Category Archives: Truck Safety

AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is excited to begin raising money to support NASCAR’s safety hero, Dean Sicking, research for SAFER Truck Underride Guards.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

After the success of our AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition, our daughter, Rebekah, set up a Twitter account  to help us raise awareness about truck safety issues.

As I was browsing Tweets one day, I was intrigued by a “Thank you!” to Dr. Dean Sicking for SAVING MANY LIVES through the SAFER barrier he designed for NASCAR. SAFER = Steel and Foam Energy Reduction:

Great shout out to one of the major safety innovators in auto racing. How many lives has Dean Sicking’s work saved? http://usat.ly/1E21Xws “

I called Dean and told him our story; then I asked him if he thought he could use the same technology to design safer underride guards. He said, “Yes!” And, a few weeks later, he sent me a detailed proposal for an Underride Prevention Research Project:

Development of Trailer Underride Preventive Measures

The only problem is that we have not found anyone who is putting money toward underride research. Not a priority. So, now we are launching a fundraising campaign to raise $200,000 to fund Dr. Sicking’s Underride Research Project–along with a college senior design underride project and additional promising underride research by engineers who share our concern about the current underride requirements and think that they can come up with a more effective solution.

Plans are also underway for an Underride Roundtable in Spring 2016 to bring together engineering experts and industry representatives. We also hope to publish a compilation of all this underride research to be made available in print as well as downloadable.

Save the Date Underride Roundtable

Please help us prevent future unnecessary deaths due to underride crashes. Every $1 contributed to this cause will help us toward our goal of supporting underride research, which will make it possible to manufacture safer trucks  and, as a result, save other families the heartache of such tragic loss.

AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization and is eligible to receive contributions that may be tax deductible for the donor. Your donation will help fund research that will save lives!

AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety, Articles of Incorporation filed with the State of North Carolina

To donate online, go to:
http://fortrucksafety.com/

Then SHARE this need with your friends using the sharing icons provided on that website. Thank you for your help.

Underride Research Meme

For more information about AnnaLeah & Mary’s story and for details about the underride guard issue, go to: https://annaleahmary.com/underride-guards/

Printable & clickable brochure:   ALMFTS Underride Guard Research Brochure

IIHS Report on truck underride crash tests and our story: IIHS Status Report October 2014

Watch how Dean Sicking’s SAFER Barrier soft-wall technology protected Danica Patrick from suffering the same fate as Dale Earnhardt:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 

 

REAL WORLD ENGINEERING for safer roads: seeking designs for improved truck underride prevention structures.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety,

From the Society of Automotive Engineers’ (SAE) facebook page:

“REAL WORLD ENGINEERING: Marianne Karth’s goal is to prevent more deaths from truck-related crashes like the one that claimed the lives of two of her daughters. She is seeking designs for improved heavy vehicle underride prevention structures.”

https://www.facebook.com/FormulaSAE/posts/418305385022284

Rebekah photo of crash

 

http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showCDSNews&EVENT=FORMULA&RELEASE_ID=3080

Designs sought for improved heavy vehicle underride prevention structures.

WARRENDALE, Pa., July 8, 2015

Current truck underride regulations too often do not prevent underride crashes—which led to 2401 fatalities in 2013. “In a detailed study of 115 rear truck crashes (not all fatal, and including all large truck types, not just tractor trailers), we found that 46 percent involved underride that extended beyond the bottom of the windshield (i.e., the truck intruded into the passenger compartment). When restricting to the 28 crashes that were fatalities, this rises to 82 percent.” (Matthew Brumbelow based on his research: Evaluation of US Rear Underride Guard Regulation for Large Trucks Using Real-World Crashes,http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/Large%20trucks/bibliography/bytag )

Engineering students and professionals will take on the challenge of creating an underride prevention system that will surpass the current U.S. and Canadian standards. Key design interests include offset impact, misaligned vehicle paths, and occupant survivability. Design is based upon a light passenger vehicle and dry van semitrailer interaction.

Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223 and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 223 describe the energy absorbing and mechanical deflection required for semi-trailers rear underride structures. NHTSA has initiated rulemaking for FMVSS No. 224 and No. 223. In the interest of this rulemaking, noteworthy designs will be presented to the NHTSA Deputy Administrator.

The objective is to attain underride prevention up to 50 mph at any degree of offset. The designs must be demonstrated to be practical in the context of the trucking environment. The hoped-for outcome is saved lives.

For more information about the underride issues go to:https://annaleahmary.com/underride-guards/

Papers should be submitted no later than May 1, 2016 (but will be reviewed as soon as received for the maximum impact) and sent to: marianne@annaleahmary.com

http://www.sae.org/servlets/pressRoom?OBJECT_TYPE=PressReleases&PAGE=showCDSNews&EVENT=FORMULA&RELEASE_ID=3080

The “Second Collision” Does Not Have To Be So Prevalent. We can do better at preventing death & horrific injuries.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

Michael Lemov, in his book Car Safety Wars, sheds light on what has been responsible for so many deaths from vehicular crashes. The automotive industry has long claimed that “Safety doesn’t sell,” and consequently too-often did not include safety features in their vehicles. As a result, too many people have died from what has come to be known as the “second collision.”

Lemov describes it this way:

“During the first six decades of the twentieth century the American automobile industry seemed wedded to the idea that safe design was not its responsibility. There was no public demand, it was said, for safer automobile design. Nor did the industry seem to think it had much responsibility to inform the public about the risks of vehicle design and the omissions such as lap and shoulder belts.

“In the years before the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, better-designed motor vehicles might have saved millions of drivers and passengers from death and injury in what had by then become known as the ‘second collision.’ This is the collision of the driver and passengers with the interior of their own vehicle during a crash.

“The basic physics of the ‘second collision‘ were described by Hippocrates in the fourth century BC when he contrasted the greater severity of wounds inflicted by a sharp penetrating object with the less-serious wounds produced by a blunt weapon. This established that when force is distributed over a larger area (say by safety belts over the shoulders, chest, and pelvis) rather than a small area (the face or head of a driver or  passenger) the force per unit of area is much less.

“Similarly, two centuries before the invention of the automobile, Sir Isaac Newton defined the relationship between velocity and deceleration of a moving object. Simply put, the greater the distance over which vehicle deceleration occurs the less injurious the force that is imparted to the occupant body, such as the head and neck. For example, the two-foot deformation, or crushing of the front end of a vehicle, is the stopping distance of an unrestrained passenger before striking the interior of the vehicle. In the same car, the stopping distance of the same passenger wearing a lap-shoulder belt, would be much greater, as the car decelerates over many feet, causing less injurious forces to the neck, skull, and body.5

“Detroit automotive engineers, of course, knew about these principles and problems of the physics of automobiles. Since at least the 1930s they had also known of some promising solutions.6 But their employers who called the shots were deterred either by cost, perceived engineering problems, or marketing considerations from doing anything much about applying them. Mostly the companies sold annual styling changes and more horsepower.7

“The reaction of the motor vehicle industry, dominated by General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, to the increasing toll of death and injury (from about 33,000 deaths per year in 1950 to 53,000 in 1969)–was consistent. The manufacturers placed primary blame on the driver and on driver attitudes.” (Car Safety Wars; One Hundred Years of Technology, Politics & Death, by Michael R. Lemov, pp. 49-50)

Unfortunately, a similar attitude toward safety and truck underride guards has probably meant that underride prevention technology has been woefully inadequate and many people may well have unnecessarily died as a result.

In fact, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has told us in person that, “It is safer to run into a brick wall than into the back of a truck.” This is due to the fact that if you run into a brick wall with a vehicle equipped with a crush zone, that crush zone is able to go into effect and protect the occupants. However, if a vehicle hits the back of a truck and the underride guard fails, the vehicle goes under the truck so that the passenger compartment is intruded upon and the crush zone (air bags and seat belts) is not allowed to operate as designed.

George Rechnitzer, a professor and researcher from Australia who has done research with Transport and Road Safety Research (TARS) believes that the underride problem can be solved. In 2003, he authored this dissertation: The Improvement of Heavy Vehicle Design To Reduce Injury Risk In Crashes With Other Road Users.   https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx? (2003)v=8b6a69875e67767ca2a4

In the introduction, Rechnitzer says that,

“The thesis concludes with presenting the important concept that crash protection for
occupants is a function of the nature of the interface between the impacting vehicles
and /or the person. This hypothesis provides an alternate perspective on what is feasible
in occupant protection in severe impact scenarios. It clearly shows that contrary to a
common view in road safety, vehicle mass per se is not the major determinate of injury
outcomes. Indeed this thesis demonstrates that injury protection is feasible against high mass vehicles be they trucks, trams or trains, by appropriate design of the interface between impacting objects.”

