Category Archives: Truck Safety

Impact of Hours of Service Rules: What is the truth?

Truck Safety

IMG_4491

I would like to know the truth of the matter regarding yesterday’s Amendment to the THUD (Transportation, Housing, & Urban Development) bill suspending the 34 Hour Restart Rule for truck drivers for a year while a study is conducted, as well as the requirement for truckers to have two consecutive nights with sleep during the 1-5 a.m. time period.

The American Trucking Associations are saying that there have been unintended consequences due to those two provisions of DOT’s Hours of Service (HOS) rule implemented last July. ATA says that, “…the motor carrier industry’s safety performance while operating under the former 34-hour restart rule from 2004 through 2012 (latest data available). The number of truck-involved fatalities dropped by 21 percent between 2004 through 2012, and the number of truck-involved injuries dropped by 20 percent over the same timeframe. The only publicly available fatigue-related data from the Trucks Involved in Fatal Accidents database (now discontinued due to lac of US DOT funding) showed a very low percentage of fatal crashes involved fatigue–less than 2% with the latest year (2009) coming in at 1.4%.”  (Taken from a letter sent by the ATA on June 3, 2014, to the chairs and co-chairs of the Appropriations Committee and the Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing, & Urban Development, & Related Agencies)

On the other hand, Anne Ferro (FMCSA) says this: “Since 2009, we’ve seen an 18 percent increase in large truck crash fatalities. To put that in perspective, in one year alone, large trucks were involved in 317,000 traffic crashes resulting in an average of 75 deaths per week. That’s 11 per day.”

According to Ferro, the proposed amendment would cause a setback in DOT attempts to decrease driver fatigue and truck crash fatalities. Read more here: http://1.usa.gov/1hzbF59

Anne Ferro also said: “Fatigue is under-reported in crash accounts because drivers often don’t want to admit to being at-fault or sleepy. However, we know that driver fatigue is a leading factor in large truck crashes; in fact, analysis has shown that upward of 13 percent of commercial drivers involved in a crash were considered to have been fatigued at the time of that crash.”

What is the truth?

Truck Driver Fatigue: 1.4% vs 13%

Truck-Related Fatalities: Dropped 21% vs Increased 18%

I don’t know. But I do know that there were 2 horrific deaths caused by a truck driver on May 4, 2013 near Greensboro, Georgia. And I hear of many more all too often.

In our crash, log books were never found and the issue of driver fatigue was not even mentioned in the SCRTE Crash Report put together by the Georgia State Patrol. The fact that there were no log books is not affecting the charges one iota.

In addition, in many truck crash fatalities, the truck driver survives and the driver/passengers in the other vehicle do not. The victim cannot offer any input. In our case, I am alive to question what happened.

Senators on the Appropriations Committee were asked to make a quick decision based on the presentation by Senator Collins and the debate they heard over the course of less than half an hour. Many of them were confused about this issue.

The American Trucking Associations claim that those two restrictions–34-hr. restart provision and sleeping 2 nights from 1-5 a.m. have caused truckers to put more trucks on the road during congested daytime hours and that this is causing  more accidents. Is this the truth?

* “Why Congress shouldn’t roll back safety provisions set in place to keep tired truckers off the road”: http://1.usa.gov/1hzbF59

* “Administration to Congress: Leave trucker schedule rules alone.” Read more: http://bit.ly/1ktZuXA

You can hear the half-hour debate & vote over this Amendment at the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting on June 5, 2014:  http://youtu.be/JeuOqy_lOEc

( Video clips of AnnaLeah and Mary during their life. Audio: Recording of the public livestream of the Senate Appropriations Committee meeting on June 5, 2014, when an amendment was introduced and passed to suspend two of the components of the HOS rules for truck drivers.)

