Here are some stories related to trucking from Trucks.com:
The Halifax Cycling Coalition is applauding regional council for its part in getting the first side guard installed on a municipal vehicle Tuesday.
“We’re so excited. This is a huge step forward for the municipality and also for safety in Halifax,” said Kelsey Lane, executive director of the coalition.
Read more here: Halifax installs first side guard on municipal vehicle , Municipal vehicles weighing 4,500 kilograms or more will have a side guard by 2022, By Anjuli Patil, CBC News Posted: Nov 17, 2016
In June 2016, I received a link from Clarence Ditlow to a regulations.gov Federal Register 1981 proposed truck underride rule. As I was reflecting on Clarence’s recent death and his life as a car safety advocate, I remembered that email.
When I was able to locate the email, I realized that I had not fully read the proposed rule, so I took some time this morning to do so and have recorded highlights of that document below. Points or questions not in quotes are my own thoughts.
Because this was a lengthy summary, I am going to include a link for the reader: “Old Underride Petition”; Highlights of a 1981 Rear Underride Rule
Federal Register Docket and Full Proposed Rule pdf can be found here: Rear Impact Guards/Protection: Docket ID: NHTSA-1996-1827
What I would like to know is whether NHTSA will be reviewing prior documents and research (such as this represents) as well as take into account the impact that advances in technology and knowledge when preparing future underride rulemaking? Just for example, would the crashworthiness of “modern” passenger vehicles (e.g., the installation of air bags) change the conclusions drawn in this document?
I would also like to know what the actual cost/benefit analysis formula was which they used in this document as well as in the current underride rulemaking. Does it take a Vision Zero/Road to Zero approach? And would they think that my daughters were worth saving?
Some of the key points of this 1981 proposed underride rule include:
“The agency had tentatively determined that a better regulation was needed because of the continuing problem of fatalities and serious injuries occurring in accidents involving excessive underride, and because of the absence of efforts by the vehicle manufacturers generally to go sufficiently beyond the BMCS requirement.”
“In 1971, after evaluating cost and accident data and reviewing all information received in response to the notices, NHTSA terminated those rulemaking efforts. The Administrator of the agency concluded that the safety benefits achievable with the particular type of underride guard then contemplated would not be commensurate with the cost of implementing the standard.”
“The agency had estimated that the proposed rule would save 50-100 lives per year at an annual cost to the consumer of $500,000,000 .”
“Most of the implementation costs estimated by NHTSA were related to the increase in guard weight which it thought was necessary to meet the proposed requirements.”
“Efforts to improve underride protection resumed in 1977, after the Auto-Truck Crash Safety Hearing was held by Senator Wendell H. Ford. This hearing was the direct result of a program conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) in 1976.”
“This program focused on the problem of preventing excessive underride. IIHS performed five tests in which passengers car were crashed into the rear of a typical semi-trailer van.
“In addition, the TTI program tested a hydraulic energy-absorbing guard manufactured by Quinton-Hazell Automotive Ltd. (Quinton-Hazell). (An energy-absorbing guard is one that dissipates the energy of the impact in a controlled manner.)”
“The Quinton-Hazell device was very effective both at preventing excessive underride, reducing occupant injury responses, and reducing damage to the colliding vehicle.”
Read the other 80 points here: old-underride-petition
How do you interpret those statements? What does it look like to you? Am I the only one who is appalled at their apparent “washing of their hands” of responsibility for the lives lost due to their negligence in mandating the best possible underride protection?
Even if I were willing to overlook their actions in the past, I am not willing to settle for a future rule to continue this kind of travesty. In conjunction with voluntary improvement in underride protection which we are beginning to see, I want to see effective underride protection installed all around trucks because I know it is possible.
I am convinced that this kind of protection will be near to impossible to attain until this country understands and demands Vision Zero Rulemaking as an essential component of its Road to Zero Coalition strategy.
What will President Trump and the next Secretary of Transportation do about this?
The current Secretary of Transportation, Anthony Foxx, was my first experience with the challenges of making SAFETY truly a priority. His words to us on September 12, 2013, “I promise you will see tangible progress on these issues in a short period of time,” was the springboard for our AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition delivered to Washington in May 2014 — one year after our tragic truck crash.
I wonder whether the next Secretary of Transportation will be motivated and allowed to have a genuine and effective SAFETY focus.
Will the next Secretary of Transportation be authorized to carry out Vision Zero Rulemaking?
Truck Front Underrun Protection Research from India:
Crash Analysis of Front under Run Protection Device using Finite Element Analysis, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320-334X, Volume 9, Issue 1 (Sep. – Oct. 2013), PP 49-56 www.iosrjournals.org, Santosh Pandimukkula.,Venkata Narayana Yenugula 1 (Mechanical Departmen,Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology/JNTUH, INDIA) 2 (Mechanical Departmen,Sreenidhi Institute of Science and Technology/JNTUH, INDIA)
I. INTRODUCTION
In head-on collisions of bonnet-type cars (sedans, wagons, hatchbacks, etc., here after 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. FUPD 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. . .
IV. Conclusion
1. Head on collision contribute significant amount of serious accidents due to lack of FUPD in heavy trucks.
2. As per Indian standard IS 14812:2005 regulation the Front Under-run Protection Device is designed using Nx8.0 software and analysed by commercial finite element software and found satisfactory results.
