Category Archives: Truck Safety

AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety welcomes tiny, medium-sized, & vast donations to underride research. We’re not picky.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety

Keep praying for IRS to act in a timely manner (like now!) on our application for tax-exempt status. AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is eagerly awaiting the approval letter for at least two (and hopefully many more) potential donations to Underride Research.

But don’t let that stop you from giving NOW; we have been told by IRS that we can operate immediately as a tax-exempt organization.

Every donation — no matter what size — is welcomed as it will get us that much closer to our goals of supporting underride research in a timely manner to enable us to impact the rulemaking and international discussion which are taking place now and in the coming year.

Underride Roundtable: https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/underride-roundtable-save-the-date-may-5-2016/

Save the Date Underride Roundtable

Learn how AnnaLeah & Mary are supporting Underride Research:
https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Fall chores spark bittersweet memories & fuel renewed advocacy energy

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, ,

As I took photos of Jerry raking pine needles in our backyard today it triggered memories of the good times we had with AnnaLeah and Mary our Last Fall Together–as well as all the other autumns of their short lives.

It brings good but bittersweet memories as I remember all-too-well how they cannot be here at this time in this place to enjoy these moments. They had come with us to tour this house in anticipation of purchasing it the following spring–walking through this backyard which they never got to enjoy as their own.

Iowa and pine needles 032 Iowa and pine needles 036

And then it reminds me why I have thrown myself into this huge endeavor called Safety Advocacy. For some other mom who–I hope–will never know this heartache.

Remembering Our Last Fall Together, a photo album   https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.519997071416145.1073741912.464993830249803&type=3

 

Why use the term collision MITIGATION rather than AVOIDANCE?

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

The American Trucking Association says that they prefer that DOT would focus on collision avoidance technology rather than things like improved underride guards:  https://annaleahmary.com/2014/12/the-passion-of-this-safety-advocate/

I now have a new response to that tiresome attitude toward vital truck safety measures–thanks to this Truckinginfo.com article:  http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2015/10/behind-ups-decision-to-make-collision-mitigation-standard.aspx

“The National Transportation Safety Board recently recommended that all passenger and commercial vehicles use collision avoidance technology. The suppliers of the technology prefer the term ‘collision mitigation,’ because it’s impossible to avoid all accidents, but it can lessen the severity.”

In other words, because we know that we cannot prevent all crashes, it is unimaginable to me that we would not do everything that we could to make those crashes survivable!  https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/rear-ending-a-truck-should-be-a-survivable-crash-why-isnt-it/

PetitionHeader_option2

Mechanical Engineering Student Makes a Good Case for Preventing Underride Crash Fatalities

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , ,

Here is another good case for improvement in truck underride regulation and manufacture–this time from a mechanical engineering student:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0078

It’s all good so be sure and read it, but here are some excerpts:

“Let us consider the future instead of the present for just a moment. A scary revelation is that passenger vehicles used by the commuting public are being designed to be smaller, lighter and built of lightweight composite materials. This engineering is done to improve fuel economy, handling, suspension, and improving the drivers experience. The key is to strive for an increase in safety at the same time. On the polar opposite side of the spectrum, the trucking industry has been trying to increase the size and maximum load of their CMVs to increase revenue for a number of years.

I believe the trucking industry should follow in the footsteps of Emilio Lopez, UPS’ Global Fleet Safety Manager, who was recently quoted in an article by Truckinginfo as saying, “It’s hard to put a ROI (return of investment) on saving someone’s life.” After reviewing recent studies on underride, researching previous studies, looking over police scene photographs and sketches, it can be noted that primarily, rear underride accidents occur at night where the driver of a small passenger vehicle cannot perceive a stopped vehicle.

My biggest issue with the NHTSA ANPRM Docket No.: NHTSA-2015-0070 is the following quote, “Among the 122 fatalities examined in this review, 49 (40 percent) were exceedingly severe crashes that were not survivable.” What if we stop believing traffic fatalities are inevitable and start believing that every traffic fatality is preventable? It may be a rather colossal way of thinking. Innovation can be accomplished by thinking big and starting small. Small steps are what eventually climbs the mountain. Introduce increased regulations on SUT in which the rear guard is stronger than FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, potentially CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards. Use these regulations to collect real-world data from the increased structural rigidity to determine if the problem lies in the fact that the FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 guards are not strong enough to begin with.”

