WUSA9 interviewed OOIDA (Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association) about the STOP Underrides Bill. Watch the latest segment of their truck underride investigative series in which OOIDA publicly committed themselves to supporting strengthening rear underride guard standards.
That’s great news. They’ve apparently seen the value of making truck crashes more survivable when cars rear-end trucks. However, it is puzzling to hear them, at the same time, oppose side guard technology which can also prevent people from dying under trucks — in this case, at the sides.
OOIDA said all the research – and crash tests like the one staged last year, just blocks from Capitol Hill, to draw attention to the fight for new underride safety requirements – doesn’t convince their organization side guards will be worth the investment.
“My last semi-trailer was $42,000 just with that trailer,” Pugh said. “So now we’re looking at upping the price another $2,000 to $3,000. That’s hard for a little guy to eat. That’s hard for a big guy to eat. There’s not that much profit in this business and if you want me to buy this technology and buy into this technology, you’re going to need to show me it works.” Lewie Pugh, executive vice president of the Owner-Operated Independent Truck Driver Association or OOIDA, which represents more than 160,000 members nationwide.
Pugh wants more government (read that taxpayer) funded side guard research:
Pugh says that means real-world testing. Prototypes, paid for by the government, studied by a federal agency like the Department of Transportation for effectiveness.
Perhaps he’s unaware of the side guard study conducted by Texas A&M on a contract from NHTSA (with taxpayer money) published in April 2018.
Is he aware of the untold number of hours put in by researchers and engineers to study and solve the underride problem over the past five decades? Here it is in a nutshell: History of Underride Research & Reports: 1896 to 2019
Maybe he doesn’t realize that the AngelWing side guard — successfully tested by the IIHS at 35 and 40 mph and by its inventor at 47.2 mph — has been installed on multiple trucks for several years and traveled thousands of miles without operational issues.
What exactly wouldconvince him that underride protection on the sides of large trucks — promised by DOT on March 19, 1969 — can truly mean the difference between life and death? Or that they are not “too costly”?
There are major developments in the fight to require lifesaving equipment on big rigs driving next to you on the road. Safety advocates say it could help prevent devastating crashes known as underride accidents.
One of the nation’s largest trucking groups now says it is open to some of the proposed requirements. But the question remains if the industry’s concessions will go far enough for the families of accident victims.
Engineers have long recognized the problem of truck underride (passenger vehicles going under trucks). They have also spent a considerable amount of time trying to figure out engineering solutions to this deadly problem.
This post will attempt to record many of the patents issued in connection with these noble efforts. It will likely not be exhaustive, so I would welcome information on patents which I might have missed.
1896 This patent for a side underride protective device for street cars was issued on July 14 1896 and cited by numerous more recent underride patents: http://www.google.com.pg/patents/US564027.
1913 A patent was issued in 1913 for a “Safety Device for Motor Vehicles” to provide underride protection for the sides of large trucks. https://www.google.com/patents/US1127241
Since that time, numerous patents have been published which refer to this 1913 patent (with the patent information organized in these columns: Citing Patent, Filing date, Publication date, Applicant, Title):
Side impact guard device for industrial vehicles, particularly trailers or semi-trailers
2012 Sapa Extrusions (inventor/engineer Malcolm Deighton) filed for a patent in 2012 for a “Semi trailer under-run protection device” which they later developed into a rear underride guard which was successfully crash tested on a trailer in April 2017. https://www.google.com/patents/USD703106
2015 Aaron Kiefer, crash reconstructionist and forensic engineer, was issued a patent for an innovative combination side & rear trailer underride protection system: https://www.google.com/patents/US9463759 Please see the numerous underride patents referred to in this patent.
The current underride rulemaking was issued as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on December 16, 2015. Over four years ago. It’s time to take care of business. People continue to die horrific, violent, unimaginable underride deaths.
Is it time to move forward with negotiated rulemaking to hammer out practical, effective solutions for the deadly underride problem? Is it doable? Would this process enable us to overcome the stalemate between industry and safety advocates — to get the current underride rulemaking out of limbo?
NOTES ON NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING:
Declares that any agency may consult with the Administrative Conference of the United States and other individuals and organizations for information and assistance in forming a negotiated rulemaking committee and conducting negotiations.
