Category Archives: Truck Safety

Ralph Nader Conference Highlights Tort Law Benefits & Tort Reform’s Assault on Right to Day In Court

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

I just got back from a Ralph Nader Conference (Breaking Through Power) in DC on Tort Law (September 29). I was privileged to participate as a “Tort Victim” on a panel moderated by Harvey Rosenfield (Consumer Watchdog). Other panel members were Susan Vento, Todd Anderson, and Laura Gipe-Christian.

dc-september-2016-004

Tort Law or Torts, I learned, is the law of compensation for wrongful inflicted injuries and was in existence long  before it was ever practiced here in our country. And tort law has three purposes:

  1. Compensation
  2. Disclosure
  3. Deterrence (therefore making us safer)

I also found out about the assault on tort law or “tort reform” which has convinced the American public that a system of law had somehow broken and needed to be fixed. This battle for the mind has fostered an attitude of cynicism and skepticism in jurors with the subtle messages about (fill in the blank, answers at the bottom of the post):

  1. Frivolous ________________
  2. Runaway ________________ and
  3. Greedy (or ambulance-chasing) __________________

But actually, the result has been that those who have been wrongfully injured find themselves less compensated and all of us are less safe because it diminishes accountability.

In fact, once a person becomes a victim, tort reform makes them a victim all over again–this time of a system that was meant to help the victim but has been sabotaged to leave them even more vulnerable. And I can give you two examples of this:

  1. During the lunch break, I had the opportunity to speak with a member of the audience who was there because, as a nurse midwife, she was interested in what would be said about medical malpractice. She said that what was being presented made a lot of sense. But she then told me about what she sees as victims of the focus on medical malpractice: pregnant women who are too often forced into C-sections (or other medical procedures not of their choosing) due to fear on the part of doctors of being sued. Yet, this is a case, perhaps, of the kind of PR which was mentioned; we have been led to believe that frivolous lawsuits in this area have skyrocketed and resulted in things getting out of control. Is this so?
  2. The second example is out of my own experience. One of the presenters mentioned that too often victims cannot find trial lawyers who are willing to take their case — on a contingency basis — due to the risk of not being able to recover their costs and the concern about whether the case will be successful or be limited by caps on compensation. We have tried multiple times to get someone to take our case without success. By this time, statutes of limitations pose an additional barrier. The end result is just like I was told this week: compensation to victims is barred; disclosure is prevented; and deterrence of future actions is limited. In our case, tort reform, thereby, could have contributed to a situation which allows ongoing opposition and resistance by the industry and regulators to doing whatever it would take to end Preventable Death by Truck Underride. On May 4, 2013, I hit Double Jeopardy! A victim twice over. What will it take to break through this travesty?

Folks, this is a problem. Could it be that tort reform is just one more of the culprits that bear the responsibility for the circumstances that led to my daughters’ deaths in a truck underride crash? If the many layers of leadership in the trucking industry, government regulation, and law enforcement had been held more accountable and liable in the past, might there have been a greater likelihood that AnnaLeah and Mary would still be alive today?

I’ll probably never know for sure. But I can venture a calculated guess. And I can do whatever is within my power to make sure that things get better for someone else.

Here’s to the realization of my dream of a nationwide network of mobilized traffic safety community advocacy groups to educate and empower citizens to take back their right to a day in court as one more strategy to help us realize the vision of moving toward zero preventable deaths and serious injuries from vehicle violence.

 

(And just in case you need the answers to the quiz: lawsuits, verdicts, and lawyers.)

 

 

CBA Victim Cost Benefit Analysis Victim

2 crash deathsCar Safety Wars

If only

Instead of like this:

IMG_4465Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 033 Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 032

Truck Underride Timeline by IIHS at the Underride Roundtable, May 5, 2016

As always, I am after the truth of the matter and I hope that you are, as well.

marys-vbs-photo-craft

VBS craft by Mary in Michigan, Summer of 2007

US/Canada Cross-Border Petition Calls for an End To Truck Underride Deaths–Front, Back & Sideguards

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , ,

Speak up for victims like Jessica, Mary, and AnnaLeah. Let our government regulators and trucking industry leaders know that we want them to act now to save lives.