Trip North May 2015 031We Rescue Jesus Saves 018

Sign & share Vision Zero Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

See how AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is raising money for underride research and planning an Underride Roundtable at IIHS on May 5, 2016:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/ and https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/underride-roundtable-save-the-date-may-5-2016/

 

Powerful & Informative Case Made for Underride Guard Improvement by Trucker/Attorney

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , , ,

Even if you think that you know all there is to know about truck underride, you’ll want to read the comments by this truck driver/truck crash attorney. He provides an in-depth understanding of how underride occurs and the horrific results.

With the extended Public Comment period coming to a close for Rear Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks, there are some additional comments just posted on The Federal Register at regulations.gov.  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

Of particular note is a very informative and powerful comment recently posted by Andy Young, a husband, father, truck owner, Class A CDL driver, truck accident attorney and a trial attorney: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0075 . The remainder of this post contains his public comment on that website:

“I bring a unique and varied perspective to the very issue under consideration. Not only does my background and experience provide me with credibility to make the within comments, but I have also researched issues regarding rear underride guards, lateral protection devices, and front override prevention. My research has even taken me overseas to see how other countries are handling some of the very issues raised in the comments submitted by original equipment manufacturers and by those who are part of the commercial trucking industry. Due to both my practical experience and research, I comment as a proponent in favor of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

Underride Crashes = The Eight Figure Jury Verdict

“The automotive industry spends millions, if not billions, in research and development. This research and development is specific to improving a vehicle’s safety features (energy absorbing bumpers, crumple zones, air bags, seat belts, etc.) all designed to keep the vehicle occupants safe. The engineering behind these safety features can mean the difference between a minor injury and a tragic fatality. No matter how safe the car may actually be, the safety features are only effective if there is good structural interaction (crash compatibility) between collision partners. This means there is a geometrical match up of the crush structure of both the striking vehicle and the vehicle being struck.

“A two vehicle collision involving a single-unit, commercial motor vehicle (CMV) and a light passenger vehicle frequently results in a mismatch of structural components at the first point of impact. The crash incompatibility is in large part due to the height of the CMV. This often results in an “underride” collision. The lower profile passenger vehicle physically goes underneath the higher profile CMV. The first point of impact is beyond the hood and into the glass windshield. The second point of impact then literally becomes the heads, faces, and chest of the lower profile vehicle’s occupants.

“Air bags do not deploy because the lower profile vehicle’s bumpers and air bag sensors are not triggered. Energy absorbing bumpers and crumple zones, all designed to keep the passenger compartment intact, become irrelevant. The load path from the crash results in energy that does not initially strike the intended engineered crush structure of the passenger vehicle. With no air bag and the vehicle traveling underneath the opposing vehicle, the occupant compartment is pierced resulting in a passenger compartment intrusion.

Thereafter, the seat belts restraining the occupants fail to prevent catastrophic injury or deadly consequences as the energy from the collision is absorbed directly by the human body. The car’s occupants then suffer the most horrific crash consequences: death by blunt trauma; decapitation; open skull fractures; traumatic brain injuries; degloving of the face; spinal cord injuries; paraplegia; or quadriplegia.

“The truck driver then suffers with a career-ending criminal vehicular homicide and/or criminal vehicular assault charges. At the very least, the truck driver suffers the psychological trauma associated with being an integral part of such a horrific crash. The truck company then likely encounters a civil lawsuit. The fatalities and catastrophic injuries associated with underride crashes typically produce seven figure to eight figure verdicts, all exceeding minimum insurance requirements. Smaller truck companies are saddled with paying the judgments in excess of insurance coverage. These companies then must sell assets and/or end up filing for bankruptcy.

“Everyone loses in an underride truck crash, the truck company and truck driver included. The typical argument that energy absorbing underride guards would increase weight and costs associated with that increase, simply do not equal the costs associated with the potential of a seven to eight figure jury verdict. My question to those in opposition to this measure is: if you are concerned about saving weight, then why not the same level of concern for saving lives?