Authorizes the Chairman of the Conference to pay, upon request of an agency head, all or part of the expenses of convening and conducting a negotiated rulemaking proceeding.
{NOTE: Apparently, this ability was later taken away from the ACUS and they are no longer able to assist in this way with negotiated rulemaking. Oh, well. Back to SQUARE ONE!}
The negotiated rulemaking process is unique in several ways from both listening sessions and advisory committees. . . a negotiated rulemaking committee’s goal is to make binding, enduring decisions that will resolve the underlying issues and, if present, disputes.
Compared to participation in hearings/meetings and advisory committees, the role of non-Agency participants in interacting with the Agency through the negotiated rulemaking process is often far more robust, expansive, and issue-focused.
An SNPRM may be issued if a proposed rule has been substantially changed from the original notice of proposed rulemaking. The supplemental notice advises the public of the revised proposal and provides an opportunity for additional comment. To give the public a reasonable opportunity to become reacquainted with a rulemaking, a supplemental notice may also be issued if considerable time has elapsed since publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. An SNPRM contains the same type of information generally included in an NPRM. § 1.05-40 Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
What are we waiting for?
The AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition was delivered to DOT on May 5, 2014 — one year after our crash. It called for comprehensive underride rulemaking. We’ve uncovered a lot more information since then; we’re well-equipped to participate in this process. Let’s get on with it.
Super single tires (in place of the more common dual tire set-up) on semi-trailers could actually save weight, cost, and — when combined with side guards — lives! Sounds like a Win/Win scenario to me! But don’t take my word for it, read about the potential benefits in this truck driver blogpost:
Essentially, instead of having eighteen tires to support the trailer and truck, only ten will be needed because of the improved design of the tire itself. The super single truck tires can withstand the weight of the trailer and vehicle over the same time period as their dual counterparts. A study performed by the Oak Ridge National Laboratory showed that trucks could save an average of almost 3% on gas or diesel fuel. While 3% may not sound like much, over 125,000 miles and averaging five miles per gallon that results in a savings of 728 gallons per year.
In addition, the new tires actually offer more stability with a wider truck frame. However, the most interesting advantages are that these tires can hold up for about 200,000 miles as opposed to the standard 160,000 miles for the conventional tires. This means that money is saved on replacement as well since the fewer number of super singles which actually last 40,000 miles longer.
However, the main advantage that super singles offer is that they are stronger, yet lighter in weight than their standard counterparts by roughly 1,000 pounds in total. While this weight savings may translate to better fuel mileage, trucking companies see this as being able to add 1,000 more pounds to the cargo. This means that more can be hauled on a single trip which can earn the company even more money than before.
Possible Drawback (as mentioned in the video below) is what could happen when there is a tire blow-out.
Additional Citations To Check Out:
Motor carriers consider many factors — and come to different conclusions — as they evaluate wide-base tires versus standard duals for their tractors and trailers Fleets Weigh Benefits, Drawbacks of Wide-Base Tires Versus DualsTransport Topics, April 13, 2020
I’m sure that I don’t get alerted to every underride crash in this nation. But I see enough of them to frequently re-kindle my frustration with the lack of significant action on this issue. Apparently, no one person feels the burden resting squarely on their shoulders. Hence, we are left with a disturbing absence of a sense of urgency to solve the problem.
You can catch a dismal glimpse of the daily Underride Death Toll (certainly not an exact count) on my Twitter Profile.
When supporters of the STOP Underrides! Act of 2019 first hear the news about DOT’s new “rule on rules,” they might moan and sigh and scramble to figure out what next. On December 5, Transportation Secretary solidified the Trump administration’s approach to rulemaking:
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced she has signed a “rule on rules” that will ensure the department’s regulations aren’t too complicated, out of date or contradictory.
When it comes to investigating suspected wrongdoing and enforcing its regulations, the new rules also require the department “where feasible, foster greater private-sector cooperation in enforcement.”
On the one hand, there are hints of good things there in calling for rules that are not out of date, cooperation from the private sector, and greater transparency. But those who have been around the block in safety advocacy are right to be skeptical and devoid of hope for future traffic safety rulemaking.
Yet I remain hopeful knowing that the STOP Underrides Act fits the bill by calling for a Committee On Underride Protection (COUP), whose role is to gather a diverse group of stakeholders to collaboratively keep DOT truly transparent and progressing in underride rulemaking. Will the COUP be included in the upcoming FAST Act language? I’m doing everything that I can to make it a reality.