Sign & share our new cross-border petition: End Truck Underride Deaths–Sideguards, Front & Back; US/Canadian Cross-Border Effort To Save Lives

U.S. and Canadian safety advocates are calling for an end to preventable truck underride tragedies. Hundreds of people die every year when pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, and passenger vehicles go underneath trucks.

It can happen to anyone — even if their car has a 5-Star Crash Rating. It can happen anywhere and at any time. It happened to AnnaLeah (17) & Mary Karth (13) when their car went under the rear of a semi-trailer on May 4, 2013, in Georgia. And it happened to Jessica Holman-Price (21) when she went under the side of a truck as a pedestrian on December 19, 2005, in Canada.

We don’t want it to happen to you or to someone you love. That is why we are calling for government regulators to act now to make trucks safer. We know that the technology is available to make this happen.

On September 23, we submitted a Comprehensive Underride Consensus Petition to the U.S. Department of Transportation (Clarification Document). It was signed by engineers and safety advocates who know that the problem can be solved. Similar efforts are being launched in Canada as well.

Since underride fatalities are a universal problem, cross-border regulatory cooperation between the U.S. and Canada is essential. Duplication of efforts is not efficient, whereas cooperative efforts will move North America more quickly toward zero preventable truck underride deaths.

So far, the work on improving truck underride protection has taken place in silos. It is past time to break the walls of silos and the silence which ensues, to stop working behind closed doors, and to bring the discussion to the light so that we are all working together with open and transparent communication.

Therefore, in light of the tragic and unnecessary countless loss of lives which delays in underride prevention have already cost, as well as the continued tragic and preventable loss of life sure to occur if decisive action is not taken now, we are hereby petitioning the governments of the U.S. and Canada to immediately take the following step in order to bring about comprehensive underride protection:

Issue a memorandum to establish a Joint/International Underride Task Force to actively address this global public health problem.

Speak up for victims like Jessica, Mary, and AnnaLeah. Let our government regulators and trucking industry leaders know that we want them to act now to save lives.

Sign & share our new cross-border petition: End Truck Underride Deaths–Sideguards, Front & Back; US/Canadian Cross-Border Effort To Save Lives

photo-collage-3-photos

“In February 2011, President Obama & Prime Minister Harper launched the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC). . . to facilitate closer cooperation between our two countries. . . to protect the safety & welfare of our citizens.” UNITED STATES – CANADA REGULATORY COOPERATION COUNCIL Joint Forward Plan, August 2014

For more information on the Canada-U.S. Regulatory Cooperation Council (RCC):

Speed Limiters: U.S. Revs Up Interest in Slowing Heavy Trucks & Buses (FairWarning)

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety

Fair Warning’s Paul Feldman has written an article on the recently proposed federal regulation to require big rigs to utilize speed limiters: Speed Limiters for Big Rigs After Moving at a Crawl, U.S. Revs Up Interest in Slowing Heavy Trucks and Buses

Our crash involved a trucker going too fast for the traffic conditions but not necessarily over the speed limit. In fact, there were many factors involved in our tragic outcome. It makes me wonder what all leads to speeding trucks, as well as speeding trucks getting involved in deadly crashes. What is the root of the problem here and what is the best way to address it?

On the one hand, on the other hand: Speed Limiters: The Controversy of Speed Differentials Between Trucks & Cars

I am still hoping to organize a Tired Trucker Roundtable for some down to earth discussion so we can all get on the same page.

Tired Trucker Roundtable

Barack Obama Op-Ed: “Self-driving, yes, but also safe” Would he be willing to discuss this with me?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

President Obama wrote an Op-Ed about the role of government in overseeing the development of self-driving cars. I find one of his comments very interesting:

There are always those who argue that government should stay out of free enterprise entirely, but I think most Americans would agree we still need rules to keep our air and water clean, and our food and medicine safe. That’s the general principle here. What’s more, the quickest way to slam the brakes on innovation is for the public to lose confidence in the safety of new technologies.

Both government and industry have a responsibility to make sure that doesn’t happen. And make no mistake: If a self-driving car isn’t safe, we have the authority to pull it off the road. We won’t hesitate to protect the American public’s safety.

