Category Archives: Safety Advocacy

The best kind of preparation for going to Washington to speak up for vulnerable road users. . .

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

I have heard this encouragement four different times now this week, through different means: Be strong and courageous.

I needed to hear that. Especially because I have had some hard days of missing AnnaLeah and Mary, at the same time that the task feels overwhelming.

One of the times was just tonight when I searched for a facebook post with a photo of a drawing which Isaac made of Mary at Lake Michigan. I haven’t found it yet. But I did serendipitously find some good treasures recorded in our Journey through Grief Page. They were the best kind of encouragement as we prepare to go to Washington next week.

September 14, 2013:

September 13, 2013:

Here am I, send me!  https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.511293028953216.1073741899.464993830249803&type=1

September 20, 2013:

My what a lot we have learned since then!

September 30, 2013:

October 3, 2013:

April 16, 2014:

8 Picture 657

 

Importance of uniform legislative standards in reducing accidents cannot be overestimated, July 31, 1934

Safety Advocacy, ,

I can’t get this out of my head: why are we waiting for states to adopt their own traffic safety standards instead of establishing National Traffic Safety Standards which states are required to adopt? What is this–the Wild, Wild West? We are the united states of America–are we not?

Why on earth don’t we establish National Traffic Safety Standards & require them to be adopted by States? (Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety held a press conference which I watched live-stream. They released their 13th Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws–outlining the 319 proven safety laws which many states have not adopted, including such things as seat belt usage, motorcycle helmet laws, impaired driving, child passenger safety, teen graduated licensing laws, and distracted driving.)

Should not proven safety standards be applied universally?

Note this statement from the 1934 National Conference on Highway Safety:

The importance of uniform legislative standards in reducing accidents and facilitating the movement of traffic cannot be over estimated, and the adoption of these standards by all States and municipalities is earnestly recommended.

Daniel C. Roper, Secretary of Commerce, Chairman, National Conference on Highway Safety, Washington, DC, July 31, 1934  ACT III – UNIFORM MOTOR VEHICLE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT

Later, Uniform Gudelines for State Highway Safety Programs were released by NHTSA. Where are we with that? Have we moved away from mandating states to adopt specific traffic safety standards? Is it optional? What is working and what is not working at this point?

National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act

Highway Safety Program Guidelines:
Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State highway safety programs. These guidelines offer direction to States in formulating their highway safety plans for highway safety efforts that are supported with section 402 and other grant funds. The guidelines provide a framework for developing a balanced highway safety program and serve as a tool with which States can assess the effectiveness of their own programs. NHTSA encourages States to use these guidelines and build upon them to optimize the effectiveness of highway safety programs conducted at the State and local levels.

  1. Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection
  2. Motor Vehicle Registration
  3. Motorcycle Safety | PDF version for print
  4. Driver Education
  5. Non-Commercial Driver Licensing
  6. Codes and Laws
  7. Judicial and Court Services
  8. Impaired Driving (updated)| PDF version for print
  9. [Reserved]
  10. Traffic Records
  11. Emergency Medical Services
  12. Prosecutor Training
  13. Older Driver Safety
  14. Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety(updated) | PDF version for print
  15. Traffic Enforcement Service (updated) | PDF version for print
  16. Management of Highway Incidents
  17. Pupil Transportation Safety
  18. Crash Investigation and Incident Reporting
  19. Speed Management(updated) | PDF version for print
  20. Occupant Protection(updated) | PDF version for print
  21. Roadway Safety

Is this still operative today?  If so, why are there 319 traffic safety laws which have not been adopted by states? Is it the duty of the federal government to protect its citizens from crash deaths & serious injuries?

NOTE the connection with federal funds to states: 

(2)Waiver.—

The Secretary may waive the requirement of paragraph (1)(C), in whole or in part, for a fiscal year for any State whenever the Secretary determines that there is an insufficient number of local highway safety programs to justify the expenditure in the State of such percentage of Federal funds during the fiscal year.

