We have worked hard ever since we lost AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13) on May 4, 2013, in a senseless and preventable truck underride crash. We have set out to make sure that effective protection is on every defective area of every truck to prevent future underride tragedies.
The problem is that we keep coming against all of the excuses and mistaken beliefs which stand in the way of our moving forward with creative solutions to this public health & safety problem. So my goal now is to debunk the myth that safety countermeasures — like a comprehensive underride protection rule — are unnecessary and will over-regulate the trucking industry.
First of all, let’s make it very clear that truck underride is not a new problem or even a newly-discovered problem. No, in fact, we have found an 1896 patent for a side underride protective device for a street car and a U.S. patent filed in 1913 for a safety device for the side of motor vehicles. In 1969, the Department of Transportation acknowledged the side underride problem in the Federal Register when they indicated that they intended to extend underride protection to the sides of large trucks.
Second, if the industry was going to solve this problem all by itself, then it would have done so by now. It has not. And I am convinced that, despite the signs of progress which we have seen, there will never be complete and comprehensive underride protection without regulation.
There are too many layers of responsibility in this process; each one involved can point the finger of blame at someone else and the end result is that this problem has fallen between the cracks. I, for one, will not let that continue on my watch.
Next week, we are hosting an Underride Briefing in the Capitol Visitor Center, Room 215, from 2:30 – 4:00 p.m. We are hoping for good attendance from legislative offices so that they are accurately informed about the Stop Underrides Bill — enabling them to wholeheartedly jump on board for this Win/Win solution.
The Senate Commerce Committee had a mark-up today of the AV Start Act.
Here’s hoping that there will be a similar call for safer trucks to be rolling out to deliver goods. And let’s learn from Wabash National’s approach to innovation:
Wabash was first introduced to the possibility of using composites in the trailer by Structural Composites, a Melbourne, Fla.-based company that was using unique composite technology for shock-mitigating Navy boats. Wabash assessed performance and economic metrics, then benchmarked how the technology might apply to trailers.
Wabash opted to use composites, however the project came with a steep learning curve for everyone involved. “We had a lot to learn about semi-trailers and refrigerated truck bodies and what kind of loads they go through,” says Scott Lewit, president of Structural Composites. “And they had to learn from us about what composites can do.” Yeagy encouraged the team to push the boundaries and not be afraid to fail, recalls Lewit. “This approach allowed us to learn and innovate from failure and to rapidly develop and deploy new technology,” he says. The Trailblazing Trailer, Composites Manufacturing, Evan Milberg , July 5, 2017
People die, on a regular basis, when their car goes under the front of a large truck. Europe has a Front Underride Protection standard for large trucks. Here is some research on this topic to help inform U.S. lawmakers, regulators, and industry leaders on how we can bring this added level of protection to our roads.
Heavy truck front-end deployable system opportunities for crash compatibility with passenger vehicles, Keith Friedman, D. Mihora, & J. Hutchinson, Pages 1-12 | Received 07 Aug 2015, Accepted 31 Jan 2017, Published online: 22 Feb 2017, ABSTRACT By 2030, substantial increases in the number of heavy trucks are expected to be on roadways throughout the United States. Currently, 3000 to 5000 occupant fatalities occur in the vehicles impacted by heavy trucks. A significant portion of these engage with the front end of the heavy truck. The use of radar systems has been shown to significantly mitigate many of these rear-end crashes. In this study, the use of deployable front-end airbags is evaluated in terms of the potential effects on passenger vehicles when they are struck in the front or rear by the front of a heavy truck. A virtual testing methodology for the evaluation of various designs under impact conditions is described. The study reports on the potential effects of radar-activated, heavy-truck, front-end airbag systems on crash mitigation in front- and rear-end impacts.
Rear underride crashes are easier to address than front or side ones, IIHS Status Report, Status Report, Vol. 48, No. 2 | March 14, 2013, Front underride guards, which are required in the EU to protect vehicle occupants in crashes with combined speeds of about 35 mph, also might prevent some deaths. An earlier Institute study of fatal truck crashes in Indiana found that 9 out of 44 front underride crashes might have been survivable in the absence of underride (see “FARS undercounts fatal large truck-car underride crashes,” Feb. 15, 1997).