Underride Lawsuit Example

“Underride crashes resulting in these devastating injuries and fatal results can even occur at lower speeds. A verdict was recently achieved in an underride collision involving a dump truck and a Honda sedan (Kiara E. Torres and Joshua Rojas vs. Concrete Designs, Inc., et al., Cuyahoga County, Case No. CV 12 795422 & 795474). The first point of impact was the windshield and “A Pillar” of the Honda’s front passenger side coming into contact with the back left corner of the dump truck’s cargo bed. The Honda’s front bumper and hood traveled underneath the dump truck’s steel cargo bed without damage. The geometrical mismatch of the collisions’ two partners caused the corner of the dump truck cargo bed to cut through the Honda’s windshield and into the skull of the right front seat passenger. This young man miraculously survived, but suffered an open skull fracture, a traumatic brain injury, and substantial physical limitations – all requiring a prohibitively expensive life care plan. Unfortunately, the Honda had three other passengers and this young man was not the only one exposed to the passenger compartment intrusion.

“The passenger compartment intrusion continued along the right side length of the Honda. The right backseat passenger succumbed to the load forces and also suffered a traumatic brain injury. Intriguingly and not atypical of collisions piercing into the passenger compartment, the two occupants on the left side of the Honda (the driver and the passenger behind the driver) walked away from the accident with minor injuries. The dump truck driver was also uninjured. Frequently, occupants not effected by the passenger compartment intrusion (particularly at lower speeds) can suffer no injury at all while those effected by the PCI can end up with injuries that result in substantial verdicts. The Jury returned a verdict in favor of the front seat passenger in the amount of $34,600,000.00 and the back seat right passenger in the amount of $7,800,000.00. 100% of the fault was apportioned against the dump truck driver. The total verdict for this underride crash was $42,400,000.00.

Over 62 Years Since Rear Underride Guard Requirement Update On SUTs

“The first standard for rear underride guards on CMVs was issued in 1953 by the Bureau of Motor Carriers. On June 29, 1967, national attention was brought to the issue of rear underride guard protection and vehicle crash compatibility when Jayne Mansfield, American actress, was killed as a front seat passenger in a 1966 Buick Electra. In spite of the 1953 rear guard requirement, this Buick hit the back of a tractor-trailer resulting in beyond the windshield passenger compartment intrusion. Three adults and three children were involved in the crash. The three adults seated in the front seat, Jayne Mansfield, her companion Attorney Sam Brody, and the car driver, Ronald B. Harrison were all killed. The actress’ three children (eight-year-old Mickey, six-year-old Zoltan, and three-year-old Marie) all survived and were claimed to have been in the back seat of the car. Early media reports wrongly believed Ms. Mansfield to have been decapitated.

“In 1969 and 1977, the NHTSA proposed an advance notice of rule making. Both regulatory attempts failed. Forty-five years after the 1953 rule requiring rear underride guards, the NHTSA promulgated an updated rear underride guard standard that became effective in 1998. The new mandate was for combination tractor-trailers only. They did not include single unit trucks (SUTs). The new rule required the following: rear guard ground clearance to be no more than 22 inches; rear wheel setbacks of no more than 12 inches from the cargo bed; and strength testing requirements. To date, the NHTSA has not updated rear underride guard requirements for SUTs. It is hoped that this ANPRM will succeed to regulatory mandate.

“In a letter dated April 3, 2014, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) urged the NHTSA to take action regarding underride guards. The NTSB letter asked for a number of items regarding rear and side underride protections systems all “designed to prevent accidents and save lives” (Hersman, Deborah A.P., Chair, National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations, H-14-001 through -007, letter to The Honorable David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, page 14). On July 10, 2014, the NHTSA granted a petition for rule making submitted by Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition requesting the agency improve the safety of rear underride guards on trailers and SUTs (DOT, NHTSA, “Grant of Petition for Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571 FMVSS, Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection”). The Petitioners also made a request to improve side underride guards and front override protection.

Comments Against Need To Be Met With Skepticism

“Industry equipment manufacturers state that rear guards cannot be placed on various construction related vehicles. These statements need to be met with skepticism. Many European CMVs already have rear-underride guard protection on trucks, like dump trucks or box trucks with lift gates. Please see the following photographs I took while I attended the Commercial Vehicle Show in Birmingham, England this past April, 2014.