(c)Use of Funds.—

(1)In general.—

Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety programs approved in accordance with subsection (a), including development and implementation of manpower training programs, and of demonstration programs that the Secretary determines will contribute directly to the reduction of accidents, and deaths and injuries resulting therefrom. Title 23 › Chapter 4 › § 402 23 U.S. Code § 402 – Highway safety programs

Major Highway Safety Legislation Affecting Public Health

 

Delayed adoption and implementation of proven safety standards inevitably results in unnecessary, preventable deaths.

gertie 2947

Noncompliance Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle Safety

Safety Advocacy

I was just reading about this yesterday and noted the multitude of links for this sort of thing:

concept of noncompliance inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2014-0034-0003
Let’s make sure that we have identified properly what is consequential to motor vehicle safety/highway safety and how we determine what has/is SIGNIFICANT SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.
Then, I got this email from the Truck Safety Coalition this morning:

The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) sent a letter telling the FMCSA to remove and limit the number of exemptions the agency grants. The CVSA argues that FMCSA is granting excessive exemptions, which hinder enforcements efforts by creating inconsistency and confusion. TSC has been and continues to be firmly opposed to state or industry exemptions for this very reason. We support the CVSA’s stance on this issue, and also urge the FMCSA to reconsider and reduce the many exemptions it grants to carriers, particularly those pertaining to training and hours of service.

Link to Article: http://www.overdriveonline.com/cvsa-to-fmcsa-scale-back-on-hours-and-other-exemptions/  

The Truck Safety Coalition Team

Scan

A Canadian comments on the US proposed adoption of Canadian underride standard

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

Insightful Public Comment from a Canadian road safety expert on the NPRM for upgrade of Rear Underride:

Comment from Neil Arason

Regarding the above noted proposed rulemaking, I support fully a new rear guard standard that exceeds the Canadian standard, which was developed some time ago and that current research shows does not provide adequate passenger compartment protection in all crash scenarios. I also support fully that the new standard apply to all trucks including single unit ones. I believe the NHTSA has overestimated the costs and underestimated the benefits of such changes. More importantly, however, we must modernize the very way we think about road safety in the United States and Canada. We need to make the default design for every car, truck and bus to be one that simply minimizes all levels of human harm.

The use of a cost-benefit analysis for motor vehicle design and upgrades represents outdated thinking. The air, marine and rail industries have a much more forward approach when it comes to safety and more often works to ensure that these modes are safe for all persons. We must do the same with motor vehicles as the use of cost-benefit analysis involves assigning a monetary value to a human life and it is unethical and crass to do that.

Thank you for considering my comments on this important matter.

Regards,
Neil Arason

Underride NPRM screenshot 007

No Accident: Eliminating Injury and Death on Canadian Roads

AnnaLeah & Mary are “going to Washington, DC”; Vision Zero meetings March 3 & 4

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

Vision Zero Book 016

Jerry, Isaac, and I are taking over 19,000 Vision Zero Petitions to Washington, D.C., next week. This time we are not taking them in individual envelopes. Instead, we have compiled a printed book (designed by Isaac) with the 16,516 signatures which we had on February 12–along with:

  • the petition letter to Secretary Foxx
  • the petition letter to President Obama
  • explanations of what we mean by Vision Zero, along with examples of practical application of a Vision Zero Goal
  • also, what we are asking for in an action plan, including a National Vision Zero Goal, a White House-mandated Vision Zero Task Force, and a Vision Zero Executive Order.
  • Comments from signers of the petitions
  • and links to all of the Vision Zero posts on the annaleahmary.com website.

We will also be making a pdf of the book available. And Care2 (ThePetitionSite) will be printing off all of the petition signatures, as of next week, and delivering them to us in a binder to take to Secretary Foxx.

On March 3 and 4, we have multiple meetings scheduled in Washington to discuss our requests and petition our country’s leaders to take decisive action.