SuperTruck project for fuel efficiency might also provide better front underrun protection with tractor design. In trucking today, it seems nothing is off the table when it comes to enhancing vehicle fuel efficiencies. Old technologies are being reexamined, while new ones are studied and tested. A new era of ultra-clean, ultra-efficient trucks is just around the corner, likely putting old-style, long-nosed, slab-grilled rigs out to pasture once and for all. See SuperTruck tractor photos here: Fuel Smarts The Future of Fuel Economy, Truckinginfo.com, by Jack Roberts, June 2016
Design of a Tractor for Optimised Safety and Fuel Consumption3.4 Future Design Concept Trucks The EC funded integrated project Advanced PROtection SYStems “APROSYS” is one of the most important projects for this study because it is intended to start this project based on these results. In the APROSYS project a safety concept for commercial vehicles which is able to deflect a vulnerable road user (VRU: pedestrians and cyclists) sideways in case of an accident by using the impact impulse was developed. The achieved deflection reduces the risk of a run over. A tapered truck front has been designed and analysed that allows additional deformation space for frontal collisions. Such a front shape can be realised by an add-on structure mountable to the front or by a fully integrated concept as shown in Fig. 3-13. In this project the integrated concept will be scaled to a 40 t-HGV truck. During the development phase of the new front structure in APROSYS a large number of design versions were generated and assessed. The resulting final principal shape was compared to the basic truck in various numerical simulations with different accident scenarios, pedestrian models and parameter settings. Due to the deflection principle, which is used in the rounded front design for the weakest traffic participants, the structure underneath can be designed mainly for protecting the heavy vehicle’s occupants and integrating partner protection relating to passenger vehicles (improved compatibility). The deflection is not only a solution for the protection of pedestrians, but also reduces the impact energy introduced into the heavy vehicle and the passenger car in a HGV-to-car-accident. Such a convex truck front can significantly reduce the risk of a run over for VRU and also deflect passenger cars. In addition, it provides a crush zone for energy absorption. The enhanced passive safety could be shown in avoiding serious rollover accidents by 87.5 % of the simulated cases in APROSYS [FAS08].
Another concept truck shown in Fig. 3-14 was presented at the IAA Commercial Vehicles
2002 in Hannover. The Aero Safety Truck is a semi-trailer tractor for long-distance transport.
NHTSA – THE HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE AGGRESSIVITY INDEX
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0323.pdf Currently the structural AI is addressing the primary
contact only (the contact with the truck front).
However, numerical studies and experiments [14]
have shown the severity of the secondary impact
makes it a highly relevant aspect for future
consideration. Studies of the “nose cone” [6]
indicated not only a reduced likelihood for run-over,
but also a reduced severity of the secondary impact
(prevent forward-projection of pedestrian).
Existing test methods for passenger cars are
continually under development, such as the research
into rotational acceleration as an assessment method
The concept was developed in the innovation and design centre of the vehicle manufacturer Hymer. The improved aerodynamics lead to a reduction in fuel consumption of up to 3 l/100 km. An improvement of safety is realised by an extremely stiff safety cage [LAS03, HYM02] The DAF Xtreme Future Concept (XFC), which can be seen in Fig. 3-15, was presented at the IAA Commercial Vehicles in 2002. The improved aerodynamic concept reduces fuel consumption and the danger of overrunning other road users by a deflecting frontend. The cabin is designed to be based on an aluminium space frame [EAA02]. The Scania Concept illustrated in Fig. 3-16, was also presented on the IAA Commercial
Vehicles in 2002 as a bonnet truck concept for the future. The targets are to identify the market interest for this concept and to optimise aerodynamics. In 2003 an additional concept was presented with the Scania Crash Zone Concept. It has an added structure of 600 mm at the front that absorbs more energy than that of a conventional truck. Therefore the survivable collision speed rises from 56 to 90 km/h. It has potential to reduce the number of fatalities in car to truck collisions. The extra weight for nose concept amounts to 250 kg [SCA02, HAH03]. In 2008 MAN presented the Bionic Truck with the body form of a dolphin shown in Fig. 3-19. The design of the truck leads to a reduction of fuel consumption up to 25 % according to the manufacturer’s declaration. Therefore the cabin needs to be lengthened by 70 cm and the trailer by about 50 cm. So over all, the truck is 1.2 m longer than a conventional truck.
Furthermore comprehensive design changes are carried out at the tractor and at the trailer. The trailer has a much rounder front shape. The trailer has a tear drop shape with a tapered rear part and its wheels are covered. For these reasons the truck has a cD value of 0.29 [SCH08].
After hearing some great news Friday night, I want to put it into perspective and bring up for discussion what it might mean to the future of underride protection. Last week, Wabash Trailers revealed their prototype side impact guard at the North American Commercial Vehicle Show in Atlanta: Such exciting news! Wabash Trailers has taken initiative to save lives with prototype side guard!
We lost AnnaLeah and Mary in an underride crash on May 4, 2013. As we began to discover things about underride in the months after our crash, we determined to help bring about change. But by June 2014, when we had met with DOT and toured Great Dane’s Research & Design Center in Savannah, we realized that there was very little communication and collaboration going on among the various stakeholders — government, manufacturers, engineers, researchers, safety advocates, etc. That’s when we thought about the idea of an Underride Roundtable.