IMG_20140508_114515_341

 

Certified Medical Examinations: Reminder from DOT to Commercial Drivers

Truck Safety

 

May 21, 2014 was the effective date of the National Registry of Certified Medical Examiners. This is a measure to ensure that DOT physicals are conducted by certified medical practitioners and, bottom-line, commercial motor vehicle drivers meet our health requirements. See the article below to learn more about this important step:

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/newsroom/dot-reminds-commercial-drivers-physicals-must-now-be-performed-certified-medical-examiners

More Opposition to DOT Safety Measures? You Have Got To Be Kidding!

Truck Safety

IMG_4465

When will resistance to safety measures come to an end? Guess what…more delays are sure to mean more deaths.

How is it that anything can take priority over human life?

Maybe part of the problem is that “safety” is a word which can be argued back and forth. “This is being proposed to improve ‘safety’.” “That is not really helping ‘safety.'”

We aren’t talking about simply safety. We are talking about life and death, and horrific injuries.

Yet, the American Trucking Associations–I found out just today (May 21, 2014)–have thrown yet another monkey wrench in DOT attempts to decrease driver fatigue. What is likely to be the result? More confusion and delays and ultimately more untimely deaths due to crashes which come about as a result of driver fatigue…

http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/drivers/news/story/2014/05/ata-stirs-reaction-with-bid-to-cut-funding-for-hours-of-service-restart.aspx

headstone

Two Years to Comply: Electronic Logging Devices

Truck Safety

Once the final rule for Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs) is published–possibly by the Summer of 2015 according to DOT on May 5—then the trucking companies will have two years to comply (i.e., Summer of 2017).

What I want to find out is: Why are they allowed two years? What takes so long to get ELDs installed?

That’s what I am going to investigate.

It looks like part of the situation is the need for a management system which will monitor the ELDs:

“Other provisions state that every motor carrier will have to set up and use an hours-of-service management system to detect and prevent violations. This has always been a best practice. Now it would become a requirement when the rule is finalized. This management system will likely include the use of supporting documents that carriers generate or receive in the normal course of business. The rule will specify the exact criteria these documents will have to meet.” http://truckcompliance.com/industry-updates/elds-electronic-logging-devices-matter/

But why two years?

Here are details on the rule-making process:

”So, to break down the EOBR / ELD mandate process so far:

The road to the ELD mandate began when Congress passed MAP-21 in June 2012.

The president signed MAP-21 shortly thereafter, requiring the FMCSA to write a rule requiring use of electronic logging devices, or EOBRs, for all drivers that keep a Record Of Duty Status—about 3.1 million trucks and 3.4 million drivers today.

The FMCSA developed a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) that was sent to the Office of the Secretary, who approved it and sent it back to the FMCSA in July 2013.

From there, the rule moved over to OMB, where it cleared today, March 12, 2014.

The FMCSA will keep the rule for the next two weeks, eventually publishing the SNPRM for public comment.

A comment period will then take place, published as 60 days, giving anyone a chance to add their feedback.

The FMCSA will take those public comments and revise the rule, a process that can take between six and nine months.

According to these time frames, we can estimate a final rule to be published in the first calendar quarter of 2015.

Based on MAP-21 requirements, fleets will have two years to comply with these rules—meaning you will be required to implement an EOBR for an Electronic Logging Device by January 2017 at the latest.”

Taken from: http://eobr.com/eobr-news/eobr-mandate/eld-mandate-clears-omb/#more-849

 

 

 

Product Liability

Truck Safety,

underride guards trip to RDU 005IMG_4465

According to Wikipedia: “Product liability is the area of law in which manufacturers, distributors, suppliers, retailers, and others who make products available to the public are held responsible for the injuries those products cause.”

According to our lawyer, product liability regarding underride guards on the back of semi-trailers would involve one of the following:

  • design according to federal standards
  • proper installation
  • maintenance

Should a company also be held liable for the safety of their products if there are higher known standards than what federal law requires of them?

Paper Log Books

Truck Safety

Washington DC 151

On the way home from DC, we stopped at a truck stop for gas. On the way through the convenience store, I walked down an aisle which displayed Driver’s Daily Log booklets. Never saw one before. I just had to buy it for $2.99—good for keeping track of a month’s worth of driving days and nights and however many hours of service a driver logged.

