OOIDA (Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association) about the STOP Underrides Bill. Watch the latest segment of the WUSA9 truck underride investigative series in which OOIDA publicly committed themselves to supporting a mandate to strengthen rear underride guard standards.
Engineers have long recognized the problem of truck underride (passenger vehicles going under trucks). They have also spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out engineering solutions to this deadly problem.
This post will attempt to record many of the patents issued in connection with these noble efforts. It will likely not be exhaustive, so I would welcome information on patents which I might have missed.
1896 This patent for a side underride protective device for street cars was issued on July 14 1896 and cited by numerous more recent underride patents: http://www.google.com.pg/patents/US564027.
1913 A patent was issued in 1913 for a “Safety Device for Motor Vehicles” to provide underride protection for the sides of large trucks. https://www.google.com/patents/US1127241
Since that time, numerous patents have been published which refer to this 1913 patent (with the patent information organized in these columns: Citing Patent, Filing date, Publication date, Applicant, Title):
Side impact guard device for industrial vehicles, particularly trailers or semi-trailers
2012 Sapa Extrusions (inventor/engineer Malcolm Deighton) filed for a patent in 2012 for a “Semi trailer under-run protection device” which they later developed into a rear underride guard which was successfully crash tested on a trailer in April 2017. https://www.google.com/patents/USD703106
2015 Aaron Kiefer, crash reconstructionist and forensic engineer, was issued a patent for an innovative combination side & rear trailer underride protection system: https://www.google.com/patents/US9463759 Please see the numerous underride patents referred to in this patent.
The current underride rulemaking was issued as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on December 16, 2015. Over four years ago. It’s time to take care of business. People continue to die horrific, violent, unimaginable underride deaths.
Is it time to move forward with negotiated rulemaking to hammer out practical, effective solutions for the deadly underride problem? Is it doable? Would this process enable us to overcome the stalemate between industry and safety advocates — to get the current underride rulemaking out of limbo?
NOTES ON NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING:
Declares that any agency may consult with the Administrative Conference of the United States and other individuals and organizations for information and assistance in forming a negotiated rulemaking committee and conducting negotiations.
Authorizes the Chairman of the Conference to pay, upon request of an agency head, all or part of the expenses of convening and conducting a negotiated rulemaking proceeding.
{NOTE: Apparently, this ability was later taken away from the ACUS and they are no longer able to assist in this way with negotiated rulemaking. Oh, well. Back to SQUARE ONE!}
The negotiated rulemaking process is unique in several ways from both listening sessions and advisory committees. . . a negotiated rulemaking committee’s goal is to make binding, enduring decisions that will resolve the underlying issues and, if present, disputes.
Compared to participation in hearings/meetings and advisory committees, the role of non-Agency participants in interacting with the Agency through the negotiated rulemaking process is often far more robust, expansive, and issue-focused.
An SNPRM may be issued if a proposed rule has been substantially changed from the original notice of proposed rulemaking. The supplemental notice advises the public of the revised proposal and provides an opportunity for additional comment. To give the public a reasonable opportunity to become reacquainted with a rulemaking, a supplemental notice may also be issued if considerable time has elapsed since publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. An SNPRM contains the same type of information generally included in an NPRM. § 1.05-40 Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
What are we waiting for?
The AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition was delivered to DOT on May 5, 2014 — one year after our crash. It called for comprehensive underride rulemaking. We’ve uncovered a lot more information since then; we’re well-equipped to participate in this process. Let’s get on with it.
Super single tires (in place of the more common dual tire set-up) on semi-trailers could actually save weight, cost, and — when combined with side guards — lives! Sounds like a Win/Win scenario to me! But don’t take my word for it, read about the potential benefits in this truck driver blogpost:
Essentially, instead of having eighteen tires to support the trailer and truck, only ten will be needed because of the improved design of the tire itself. The super single truck tires can withstand the weight of the trailer and vehicle over the same time period as their dual counterparts. A study performed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory showed that trucks could save an average of almost 3% on gas or diesel fuel. While 3% may not sound like much, over 125,000 miles and averaging five miles per gallon that results in a savings of 728 gallons per year.
In addition, the new tires actually offer more stability with a wider truck frame. However, the most interesting advantages are that these tires can hold up for about 200,000 miles as opposed to the standard 160,000 miles for the conventional tires. This means that money is saved on replacement as well since the fewer number of super singles which actually last 40,000 miles longer.
However, the main advantage that super singles offer is that they are stronger, yet lighter in weight than their standard counterparts by roughly 1,000 pounds in total. While this weight savings may translate to better fuel mileage, trucking companies see this as being able to add 1,000 more pounds to the cargo. This means that more can be hauled on a single trip which can earn the company even more money than before.
Possible Drawback (as mentioned in the video below) is what could happen when there is a tire blow-out.
Additional Citations To Check Out:
Motor carriers consider many factors — and come to different conclusions — as they evaluate wide-base tires versus standard duals for their tractors and trailers Fleets Weigh Benefits, Drawbacks of Wide-Base Tires Versus DualsTransport Topics, April 13, 2020