We figured that if someone, who could do something about underride, lost a loved one in an underride crash, then they would move heaven & earth to solve the problem. Not willing to wait, we began to take action ourselves to try and bring about the best possible underride protection. By the time the first Underride Roundtable took place at the IIHS on May 5, 2016, we had made many contacts and had begun to see meaningful progress in underride protection.
But we knew that that was still not enough when, on March 14, 2017, Lois Durso and I attended the Senate Commerce Committee Hearing at which an update on Truck Safety was given. We were disturbed that side underride was not even mentioned — having already witnessed successful side guard crash testing of Aaron Kiefer’s TrailerGuard Systemand knowing that we would, in a few weeks, see crash testing of Perry Ponder’s AngelWing side guard.
That was when we decided that we were sick & tired of waiting for someone else to do something about it and began drafting the Roya, AnnaLeah & Mary Comprehensive Underride Protection (RAM CUP) Act of 2017 ourselves. Since that day, we have been talking and writing about this important legislation ceaselessly with all of the stakeholders, including many legislative offices both Republican and Democrat.
So you can perhaps imagine our excitement when we got a call in July from Senator Gillibrand’s staff with the news that the Senator wanted to work with us to introduce this bill. Not only that, but her plan was to wait and introduce it with Republican support to enable it to move forward. And that is where we are at, hoping to hear soon that a Republican from each House will soon join Senator Gillibrand and Congressman Cohen to set the ball rolling on a mandate which will result in comprehensive underride protection on all trucks.
While we, like anyone else, want to see the advancement of crash avoidance technology, we think that it is also vital to act to make crashes, which do occur, more survivable. Both/and not either/or. Thus we wait expectantly for the introduction of the Stop UnderridesBill as a truly bipartisan effort to bring about a long-overdue solution to a ubiquitous public health and safety problem.
A few days ago, after posting about the fantastic news from Wabash — and after earlier in the week posting about Stoughton’s announcement of stronger rear guards being standard on their new refrigerated trailers — I ran across this post which I wrote in May (be sure to pay attention to what industry leaders have said about innovation, technology, and regulation, and think about how it applies to the underride issue): Truck Industry Leaders: “Clarity is probably the biggest need we have so we can plan accordingly.”
Clearly, we have begun to see effective communication and collaboration taking place. We are thankful for the efforts of so many and encouraged at how the industry is making great strides. We know that it will continue to require a multi-prong strategy and that a comprehensive underride regulation can create a framework for us all going forward. It is for that reason that we included in the Stop UnderridesBill a requirement for a Committee On Underride Protection (COUP) because we want to ensure that the collaboration will not be just an idea but a reality.
We hope that we can count on the support of everyone involved to persevere in this process. And we want to end with this final thought: We know that rear underride guards have been known at times as Mansfield Bars, and we think that Roya, AnnaLeah and Mary would have been tickled pink if side guards — or the entire comprehensive underride protection system — would become known as Roya, AnnaLeah & Mary Guards — or more simply, RAM Guards.
Jerry and Marianne Karth
Lois Durso
Stay Tuned for an Upcoming Underride Briefing in the Capitol Visitors Center, Room 215, October 12, 2017, 2:30 – 4:00 p.m. Experts will be available to answer questions about the underride problem & solutions.
I just heard the news tonight: Wabash has taken the initiative to develop a prototype side guard. They revealed it this week at the North American Commercial Vehicle Show.
I sure wish I had gone to that show. Or maybe not. If I had and had come upon that exhibit, they would have heard me all around the trade show hall. I probably would have run around, jumping up and down in excitement!
Developed in-house, the combination side impact guard and skirt prototype passed tests for a 90-degree centerline vehicle impact at 35 miles per hour, according to Mark D. Ehrlich, Wabash National product development manager. The system uses a braided cable and is 40% to 50% lighter than other designs.
Thank you, Wabash Trailers, for taking this important step to make trucks safer for all of us to be around.
Lois Durso, Dick Giromini (CEO of Wabash), & Marianne Karth at the ATA TMC Conference in Nashville, February 2017
Now to Him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine, according to His power that is at work within us, to Him be the glory. . . Ephesians 3:20-21
Stoughton Trailers is once again stepping up to the plate and offering their stronger rear underride guard as standard on all new refrigerated trailers. They made the announcement at the North American Commercial Vehicle Show in Atlanta.
Wish I could have been there to see it.
The new refrigerated trailer comes standard with the company’s rear underride guard. It resists compartmental intrusion of an automobile when the location of impact is at 30% to 100% overlap of the width of the car to the guard. It complies with all applicable U.S. and Canadian regulations. The new Stoughton PureBlue refrigerated trailer will be available the beginning of first quarter of 2018.
