Category Archives: Truck Safety

“Even if cost-benefit analysis is theoretically a neutral tool. . . it is biased against strong public protections.”

Recently, NHTSA announced statistics for 2016 traffic fatalities:

  • 37,461 people killed in crashes on U.S. roadways in 2016
  • Up 5.6% from 2015
  • Tucked in the back of the report, if you look for it, you will see that there were 4,317 fatalities in crashes involving large trucks — up 5.4% from 2015, the highest since 2007.
  • Of those, 722 (16.7%) were occupants of large trucks and 10.8% were nonoccupants
  • 72.4% of the truck crash fatalities were occupants of other vehicles, or 3,125.5 (Do I round that up to 3126? Now that really bothers me because this is about people who died in a crash with a truck last year and not merely statistics!)

If you look at NHTSA’s press release, here is their summary:

The 2016 national data shows that:

  • Distraction-related deaths (3,450 fatalities) decreased by 2.2 percent;
  • Drowsy-driving deaths (803 fatalities) decreased by 3.5 percent;
  • Drunk-driving deaths (10,497 fatalities) increased by 1.7 per­cent;
  • Speeding-related deaths (10,111 fatalities) increased by 4.0 percent;
  • Unbelted deaths (10,428 fatalities) increased by 4.6 percent;
  • Motorcyclist deaths (5,286 fatalities – the largest number of motorcyclist fatalities since 2008) increased by 5.1 percent;
  • Pedestrian deaths (5,987 fatalities – the highest number since 1990) increased by 9.0 percent; and
  • Bicyclist deaths (840 fatalities – the highest number since 1991) increased by 1.3 percent.

Do you see the 4,317 truck crash fatalities mentioned there? I don’t! Yet they accounted for 11.5% of the total traffic fatalities.

Is that indicative of what I tend to observe — the truck crash fatalities are considered a transportation issue and left to the trucking industry to solve? And so potential lives saved always lose out in any cost/benefit analysis, and we all know who ends up paying the price for this unresolved public health & safety crisis.

Along that line, check out this interesting read about cost/benefit analysis (which agencies have to do in rulemaking) related to safety regulations. . . https://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2332

Even given the many uncertainties of cost-benefit analysis, proponents still argue that it acts as a neutral tool. Yet, as David Driesen points out, “if CBA only makes regulation weaker, and never strengthens overly weak regulation, it cannot improve priority setting and consistency in the manner its proponents envision.” Driesen lays to rest the argument of CBA’s neutrality by dissecting the use of CBA both in practice and theory. Driesen finds that both in OMB’s implementation of cost-benefit analysis as well as in the assumptions of the cost-benefit analysis itself, CBA is weighted in favor of the regulated industry and against health, safety and environmental protections.
 
Driesen focuses his look at cost-benefit analysis on the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), a subagency of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) charged with carrying out cost-benefit analysis through Executive Order 12866. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, between June of 2001 and July of 2002, OMB “significantly affected 25” environmental, health and safety regulations. If cost-benefit analysis is in practice a neutral tool, then OIRA’s use of cost-benefit analysis to review regulation would sometimes strengthen protections and sometimes weaken them. Driesen found that none of OIRA’s changes made environmental, health or safety protections more stringent, and 24 out of the 25 weakened protections. Even if cost-benefit analysis is theoretically a neutral tool, in the hands of this administration, it is certainly biased against strong public protections.
 
 OMB tends to see cost-benefit analysis as a criterion under which the cost of implementing a regulation can never exceed the benefit. Another option is that cost-benefit analysis is used as a criterion under which cost must always equal benefit, optimizing the efficiency of the regulation. Driesen shows that in each case cost-benefit is not a neutral tool and will always favor the regulated community over the health, safety and environmental regulation.
 
Previous posts on this issue:

Lawmaker first to publicly back truck underride bill written by grieving moms

Thank you, Congressman Mark DeSaulnier, for your strong commitment to ending truck underride tragedies.

Senator Gillibrand Directs Pointed Questions on Underride to Federal Highway Administration Nominee

Senator Gillibrand asked Paul Trombino — in his nomination hearing for the position of Administrator of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) — some pointed questions about the underride problem. Her questions to him included asking whether he was aware that the IIHS had successfully crash tested a side guard at 40 mph in August and whether he would commit to studying the issue and responding to her within three months if he was appointed to that position.

Go, Senator Gillibrand! Thank you for drawing attention to this and asking for tangible action.

 

Video Links from the Second Underride Roundtable at the IIHS on August 29, 2017

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety once again did a fantastic job of hosting the Underride Roundtable. They have now provided us with links to the Second Underride Roundtable held at the IIHS Vehicle Research Center in Ruckersville, Virginia, on August 29, 2017. Here is the agenda, followed by the videos:

Truck Underride Roundtable 2 – Morning Session, Part 1:

 

Truck Underride Roundtable 2 – Morning Session, Part 2:

 

Truck Underride Roundtable 2 – Side Guard Panel:

 

Truck Underride Roundtable 2 – Industry Response and Crash Avoidance Panel:

 

Side Guard Crash Test at 40 mph on August 29, 2017:

 

Side Underride & Side Guard Crash Tests at 35 mph at IIHS on March 30 & 31, 2017:

 

 

Debunking the Myth That Safety Countermeasures Over-Regulate the Trucking Industry

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

Front Underride Protection Research; Why don’t we have FUP in the U.S.?

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.

  1. Heavy Truck Front Underride Protection Devices Design Principles, International Journal of Vehicle Systems Modelling & Testing, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2011
  2. 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.
  3.  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).
  4. 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
  5.   Design of a Tractor for Optimised Safety and Fuel Consumption 3.4 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.
  6.  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].

  7.  Investigating the extent to which UNECE Regulation 93 constrains the ability of Europe to permit longer trucks to improve environmental and safety benefits By Iain Knight
  8. Piercing the Passenger Compartment — Voluntary Efforts to Stop the Horrors of Underride Truck Crashes by Andy Young

Other posts on Front Underride Protection:

How Wabash Prototype Side Guard Could Impact Truck Underride Innovation, Technology, & Regulation

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!

Other interesting recent posts and news includes:

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 System and 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 Underrides Bill 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.”

Mandates take burden off manufacturers. Crash tests in labs better than crash tests occurring in real world.

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 Underrides Bill 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.

Such exciting news! Wabash Trailers has taken initiative to save lives with prototype side guard!

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.

Wabash prototype: Side underride guard with aero skirt, Trailer Body Builders, Charles Wilson, September 29, 2017

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 Stronger Rear Underride Guard Now Standard On All New Refrigerated Trailers

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.

Fleet Equipment Magazine, Jason Morgan, September 27, 2017,  Stoughton Trailers unveils a new refrigerated trailer

Thank you, Stoughton.

I hope that they will also have retrofit kits.

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)

 

 

Proper Maintenance of Underride Guards Can Spell the Difference Between L-i-f-e & D-e-a-t-h

Last night I reviewed proposed language for the Maintenance Section of the Stop Underrides legislation [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.

But how does one determine if a guard is in disrepair? This has been spelled out by the Technology and Maintenance Council of the American Trucking Associations in their Recommended Practice (RP) 732, VMRS 077, Trailer Rear Impact Guard Repair Guidelines:

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.

My copy of the FMCSA Safety Regulations Pocketbook says,

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.

Retrofit Solutions for Rear Impact Guards to Prevent Deadly Underride