This is our current Washington schedule (subject to change):
  • 9 a.m. March 3, Rep. Ellmers’ staff
  • 10 a.m., March 3, Rep. Cartwright’s staff
  • 11 a.m., March 3, Rep. Holding’s staff
  • noon, March 3, Sen. Isakson’s staff
  • 2 p.m., March 3, joint meeting with Sen. Blumenthal’s staff & Sen. Markey’s staff
  • 9 a.m., March 4, Sen. Burr’s staff
  • 11 a.m., March 4, DOT policy officials
  • 1:30 p.m., March 4, Underride Roundtable planning meeting

We have also arranged to have a Petition Book delivered to President Obama. When my granddaughter, Vanessa (6), saw the stack of books in my bedroom, she asked why they were still there. I explained that we were going to Washington next week and about the meetings and all of the people to whom we were going to be giving books.

Vanessa remembered going with us to deliver the first petition in May 2014. At 4, she sat quietly and “took notes.” Yesterday, she decided that she wanted to write a letter to the president to tell him that she missed Aunt Mary and Aunt AnnaLeah. So we will be taking that as well.

Recently-Submitted Public Comments Posted as Underride Rulemaking Process Continues

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

Underride NPRM screenshot 007

With the formal Public Comment period on the rear underride rulemaking for trailers now closed, recently-submitted comments have been posted and can be viewed at these links:

Notifications from Regulations.gov
———————————-

The link to the Proposed Rule is here:
DOCKET:            NHTSA-2015-0118 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0118)
NOTIFICATION NAME:
FREQUENCY:        Daily
EXPIRES:          01/11/2017
NUM DOCUMENTS:    9

The most recently-posted comments are individually listed here:
DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0022 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0022)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Seven Hills Engineering, LLC.

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0023 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0023)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Randy Gates

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0024 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0024)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Jerry Karth

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0025 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0025)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Courtney Wood

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0026 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0026)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Marianne Karth

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0027 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0027)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Brian Vires

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0028 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0028)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Andy Young

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0029 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0029)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Erin Roth

DOCUMENT ID:    NHTSA-2015-0118-0030 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0030)
DOCUMENT TYPE:  PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE:    02/22/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Peter Kurdock

 

EO 12866 vs Vision Zero Executive Order: The Underride Network calls for decisive action

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

The following is a post on The Underride Network by Stephen Hadley who lost his wife in a side underride crash twenty years ago. He expressed his concern about side underride protection and about how Bill Clinton’s Executive Order 12866 has made it difficult to pass effective government agency rules.

When I learned about Executive Order 12866 last year, I was motivated to draft a new Executive Order for Obama to sign which would override the negative effects of EO 12866. This is what we are taking to Washington on March 4: Executive Order Draft 2 Application of Vision Zero Principles to Highway Safety Regulatory Review.

Tag Archives: Vision Zero Executive Order

Here is Steve Hadley’s recent post on this topic:

Two life-long best friends each had little sisters that were also life-long friends. I and my best friend were riding in the back seat of a drivers education car when we crashed into someone’s front yard. My best friend’s big brother married the little sister driving that car, a few years later, she died underneath the side of a truck trailer. My wife Tamara Hadley, the other little sister died underneath the rear of an illegally parked truck trailer with a Clinton rear underride guard.
 
President Bill Clinton updated Ronald Reagan’s Executive orders establishing cost-benefit analysis with Executive Order 12866. These orders limiting corporate costs of safety regulations have made it almost impossible to pass effective government agency rules for over twenty years. . . 

. . . NHTSA wants to just legalize the guards already on the road as did the Clinton Administration twenty years ago. Studies could not find statistical improvement in lives saved by these guards. We estimate at least 6,000 extra Americans died because the administration blocked better guards that had been tested at higher speeds. We call these rear guards of the last twenty years the Clinton guillotine guards. If the new regulation by the Obama Administration is approved as presented to just legalize existing guards, they will now be known as Obama guillotine guards. . .
 
. . . We have fought for Vision Zero regulatory safeguards to replace Clinton cost-benefit rules for twenty years to save thousands of lives. Destroying the meaning of Vision Zero and the meaning of side guards will cripple our efforts for national rules and regulations. Cost-benefit analysis has killed tens of thousands of Americans and given us corporate control of our government and portions of our economy. . .
 