Here is someone who survived because of a stronger Stoughton rear underride guard on one of their new dry vans:
(Photos below are from Stoughton’s Press Conference at the February TMC Show in Nashville, February 28, 2017 — Marianne Karth with Gary Fenton, VP of Engineering, and Bob Wahlin, CEO)
Last night I reviewed proposed language for the Maintenance Section of the Stop Underrideslegislation [aka the Roya, AnnaLeah & Mary Comprehensive Underride Protection Act of 2017]. Working to accurately spell out what was important to include in requirements for proper maintenance of rear underride guards made me realize how imperative it is that the basic problem of underride be better understood.
A true appreciation of the fundamental underride issue could, in fact, lead to a better grasp of what is at stake if an underride guard is not properly maintained. So that is what I hope to foster here. Because this is not a simple matter of keeping a machine functioning so it can continue to drive down the road; it is a matter of maintaining the integrity of a piece of equipment which can, hopefully, prevent sure death or debilitating injury.
The basic underride problem is that trucks were, and are, designed so that the height of the bottom of the truck is higher than the part of the car which should ideally make first impact with the truck in the event of a collision. Instead, what happens is that the first point of impact with the truck is the windshield and then your head.
Maybe if trucks were all designed to ride lower to the ground — like most moving company trucks — we wouldn’t be in this situation. But they aren’t. So when people started dying because of this problem, engineers realized that something should be done. Instead of lowering the bottom of the truck, they decided to attach something, an underride guard, to the truck to fill in that gap –like this 1913 patent for a safety device for the sides of motor vehicles, referred to by one writer as a life-guard: https://www.google.com/patents/US1127241.
The only thing is, that will only work if the guard can be designed to be strong enough to withstand the force of a vehicle colliding with it. If the guard is not strong enough, then it will give way — bend or come off the truck — and allow the passenger vehicle to go under the truck. In fact, that’s what the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety demonstrated in their in-depth research over the last decade: the rear underride guards designed according to the specifications of the current federal standard are not strong enough to withstand the force of a collision along the entire back of the trailer.
Fortunately, progress has been made to design stronger rear underride guards which have been tested to withstand a collision at 35 mph along the entire back of the trailer. But I will not rest until these improved guards have been tested successfully at higher speeds to determine if the new designs provide the best humanly possible protection, or whether we need to go back to the drawing board.
So where does maintenance come into the picture? If you have a piece of equipment which is supposed to guard against deadly underride — if designed in a particular way (and that includes how it is attached to body of the truck), then it would need to be maintained in such a way that it would continue to provide that same strength.
Herein lies the problem. The current rear underride guards on existing trucks might do what they are supposed to in some collisions and successfully prevent underride. However, if the guards (and their attachments to the trucks) are not properly maintained in like-new condition, then their integrity will be compromised and their strength will be weakened. Underride will be even more likely to occur, and people will die as a result.
And this is the reality for the millions of existing large trucks on the road today. As far as I can see, from simple observation when driving on the highways, many of the rear underride guards are not being properly maintained. Of course, this will be important for the newer, stronger guards, too, as they begin to be installed on new trucks or retrofitted to existing trucks.
Rear impact guards should be regularly inspected for cracked welds, cracked or fractured vertical members. Cuts and tears in any member for dimensional integrity. This includes:
cracked welds
cracked or fractured vertical members, including any additional bracing added by the manufactuer such as diagonal struts running from the center of the horizontal member to the vertical supports
cracked or loose fasteners joining the RIG members together
cracked or loose fasteners attaching the RIG to the trailer sill]
bends in any member
corrosion/rust in any RIG member and the trailer sill
cuts, punctures, and tears in any member
proper attachment to the trailer sill
rear cross members
rear trailer sill and at least the last six feet of the floor
and for dimensional and overall structural integrity.
Those sound like useful criteria for making sure that underride guards are in good shape. Yet, who even knows about those repair guidelines or is trained to evaluate the condition of underride prevention equipment?
In fact, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) already has a stipulation on the books that these guards need to be maintained in like-new condition. But this requirement is, unfortunately, not included in the Vehicle Inspection Checklist provided to truck drivers and vehicle inspectors nor is it included in Appendix G, the Minimum Periodic Inspection Standards, found in the FMCSA Safety Regulations.
As far as I know, a guard which is in “disrepair” is not considered a violation worthy of putting a truck “out-of-service.” So the end result is that trucks are an underride tragedy waiting to happen continue to drive on the road — day after day, year after year.
