Category Archives: Safety Advocacy

What would I do if I were the National Traffic Safety Ombudsman?

June 15, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck SafetyTraffic Safety Ombudsman, Vision ZeroMarianne

I have proposed that the President establish an independent Office of National Traffic Safety Ombudsman–untainted by political pressures–to be an advocate for all things related to moving our country toward zero crash deaths & serious injuries.

This morning, I was thinking about one of the many traffic safety issues and all of a sudden thought, “Okay, so what could a Traffic Safety Ombudsman do to address this problem?” That made me want to write down ideas for what I would do if I were the National Traffic Safety Ombudsman.

I would (not necessarily in this order as this will be a stream of consciousness listing of random thoughts):

Set up a hotline for traffic safety concerns.
Set up a procedure for responding to the concerns reported to the Traffic Safety Hotline–including a means of communicating with the person reporting the problem (if desired).
Set up a system for keeping track of reported problems and how they were handled.
Set up regular communication with safety advocacy groups.
Set up regular communication with other stakeholders.
Prioritize the traffic safety concerns.
Group the traffic safety concerns into categories.
Organize periodic Roundtables for various categories of traffic safety concerns–involving all relevant stakeholders.
Research globally for information on the traffic safety problems and resolutions.
Set a National Vision Zero Goal (if not already done).
Establish a National Vision Zero Task Force (if not already done).
Coordinate the Vision Zero Task Force.
Identify how the three branches of the U.S. government can and need to be involved in advancing traffic safety and helping to move us toward zero crash deaths and serious injuries.
Develop strategies for tapping into government involvement as a means of carrying out the role of protecting its citizens.
Organize a national network of Vision Zero Community Action Groups. Start with a pilot group and develop the model.
Work with the appropriate departments to develop the details of Vision Zero Rulemaking policies.
Develop strategies to raise awareness of traffic safety issues.
Develop strategies to solicit public participation in identifying creative solutions to traffic safety problems.
Develop strategies to get the public appropriately involved in the rulemaking process related to traffic safety issues.
Develop creative ways to honor the memories of traffic victims.
Develop strategies for utilizing available technology for tapping into traffic safety resources, individuals, and organizations.
Develop strategies for collaborating nationally and globally to advance cutting-edge use of technology.
Facilitate cross-departmental collaboration on traffic safety issues.
Foster pro-active preventive thinking related to traffic safety issues.
Handle auto safety defects more effectively to prevent tragic unnecessary deaths.
Hold manufacturers liable for their decisions and actions.
I’m sure that I’ll think of more ideas later.
I’m also sure that someone will jump to the conclusion that my ideas are unrealistic and unworkable. I’d like to see that put to the test!
Always remembering the goal: preventing people from having their lives unncessarily cut short!

FMCSA ANPRM re: Eval. of Truck Drivers for Sleep Apnea; Public Comment Period ends 7/8/16

June 14, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetydriver fatigue, drowsy driving, FMCSA rulemaking, sleep apnea, tired truckersMarianne

Take advantage of the opportunity to comment on FMCSA’s rulemaking — extended through July 8, 2016, on this Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking:

Evaluation of Safety Sensitive Personnel for Moderate-to-Severe Obstructive Sleep Apnea A Proposed Rule by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration on 03/10/2016

Make a comment here: Federal Register: regulations.gov on sleep apnea & truck drivers

World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations

June 14, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyunderride guards, World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle RegulationsMarianne

Detlef Alwes, an engineer from Germany, suggested to me that the U.S. should discuss underride protection with the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. I had never heard of it before. Apparently, the U.S. has not had much involvement with it in the past–at least not as far as underride protection.

But doesn’t it make sense to collaborate with other countries and come up with the safest possible vehicle regulations?

Most countries, even if not formally participating in the 1958 agreement, recognise the UN Regulations and either mirror the UN Regulations’ content in their own national requirements, or permit the import, registration, and use of UN type-approved vehicles, or both. The United States and Canada are the two significant exceptions; their UN regulations are generally not recognised and UN-compliant vehicles and equipment are not authorised for import, sale, or use in the US, unless they are tested to be compliant with US car safety laws, or for limited non driving use (e.g. car show displays).^[4]

“The World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations is a working party (WP.29)^[1] of the Inland Transport Division of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). It is tasked with creating a uniform system of regulations, called UN Regulations, for vehicle design to facilitate international trade.

WP.29 was established on June 1952 as “Working party of experts on technical requirement of vehicles”; the current name was adopted in 2000.

The forum works on regulations covering vehicle safety, environmental protection, energy efficiency and theft-resistance.” World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations

As Ralph Nader is inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame, are cars “still unsafe at any speed”?