Here are crash tests of the underride prevention protection designed by George Rechnitzer:  https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLsx40j16tnkR8qrxDY9IVQ .

Deadly second collisions do not have to be so prevalent; we can do this better!

Trip North May 2015 154

Ralph Nader: “Enough! Stop More Giant Truck-Trailers on Your Highways”

Truck Safety, , , , , ,

Ralph Nader speaks up about the battle for truck safety, calling for citizens to speak up for safer highways–a matter of life & death.

Read more here & see how you can help:  https://blog.nader.org/2015/07/02/enough-stop-more-giant-truck-trailers-on-your-highways/

Rebekah photo of crash

 

Contact Information for U.S. Senators:  http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm?OrderBy=state

Contact Information for U.S. House of Representatives:  http://www.house.gov/representatives/

See previous posts for Congress contact information:

Please use the icons below to SHARE this call for action.

 

Give the Gift of Life: Do your part to make our roads safer!

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

Let’s make sure that we are not always pointing our finger at someone else to take the blame for highway safety. Make sure that you are not driving impaired in any way, shape, or form: DISTRACTED, DRUNK, DRUGGED, or DROWSY (DWF)!

And, if you can do something to make trucks safer–whether you are a legislator, a government regulator, a truck driver, a trucking industry executive, or a voting/driving member of this country–do it!

Give the gift of LIFE–help prevent a crash fatality!

Mary loved to give a gift–whether it was her infectious smile, a bouquet of flowers, or an invitation to have some fun!

Remember AnnaLeah and Mary–and all those countless others who have lost their lives on the roads–and give the gift of life.

 

Who are no more with photo

Tug of War over truck/highway safety: Something’s wrong with this picture!

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

Two years ago a truck crash killed our two youngest daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13).

One year ago, we garnered over 11,000 signatures on a petition asked Secretary Foxx to advance 3 measures to improve factors related to safety on our roads.

We have seen step-by-step progress toward our goals but get concerned when we see signs that a tug of war continues over this life & death battle.

“Two Different THUD Bills Set Up Congressional Showdown on Trucking Issues” http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryId=29323#.VZUr1_lViko

  • In our AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition, we asked for Electronic Logging Devices to be required as soon as possible due to our concern about the impact of Driving While Fatigued (DWF) on truck drivers’ ability to respond in emergency situations (e.g., in work zones or when traffic is backed up due to a crash ahead–as in our case) http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-10-01/mom-takes-on-truckers-after-highway-wreck-kills-daughters
  • Yet, there is still opposition to this method of keeping track of the hours that drivers are behind the wheel (paper log books are a joke, not considered reliable, & never shown to us after our crash).
  • From that report on the THUD Bills: “The House version also chose not to expedite mandates for electronic logging devices or speed limiters, which – like the insurance issue – are items opposed by OOIDA and small-business truckers but supported by large carriers and the American Trucking Associations.” – See more at: http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryId=29323#.VZUr1_lViko
  • You’ve got to be kidding!
  • In our petition, we also asked for increases in minimum liability insurance for truckers–currently at $750,000 for over 35 years.
  • This, too, is being opposed. Read what that article said, “The House of Representatives has already passed its version of HR2577 for Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD). That occurred on June 9. OOIDA and small-business truckers won a victory in that version because it contained language to prohibit the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration from pursuing an increase to insurance requirements for motor carriers.” – See more at: http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryId=29323#.VZUr1_lViko
  • At least there is some hope for moving the insurance issue forward, “Specific to the insurance issue, the Senate version says FMCSA may continue pursuing an increase to insurance requirements, but only if the Department of Transportation secretary reports to the Appropriations Committee about the effects of raising the financial responsibility. The report would have to include an assessment of crashes that exceed the damage limits and assess the effects of higher insurance premiums on large and small motor carriers.”While hardly a glowing endorsement for increasing insurance requirements, the Senate version of HR2577 does not prohibit an increase as the House version does.” – See more at: http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryId=29323#.VZUr1_lViko
  • See what I found out on estimated liability insurance rates if the minimum is raised: https://annaleahmary.com/2015/06/uncovering-new-information-on-trucking-minimum-liability-insurance-rates/

And while I’m at it, here are some other things going on with truck safety:

  1. “Tractor-trailer hitches could be faulty, 6,000 may be in use”  http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b9a33284cb604dc79f7e7d8ecd3c18ef/tractor-trailer-hitches-could-be-faulty-6000-may-be-use
  2. “Senator Goes After Reform of FMCSA” http://www.landlinemag.com/Story.aspx?StoryID=29305#.VZUqSPlViko     Comment by Steve Bixler
    “I applaud Sen. Fischer for her work on this bill. I have been saying for years, and hopefully it can be added to this or another bill soon, that what we need is a panel of veteran truck drivers, not company executives or industry stakeholders, but the actual guy who has his butt in the seat everyday, to oversee and review all existing FMCSA Regs, and also to be a part of all new regulation writing, so we can finally get rules and regs that are actually about safety and not money.”

Something’s wrong with this picture! When will it end?

Let’s make sure that it is not just about $.

And let’s not just point our finger at someone else to take the blame. Let’s figure out what we can do to end this senseless, tragic heartache happening on our roads. Let’s work together.

We Rescue Jesus Saves 018

Safety Is Not A Priority

Crocodile Tears (Cost/Benefit Analysis) & Vision Zero Goal of No Crash Fatalities

Truck Safety, ,

There were so many factors that caused our road journey on May 4, 2013, to end in 2 crash fatalities. I have written about that before: https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/our-crash-was-not-an-accident/ .

In our quest to help prevent countless more lives from being foreverchanged, we have come up against the brick wall of attitudes which appear callous and too-accepting of crash deaths as an inevitable outcome of highway travel.

It is refreshing, therefore, to hear others who hold a different outlook and are bold to pursue it.

“Crocodile Tears for Heavy Vehicle Safety,” by George Rechnitzer, GR Crocodile_Tears for Heavy Vehicle Safety 2004

George starts out by saying, “. . .a front page feature caught my attention regarding: ‘community outrage’ following Australia’s well known crocodile man Steve Irwin holding his one-month old baby in one hand and feeding a large crocodile with the other. His response at such apparent community outrage and concern over the safety of his infant was that he was more worried about the safety of the baby travelling in a car than being eaten by a croc. I thought he had a point. . .

“Thinking of crocodiles, it also reminded me, once again, in this new year, of ‘crocodile tears’ being shed in some quarters over road safety, but little being done about conspicuous and well known causes of hundreds of fatalities and serious injuries on Australia’s roads every year–that is, crashes involving heavy vehicles and other road users.

“The biggest obstacle to improved heavy vehicle safety is a system that encourages and enables bureaucrats, regulators, and safety exponents, to hide behind mindless cost-benefit calculations to avoid requiring known and effective design improvements to heavy vehicles*. Yes, cost-benefit analysis indeed is the main culprit. In this regard, it is my opinion that Sweden has got it right, with their Vision Zero philosophy [13], which states that, ‘Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society.'”

George goes on to say, “So what cost-benefit analyses really means, is that when no action is taken to improve the design of heavy vehicles, people’s lives are being traded for reduced transport costs.”

“The Swedish Approach to Road Safety: The Accident is Not the Major Problem,” by Sarah Goodyear, http://www.citylab.com/commute/2014/11/the-swedish-approach-to-road-safety-the-accident-is-not-the-major-problem/382995/“The largest resistance we got to the idea about Vision Zero was from those political economists that have built their whole career on cost-benefit analysis. For them it is very difficult to buy into ‘zero.’ Because in their economic models, you have costs and benefits, and although they might not say it explicitly, the idea is that there is an optimum number of fatalities. A price that you have to pay for transport.

‘The problem is the whole transport sector is quite influenced by the whole utilitarianist mindset. Now we’re bringing in the idea that it’s not acceptable to be killed or seriously injured when you’re transporting. It’s more a civil-rights thing that you bring into the policy.”

(* My note: For example, improved rear underride guards, side underride guards, front underride guards. mwkarth)

I survived an underride crash, but only because our car went backwards under the truck.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

I am able to be an advocate — a vocal spokesperson on behalf of truck underride victims — only because our car was hit by a truck which spun us and then hit us again and thereby pushed us backwards into the rear of another truck.

The underride guard on the back of the truck did not withstand the crash (which is, in fact, the norm because current federal standards are ineffective) and neither did my two daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13), who were in the back seat of the car which went underneath the truck. AnnaLeah died at the scene and Mary survived with horrific injuries–dying a few days later.