FMCSA’s and CVSA’a (Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance) out-of-service criteria are intended to be used in random roadside inspections to identify critical vehicle inspection items and provide criteria for placing a vehicle(s) out-of–service.
A vehicle(s) is placed out-of-service only when by reason of its mechanical condition or loading it is determined to be so imminently hazardous as to likely cause an accident or breakdown, or when such condition(s) would likely contribute to loss of control of the vehicle(s) by the driver.
A certain amount of flexibility is given to the inspecting official whether to place the vehicle out-of-service at the inspection site or if it would be less hazardous to allow the vehicle to proceed to a repair facility for repair. The distance to the repair facility must not exceed 25 miles. The roadside type of inspection, however, does not necessarily mean that a vehicle has to be defect-free in order to continue in service.
In contrast, the Appendix G inspection procedure requires that all items required to be inspected are in proper adjustment, are not defective and function properly prior to the vehicle being placed in service. pp. 544-545
First of all, underride protective devices need to be added to the Vehicle Inspection Checklist. Secondly, the Safety Regulations need to be changed to reflect the seriousness of this problem. I would recommend that it read like this:
A vehicle(s) is placed out-of-service only when by reason of its mechanical condition or loading it is determined to be so imminently hazardous as to likely cause an accident or breakdown, or to allow death and/or injuries from truck underride (passenger compartment intrusion) upon collision, or when such condition(s) would likely contribute to loss of control of the vehicle(s) by the driver.
Truck drivers should be checking their underride protective devices in their daily pre-trip inspection. And they should be issued an out-of-service violation — requiring them to take the truck off the road — until the underride protection has been properly repaired. But, for that to actually take place, there will need to be appropriate training carried out for both trucking companies and inspection officials. Ongoing enforcement will be essential.
Until we put some teeth into this safety regulation, we will be responsible for continuing to allow people to die from Death by Underride — when some careful attention to proper maintenance might have spared their families such terrible grief.
When Jerry asked whether we could find any story about why Percy Hawksworth filed a patent in 1913 for a safety device for the sides of motor vehicles, this is what I found online:
A lawsuit related to that patent arguing that there was nothing novel about it. Nothing new under the sun.
A Patent was granted for Improvements in or relating to safety devices or life-
guards for motor vehicles. One of the Claims was for A guard for a motor
vehicle Consisting of a frame or the like carried along the side of the vehicle and
crossing the path of the rear wheels at a slight inclination substantially as and
for the purpose described. At the trial of an action for infringement of
the Patent, the only defences raised were want of novelty and of subjectmatter.
It was proved that slatted guards of the same general construction as
those described in the Specification had been in common use for many years between the front and back wheels of tramcars, and that the only difference in arrangement between those guards and the patented guards consisted in the fact that the tramcar guards, owing to the cars being run in either direction, were parallel to the sides of the cars, instead of being inclined to the sides. There was no constructional difficulty in giving the inclination to the guard. Guards similar to the patented guards had also been used for the front wheels of tramcars, and there was no constructional difficulty in adapting to the rear wheel of a motor omnibus the guards that had been used for the front wheels of tramcars. It was also proved that, in the prior Specification of P., guards for both the front and rear wheels of tramcars had been described, the inclination of the rear wheel guards being almost the same as that of the patented guards.
Held, that in view of prior user on tramcars, of both side guards and front guards,
and the publication of the Specification of P., there was no element of novelty or invention to support the Patent, and that it was invalid
” This invention has reference to safety devices or life-guards for motor vehicles. It is well known that many, if not most, of the worst accidents with motor buses or heavy motor vehicles are caused by the rear wheels. Now according to this invention, which is intended more particularly for use on motor buses, a life-guard, catcher or fender is provided for each of the rear wheels, consisting of a frame carried at each side of the bus or vehicle in such a way that with only a slight inclination its rear end overlaps or extends to the outside of the rear wheels, and thus serves to push anyone who may have been knocked down, or otherwise comes against it, clear of the said rear wheels.
In this way if anyone should for instance be knocked down by the bonnet or front of the bus or other vehicle, and the driver has succeeded in clearing him with the front wheels, he will be pushed on one side by the advance of the inclined guard frame clear of the rear wheels, instead of being caught by the latter as frequently “happens.
Similarly, if anyone should be accidentally thrown towards the bus from the side,
as for instance by a side-slip from a bicycle, and thus come against the inclined
fender, it will act in the same way and prevent him from going under the bus
or vehicle and from being run over by the rear wheels.
By the arrangement above described, a very simple efficient and reliable protection is provided against accidents from the rear wheels of motor vehicles and the device also acts as a side guard to close in and protect the side space between the front and
rear wheels
Ever since we began sharing about our crash so that we could help to make trucks safer, people have been touched by the story of AnnaLeah and Mary. They tell us how they can’t drive down the highway and see trucks without thinking about them. It clearly touches their heads & hearts. They get what rear underride is.