3. The maximum displacement, Von mises stresses and strains under impact load of FUPD bar in different cases are studied to meet the requirements as per IS 14812:2005, and this results are to be compared with experimental results.
4. With the above used CAE tools we can reduce the time and increase the productivity of the design and avoid the costly experimental testing.
5. As per above three results second model is safe, strength and low weight model.
6. We can suggest to automobile industries to keep this type of FUPD to car, gypsy, truck, busses…Etc. which saves the life of passenger with less injury.
Fair Warning has provided us with yet another tribute to Clarence Ditlow. . . long-time car safety advocate to whom we owe our gratitude.
The Loss of a Consumer Champion, November 15, 2016
I had very little contact with Clarence. But I did have some correspondence with him this year as I was preparing for the Underride Roundtable and also for the Consensus Document which came out of that. He shared that he was unable to take on that battle due to some major health issues which he was dealing with at that time.
I received this email from Clarence in June:
We are cleaning up old NHTSA rulemaking dockets for which we have paper files. At some point in time after 1995, regs.gov became the official repository for federal agency
We stumbled across this docket in our sample & sent it to you & Ben as a courtesy to people with a greater interest in and ability to pursue truck underride than the Center.
I have the belief that if I come across something that may be of interest to others, I send it to them.
Clarence
I replied:
Thank you for carrying out your belief.
Thank you, Clarence. For everything.
A trucker friend posted on facebook that he is trying to figure out ways to increase the visibility on his truck’s turn signals. He mentioned that studies show that people see the amber lights before the red ones.
So he and his wife (a trucker team) are having the shop install custom Amber strobes hooked into the turn signals. Thank you, Jeff and Linda, for going way beyond compliance to make the roads safer!
https://www.facebook.com/jeff.halling/posts/1076123542508557
How many are doing this? Would it help? If so, why isn’t it standard? Because this simple safety measure, if mandated, could SAVE LIVES.
Read the commentaries below on this issue and then tell me why you think Vision Zero Rulemaking and a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman are not really important to make sure that things like this get addressed in a timely fashion and thus ensure that SAFETY is really the priority!
There has been support for amber signals in America since the 1960s; indeed, in 1963, amber frontturn signals were adopted, replacing white signals, because amber is quickly discerned from the white headlights and reflections of sunlight off chrome. But automakers rejected amber rear signals as “not cost effective.” Preventing crashes with amber turn signals
Imagine that!
Studies show that amber turn signals reduce accidents, yet most signal lamps on the rear ends of North American automobiles, trucks and trailers are red. Why? Because amber’s not legally required, and it’s simpler and cheaper to use red for all rear-facing lamps.
Stern, the automotive writer, is perplexed that NHTSA doesn’t require amber rear turn signals. Amber Rear Turn Signals Are Safer Than Red, But Few Use Them
The day after the election, I participated in a conference call to plan the Second Underride Roundtable. You see the election results have not stopped a group of people who care about making trucks safer. We are moving forward to again bring together another diverse set of people and organizations in a politics-free attempt to provide better underride protection on trucks.
Of course, that does not mean that we are all on the exact same page with precisely the same goals. But the fact remains that we will be gathering together around the table to discuss real problems and tangible solutions.
And then the day after that, I had the privilege of joining my daughter, Rebekah Chojnacki, via webcam as we presented our family’s crash story and safety advocacy efforts to an undergraduate class at the University of Texas in Arlington. They are learning about what public health is and, on Thursday, they were introduced to a real-life public health problem — truck underride injuries and horrific deaths — and a public health strategy to prevent such tragedies. And along with that, we talked about the public health problem of driver fatigue as well as the stressful life of a truck driver.
I don’t know if this group of students will catch the vision of becoming a pilot project Vision Zero/Traffic Safety community action/advocacy group which could serve as a model for students and citizens nationwide becoming active together in a positive way to make a difference and work to move us toward zero crash deaths and serious injuries.
And I don’t know if UTA will become my host facility to help me organize a Tired Trucker Roundtable. But they might be. Or this might be the inspiration for some other city or university or student or citizen group to take on these goals.
But I do know that my daughter told me that many of them were crying because our story touched them in a deep way. And I do know that many of them asked very relevant and appropriate questions. They got it and after only a simple half-hour presentation.
And if only our country will learn to work with one another — not simply waiting around for someone else to solve the problems — we could make a significant impact.
Here is what I shared with that class: presentation-to-uta-public-health-class
Well, that felt good to tell about those hopeful things. It became a positive channel of the anger and frustration which I have been feeling increasingly of late toward those who did not take responsibility in a way that could have prevented my daughters’ deaths and, even more, who continue to point the finger of blame at someone else or simply shrug off their part in this quest to prevent ever more unnecessary tragedies.
Check out these tips for how to maneuver around a truck safely:
How to Maneuver Around a Truck Safely
Four trailer manufacturers have passed the IIHS offset crash test with their new rear underride guard designs. Here is a recent article about one of those manufacturers who has made it standard on their newly-manufactured trailers:
Stoughton engineers were challenged to design a guard based on the recommendations of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). The challenge was met without adding weight, without negatively affecting aerodynamics, and without reducing the robustness of the undercarriage and rear structure. Better yet, the guard is one of only three on the market to pass the difficult 30-degree offset crash test.
Read more here: New under-ride guard is standard
Read more here:
