The Public Comments period has closed for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks. But there were 21 last-minute comments which have now been added to the Federal Register today.
The Public Comment Period is Closed now for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. I appreciate those who took the time to comment and I look forward to in-depth dialogue among these people and organizations at our Spring 2016 Underride Roundtable. You can find their published comments here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070
These include comments from:
Marianne Karthhttp://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0018 It felt good to get my two cents worth in. I think that I was able to provide a different perspective from the other commenters–having been a survivor of the crash with 2 daughters who died due to underride and having become a passionate advocate who asks hard questions.
With funds which we raise for underride research, we are hoping to cover the costs of the crash test for the innovative combined side & rear guard designed by this engineer, Aaron J. Kiefer MSME, PE . See his Comment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0013
Contrast their comments to the conclusion of the NTEA: “Based on the published data and expected benefits, there is no justification for requiring rear underride guards on single unit trucks.” Maybe they ought to watch this video from Australia.
Someone in Australia was asked this question: “So last year, 249 people died on our roads. What do you think would be a more acceptable number?”
See what he answered:
Cover of IIHS Status Report on guards; photos of our car before/after
Support Underride Research to Prevent Unnecessary Deaths & Injuries.
I have spoken and corresponded with George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta from the Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre in Sydney. I have also written about their work on underride protection in Australia.
Yesterday, I received from them a copy of their submission to the Public Comments on the Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. It is worth a read to find out what is being said in other countries about this vital issue.
Whilst there are force based design rules, e.g. in USA, Canada and Europe, it is apparent that these rules are inadequate. In our submission we strongly recommend crash test based performance requirements for under-run protection catering for both centred and off-set impact. Around 10 people per year on average are killed in Australia in rear under-run crashes resulting in horrific injuries such as decapitation.13 Yet the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS)14 for Underrun Protection publish by the Vehicle Safety Standards Branch at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in July 2009 recommended that only front under-run protection be applied to all rigid and articulated trucks. Their conclusion was that the cost-benefit ratio for frontal under-run barriers was greater than one whereas for side and rear under-run the benefit was negative, and hence such protection should not be mandated in an Australian Design Rule. Yet despite these numerous calls for changes over the past three decades, we continue to consistently kill people in such crashes, ignoring the fact that practical low cost effective under-run barriers can be fitted. That is the real unforgivable tragedy.
The Vison Zero and Safe System approach adopted by most of the world now and on which Towards Zero Deaths is anchored, boldly moves away from the economic- rationalist ‘cost-benefit’ models (cited in this Docket as still being used by NHTSA), to a humanistic more rational model. The important aspect of a ‘Vision Zero’ principle is that it introduces ‘ethical rules’ to guide the system designers. In other words: • Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society • Whenever someone is killed or seriously injured, necessary steps must be taken to avoid similar events.
The Authors of this submission would further point out to those at NHTSA considering how the Rear Impact Protection for Single Unit Trucks should be revised; they should consider placing themselves in the position of the gentleman being asked in the following Australian Government advertisement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsyvrkEjoXI&feature=youtu.be. This advertisement was commissioned and paid for by the Victorian State Government in Australia. We would ask the NHTSA staff responsible for this NPRM which members of their family would they allocate to die that would be acceptable to them and would meet the NHTSA cost benefit ratios being considered?
To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016. The tests requirements are in part based on the US Manual for Assessing Road Hardware (MASH) and are presented below. We would strongly recommend that NHTSA consider such dynamic performance tests when they deliberate their development of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for under-ride barriers.
TUB’s are designed to prevent a vehicle impacting the rear of a stationary truck under-riding the back of the truck in a manner where the truck structure intrudes into the impacting vehicle’s occupant compartment. The TUB’s main function is to protect the occupants in the impacting vehicle.
If the car is designed to such ANCAP and IIHS test protocols with the maximum crashworthiness rating, it is likely that the occupants would not sustain serious injuries in a vehicle impacting such a TUB in the configurations shown in Figure 1.
The manufacturers of such TUBs and operators of heavy vehicles are encouraged to explore the application of energy absorbing systems for TUBs including rear air bags mounted on the rear of trucks.
This latter recommendation is relevant to our goal of seeking research money to provide to Dean Sicking whose proposal intends to do just that: explore the application of the SAFER Barrier — an energy absorbying system — to the prevention of truck underride tragedies.
As soon as their Public Comment is published, I will post a link so that you can read the entire document online for a better understanding of their detailed analysis and proposal for crash test based performance requirements for truck underride protection, for both centred and off-set impact, in contrast to the force based design rules in the current U. S. federal underride standards. The Australian recommendations are based on 30 years of research and experience. (Note: the document in its entirety can be accessed at the top of this post.)
The formal period for submission of Public Comments ends today, September 21, 2015. Upon the request of several groups, I made a request that the period be extended for a short time. That request is under consideration by the agency. All published Public Comments can be found at this site, which is updated as submissions are made: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070
George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta have, unfortunately, faced similar challenges in Australia in trying to persuade the powers that be to make rules which would prevent unnecessary and horrific deaths and injuries. However, they are encouraged by potential upcoming changes in their country:
To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016.
We look forward to working with George and Raphael at the Underride Roundtable in the Spring of 2016 and know that our country can greatly benefit from their expertise.
I always find this hard to sing in church — today was no exception. We sang it at my dad’s funeral and at AnnaLeah’s and Mary’s.
Two sisters sing Children of the Heavenly Father together. They have sung it many times and could do it in their sleep. This has special meaning as the duet is sung with a background of photos featuring their two younger sisters who are now, truly, with their Heavenly Father.
Children of the Heavenly Father Safely in His bosom gather Nestling bird nor star in heaven Such a refuge e’er was given
God His own doth tend and nourish In His holy courts they flourish From all evil things He spares them In His mighty arms He bears them
Neither life nor death shall ever From the Lord His children sever Unto them His grace He showeth And their sorrows all He knoweth
Though He giveth or He taketh God His children ne’er forsaketh His the loving purpose solely To preserve them pure and holy
Lo their very hairs He numbers And no daily care encumbers Them that share His ev’ry blessing And His help in woes distressing
Praise the Lord in joyful numbers Your Protector never slumbers At the will of your Defender Ev’ry foe man must surrender.
After hearing that several groups were hoping that they could have more time (beyond the current deadline of September 21) to prepare a Public Comment on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks, I contacted NHTSA and filed a request to extend the Public Comment period.
The agency replied that they are considering my request. It usually takes at least 10 calendar days for such a process. I hope that this helps with providing useful information but does not lead to unnecessary delay of the needed rulemaking.
Photo by me of a Single Unit Truck I saw on the expressway a few months ago.
One of our Underride Research funding goals is to cover the costs of crash testing at IIHS ($25,000) of an innovative underride prevention system designed by Aaron Kiefer, a forensic engineer (he does crash reconstructions) here in North Carolina. Jerry and I went to see his prototype a few weeks ago. Very cool. It combines side & rear guard protection.
If a manufacturer knows that one of their products has a defect or flaw or a component which could potentially result in death or serious injury, should they be let off of the hook from being accountable for the consequences of their refusal to improve the safety of their product?
What do you think? What would you think if you were the victim (or if someone whom you knew was the victim) of such an “oversight”?
Does a cost/benefit analysis which indicates that making the change would be “too costly” (i.e., costs “outweigh” the benefits of saved lives) excuse them from responsibility?
Read about the GM settlement over deaths due to installation of defective ignition switches:
“‘GM killed over a 100 people by knowingly putting a defective ignition switch into over one million vehicles,’ said Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto Safety. ‘Yet no one from GM went to jail or was even charged with criminal homicide. This shows a weakness in the law not a weakness in the facts. GM killed innocent consumers. GM has paid millions of dollars to its lobbyists to keep criminal penalties out of the Vehicle Safety Act since 1966. Today thanks to its lobbyists, GM officials walk off scot free while its customers are six feet under.’” – See more at: http://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/news/200/critics-rip-gm-deferred-prosecution-in-switch-case/#sthash.KW9gdwjA.Tc0H8H28.dpuf
Latest post in The Federal Register for Public Comments on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for underride protection on Single Unit Trucks (SUTS) includes comments on suggestions for side guards to protect cyclists:
After the success of the AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety Petition in 2014 on The Petition Site, we went back to Care2 where it was hosted online and gave them an update on our efforts. They decided to write an article on our safety advocacy efforts.
There have been some comments added to the Public Comments on the Federal Register for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making on rear underride protection for Single Unit Trucks (SUTS).
The Public Comment period is currently scheduled to end on September 21, 2015. We encourage you to add your comment to this process to indicate support for the inclusion of Single Unit Trucks in the requirements for underride protection.