The same is true when Lois Durso shares the story of her daughter Roya’s crash. People suddenly understand what a side underride crash is and why we are working to prevent these kinds of tragedies. Tears come to their eyes.
So that is why — when we saw that no one was doing anything to mandate side guards, front guards, and stronger rear guards on new trucks, including single unit [box] trucks, as well as retrofit existing trucks with the same life-saving protection and making sure that they were properly maintained — we decided to draft comprehensive underride protection legislation ourselves.
And, when we were figuring out what to call the bill, we naturally named it for what was so very precious to us — our beloved daughters, who were no more. We wrote it in memory of the countless loved ones whose lives had been forever changed — each of whom are very precious to the loved ones they left behind.
It has become our calling card: the Roya, AnnaLeah & Mary Comprehensive Underride Protection Act of 2017 (RAMCUP). And we are concerned that we are being asked to take the girls’ names off of the bill title (so that other underride victims will not feel left out) — not because we think that they are more important than anyone else, but rather because we believe that their stories have been what have helped to bring national attention to this issue and better understanding of the problem, along with a willingness to do whatever it takes to end it. We would like to keep that momentum going until this bill gets passed.
In fact, it would never be possible to include a list of names in a bill which would honor all the victims of underride. There are thousands of them and, furthermore, because it is a hidden problem, many people might not even realize that underride was involved in their loved one’s death.
But it is our hope that we will be able to plan significant ways to honor those who have been injured or lost their lives through an underride crash, such as a Remembrance Ceremony in D.C. or an underride personal crash story interactive map and a webpage on the DOT website — giving family members a positive way to be involved in the effort to get effective underride protection on all trucks and to remember their loved ones in a special way. Hey, they could even get a shirt printed with their loved one’s picture and name on it!
December 13, 2017, UPDATE: We now have an Interactive Underride Crash Story Map. We have only just begun to add links to the countless underride tragedy stories. If you have information on an underride crash, or would like to add more details about the people touched by these tragedies, email us at underridemap@gmail.com. Here is the map.
Just recently, Lois texted me with this encouragement:
The Lord is speaking to my heart — do not worry, all is well. He is my praise, hope, and strength.
Then she shared this story which made my heart hurt:
Today, my daughter-in-law was wearing her RAMCUP shirt. My 20 month-old granddaughter, Miriam Roya, pointed to and said the names of Roya, AnnaLeah and Mary. . . Even a baby can remember our beautiful daughters.
Miriam Roya, who will never know her Aunt Roya
Miriam’s daddy, Cyrus, with his sister Roya
We’re with you, Miriam. . . we will always remember this very important bill as the Roya, AnnaLeah & Mary Comprehensive Underride Protection Act of 2017 — because it is our great love for those three girls, and our sense of urgency that no one else should undergo this kind of preventable loss, which has fueled our efforts to make sure that this major public health problem gets properly taken care of.
Jerry Karth, Lois Durso, and I recently compiled this extensive list of U.S. underride research, reports, and recommendations beginning in 1896 and continuing to this day. I think that it speaks for itself: effective and comprehensive underride protection is long-overdue. This list is referred to in a recent post on this topic. (Post updated: 1/10/2020)
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):
These can now be found in a post dedicated to listing UNDERRIDE GUARD PATENTS. To see this list, go here. (1/20/20)
1969 On September 3, 1969, Congress discussed UNDERRIDE but did not act. 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. How many more people will die before Congress lays down the law? Read more here.
1970 August 14, 1970, In the Federal Register, “Further consideration will be given, after issuance of the standard and completion of technical studies, to the inclusion of energy management of underride protection to the sides of large vehicles.”NHSB 1970 35 FR 12956
1971 June 15, 1971, In the Federal Register, “Notices proposing a motor vehicle safety standard on rear underride protection, applicable to trucks and trailers, were published October 14, 1967 (32 F.R. 14278), March 19, 1969 (34 F.R. 5383), and August 14, 1970 (35 F.R. 12956). Based upon the information received in response to the notices and evaluations of cost and accident data, the Administration has concluded that, at the present time, the safety benefits achievable in terms of lives and injuries saved would not be commensurate with the cost of implementing the proposed requirements. For the information of all interested persons, notice is hereby given that the rulemaking action is terminated, and that no final rule will be issued on this subject without further notice of proposed rulemaking.”NHTSA 1971 36 FR 11750
1977 Page Patent guard rail for side protection on large wheel vehicles, 1977 US Side Guard Patent US4060268 William Page.pdf
1977 An Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) crash test research illustrates the ineffectiveness of 1953 rear underride guard.