After finding out that it has already been proven that these underride guards are weak and ineffective, I have been thrust into the role of speaking up for improving the standards to provide stronger more effective underride protection to those who share the road with large trucks.

After we were joined, in the Spring of 2014, by over 11,000 people to petition Secretary Foxx to — among other things — improve the rule for underride guards, our petition was granted and a notice of rule making was issued for tractor-trailers:

We are waiting for this rule making to move forward to the next stage when we will be able to make Public Comments. This will be an important step and we will put out a call for support for this life-saving measure.

Recently, on June 12, 2015, the groundwork for a separate rule making on single unit trucks (currently not required to have underride guards, but responsible for countless crash fatalities) was sent to the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (Office of Management & Budget) for review:

Many advocates have worked hard before us to bring it to this point and together we need to continue forward until we have reached the goal of The Best Possible Protection.

Rebekah photo of crash

The Future of Underride Prevention: A conversation with underride researcher from Australia

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

Last evening, Jerry and I had a Skype phone call with Dr. George Rechnitzer from Melbourne, Australia. We had been corresponding with him via email for a few days, and he finally decided that we needed to have an actual conversation.

We had discovered the day before that George had done research twenty years ago to prove that more effective underride guards could be designed, built, and crash tested on actual trucks–at 75 km/h or 46 m/h.

George, a professor and researcher from Australia who has done research with Transport and Road Safety Research (TARS) authored this 315-page dissertation in 2003: The Improvement of Heavy Vehicle Design To Reduce Injury Risk In Crashes With Other Road Users  https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6a69875e67767ca2a4

Here is George’s extensive resume–outlining his vast experience with safety research: GRA CV of Dr George Rechnitzer – June 2015

What impact could this have upon the future of underride prevention strategies and solutions?

gertie 2947IMG_4492

 

Truck Underride Prevention Research Too Long Neglected; How Long Will This Highway Carnage Continue?

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety,

Dsc00920

(photo of our amazingly expressive Mary letting the world know her displeasure)

For far too long, the focus has disproportionately been on crash prevention solutions –at the expense of seriously examining the potential for innovative underride prevention solutions to prevent death when a truck crash actually does occur.

I just became aware of a research paper published in 1996 which clearly showed the potential for more effective underride protection: DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF ENERGY ABSORBING REAR UNDERRUN BARRIERS FOR HEAVY VEHICLES by George Rechnitzer  http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=477219  (presented at the 1996 International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles in Melbourne, Australia, which is sponsored by NHTSA).

Furthermore, George Rechnitzer, a professor and researcher from Australia who has done research with Transport and Road Safety Research (TARS) authored this dissertation in 2003: The Improvement of Heavy Vehicle Design To Reduce Injury Risk In Crashes With Other Road Users https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx? (2003)v=8b6a69875e67767ca2a4

Please take note of the insight into truck crash fatalities which he describes in the Introduction (pp. 9-10):

“The conspicuous slow progress in reducing well-known and solvable hazards, is well illustrated by crashes involving heavy vehicles. Problems with heavy vehicle design
have been documented for decades, as illustrated by this 1928 Times newspaper report
(Times, 1928):

“‘Dr F.J Waldo, the senior Coroner for London, stated yesterday that
during the past year he had held 63 inquiries into deaths due to road
accidents. Deaths were caused in 20 cases by lorries or commercial vans –
without side life guards which are compulsory on motor omnibuses. Nine
deaths were caused by private motor vehicles and eight by motor
omnibuses. Pedal cycles caused eight largely on account of skidding and
the fixture of a wheel in the grove of the tramlines. There were also six
deaths by horse vehicles, five by taxicabs, four by steam lorries two by
charabancs and one by fire engine. One sixth of the number occurred
among children and young people in the city.’

“Since that time, heavy vehicle design has not improved significantly in regard to
reducing their harm potential in crashes with other road users. In Australia, heavy
vehicle crashes contributed around 18% of road deaths overall, representing in the 10
years 1983 to 1993 around 4000 fatalities and 17000 seriously injured. Most at risk are
the “other road users” making up 80% of these fatalities.

“This thesis’ findings, based on the author’s extensive in-depth crash investigations and
literature review, identify that the lack of compatibility, and aggressiveness of heavy
vehicle design is a major causal factor leading to the over-representation of heavy
vehicles in serious injury and fatal crashes. These findings counter the commonly held
notions maintaining that the main problem is the mass of the heavy vehicle – a factor
that is not readily amenable to change. Importantly, the study clearly identified that
design changes to heavy vehicles can be effective in reducing the injury risk to other
road users.