Total truck related fatalities in 2013 were 3,964, 338 were pedestrians and 78 were bicyclists or about 10.5% were vulnerable road users. 585 or 15% of total fatal crashes were to the side of the truck in cars in 2013. Most fatal victims die in crashes to the front of the truck. If we design side skirts that only save vulnerable road users we will only save a small percentage of victims leaving most victims including many children to die in car crashes. Many of my friends lost their children in these crashes. . . 
  
Vision Zero means stop killing the children! Even those unworthy souls in cars too! Work with us to save lives, not against us. Over a million Americans have been killed and injured in crashes with trucks. A bad law in America can kill tens or hundreds of thousands overseas as our regulations are copied or not exceeded around the globe. Easily, the Clinton guards in the last twenty years killed a hundred thousand extra souls around the world which would have been saved with available stronger rear guards.

Read the full article here: NYC Vision Zero and phony side guards will wreck national safety efforts
http://www.underridenetwork.org .
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/54000/54700/54711/Truck_Sideguards_NYC.pdf
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_12866.pdf

Aaron Kiefer underride design prototype photo

Aaron Kiefer’s prototype of an innovative retrofitting side/rear underride guard

Additional response from trucking industry to our request for voluntary action on underride problem

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

In our efforts to not only improve regulatory federal standards on underride guards but, also, to catalyze voluntary industry improvement, we heard back from several companies to whom we had written, including:

  • UPS in Atlanta (Dan)
  • CR England (Chad England)
  • Extra Mile Transportation (Brent)
  • J.B. Hunt (Greer Woodruff, Lowell, AK
  • UPS (buys from Great Dane)
  • FedEx

Chad England committed his company to looking into the matter seriously. (CR England) And Dean Engelage (Great Dane) invited Jerry and I to visit their Research & Design Center in Savannah in June 2014:

Jerry,

We’re looking forward to hosting you and your wife next week.  I thought we would start the day off with an 8:30 am breakfast at a local favorite, J. Christopher’s which is near the hotel 122 E Liberty Street.  Brandie Fuller, our VP of Marketing, will join us.  Parking for the restaurant is street-side at a meter. 

We’ll then head to the Great Dane office which is also close by.  A series of meetings and a tour of our R&D lab followed by lunch.  If all goes as planned we should be finished right after lunch. 
I look forward to meeting you both and safe travels to Savannah. If you have any questions, please email me or call me.
Regards,
Dean Engelage 
President 
Great Dane
Underride guards Great Dane trip 040Underride guards Great Dane trip 044

This is what we learned from the Great Dane visit: Underride Guards: Can we “sit down at the table together” and work this out?

In addition, we received a letter from Brent Hudson at Extra Mile Transportation:

I am in receipt of your letter and packet dated 17 Feb 14.

First, let me offer you my most sincere condolences on the loss of your beautiful daughters.  I have a daughter who is two months shy of her 18th birthday, so I do not even want to imagine the heartache associated with this tragedy.  I can only offer you my most sincere respect in working to turn such a tragedy into something good.

 Extra Mile Transportation is a non-asset based, third party freight broker.  That means that we don’t own any equipment, we contract out for everything we move.  However, we are in a position to exert some influence on this matter.  By copy of this email, I am requesting our Director of Logistical Solutions incorporate this awareness campaign into some of his efforts.  I will be meeting with him to go over this issue and we’ll see what impact we may have.

 I wish you only the best for the times you share with your other children and hope that your memories of Mary and AnnaLeah continue to have a positive impact on our safety.

 My warmest personal regards,

 Brent Hudson, Vice President

Extra Mile Transportation

For more details of our efforts in reaching out to the trucking industry and, in particular, the encouraging response from J. B. Hunt, see: An unexpected phone call from a trailer buyer with good news on underride guards

All in all, we are hopeful that the combination of calling for both more appropriate regulations through Vision Zero rulemaking and, at the same time, voluntary action will yield the desired result–SAVED LIVES. Together, we can do this!