1977 A Senate hearing leads to new calls for stronger underride protections, and illustrates the inadequacies of existing requirements.
1979September 24, 1979, In the Federal Register, “The agency will continue to gather information on side underride during the rear underride rulemaking. If the evidence gathered by the agency indicates that side underride rulemaking could contribute significantly to safety, the agency will commence rulemaking. At the present, however, the agency concludes that side underride rulemaking should not be commenced and Mr. Page’s petition is denied.”NHTSA 1979 44 FR 55077
1981 January 8, 1981, the Federal Register published proposed rear underride rulemaking which was not completed, “The purpose of this standard is to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries occurring in rear underride accidents that involve heavy vehicles. Applicability. This standard applies to trucks and trailers that have gross vehicle weight ratings (GVWR’s) greater than 10,000 pounds.” NHTSA 1981_46 FR 2136
1997 Study illustrates the discrepancies in The Fatal Accident Reporting System (FARS) underride fatality count when compared to the NHTSA database, highlighting that more people are dying from underride than are being recorded. INCIDE~1
2002 ATA Technology Maintenance Council predicts underride regulations to be issued by 2005 for Single Unit Trucks and 2006 for Side and Front Underride Protection: 2002 ATA Prediction of Side Guard Regulations
2009 IIHS begins to call for the requirement of front and side underride guards, as well as improved rear guard requirements in its testimony to US House Committee on Energy and Commerce. IIHS testimony_2009-05-18
2009 Letter from IIHS to NHTSA IIHS rear comment_2009-07-01, “In many crashes involving large trucks, NASS/CDS lacks both proper identification of truck types and photographs of involved trucks. Photographs help researchers in two ways — to better understand the injuries sustained by passenger vehicle occupants in collisions with trucks and to evaluate potential countermeasures such as rear underride guards on trucks. IIHS understands that many NASS/CDS investigations take place away from crash scenes. We further understand that large trucks that are drivable after crashes may not be kept in storage awaiting NASS/CDS investigators. Still, investigators should work with local law enforcement agencies to obtain photographs of large trucks taken at crash scenes.”
2009 Patent filed for a “Side impact guard device for industrial vehicles, particularly trailers or semi-trailers”
Side impact guard device for industrial vehicles, particularly trailers or semi-trailers
2010 An evaluation of U.S. rear underride guards meeting federal requirements shows that these protections still allow for severe passenger vehicle underride, often resulting in serious or fatal injury. file:///C:/Users/LD46500/Downloads/22esv-000074.pdf
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 NTSB recommends that regulators develop performance standards for side and front underride protection systems to improve highway vehicle crash compatibility with passenger vehicles. https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/mwl/Pages/mwl9_2015.aspx
2015 NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on: ANPRM Single Unit Trucks (withdrawn for not being cost effective) and NPRM improved rear underride guards (still in limbo as of 1/10/2020).
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.
2017IIHS TOUGHGuard Award Announced for improved rear underride guard design by trailer manufacturers, March 1, 2017
2017IIHS tests side underride guards at 35 mph, and illustrates the dramatic impact side guards have in preventing serious injury and death. IIHS Announces Side Guard Crash Testing Results :
2019 FMCSA Volpe Transportation Center Study Final Report Completed by February 2019 but not available publicly (as of 1/10/2020). Goals include — Despite three decades of international experience, the operational, cost-benefit, and regulatory aspects of requiring truck side guards in the United States has not been studied. This research project addresses this gap. Five key tasks are included in this project: (1) study interaction of a potential side guard with other truck parts and accessories (e.g., fuel tanks, fire extinguisher, exhaust system) and the implications for a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation; (2) investigate applicable international side guard standards; (3) perform a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of truck side guard deployment; (4) propose recommendations; and (5) propose means for voluntary adoption.: Study of Truck Side Guards to Reduce Pedestrian Fatalities
2019 Underride Issue & Legislation discussed at the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee Hearing on June 12, 2019 on The State of Trucking In America
2019 August 23, 2019: Jury Verdict $42 million in Riley Hein Side Underride Case: Found the Trailer Manufacturer Negligent In August, a New Mexico jury found a trailer manufacturer “negligent” 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. (TTMA Joint Defense Agreement)
2019 Basics of Underride problem & solutions presented at North Carolina Vision Zero Traffic Safety Conference:
2020 Underride Staff Briefing, August 19, 2020:
On August 19, we hosted another Underride Staff Briefing — this time via Zoom. We are providing Congressional Offices with the PowerPoint pdf from that presentation, including comments from engineers with expertise in underride as well as underride families: Underride Briefing PowerPoint pdf (inc. links to resources & video)
You cannot begin to imagine the riotous cacophony of emotions ricocheting about within this mother’s heart right now. Pain. Grief. Anger. Frustration. Outrage. Heartache.