 Never found one for the driver in our case. But apparently nobody takes these too seriously. Unreliable. The reason for the change to Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs). I hope that they can make ELDs work better than the paper log books and not just for after-the-fact evidence but for PREVENTION–for changing driving behavior to save lives.

Washington DC 158 Washington DC 157Washington DC 155Washington DC 156

Washington DC 152

Petition Update

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, ,

Petition Photo Bags at DOT, best

The AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up for Truck Safety Petition is recorded in the Public Comments for the Electronic Logging Devices Rule in the Federal Register: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FMCSA-2010-0167-1177 (You can easily view the names & comments by opening the Multiple Commenters XLS Spreadsheet–Sheet 1–at the bottom of that page.)

We are thankful for Care2 for providing a means for us to publicize our petition for truck safety to a large audience. We are thankful for the many people who responded to our request.

A Note From the Truck Safety Coalition: “To continue to receive updates on the Karth family’s advocacy, including opportunities to advance underride guard protection, minimum insurance requirements and ELDs, as the Karth family did in their petition, please go to http://trucksafety.org/karth-family-washington-dc/ and fill out the contact information at the bottom of the page. The Truck Safety Coalition appreciates your interest and hopes that you will continue to support actions to improve truck safety issues and help protect our families.”

Thank you for signing our petition for truck safety in memory of AnnaLeah and Mary Karth. Eight members of our family traveled to Washington, DC, to deliver over 11,000 petitions one year after the crash that killed AnnaLeah and Mary Karth.

We were able to deliver all of the petitions to the top two administrative officials, Anne Ferro (FMCSA) and David Friedman (NHTSA), in the Department of Transportation in Washington, DC, on May 5, 2014—one year after our crash. We then had an hour-long meeting with DOT.

Basically, we were really well received. The 11,000 petitions will be put on the Public Comment record for each of the 3 issues. And it appears that the DOT is making positive movements toward truck safety, but many of these changes will still take years to accomplish.

From the DOT meeting notes:  “After speaking with reporters, we proceeded with the bags of petitions into DOT for our meeting. Ferro had the Karths officially present the petition, she accepted it on behalf of DOT, and then the meeting began. The meeting addressed the three petition issues:  minimum insurance, underride guards and Electronic Logging Devices.

Attending from DOT:   Anne Ferro, Administrator, FMCSA; David Friedman, Acting Administrator, NHTSA; Bill Bronrott, Deputy Administrator, FMCSA; Jack Van Steenburg, Chief Safety Officer & Assistant Administrator, FMCSA; Kevin Vincent, Chief Counsel, NHTSA; Lori Summers, Director, Office of Crashworthiness Standards, NHTSA”

Here are links to media and photos:

Here is a link to make public comment on Electronic Logging Devices:

 https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/03/28/2014-05827/electronic-logging-devices-and-hours-of-service-supporting-documents

Please be sure to periodically check our website, https://annaleahmary.com/, for future updates and ways that you can help us keep pushing for safer roads for us all.

Washington DC 129

FMCSA Releases Report on Minimum Insurance: April 2014

Truck Safety,

We are glad to see that the FMCSA has recently released a report from their study of the need to increase minimum liability insurance for truck drivers. We hope that the rulemaking process will proceed in a timely fashion.

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/sites/fmcsa.dot.gov/files/docs/Financial-Responsibility-Requirements-Report-Enclosure-FINAL-April%202014.pdf

Here are some details from the FMCSA’s April 2014 Report:

“On July 6, 2012, President Obama signed into law the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21stCentury Act (MAP-21;P.L. 112-141). Section32104of MAP-21directed the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) to issue a report to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives on the appropriateness of the current minimum financial responsibility requirements for motor carriers of property and passengers, and the current bond and insurance requirements for freight forwarders and brokers.