Now, understandably, it could cause concern that, “The new Transportation Department action formalized a Trump administration requirement that for each regulatory step a department takes, it has to undertake two deregulatory moves.” However, I’m not worried because I know that it would be procedurally acceptable for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove the existing 1996 rear underride rules, (two of them — FMVSS 223 & 224), which would satisfy that requirement.
Then, NHTSA could issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) as a revision of the December 2015 NPRM underride rulemaking, which was intended to update the 1996 rear underride guard rule. In fact, SNPRMs are a valid means of improving a NPRM — based on Public Comments and new information received subsequent to the initially issued proposed rule.
No one can argue that there has not been plenty of new information on underride which has come to the surface in the last seven years. In fact, the STOP Underrides! Act nicely packages straightforward rules, based on performance standards, to address every form of deadly underride and can easily lead to an Underride SNPRM — all with the help of the Committee On Underride Protection to mold it into the best possible underride protection.
So, in this season of expectant hope, let us eagerly continue a national conversation on the elimination of preventable underride tragedies. Let our goal be to change the face of the trucking industry by making truck crashes more survivable, thus promising a better chance that more people will be home for the holidays.
Members of Congress, Secretary Chao, trucking industry, eager engineers, and families of underride victims, let’s do this together.
(p.s. Let’s also appoint a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman so that motorists and vulnerable road users — victims of every form of traffic violence — can count on a strong voice to authoritatively advocate on their behalf.)
People have died under trucks since passenger vehicles and trucks have shared the road. What changes have we seen in underride protection? Here is a Timeline put together by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety for the first Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016.
What’s next? What will the future hold for underride rulemaking? More of the same or significant progress in preventing underride tragedies?
Aaron Kiefer readies his Rear Reinforcement Attachment, an aluminum device installed at the outer edges of a trailer’s rear underride guard to strengthen it — preventing underride to make truck crashes more survivable & save lives.
Making plans for an upcoming crash test in North Carolina. Stay tuned as we work hard to #STOPunderrides!
Why is this needed? See the difference between a weak and strong rear underride guard:
On October 26, 2019, we set up a STOP Underrides! Booth at the North Carolina State Fair as part of the Governor’s Highway Safety ProgramSafety City. Over 90% of the people, who learned from us about the underride problem, decided to sign a paper copy of the STOP Underrides! Petition. Those 270 people are asking Congress to pass legislation which would end these preventable tragedies.
This chart assumes that our observation of overwhelming support from 90% of the fairgoers could be extrapolated to the population of the United States. It provides an estimate of how many people would want action taken to prevent underride if they knew the facts. I calculated the number of projected signers for each state (look for yours) and then added up the total for the entire United States: 277,930,023!
Next week, we’ll be delivering over 8,000 paper petitions (printed from signatures garnered online) to four Congressional Offices in Washington, D.C. (and letting other offices take a peek).
Do you think that they’ll take note of this message from their constituents? Will they do anything as a result? Maybe not, but I’m going to make sure that I do what I can to disturb their sleep.
The fabulous Fall weather brought out thousands of people to the North Carolina State Fair on Saturday, October 26. At the Governor’s Highway Safety Association (GHSA) SAFETY TENT, we were ready for the hundreds of people who stopped at our booth. We seized the opportunity to share with them underride stories, photos, and crash test videos.
We didn’t actually keep track, but I would venture a guess that well over 90% of those who took the time to listen to us, and often ask questions, were glad to hear that there was a specific action which they could take after hearing about the horror of underride and how they and their families are vulnerable to this preventable traffic safety problem.
In fact, after they learned that Congress could take action to mandate that available engineering solutions be installed on all large trucks, 263 people were more than willing to sign a paper copy of our STOP Underrides! Petition.
One young woman got tears in her eyes as she was gazing at our poster:
We learned that some years ago, when she was 12, she and her mom crashed into the side of a trailer and were spared complete underride when a piece of the trailer floor somehow lodged into their car preventing it from going any further. She had no idea that underride happens to others and found it a relief to be able to sign the petition.
She wrote in a comment on her petition: The most important piece of legislation!
North Carolina U.S. legislators would do well to pay heed to this clear call from their constituents:
