Perhaps your political leanings favor self-regulation rather than imposing regulations upon industry. But what do you do if that industry has opposed life-saving measures for fifty years and thousands of people die as a result?
Like a UK Committee argued about the tax industry, might you conclude that, “Government needs to take a more active role in regulating the [trucking] industry, as it evidently cannot be trusted to regulate itself”?
Eight major trailer manufacturers have designed stronger rear underride guards to withstand a crash test at 35 mph all the way across the back of the trailer — earning them the TOUGHGuard Award from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This is significant because their previous designs — though meeting the current federal standard for rear guards — have been proven too weak and ineffective by IIHS.
There are about 300,000 new trailers sold every year. Some manufacturers are selling the stronger guard as Standard on all new trailers. Others are selling it as an Option, meaning that trailers may still be sold with guards known to be too weak to stop cars and save lives.
In addition, if we don’t retrofit the existing 11 million+ trailers with stronger guards — which will meet the TOUGHGuard criteria (plus side and rear underride protection) — it will be years before the entire fleet will be safer to drive around.
Fortunately, some of the trailer manufacturers have a retrofit kit for the rear guards, so that a trucking company could theoretically purchase kits to make their trucks safer. However, without a mandate to do so, I don’t imagine that will happen too quickly.
But I am encouraged by the work of Aaron Kiefer, a North Carolina crash reconstructionist who has seen so many underride tragedies that he decided to design some solutions on his own — primarily out of his own pocket and on his own time, with the support of his family who share their husband and dad with his life-saving project.
Just this weekend, Aaron installed the latest version of his Rear Reinforcement Attachment to a 53 foot trailer. Over the last five years, Aaron has been developing a design for two aluminum triangles, which are fastened to both sides of the trailer and then attached to both ends of the existing rear underride guard.
This reinforces the strength of the rear guard — improving its capability to stop a car and prevent underride. But it, also, serves as the point of attachment for Aaron’s side guard invention, the SafetySkirt — polyester webbing which can be combined with a side skirt to both save fuel and save lives.
You can see the SafetySkirt being tested at the D.C. Underride Crash Test Event on March 26, 2019:
We are looking forward to the day when Aaron’s SafetySkirt System can be tested at IIHS to prove its usefulness as an affordable, lightweight solution, which could theoretically be available as an option to retrofit any truck on the road with effective side and rear underride protection.
Aaron, like Perry Ponder who invented the AngelWing side guard, and countless other engineers, who should be given a green light to solve the underride problem, are amazing members of my Underride Hero Hall of Fame — along with my husband Jerry who has contributed a wealth of ideas in this underride advocacy journey.
According to a WUSA9 Investigative Report on Underride, court documents show, “As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Utility Trailer’s negligence, Plaintiffs’ decedent Riley Hein LOST A CHANCE AT A BETTER OUTCOME when instead of simply colliding with the semitrailer, his car became trapped underneath the semitrailer, resulting in a fire and directly leading to his death.”
That’s what the #STOPunderrides Bill is all about! If passed, this legislation will give motorists and vulnerable road users A CHANCE AT A BETTER OUTCOME when they have the misfortune of colliding with a truck. Effective underride protection will prevent underride and enable the car’s crashworthy safety features, like the crumple zone, airbags, and seat belt tensioners, to do their job and protect the car’s occupants from deadly injuries.
This includes not only SIDE underrides but also those collisions that occur at the FRONT and the REAR of trucks. A few weeks ago, I obtained a FARS data report from NHTSA (DOT) for “reported” underride deaths during 1994-2017. It clearly shows that the number of reported underride deaths did not significantly decrease after a federal standard for rear underride guards was implemented in 1998.
NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): Underride Deaths, 1994-2017
Apparently, neither NHTSA nor the trucking industry bothered to make it a priority to look at those statistics and ask some hard but important questions, “Why are people continuing to die under trucks?” and “What can we do about it?”
In fact, just the opposite apparently occurred as evidenced by court documents which reveal that the trucking industry deliberately acted to protect themselves from being forced to add underride protection to their trucks. The TTMA (Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association) did not do this alone; the ATA (American Trucking Associations) played their part as well.
The question is: Where do we go from here? Congress, I’d say that the ball is definitely in your court.
Latest WUSA9 underride series segment reports on the $42 million jury verdict in Riley Hein’s side underride case. The report includes Eric Flack’s interview of Andy Young, CDL holder and truck litigation attorney, during the D.C. Underride Crash Test Event.
“These are the things that ultimately result in the eight-figure verdicts which can push a motor carrier into bankruptcy,” Andy Young said, a former truck driver who now represents accident victims families in lawsuits against trucking companies.
“So, you’re actually protecting everyone in the industry as a result of these devices,” Young said.
See the broadcast and read the article here: https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/victims-family-wins-42-million-from-trucking-company-after-underride-accident/65-a113e4ee-6137-4f2d-8580-19b4bb294a9e
Tell me again why we are letting the flawed data on underride deaths determine the Cost Benefit Analysis — and thus the decision on underride regulations. We already knew the FARS data was underreported; we just discovered additional disturbing evidence of that fact.
At the end of August, I obtained the FARS field dump data for the Joshua Brown Tesla deadly crash in Florida when his car went completely under the side of a tractor trailer and out the other side on May 7, 2016. In the field which has to be filled out related to underride, it is listed as “No Underride or Override Noted.”
What?! Imagine that! A clear-cut, well-known side underride crash — investigated by the NTSB — and NHTSA got it wrong. In 2016.
You can see it for yourself in this pdf, p. 10:
FLORIDA_2016_FARS_CASE_120918 (1)
And that’s not the only one I received. I also requested the FARS data on Roya Sadigh’s crash (daughter of Lois Durso) on November 24, 2004 — one that we know is a side underride with clear evidence of Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI). Again, “No Underride/Override.” See p.3:
INDIANA_2004_FARS_CASE_180748 (1)
We had already received FARS data on our own crash on May 4, 2013. It says “Passenger Compartment Intrusion Unknown.” And the Georgia FARS report for 2013 at the Rear of trailers lists one underride — despite two daughters having died under the truck.
In response to a request for explanation of a recent withdrawal of the underride rulemaking for Single Unit Trucks, Senator Gillibrand received a letter from NHTSA in August explaining that they had used TIFA (trucks in fatal accidents) data rather than FARS data. However, upon closer examination one will discover that the TIFA data is based upon the FARS data. How reliable is that?
UPDATE, February 11, 2023: The Joshua Brown crash has been updated in the FARS data to indicate that it was an Underride with Passenger Compartment Intrusion.
STOP Underrides UPDATE: September 2019
On September 3, 1969, U.S. 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! Pass the STOP Underrides Bill into law already!
Too many people have already paid the price since that public Congressional discussion which took place fifty years ago on September 3, 1969. No more.
Congressional Record for September 3, 1969
See relevant excerpts from pp. 13-14 and more details in this post:
Congressional Record on Underride 9.3.1969 pp. 13-14
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 said. Parents 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:
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?
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!
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.