Note: The Public Comment can be accessed here to see the indicated photos.  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0075

“As evidenced by the photographs above, the U.S. lags behind other developed nations in providing meaningful rear impact protection. The photos above are just two examples of numerous applications allowing for rear impact protection and a lift gate or dump application. The argument that many SUTs need to have “good off-road mobility at construction sites” or “hitch connections” and therefore cannot have rear impact protection is likewise out-of-date thinking. Below, please see photographs from one vendor at the Commercial Motor Vehicle Show in Birmingham, England.

“While it is not readily apparent by these photographs, the vendor demonstrated how the rear impact protection guard can be adjusted up and down, as needed. Technology exists that debunk the argument that the rear impact guard would interfere with the work that the truck must perform.

Conclusion

“In this magnificent country of ours it is difficult to accept the fact that as a nation we are decades behind protecting our motorists from underride and/or override crash scenarios. The NHTSA has been slow to meaningfully regulate underride guard protection. As such, local governments, such as the City of Boston are passing ordinances requiring lateral protection devices on SUTs. Even the University of Washington announced that it is installing side guards on its campus fleet of SUTs. I implore the NHTSA to seriously consider meaningful passage of the pending proposal. We need to make sure that our citizens have the same protection as those in other nations. Sixty-two years is too long to wait to pass regulatory requirements that afford rear impact protection and other safety devices on single unit trucks.

“If you have any questions, I can be reached at 216-789-4832. My email is andytatransport@gmail.com. My Twitter account is @SafeDriveHome”

Note: Additional information can be gained by an article on underride by the same author: http://www.nphm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Piercing-The-Passenger-Compartment1.pdf?fd9d09 .

See my Public Comment as a firsthand example of the horrific, fatal injuries which too often occur in underride crashes: Marianne Karth – Comment  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0018

Underride Research Meme

Learn how AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is raising $ for Underride Research–a timely and life-saving effort:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Our Vision Zero Petition seeks to bring about practical solutions to the problem of motor vehicle crash fatalities & injuries: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Report Card on HR 22; Do we really want 91,000-pound trucks as included in the highway bill: Amendment #29?

Truck Safety,

Here is the latest on the highway bill (afternoon):

Actually, here is an update from 7 pm after a vote:  http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/259048-house-rejects-highway-bill-amendment-to-allow-heavier-trucks

ACTION NEEDED TO OPPOSE TRUCK WEIGHT INCREASE AND OTHER ANTI-SAFETY AMENDMENTS IN HOUSE TRANSPORTATION BILL
November 3, 2015

BACKGROUND:
The surface transportation reauthorization legislation currently being considered by Congress will set transportation policy for the next six years and is an opportunity to reverse the upward trend of truck crash death and injuries. If the safety title in the bill is not enhanced when the House and Senate meet in conference on the legislation, the American public will pay with their lives and their wallets.

The House of Representatives will be considering amendments to H.R. 22, the Drive Act as further amended by H.R. 3763, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015, with voting beginning as early as tonight, November 3rd. It is imperative that we contact as many lawmakers as possible to urge them to vote against anti-safety amendments.

We must send a strong message that the American public does not want heavier trucks, particularly 91,000-pound trucks as offered by Representatives Reid Ribble (WI), David Rouzer (NC), Kurt Schrader (CO), and Collin Peterson (MN) in Amendment #29.
Please read the Report Card (see below) which should serve as a primer to the safety and anti-safety amendments that have been submitted to the House Committee on Rules.
TAKE ACTION NOW:

Please take the time to call Representatives from your state, and urge them to oppose the Ribble Amendment and any other anti-truck safety amendments.

To Contact Your Representative Click Here.

To Contact Representatives from Your State Click Here

REPORT CARD – House of Representative Amendments to H.R. 22

REPORT CARD - House of Representative Amendments to H.R. 22

TSC, 2015

Do we really have to beg our legislators to vote for safety instead of profitability? Give me a break!

Truck Safety, , ,

Right now, the House of Representatives is getting ready to vote on a multi-year highway bill. It is my understanding that lobbyists have asked legislators to propose amendments to the bill which could make the roads less safe.