These last few days, Lois and I have been on a journey together which has taken unexpected turns. After driving cross-country with my son to help him get settled in his new home in Santa Cruz, l took a red-eye flight to Chicago where Lois picked me up from the O’Hare airport.
Our original plan was to get on the highway and head for a cottage in Michigan. But it seemed good to us both to take this opportunity for Lois to give me a glimpse of her daughter Roya — the house where she grew up, a favorite restaurant, a school and church, her grandpa and the home he built, and finally her final resting place here on this earth.
It was a very good and a very hard thing for the two of us to do. And then we headed for my old stomping grounds.
We had made plans to spend a few days at a cottage on Lake Michigan where Jerry and I have created many memories. He and I discovered it one year on a getaway and thereafter brought our kids for many fun family times. It was also where we stayed with our nine children and their families when we returned North for my 90 year-old dad’s funeral in 2011. Twelve year-old Mary took over 600 photos on her hand-me-down camera that trip.
Perhaps you can imagine what it was like to arrive at a place so full of wonderful memories of AnnaLeah and Mary. Bittersweet. Heart-wrenching.
We enjoyed a beautiful sunset over the Lake that evening and contemplated our next steps in getting the Roya, AnnaLeah and Mary Comprehensive Underride Protection Act of 2017 introduced and passed as we tended a marvelous beach campfire.
The next morning, after sighting a rainbow on the Lake’s horizon, we set out for a local bagel shop to take advantage of their Wi-Fi. It was time to get down to business and compile a list of underride research which has been done over the years.
We had previously put together a list of underride recommendations and reports for the senator who intends to introduce the bill. Now we were responding to a request from her staff to add any additional underride research which we could find so that they could share it with Republican Offices in hopes of persuading them to jump on board with her in leading the way with this life-preserving legislation.
In summary, this legislation is so vitally important because — all too often — it is not the collision of a car with a truck which is responsible for an ensuing tragedy but the lack of adequate underride protection. This results in a second collision where the truck collides with the passengers in the car and what is known as Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI) which occurs with truck underride.
The day before, we had updated Jerry and asked him to look for underride patents online. I knew of a couple in particular which we had already discovered in our unwelcome truck safety advocacy journey. What he then uncovered was beyond belief.
Jerry sent us a link to a U.S. patent for a side underride device invented in 1913. What?! That was before my 90 year-old father, who has been gone for six years, was born. Over a century ago!
But that’s not all! That patent from 1913 has been cited by 26 more recent patents — ones filed by engineers working on their own ideas for solving the problem of defective truck design which allows pedestrians, cyclists, motorcycles, and passenger vehicles to ride under the side of commercial motor vehicles. Unbelievable!
As if that were not enough to cause outrage to well up, we made another discovery as we began work on updating the research list. Jerry had also sent a link to an 1896 patent for a side underride device for streetcars. Again, this patent has been cited by numerous other patents for underride protection.
In the end, we were able to compile an extensive list of underride research, reports, and recommendations on front, side, and rear underride which provides incriminating evidence of an apparent conspiracy of silence. The negligence on the part of the trucking industry and the federal government to take the initiative to do whatever is necessary in order to protect the citizens of this country from a known deadly defect is appalling.
They can no longer cling to an excuse of ignorance. They have had more than enough time to put their heads together and come up with viable solutions.
The blood of countless underride victims has been unnecessarily shed. Our precious daughters have paid the price.
Whereas it is clear that there have been many individuals who have put forth effort to solve the underride problem, the overall inaction, on the part of the industry and government, and their refusal to take responsibility for effective collaboration to find a solution has taken its toll on American families. When will this behind-closed-doors conspiracy of silence end? Very soon, I hope! In fact, we have seen significant progress in recent years — although too little and too late to save our daughters.
I know that tomorrow, as Lois and I visit the cemetery where AnnaLeah and Mary saw their grandpa buried less than two years before we buried them close by, l will weep bitter tears. I only hope that our combined efforts will be fruitful and turn the tide.
I have often shared a photo of AnnaLeah and Mary with their arms raised in joyous victory. Yesterday, l was able, for the first time, to visit the luge victors’ stand in Muskegon State Park’s winter sports complex where that photo was taken. It broke my heart to see it empty and know that they will never be able to stand there again.
I look forward to the day when I can share their victory photo once more with the world because a step will have been taken to end this travesty once and for all. Mary will get her wish to be famous somehow.
May it be so. To God be the glory for orchestrating this difficult and long-time-in-coming strategy to end preventable underride tragedies.