Taking the Vision Zero Petition to DC on March 3 & 4! Sign & Share: Save Lives Not Dollars: Urge DOT to Adopt a Vision Zero Policy

“The nondisclosure of safety defects by a car company”

Safety Advocacy, ,

Louis Lombardo does important work by watching out for timely news in the realm of traffic safety and sends out regular emails to keep others informed. If you would like to get his regular updates, you can sign up here: “Care for Crash Victims”

Here is information from the Home Page to let you know what it is about:

Introduction
This web site named “Care for Crash Victims” is a project of a small business public benefit enterprise, Louis V. Lombardo, LLC.  The mission is to improve care for crash victims before, during, and after a crash.  We are all crash victims — past, present, and future — as individuals, families, friends and society.  All of us are impacted by crashes as consumers, insurance premium payers, and tax payers. 

Vision
The vision is to advance the prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation of serious crash injuries.  Currently in the U.S. each day nearly 100 people die of crash injuries — more than half die without transport to a medical treatment facility — and another estimated 400 people suffer serious injuries.  U.S. DOT dollar values for preventing such losses currently amount to about $2 Billion each day.

Since 1978 in the U.S., more people have died and suffered serious crash injuries than died or were wounded in all wars since 1776. 

This work continues 45 years of research, writing, and public interest advocacy described and documented to some extent on this web site — along with some key historic publications.

And here is a sample of Lou’s informative emails–from this morning . . . it touches, among other things, on the issue of “the nondisclosure of safety defects by a car company,”

– See more at: http://www.atlantamagazine.com/great-reads/no-accident-inside-gms-deadly-ignition-switch-scandal/#sthash.lTahNcLx.dpuf

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

The shocking history of discovery of countless tragedies – so far – is well described at  http://www.atlantamagazine.com/great-reads/no-accident-inside-gms-deadly-ignition-switch-scandal/

The latest legal maneuvers and the wrangling over money are reported by Automotive News.  GM quote suggests the fix continues:

“In a statement, GM spokesman Jim Cain said the company believed the current plan “remains the best process to inform settlement value for the remaining cases.””
See  http://www.autonews.com/article/20160219/OEM11/160219839/gm-ignition-switch-plaintiffs-ask-to-revise-early-trial
Imagine an image of a blindfolded Justice holding scales with lives on the lighter side and money on the heavier side with a tear coming out from under the blindfold.

Lou
What can bring us to a point where we can pro-actively prevent such deadly situations? Stand with us for a National Vision Zero Goal:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/
Car Safety Wars book cover
Michael Lemov sheds light on this distressing issue: http://www.amazon.com/Car-Safety-Wars-Technology-Politics/dp/161147745X

Interesting Public Comment on the Underride Rule Question: To Retrofit or Not To Retrofit Used Trailers?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

The Public Comment Period closed on February 16, but not all of the submitted comments have been posted yet. The proposed rear underride rule can be seen here along with all of the posted comments: NPRM Upgrade Underide

On the question of whether used trailers should be retrofitted in order to make them safer (better able to protect against deadly underride crashes), here is an opinion from one person who recently submitted a public comment. . .

Decision not to require used trailers to be retrofitted (end of Section 7, page 32):

“You state that your analysis indicates such a retrofitting requirement would be very costly without sufficient safety benefits. If more lives would be saved and more injuries would be prevented by requiring new trailers to meet the new standards, then logic dictates that more lives would be saved and more injuries would be prevented by requiring used trailers to be retrofitted.

“Indeed, the crash tests cited for new trailers of different manufacturers tested on a Chevy Malibu suggest substantial disparities. It can be expected that the disparities would be magnified if tests were conducted on some of the used equipment in the nation’s fleet. If it is not worth the cost to retrofit an old trailer (in which case it should be scrapped), that should be the decision of its owner rather than the decision of NHTSA.” See more of his comments here: Comment from D. J. Young, III

Here is one innovative side/rear guard design which will be tested soon and could be a possibility for retrofit: Innovative combined side & rear guard promises better underride protection.

Underride guard design by Aaron Kiefer 011