See more here: http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/Op-Ed/2016/09/19/Barack-Obama-Self-driving-yes-but-also-safe/stories/201609200027

Well then, President Obama, I would like to discuss with you the unsafe trucks driving on the road which, at any moment, could kill an unsuspecting member of the American public  — as one did my two daughters, Mary and AnnaLeah — due to inadequate underride protection.  Are you ready to exercise that authority and take decisive action?

  1. Set a National Vision Zero Goal.
  2. Establish a White House Vision Zero Task Force.
  3. Sign a Vision Zero Executive Order to authorize the Department of Transportation to adopt a Vision Zero Rulemaking Policy.
  4. And then appoint a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman to advocate for the victims of vehicle violence, to protect the American public, and to mobilize citizens to act on their own behalf through a nationwide network of Vision Zero/Traffic Safety Community Action Groups.

Let’s have a serious talk about this. I’ll be in DC next week. Give me a call.

Unsafe TrucksViolence

The Glacial Pace of Truck Underride Improvements (along with countless other safety issues)

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety

Recent (and past) events were spurring me to write this post this morning based on frustration with the way that progress is too often blocked and unnecessarily delayed on safety efforts when the people and organizations who could do something to prevent deaths tragically wait for somebody else to act before taking responsibility to move forward themselves.

The result is a Catch 22, chicken & egg dilemma which moves as slow as crystallized honey with the result that countless people die when something could have been done to make sure that they did not meet an untimely end due to Death by Motor Vehicle.

1a85et

So I appreciated a Tweet by the IIHS which I noticed this morning before I was able to start writing this post:

Well said, IIHS! I couldn’t have said it better myself!

See the glacial pace of underride prevention progress here: timeline-banner-for-underride-roundtable-meeting

I still say that a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman could be instrumental in changing this sorry state of affairs!

Why rely on driver reaction to avoid truck side underride when a side guard could prevent tragedy?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , ,

I just read a very detailed explanation for why a driver might not react in time to avoid riding under the side of a semi-trailer — one without a side guard I might add. Well, that is all very interesting and we might learn something useful from it.

But, why on earth would we rely on driver behavior (especially in such an unexpected scenario) when the installation of a side guard could so easily save the driver’s life?!

Save Lives

Of course, taking a comprehensive approach to safety makes the most sense –one which makes other factors important as well, including:

  • Visibility and conspicuity.
  • Adequate parking for trucks.
  • Making it illegal for trucks to make U-turns.

Either or

Nader 50 years later: Federal Regulation Saves Millions of Lives, But. . .

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety

Nader wrote a blogpost about the recent 50th anniversary of the signing of the Highway Safety Act on 9/9/1966.

Fifty years ago this month (on September 9, 1966), President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety laws that launched a great life-saving program for the American People.

I was there that day at the White House at the invitation of President Johnson who gave me one of the signing pens. In 1966, traffic fatalities reached 50,894 or 5.50 deaths per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. By 2014, the loss of life was 32,675 or 1.07 fatalities per hundred million vehicle miles traveled. A huge reduction!

This was an astounding success for a federal safety program that included mandatory vehicle-safety standards (seat belts, airbags, better brakes, tires and handling among other advances) and upgrading driver and highway-safety standards. . .

Despite, many good programs and safety standards, there is still a ways to go, according to Nader:

If the auto company bosses had liberated their own engineers and scientists and cooperated with the federal regulators, who early on were physicians and engineers, even more casualties would have been prevented.

Today, the challenges remain in the upgrading of the operational and safety aspects of motor vehicles, especially large trucks, improvements in highway infrastructure and handling drivers distracted by cell phones or under the influence. Much is being written of futuristic self-driving, autonomous vehicles. Don’t be taken in with the hype, or the arrogant reliance on algorithms. It will be many years, if ever, until the entire vehicle fleet is converted into unhackable, driverless machines.

Meanwhile, modest semi-autonomous braking systems, with drivers still at the steering wheel, are here and will improve. There will be other systems inviting the dependency of drivers which will raise questions of ultimate control of a fast-moving vehicle. . .

In conclusion, Nader has this to say:

Democracy and its result – a more just society – is not a spectator sport. People have to organize to challenge the forces of injustice.

America, are we ready to actively participate in advocating for our own safety?