It seems to me that this is a prime example of the need for a shift to a Vision Zero policy in our government. If we have to beg our senators and representatives to vote for safety instead of profitability {saving human lives over decreasing the profits of corporations}, then that indicates to me that, unless we make our voice heard and call for lasting, far-reaching, bottomline change, we will continue to fight this battle year after year–and the trucking and automotive industries will continue to have the upper hand. Ad nauseam.

Throughout my life, I have heard many people make the statement that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results.

That is why I am asking for change through our Vision Zero Petition:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/ and this, I believe, should be directed to the White House asking for an Executive Order or Presidential Memorandum requiring a major shift.

People, this affects you and me–our friends and families.

gertie 132

Here is what we have been asked to tell our legislators:

“. . .  Congressman Ribble’s amendment (Amendment #29) would increase the federal weight limit for large trucks from 80,000-lbs. to 91,000-lbs. Based on a letter he sent to Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Foxx detailing his eagerness to see the results of the Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (Study), it is surprising that Rep. Ribble ignored the results. The DOT concluded that there should be no increase to truck size and weight due to a lack of data.

There was so little national data regarding six-axle 91,000-lbs. trucks that the DOT could only use one state, Washington, to study this configuration. In that state, these heavier trucks experienced a 47 percent increase in crash rate. Moreover, the Technical Report of the Study found that truck configurations operating over 80,000-lbs. had 18 percent more brake violations and a higher number of brake violations per inspection.

. . . other special weight exemptions for either states or specific industries including:

Amendment #3 | Nolan (MN), Crawford (AR) – Permits “covered logging vehicles”- that have a gross vehicle weight of no more than 99,000 pounds and has no less than six-axles to operate on I-35 in Minnesota.

Amendment #7 | Rooney (FL) – Provides that a state may allow, by special permit, the operation of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of up to 95,000 pounds for the hauling of livestock.

Amendment #9 | Duffy (WI), Ribble (WI) – Increases weight limit restrictions for logging vehicles on a 13-mile stretch of I-39 to match Wisconsin state law.

Amendment #60 | Crawford (AR), Nolan (MN) – Permits specific vehicles to use a designated three-miles on U.S. 63 in Arkansas during daylight hours.

Amendment #76 | Farenthold (TX), Babin (TX), Green (TX) – Allows for only certain trucks with current weight exemptions to be allowed to continue riding at those higher weight exemptions once certain segments of Texas State Highways are converted into Interstate 69.

Amendment #154 | Mica (FL) – Requires that a state may not prohibit the operation of an automobile transporter with a gross weight of 84,000 pounds or less on any segment of the Interstate System or qualified Federal aid primary highways designated by the Secretary.

Congress has the chance to make our roads safer for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, as well as truck drivers. They should be using this multi-year highway bill to enhance safety in the trucking industry, not rolling it back. Bearing in mind that big rigs carrying loads close to the current Federal limit are already twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as trucks carrying less than 50,000 lbs., the solution should not be to introduce heavier trucks that will continue wearing our bridges and, per basic physics, do far more damage upon impact.

. . .  please do not pass a bill that will only help the interests of the few (companies) at the expense of the safety of the many (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and truck drivers).

. . . PASS A BILL DRIVEN BY SAFETY, NOT ONE THAT MAKES IT TAKE A BACK SEAT TO PROFITABILITY.”

“The Rules Committee. . . is responsible for determining which amendments can be brought to the floor while a bill is being considered. It is important we tell these Members to oppose any amendments that increase trucks weights.”

TSC, November 3, 2015

I would say that the facts are clear that Safety Is most definitely Not A Priority:

Safety is not a priority 002

Complaint about proposed underride guard regulation: Not Cost Effective

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

As soon as I read the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks, I could smell trouble.

To begin with, I have questions about NHTSA’s  figures, especially undercounting deaths from underride and the overlooking of possible saved lives from requiring improved underride standards on trailers.  https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=underreporting%20of%20underride%20deaths

Then, this is what I read in NHTSA’s explanation as they spelled out their cost/benefit analysis:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0001

“b. NHTSA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis (Overview)

As part of its evaluation of whether an underride guard requirement should apply to SUTs, NHTSA conducted a cost-benefit analysis of equipping SUTs with rear impacts guards. The analysis is set forth in Appendix A of this preamble, and an overview is provided below. We are requesting comments on the analysis. . . 

Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (35) identifies $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

Actually, the VSL, as of June 17, 2015, is now $9.4 million. No matter because it still would not be anywhere near the supposed cost of requiring rear impact guards on SUTS (with, of course, certain exempt ones which are already able to prevent underride with their current equipment).

The logical outcome is that the industry will lobby against this rulemaking. I am concerned that cost may too likely win out over preventing countless persons from surviving a truck crash.   https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/rear-ending-a-truck-should-be-a-survivable-crash-why-isnt-it/

As an example of this, see the two most recent Public Comments on this ANPRM — posted November 2, 2015:

  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0066 “An agency rule may be arbitrary and capricious if the agency, ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Without considering the costs to the roads and bridges, any factual determination of the costs and benefits of requiring single unit trucks to include read guards may be unreasonable and could demonstrate that the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.”
  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0065“7. By your own estimates in the ANPRM the rear impact guards are not cost effective and there are still additional costs with the proposal you have not included in the ANPRM.
    Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation \35\ identifies
    $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for
    Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of
    preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL
    in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary
    estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per
    equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will
    not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).As in the analysis for Class 3-8 SUTs shown in Table 2, the
    preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on Class 4-8 SUTs (minimum
    of $55.2 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that
    these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

VSL Guidance-2013-2 DOT value of life

DOT VSL Guidance, as of June 17, 2015:  https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf

Rebekah photo of crash

GR Crocodile_Tears for Heavy Vehicle Safety 2004

p.s. This battle has a history:

“1974 US Secretary of Transportation says deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial.” 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=1974+US+Secretary+of+Transportation+says+deaths+in+cars+that+underride+trucks+would+have+to+quadruple+before+underride+protection+would+be+considered+cost+beneficial.

 

Mother of Underride Crash Victims Demanding Tougher Truck Safety Rules

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, ,

When Isaac and I were in Washington, DC, to talk with our senators and congressmen, as well as administrative officials at NHTSA and FMCSA (DOT), we were interviewed by Geoff Bennett, Washington Reporter for Time Warner Cable.

His report is airing October 30 – November 1.  We appreciate the opportunity to share our story with a wider audience and invite them to support our underride research and join the thousands who have already signed our Vision Zero Petition.

Read the article here: http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2015/10/30/us-dot-reconsiders-standards-for-rear-impact-safety-guards-on-tractor-trailers.html

Sign & share the petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Support Underride Research: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

 

Insights on Potential Riders on Surface Transportation Reauthorization & Reform Act & Their Impact on Truck Safety

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

My family knows all too well, the great loss which can come from a truck crash. We are doing everything in our power to keep your family from experiencing such life-changing tragedy.

For those of you who have the ability to impact the upcoming HR 3763, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act, please consider these insights from the Truck Safety Coalition on potential riders or amendments and their likely impact on safety for travelers on the roads of our country:

ACTION NEEDED TO ENHANCE SAFETY TITLE IN HOUSE TRANSPORTATION BILL
October 28, 2015
 
BACKGROUND:

The surface transportation reauthorization legislation currently being considered by Congress will set transportation policy for the next six years.  During that time, approximately 24,000 people will be killed in truck crashes and 600,000 more will be injured.  This legislation is an opportunity to reverse the upward trend of the truck crash death and injury toll.  If the safety title in the bill is not enhanced when the House and Senate meet in conference on the legislation, the American public will pay with their lives and their wallets.

On Thursday, October 22, The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed H.R. 3763, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015. While a large number of amendments were offered, the majority of those amendments were withdrawn due to a bipartisan agreement between the Committee leadership to pass a bill through the Committee. The bill will now move to the House floor for a vote by the full House of Representatives. We expect that many of the same amendments that were withdrawn could be offered when the full House takes up the legislation.