June 14, 2016Safety Advocacyauto safety, manufacturer liability, Ralph NaderMarianne

Lou Lombardo reports on Ralph Nader’s upcoming induction into the Automotive Hall of Fame in Detroit. He raises important questions about whether more needs to be done to reduce the ongoing traffic safety problems. . .

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

Achievements

Last year, Clarence Ditlow reported the achievements since publication of Unsafe at Any Speed to include the saving of an estimated 3.5 million lives (many millions more Americans were saved from suffering serious injuries). See
http://www.thenation.com/article/on-50th-anniversary-of-ralph-naders-unsafe-at-any-speed-safety-group-reports-auto-safety-regulation-has-saved-3-5-million-lives/

Honor

Today according to Corporate Crime Reporter:

“Auto safety advocate Ralph Nader will be inducted into the Automotive Hall of Fame next month at the Cobo Center in Detroit Michigan.”

See http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/ralph-nader-to-be-inducted-into-automotive-hall-of-fame/

More Needed

Currently every average day nearly 100 people in America die from vehicle violence.

Every average day nearly 400 people in America suffer serious injuries from vehicle violence.

Every average day nearly $2 Billion in losses result from vehicle violence in America.

See http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812013.pdf

One need addressed by Law Professor Rena Steinzor is in an article last year in the Harvard Law & Policy Review titled

(Still) “Unsafe at Any Speed”:

Why Not Jail for Auto Executives?

See http://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/SteinzorStillUnsafeatAnySpeed060915.pdf

Lou

Interesting article on need for more consumer participation in federal rulemaking process.

June 12, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyfederal rulemaking, Visualizing RulemakingMarianne

I am glad to see that the federal rulemaking has become more open to participation by those upon whom it has the most impact. I only hope that our Vision Zero goals will be genuinely considered and implemented to the benefit of us all.

Along that line, I just found this interesting article from 2013 which outlines the history of participation in the federal rulemaking process.

As a policymaking process, rulemaking is a civic paradox in two senses:

1. It often has substantial direct effects not only on industry but also on individuals (including small business owners), state and local government entities, and non-governmental organizations. Yet relatively few people know about rulemaking, and even fewer understand how it works.

2. Rulemaking’s formal legal structure is an open government ideal: it has broader transparency requirements and public participation rights than any other form of federal decision-making. Yet only a limited range of stakeholders—principally, large corporations and trade and professional associations—take advantage of their right to review the information on which an agency is making its decision, or effectively exercise their right to comment on the merit of the proposed rule.

Rulemaking 2.0: Understanding What Better Public Participation Means, And Doing What It Take to Get It1 by Cynthia R. Farina2 & CeRI3, March 1, 2013

And I am looking forward to the upcoming publication of the article on Visual Rulemaking by two law professors, with the inclusion of the story of AnnaLeah and Mary and our efforts to impact truck safety rulemaking. Elizabeth Porter & Kathryn Watts, Visualizing Rulemaking, N.Y.U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2016).

Important Follow-up to the Underride Roundtable, June 24 at IIHS: The Work Continues

June 11, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyunderride guards, underride research, underride roundtable, Underride Roundtable follow-upMarianne

We have scheduled a follow-up meeting to the Underride Roundtable on Friday, June 24, at 10:00 a.m. at the IIHS offices in Arlington, VA. Further details will be shared when available.

We will mainly be discussing the proposed Australian underride rule with a presentation by Raphael Grzebieta from Australia. It is our hope that this will help the United States assess the relevancy of Australia’s progressive work to the future of underride rulemaking for improved protection in our country.

News of this proposed rule:

News of Australian proposed underride rule April 2016
Previous post announcing this proposed rule with link to the full draft: Good news from Australia: A Stronger Rear Underride Guard Rule Has Been Proposed!
Proposed Australian Underride Rule sections This is a pdf which includes Section 7 on truck underride protection and Appendix G.

Other topics — relevant to our goal of reducing underride crashes, fatalities, and severe injuries — will be addressed to some extent, including side and front underride/override, retrofitting, SUTs/exempt trucks, conspicuity, parking. Future meetings are anticipated in order to continue working on the preventable underride problem.

In addition to the underride rule from Australia, comments from Detlef Alwes of Germany should be carefully reviewed by anyone who holds responsibility for advancing underride protection. This is the most important point which he has made to me over & over in his communication with me via email:

Real energy absorbing underrun protection crash structures or deformation zones on commercial vehicles should become standard, as they have been on passenger cars for decades.

Here is a presentation on underride protection prepared by Detlef: Proposal for an Energy Absorbing Underrun Protection System for Commercial Vehicles

After observing the webcast of the Underride Roundtable, Detlef also made the following recommendations which he would like shared with interested parties in the United States who bear responsibility for the advancement of underride protection.

“In my opinion the following points should be addressed for rulemaking:

real energy absorbing underrun protection system design (the current UP systems are rigid structures to be avoided).
lateral proof loads to be considered in design and testing.
instead of dot-like test loads, the test loads should be defined area-like distributed.
the test collision speed should be higher (just in Germany, the collision velocities are much higher than these of the current crash tests because most highways have no speed limitation).
the ‘Follow-up Underride Roundtable’ should develop Underrun Protection Guidelines and discuss them on UN/ECE level (WP29). “

Detlef’s last recommendation should be given serious consideration, as underride protection is not unique to one country or another. Saving lives is saving lives.

The UN/ECE level (WP29) aims for worldwide technical harmonization of vehicles: The worldwide technical harmonisation of vehicles is governed by two international agreements – the 1958 Agreement and the 1998 parallel Agreement. These agreements establish harmonised requirements at global level to ensure high levels of safety, environmental protection, energy efficiency, and theft protection. Both agreements help eliminate existing technical barriers to trade and prevent the creation of new ones. The involvement of the EU enables easy access to non-EU markets for manufacturers.

This is Detlef’s experience with this kind of collaborative process:

This suggestion is based on my experience in another field: I was the German representative in an international committee for space debris mitigation (IADC: Inter-Agency Space Debris Coordination Committee). The 11 members of the space leading nations have developed the so-called ‘Space Debris Mitigation Guidelines’.

These Guidelines have been presented to the UN, to the Scientific Subcommittee of UNCOPUOS (UN Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space). In this Committee the UN Guidelines for Space Debris Mitigation have been worked out and ratified. It was confirmed by the Committee that this process was very effective and very fast – exemplary. The initiative was started by US (NASA), Europe (ESA) and Russia.

It would be great, if we could establish also such an international committee to develop underrun protection guidelines, which we present to the UN/ECE WP 29. The Proposal to the WP 29 can be put on the agenda by the heads of delegation of the represented nations. Maybe such a process can be started by the initiative of you, the IIHS, the NHTSA and others. According my experience, the German governmental authorities will not be initiative to start. They will follow if it works no longer differently.

His reaction to the Virginia Tech team was this:

Yes, I followed this presentation. At the beginning, I thought that there are good concepts but than I was a little bit disappointed about the chosen reference concept, which is near the conventional barriers with small energy absorbing struts. It is a pity that a more effective underride protection system is owed the opinion that it gets too expensive. My suggestion is to start with a realistic energy absorbing underride protection system, and when effective, one can continue with mass and cost saving measures.

I asked Detlef what he thought of crash testing at higher speeds:

Me: I don’t know if you noticed in the webcast, but I raised the question multiple times about why we were not testing at higher speeds and could we please do so.

Detlef: Yes, I noticed that, and I fully agree. I am wondering that the ADAC in Germany is testing also at 56 km/h, corresponding to 35 mph. That is not very realistic, just were in Germany on most highways is no speed limitation, and therefore in most cases the collision velocities are much higher, although if a braking action in the last moment has been taken.

Detlef: Some organisations require higher proof loads, to which bumpers have to withstand. This means that the bumpers of the trucks become stiffer and stiffer. Actual bumpers have to withstand these static dot-like proof loads in longitudinal direction and may break if they are exceeded. This should not be the intention for a crash compatible partnership between the trucks and passenger cars. Decades of discussions in international committees have failed to develop bumper technology beyond what it was in the 1950s. The message should be: Energy absorbing underrun protection structures on commercial vehicles should become standard, as they are on passenger cars for decades.

Detlef watched the Underride Roundtable livestreaming and had submitted a question about oblique impact to the panel discussion:

I hope the sketch will express what I mean. In the case of an oblique impact on the reaqr side of a truck, the lateral test loads/forces are not defined, only the longitudinal loads/forces in P1, P2 and P3. The damage in the case of an oblique impact can be higher than in the case of an impact in the direction of the longitudinal axes.

Oblique Impact Drawing Detlef Alwes

Offset tests show that the passenger car is turning due to the offset of the Center of Gravities of both cars. But also in this case, the lateral loads/forces are not considered in the regulations.

Underride is a decades-old problem. I look forward to a future less plagued by such preventable tragedies.

Out-of-control. Regrettable actions. Broken lives. Irreversible tragedies.

June 10, 2016Safety Advocacydistracted driving drowsy driving, driver fatigue, drugged driving, drunk driving, impaired driving, traffic safety, Traffic Safety Ombudsman, Vision ZeroMarianne

The recent widespread discussion in social media about the actions of a young man after partying has triggered my distress at the thought of the regrettable actions by drunk, drugged, distracted, and drowsy drivers every day.

Do we really grasp the way that these things impair us and change our ability to act sensibly, responsibly–the way we might if we were “in our right mind”?

What does it lead to (whether intended or not)? Out-of-control. Regrettable actions. Broken lives. Irreversible tragedies.

Surely there are better ways for us to deal with the stress, pain, fear, frustration, and boredom in our lives. I mean, what are we doing to ourselves? Has it become socially acceptable to mess up our own lives as well as those around us?

What can I do about it? What can you do about it? Surely we can work together to find ways to end these senseless, preventable tragedies–on and off the road.

Ex-astronaut charged with murder in car wreck that killed 2

Impaired Driving

Tell your legislators: Establish an Office of National Traffic Safety Ombudsman (Advocate)

June 8, 2016Safety AdvocacyTraffic Safety OmbudsmanMarianne

Tell your legislators to support the establishment of a Traffic Safety Ombudsman who will have a strong voice to advocate for genuine traffic safety measures. Enough of the political tug-of-war that does nothing to stop preventable crash deaths.

Contact your Senators

Contact your Representatives

I just wrote to a long list of legislators. This is what I said:

Don’t wait for 33,000 more crash deaths and 2.2 million crash injuries. Establish an Office of National Traffic Safety Ombudsman. Lead us toward zero crash deaths. Win/Win.

Read more here to find out why I want to see this happen:

Obama (6/1/16): “We used to have really bad auto fatality rates. . .” And we don’t NOW?!

“Visualizing Rulemaking”: Ordinary citizens use highly visual tools to effect change in regulatory realm

Obama (6/1/16): “We used to have really bad auto fatality rates. . .” And we don’t NOW?!

June 5, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck SafetyPresident Obama, Vision ZeroMarianne

Dear President Obama,

I sat at my computer the other day and listened to you speak at a Town Hall on PBS News Hour (recorded June 1, 2016).

You said that crash fatalities were a major public health problem — as if they no longer are. You implied that we have already done, or are already doing, everything possible to prevent 33,000 people from dying on the roads of our country every year.

In fact, your attitude brushes off my daughters’ deaths as inevitable rather than potentially preventable. It sounds like, to you, their deaths — their lives — weren’t worth enough to put out the additional effort needed to decrease the fatality rate to the fullest extent possible. And not once have you acknowledged our petition for Vision Zero action.

Let me tell you, that makes me mad! Would you be any less so were your family in our shoes?! Would that change your tune about the acceptability of the current crash fatality rate? Would you suddenly speak out against the decades of political tug-of-war which delay — over and over — needed safety measures?

Would you go beyond talking about it and do what no one else can do: lead the way in setting our entire nation (and not just some programs in the USDOT or scattered efforts in states, cities, and communities) on a course of aggressively moving toward zero crash deaths & serious injuries?

Would you, in fact, make Traffic Safety a national priority–placing it on the list of important issues listed on whitehouse.gov and then do something about it, e.g.,:

Set a National Vision Zero Goal?
Establish a White House Vision Zero Task Force?
Sign a Vision Zero Executive Order to allow Vision Zero Rulemaking?
Get We the People involved in the action and the solution by promoting the development of a nationwide network of Traffic Safety/Vision Zero Community Groups?
Appoint a Traffic Safety Ombudsman who would oversee all of this and be an Advocate for vulnerable road users (which includes us all) —untainted by political pressures?

President, Obama, don’t be misled by DOT’s commitment to the TZD (Toward Zero Deaths) initiative. It is obviously not enough. I should know; I have spent endless hours engaged in a battle for safer trucking, and others have spent many more years doing so.

Take the bull by the horn, make use of the authority invested in you as the leader of this country, and end this public health travesty. And please, talk to me about this; show me that you are not ignoring our heartfelt, data-driven pleas.

On behalf of AnnaLeah & Mary (and countless others), who can no longer speak for themselves,

Marianne Karth

p.s. What is stopping you from taking this action which would benefit us all?

On the PBS News Hour, June 1, 2016, starting at 1:57 to about 3:05 on this video, hear President Obama speak about the crash fatality rate:

https://www.facebook.com/newshour/videos/10154247237078675/

Obama: “We can’t accept this carnage” Let’s apply that sentiment toward preventable highway carnage.

On D-Day, Monday, June 6, 2016, STARTING at NOON (EST), help me flood the media with this message in reply to President Obama (see the sharing links below):