Life & Death

 

“Trucking Regulations Don’t Address Biggest Risk – Unsafe Behavior” by a husband/wife trucker team

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , , , ,

You will want to read this in-depth article on truck safety full of practical knowledge and insight — written by a trucker husband/wife team.

Opinion: Trucking Regulations Don’t Address Biggest Risk – Unsafe Behavior, Trucks.com, by Jeff & Linda Halling, September 8, 2016

Written by Jeff and Linda Halling, a husband-and-wife driving team based in Missouri. This is one in a series of periodic guest columns by industry thought leaders.

While the federal government is adding new trucking industry regulations — including speed limiters for big rigs and electronic logging devices for drivers — these moves don’t really address the root causes of truck crashes.

If we really want to improve safety for truckers and the motoring public, we need to focus on the base reasons for unsafe behavior. We believe better training is key — teaching drivers good work habits. That will reduce the frequency of truck crashes. . .

Read more here: Trucking Regulations Don’t Address Biggest Risk – Unsafe Behavior

jeff-and-linda-halling-photo-credit-jeff-halling

9/9/16 Motor Safety Act 50th Anniv. Miles to Go from Pres. Johnson vision of ‘cure for highway disease’

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

Despite much progress in highway safety, the death toll still is rising from one year to the next. Why do we mindlessly accept it? Why don’t we rally together and conquer this dreadful enemy of innocent lives?

1a85et

September 9 marks the 50th anniversary of President Johnson’s signing of the Federal Highway Safety Act of 1966:

According to the July 15, 1966, Public Works committee report on the House version of the bill (H.R. 13290), each state must “have a highway safety program approved by the [Secretary of Commerce] . . . in accordance with uniform standards to be approved by the Secretary.” The legislation addressed a broad range of issues: driver education; licensing; pedestrian performance; vehicle registration and inspection; traffic control; highway design and maintenance; accident prevention, investigation, and record keeping; and emergency services. Congress authorized funds for distribution to the states, with a requirement that each state implement a highway safety program by December 31, 1968, or suffer a 10 percent reduction in apportioned funds. The legislation enjoyed strong, bipartisan support in the House. Chairman Fallon stated, “[This bill] continues the policy of meaningful cooperation between the States and the Federal Government on highway matters. I believe it is a firm step forward in the struggle to save lives, and I urge that we act with strong voice to put it into effect.” The measure passed the House by a vote of 318-3, and President Johnson signed the Highway Safety Act into law on September 9, 1966.

I only wish that we could get that same kind of support for the appointment of a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman and a nationwide network of  citizens active in community Traffic Safety Advocacy Groups in 2016!

Yet, according to a recent FairWarning article, Miles to Go on Highway Safety, we are far from acting as responsibly and conscientiously  as we would if we really cared about saving innocent lives from preventable vehicle violence — and that includes the oversight of “self-driving” vehicle technology development!

 

FRONT Underrun Protection Systems (FUPS) Research; So why does Europe require this & US does not?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

I have been trying to collect as much information as possible on the deadly dilemma of the truck override which occurs when a truck and car have a head-on collision.

  1. Truck tractor cabs may be equipped with a Front Underrun Protection System (FUPS)
  2. IIHS 2009 Testimony:  Research in Europe has investigated front underride guards, and the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Regulation 93 requires such guards.  NHTSA also should require adequate front, side, and rear underride guards on new tractors and trailers. Statement before the US House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection Emerging vehicle safety issues, May 18, 2009, Stephen Oesch, also contains an Attachment: Federal rulemaking on truck underride guards 
  3. CRASH COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES AND PASSENGER CARS: STRUCTURAL INTERACTION ANALYSIS AND IN-DEPTH ACCIDENT ANALYSIS, Aleksandra KRUSPER & Robert THOMSON , Chalmers University of Technology, Gothenburg, Sweden
  4. FRONT UNDERRUN PROTECTION SYSTEMS FOR TRUCKS. CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT THE BULLET AND TARGET VEHICLES FOR A TEST PROCEDURE, J. Paez, M. Sanchez, Spain
  5. IMPROVED CRASHWORTHY DESIGNS FOR TRUCK UNDERRIDE GUARDS , Byron Bloch & Luis Otto Faber Schmutlzer
  6. Front Underrun or Underride Guards, Underride Network
  7. Volvo Trucks India: Protecting Other Road-Users :The different heights of trucks and cars have always constituted a safety problem in traffic, not least if a head-on collision should occur.Now, we are proud to offer a solution in the shape of Volvo’s Front Underrun Protection System (FUPS), which is fitted as standard on Volvo FH and Volvo FM models.The FUPS prevents passenger cars from becoming wedged under the truck’s front in a frontal collision, and thereby reduces the risk of serious injuries and increases the survival rate for the car’s occupants. The underrun protection beam serves as a 200 mm deep crumple zone, considerably reducing penetration into the car’s passenger compartment. With the truck bumper situated on the same level as that of a typical car bumper, the deformation zone of the car can be utilised in the best possible way.