It is expected that H.R. 3763 will be on the House floor next Tuesday and Wednesday, November 3-4.
TAKE ACTION NOW:
Please take the time to contact your Representative either by phone or email, and urge him/her to oppose anti-truck safety provisions and amendments.
To Contact Your Representative Click Here:  http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
IMG_4465
TALKING POINTS:
Opposed Provisions in H.R. 3763:
Allowing Teen Truckers (Sec. 5404)                        
  • There is no data that analyzes whether it is safe to allow teenagers to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate traffic.  In fact, research has demonstrated that truck drivers younger than age 21 have higher crash rates than drivers who are 21 years of age and older.
  • The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) previously declined to lower the minimum age for an unrestricted CDL to 18 as part of a pilot program because the agency could not conclude that the “safety performance of these younger drivers is sufficiently close to that of older drivers of CMVs[.]” The public overwhelmingly opposed the idea with 96 percent of individuals who responded opposing the proposal along with 88 percent of the truck drivers and 86 percent of the motor carriers who responded.
Changing Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Data (Secs. 5221, 5223, 5224)
  • Hiding critical safety information in the FMCSA’s CSA program will deprive consumers from learning about the comparative safety of motor carriers and bus companies when hiring a motor carrier company to transport goods or people.
  • Letting the public know the government safety scores promotes public accountability and improves safety. CSA is working as intended and includes a process so that it can continue to be fine-tuned and improved.
Delaying Rulemaking on Minimum Financial Responsibility (Sec. 5501)
  • Minimum insurance levels have not been increased once in over 35 years.
  • During this time medical care costs have increased significantly and the current minimum requirement of $750,000 is inadequate to cover the cost of one fatality or serious injury, let alone crashes in which there are multiple victims.
Limiting Shipper and Broker Liability (Sec. 5224)
  • Shields brokers and shippers from responsibility based on low standards related to hiring decisions. Reducing standards effectively removes safety from the carrier selection process.
Expected Amendments to Oppose to H.R.3763:
  • The Safe, Flexible and Efficient Trucking Act (H.R. 3488) increases the current federal 80,000 lbs. limit to 91,000 lbs. This bill, which is expected to be offered as an amendment by Rep. Reid Ribble (WI), contains a provision that would violate the federal bridge formula. Additionally, the U.S. DOT determined that introducing a 91,000 lb. weight limit would result in $1.1 billion immediate one-time bridge strengthening or replacement costs for non-interstate bridges on the National Highway System (NHS) as well as create bridge posting issues for nearly 5,000 bridges on the Interstate and NHS.
  • Mandate increasing the size of double tractor trailers from 28 feet per trailer to 33 feet per trailer, resulting in trucks that are at least 84 feet long. Double 33s will be more dangerous to motorists and truck drivers, and more destructive to our nation’s already compromised roadways and bridges. This length increase will overturn the laws in a majority of states that currently prohibit Double 33s.
  • The recent U.S. Department of Transportation Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (DOT Study) concluded there is a “profound” lack of data from which to quantify the safety impact of larger or heavier trucks and consequently recommends that no changes in the relevant truck size and weight laws and regulations be considered until data limitations are overcome.
    • By overwhelming margins in numerous public opinion polls over the last 20 years, the American public consistently and convincingly rejects sharing the road with bigger, heavier and longer trucks. The most recent poll in January 2015 by Harper Polling revealed that 76 percent of respondents oppose longer and heavier trucks on the highways and 79 percent are very or somewhat convinced that heavier and longer trucks will lead to more braking problems and longer stopping distances, causing an increase in the number of crashes involving trucks.
  • Special interest truck size and weight exemptions are essentially “earmarks” for states and “unfunded mandates” imposed on all American taxpayers who bear the cost of federally-financed infrastructure damage and repairs. We expect that there could be several amendments seeking size and weight exemptions.
The compounding effect of these anti-safety provisions will allow trucks, the size of an eight-story building, higher risk interstate truck drivers, and insufficient insurance for large trucks. A national surface transportation authorization bill should not be a legislative vehicle to pass special interest provisions that would never be supported by the public. Yet, this bill is rife with truck safety rollbacks that throw the safety agenda into reverse and further endanger everyone on the roads.
Put the Brakes on these Anti-Safety Provisions.  Save Lives, Taxpayer Costs and our Crumbling Infrastructure.

 

“Towards Zero – There’s no one someone won’t miss.”