Section 32104 also directed the Secretary to issue a report on the appropriateness of these requirements every 4 years starting April 1, 2013. The Secretary delegated the responsibility for this report to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

The legislative history of minimum insurance requirements for commercial motor vehicles (CMV) indicates that Congress recognized that crash costs would change over time and that DOT would periodically examine the levels and make adjustments as necessary. A variety of recent studies indicate that inflation has greatly increased medical claims costs and related expenses.

In conclusion, FMCSA has determined that the current financial responsibility minimums are due for re-evaluation. The Agency has formed a rulemaking team to further evaluate the appropriate level of financial responsibility for the motor carrier industry and has placed this rulemaking among the Agency’s high priority rules. The FMCSA will continue to meet with the stakeholders, including impacted industries, safety advocacy groups, and private citizens, as it moves forward with developing a proposed rule.”

Here is some information on how OOIDA, the Owner Operators Independent Driver Association, has publicly responded to the DOT/FMCSA’s report on minimum insurance.

http://www.ooida.com/MediaCenter/PressReleases/pressrelease.asp?prid=344

“(April 17, 2014) – The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association responded to a report by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration indicating the agency’s intention to significantly raise insurance requirements for interstate motor carriers.

FMCSA acknowledges that more than 99 percent of commercial vehicle accidents are readily covered under current requirements and that they have not done an assessment of the financial impact that increased requirements would have on small businesses.

‘Even though the agency’s report confirms that fewer than one percent of all truck-involved accidents result in injuries or property damage that exceed current insurance requirements, it seems pretty clear they plan to raise those requirements anyway,’ said Todd Spencer, executive vice president.

OOIDA contends that an increase in insurance would be a death nail for the small businesses that comprise over 90 percent of the trucking industry.

‘The amount of insurance carried by motor carriers has never been shown to have a correlation with safety,’ continued Spencer. ‘The agency seems to be bowing to the economic objectives of the personal injury attorneys and mega-trucking companies who have been campaigning for higher insurance requirements. Trial lawyers will see windfall payouts in the increases, and big trucking companies – who already use special exceptions in the law to avoid buying insurance on the open market – see an opportunity to drive up business costs and do away with their small-business competitors.’

Under current insurance requirements, truckers already often find themselves pushed into court by attorneys after accidents that were not their fault due to the possibility of high dollar settlements.

The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association is the largest national trade association representing the interests of small-business trucking professionals and professional truck drivers. The Association currently has more than 150,000 members nationwide.”

http://www.overdriveonline.com/house-bill-would-increase-trucking-insurance-minimum-by-millions/

“The Owner-Operator and Independent Drivers Association and the American Trucking Associations both disagree with the findings of the study, however, and both say that just 1 or 2 percent of crashes involving trucks actually see a claim above $750,000.

OOIDA’s Todd Spencer in June called the study ‘bogus,’ adding that ‘All the Alliance will succeed in doing is increase costs for their competition in trucking and chum the water for personal injury lawyers.’

ATA spokesman Sean McNally echoes Spencer, saying that just 1 percent of settlements exceed the minimum. The Alliance, he says, recommends the limit increase ‘in satisfaction of some unstated goal.’

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration ‘consistently found over the same time period examined by the Trucking Alliance that the average cost of a crash involving a large truck is less than a third of the minimum limit required today,’ McNally added.”

One of our family members has responded to these statements in this way:

“The 1% issue is at best a red herring. Refusing to raise a limit because such a small percentage reach the limit only indicates that the increase in cost should be minimal. It can’t be both ways, either this increase should raise the cost of doing business or the effect should be minimal.

This isn’t life insurance where all the money is always paid out. Nor is this homeowner’s insurance in which you have a set amount of house that can be destroyed. This is liability insurance in which the amount paid out is based on the amount of damage being done. If such a small percentage of claims reaches the limit then greedy lawyers, increased costs, and mythical ‘windfall’ payments are all proven absurd or irrelevant.

What we actually have here is discrimination against the minority. ‘You are so small a portion of the people we harm we are not obliged to deal with you fairly.’ Under such logic they might as well suggest that because less than 1 percent of the time on the road involves accidents they shouldn’t be compelled to have insurance at all.”

Working Together With the Truck Industry To Make Roads Safer

Truck Safety,

I was reading comments made by people who have recently signed our truck safety petition. One of them mentioned having lost her dad due to a truck-related crash.

So I decided to look the crash up online and found an article about the contact which her family had had with the trucking company involved. In fact, that company has taken seriously the opportunity to improve their efforts to prevent accidents involving their trucks.

You can read about it here: http://fleetowner.com/blog/watershed-truck-safety-moment .

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association Reaction to IIHS Report: What is the Truth?

Truck Safety,

 

Manac vs competitor crash test photos 001

(Courtesy IIHS Crash Test Photos)

The other day, I found an article which quoted the TTMA’s reaction to the IIHS Report on underride guards. It said that, “NHTSA’s past studies have shown that serious injuries and deaths can occur in rear crashes due to the sudden forces of deceleration that are imposed on the occupants even without underride.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/94313076/Truck-Trailer-Manufacturers-Association-Underride-Guard-Response (from May 2012 and quoted here). They used this to question whether underride guards should be made more rigid.

Russ Rader, IIHS Senior Vice President of Communications, pointed out to me that, “The central argument that they make isn’t supported by the Institute’s analysis of real-world crashes or the results of our trailer crash tests.”

Rader then mentioned that, “Twenty years ago with a less crash-worthy passenger vehicle fleet, the concern about unintended consequences may have had merit. But modern vehicles are engineered to handle crashes into stiff objects. For example, the Chevrolet Malibu that IIHS used in its trailer crash tests is a vehicle that earns top ratings in consumer front crash tests conducted by IIHS and NHTSA.  But in an underride crash, the benefits of that design don’t come into play. The energy-absorbing structures in the front-end of the Malibu aren’t able to do their job if the underride guard gives way. Our tests showed that a belted driver could walk away from a 35 mph crash into the back of a trailer with a strong underride guard. “

For more details, see the sidebar on page 3 of this 2011 IIHS Report, http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4602.pdf

I also previously read TTMA statements quoted in an article by a reporter who interviewed me in the Fall of 2013 (http://www2.thedenverchannel.com/web/kmgh/news/underride-guards-metal-barriers-on-back-of-large-trucks-often-fail-to-protect-drivers ):

Jeff Sims, the president of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA), was making an argument about underride guards:

“Sims argued that more rigid guards could lead to more deaths and more significant injuries. ‘A neck strain could become a neck fracture as a result,’ said Sims.”

When I read that, I thought, “Is that true? What is he basing that statement on?”

I have also been concerned about statements made by the American Trucking Association (ATA), which have been included in media interviews which I have participated in since our accident, e.g., http://myfox8.com/2013/08/13/families-push-for-tractor-trailer-regulations/, as well as two web stories on the subject, http://www2.thedenverchannel.com/web/kmgh/news/underride-guards-metal-barriers-on-back-of-large-trucks-often-fail-to-protect-drivers and http://www.theindychannel.com/news/call-6-investigators/mother-loses-daughters-raises-truck-underride-concerns.

I understand that we all need to look at every facet of the issues we are discussing and attempting to understand and resolve. However, I think it is important that statements which are made about vital issues are accurate and do not misrepresent the available data and facts–or distract from needed changes.

In the case of underride guards, the claims of the ATA and TTMA do not provide citations backing up their statements. If what they have stated is in any way questionable, and yet is allowed to stand as the truth, it could have far-reaching impact.

To tell you the truth, every time I read the TTMA’s statement, I am reminded of what happened to us and I think, “What are they basing their statement on? Conjecture? And then I think about our crash: AnnaLeah and Mary went under the truck and did not survive. Caleb and I did not go under; we also experienced deceleration but did not die as a result.”

IMG_4465