    The FUPS comes fully integrated into the cab’s structure in the FH and FM series, but does not add any extra weight.

  8. Robustness and Reliability of Front Underrun Protection Systems, Master’s Thesis in Solid and Fluid Mechanics JOHANNES FRAMBY & DAVID LANTZ
  9. Front underrun protective systems and devices are used on heavy vehicles. Their problem of compatibility with other road users is a serious issue. Trucks are stiff, heavy and high and pose a serious threat to occupants of other vehicles in the event of an impact. Frontal car-to-truck collisions are the most common impact type in crashes where trucks are involved. . .  In EU it is mandatory for vehicles over 3.5 tonnes to have a rigid front underrun protection system. Studies have also shown that passenger cars can ‘survive’ a frontal truck collision with a speed of 75 km/h if the truck is equipped with an energy absorbing underrun protective system. In order for a Front Underrun Protective System to be approved laboratory testing has to be carried out in accordance with the procedures described in UN ECE Regulation No. 93. Tests also have to be carried out in by a test facility approved by the road agency (transport department). TEST TO FRONT UNDERRUN PROTECTIVE SYSTEMS
  10. FUPS BullbarsFront Underrun Protection Systems (FUPS) are barriers integrated into the front of trucks OR built as specially designed bullbars and bumpers.The benefits of FUPS are significant:Injuries are minimised by preventing smaller vehicles from going underneath the front of trucks in the event of an accident.
    • FUPS ensure that the crash forces are evenly distributed across the front of the truck.
    • FUPS ensure that the safety features of passenger vehicles (such as air bags and crumple zones) are activated during a collision.
    • FUPS can prevent the car damaging the trucks steering – allowing the truck to be bought to a controlled stop.

    Australian FUPS are made to UNECE Regulation No 93 Standards. The regulation requires that the Front Underrun Protection Device must withstand certain forces, have a smooth front with a face of 100mm to distribute the crash forces, and have a maximum ground clearance of 400mm.

    The fitment of a FUPS is one of the requirements to operate a 26 metre B-Double within Australia. Provided the truck has the cab strength required this may also enable you to have an extra 500kg on the front axle.

  11. Front underrun protection systems for trucks. Considerations about the bullet and target vehicles for a test procedure
  12. Front underrun protection European Commission, Transport, Road SafetyDue to the size and mass of heavy vehicles, the problem of compatibility with other road users is a serious issue. Trucks are stiff, heavy and high and pose a serious threat to occupants of other vehicles in the event of an impact. Frontal car-to-truck collisions are the most common impact type in crashes where trucks are involved.It has been estimated that energy-absorbing front, rear and side under-run protection could reduce deaths in car to lorry impacts by about 12% [100]. An EU requirement was introduced in 2000 based on ECE Regulation 93 requiring mandatory rigid front underrun protection defining a rigid front underrun protection system for trucks with a gross weight over 3.5 tonnes Directive 2000/40/EEC. Studies performed by EEVC WG 14 have shown that passenger cars can ‘survive’ a frontal truck collision with a relative speed of 75 km/h if the truck is equipped with an energy absorbing underrun protection system. Furthermore, these systems could reduce about 1,176 deaths and 23,660 seriously injured car occupants in Europe per year. Research shows that the benefits of a mandatory specification for energy absorbing front underrun protection would exceed the costs, even if the safety effect of these measures was as low as 5% [37]. Energy absorbing systems are available from all truck manufacturers as an optional device but almost none are sold. A test procedure for legislative action is under development VC Compat.
  13. Front underrun protection The front underrun protection prevents smaller vehicles in frontal crashes from being dragged under the body of a large truck. In its function as a high-strength steel abutment, it activates the energy-absorbing areas of the body of the advancing vehicle (crumple zones) so that the energy of the collision can be dissipated.
  14. In head-on collisions of bonnet-type cars (sedans, wagons, hatchbacks, etc., hereafter referred to simply as cars) and heavy trucks, the car often under runs the front of the truck, and the car crew received the serious or fatal injuries. The crash safety performance of the car depends on the way its structural parts interact with the structural parts of the truck. Front Underrun Protection Device equipment that prevents the car from under running the truck is obligatory in India. The Required strength and ground clearance of FUPDs are specified in the relevant regulations used in India. Accidents between cars and trucks are among the most fatal accidents because of the car under running. This phenomenon leads to serious and fatal injuries for car occupants because of intrusion of the car structure into the passenger compartment. This has led to the development of test procedure for energy-absorbing front under run protection systems for trucks. There is a summary of accident analysis of several European countries, where we can read that of the 48000 fatally injured people in road traffic accidents in 1992, 13000 people were killed in accident with trucks involved, about 7000 were car occupants and 4200 of them were killed in car-to-truck frontal collisions.In the same time, in 1994, a collaboration in France between Renault VI (truck manufacturer) and INRETS has begun. The research program set up is based on a experimental design to determine the effect of the vehicle masses, the overlap and the closing speed and the effect of the Front Under run Protection Device on mechanical and biomechanical characteristics. This experimental design is presented which is also analysed and made available to use as a valid Front Under run Protection Device for trucks. Design and Optimization of Front Underrun Protection Device      Dr. T. Ramamohan Rao1 , A. Rama Krishna, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 8, Issue 2 (Jul. – Aug. 2013), PP 19-25 www.iosrjournals.org                                                                                                                                         Conclusions:  Head on collision contribute significant amount of serious accidents which causes driver fatalities. The car safety performances can work effectively by providing FUPD to the heavy trucks. The trucks with UPD can reduce the car driver fatalities by 40 % In India, for Front Under-run Protection Device, IS 14812:2005 regulation is required in for the trucks to meet the safety requirement to protect under running of the passenger car. In above said design, the maximum displacement of FUPD bar is limited to 179mm hence it meet the requirements as per IS 14812:2005. But this needs to be confirmed with physical testing in future. The virtual simulation is tool which can be used to avoid or reduce the physical testing of mechanical systems and components. Overall effect of this is cost saving and same is done with FUPD analysis. As per above results optimized model is safe, more strength and low weight mode suits the best suggested design. Weight reduction achieved by optimization result is 6%, compared to base third Model and displacement is about 5% and Stress is 6%.Finally we conclude that the optimized model results are less than the third design model. By this we can say that optimized front under run protection device is selected. Front under run protection is achieved less weight, less displacement and less stress so that for the passenger who is sitting in the car having high safety by placing this optimized model. We can suggest to automobile industries to keep this type of Front Underrun Protection Device to truck, busses etc which saves the life of passenger with less injury.
  15. Investigating the (length) constraints imposed by the Front Underrun Protection Regulation CONCLUSIONS: Crashes involving an underrun are likely to be severe because a car’s structural strength and passive safety systems – such as crumple zones – are unlikely to confer their full safety benefit. Many trucks/trailers are fitted with some form of underrun protection, however few trucks are equipped to fully minimise the possibility of an underrun. As a passive safety device, underrun protection will not reduce the number of crashes involving trucks and lighter vehicles. However, they can ensure that crashes that do occur are less severe than they might otherwise have been. The economic benefit of this reduction in crash severity substantially exceeds the cost of fitting them to trucks, up to a cost of $1,000 for a package of underrun protection for the front, sides and rear of all trucks (the benefit also exceeds the costs for individual underrun devices). This benefit is accrued over a device lifetime of at least 15 years, and is higher for articulated trucks than for rigid trucks. Further work is needed to develop a minimum standard for underrun protection devices for each side of a truck/trailer combination. 

So. . . tell me again why it is that we do not have Front Underrun Protection on every truck in the United States!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Other posts on front override:

Front Override 008

Best Protection