“This body of the thesis presents the author’s work on the development of applied
countermeasures involving the design, and crash testing of effective rear underrun
barriers, both rigid and energy absorbing. The energy absorbing system developed is
innovative as it uses a fibreglass tube as the crushable medium contained with two
concertinaing steel tubes. The Research provides the basis for the development of new
performance criteria for effective rear underrun barriers catering for centred and offset impacts. At the time this work on the new system was being developed, it was the first of its type (to the author’s knowledge) in the world.

“The thesis concludes with presenting the important concept that crash protection for
occupants is a function of the nature of the interface between the impacting vehicles
and /or the person. This hypothesis provides an alternate perspective on what is feasible
in occupant protection in severe impact scenarios. It clearly shows that contrary to a
common view in road safety, vehicle mass per se is not the major determinate of injury
outcomes. Indeed this thesis demonstrates that injury protection is feasible against high mass vehicles be they trucks, trams or trains, by appropriate design of the interface between impacting objects.”

Here are crash tests of the underride prevention protection designed by George Rechnitzer: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCLsx40j16tnkR8qrxDY9IVQ





Here are additional research papers published by George Rechnitzer (in conjunction with other researchers):

Here’s a photo of AnnaLeah in 1996 —  when much of this research was available but apparently largely ignored — and Mary was a twinkle in her daddy’s eye.

11 Baby AnnaLeah one-year in field

So many lives could have been saved. If only. . . And why has this unconscionable* situation been allowed to go on for so long?! Enough is enough!

* excessive, unreasonable, unwarranted, uncalled for, unfair, inordinate, immoderate, undue, inexcusable, unforgivable, unnecessary, needless; informal over the top  http://tinyurl.com/qgdhadv

You might be enlightened by the history of federal rulemaking on underride guards (found in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s testimony in May 2009, in which they call for tougher underride guard standards) http://tinyurl.com/phlaqon (pasted below):

The history of Federal rulemaking on truck underride guards:

  • 1953 Interstate Commerce Commission adopts rule requiring rear underride guards on trucks and trailers but sets no strength requirements.
  • 1967 National Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB), predecessor to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), indicates it will develop a standard for truck underride guards.
  • 1969 NHSB indicates it will conduct research on heavy vehicle underride guard configurations to provide data for the preparation of a standard. In the same year the Federal Highway Administration publishes a proposal to require trailers and trucks to have strong rear-end structures extending to within 18 inches of the road surface.
  • 1970 NHSB says it would be “impracticable” for manufacturers to engineer improved underride protectors into new vehicles before 1972. The agency considers an effective date of January 1, 1974 for requiring underride guards with energy-absorbing features as opposed to rigid barriers.
  • 1971 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommends that NHTSA require energy-absorbing underride and override barriers on trucks, buses, and trailers. Later in the same year NHTSA abandons its underride rulemaking, saying it has “no control over the vehicles after they are sold” and “it can only be assumed that certain operators will remove the underride guard.” The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS), predecessor to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, considers a regulatory change that would prohibit alteration of manufacturer-installed equipment. This would nullify the major reason NHTSA cited for abandoning the proposed underride standard.
  • 1972 NTSB urges NHTSA to renew the abandoned underride proposal.
  • 1974 US Secretary of Transportation says deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial.** 
  • 1977 IIHS testifies before the Consumer Subcommittee of the US Senate Commerce Committee, noting that devices to stop underride have been technologically available for years. IIHS tests demonstrate that a crash at less than 30 mph of a subcompact car into a guard meeting current requirements results in severe underride. IIHS also demonstrates the feasibility of effective underride guards that do not add significant weight to trucks. IIHS petitions NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to establish a rear underride standard. The agency agrees to reassess the need for such a standard and later in the year announces plans to require more effective rear underride protection. BMCS publishes a new but weak proposal regarding underride protection.
  • 1981 NHTSA issues a proposal to require upgraded underride protection.
  • 1986 IIHS study reveals that rear guards designed to prevent cars from underriding trucks appear to be working well on British rigs.
  • 1987 European underride standard is shown to reduce deaths caused by underride crashes.
  • 1996 NHTSA finally issues a new standard, effective 1998.
    IIHS, 2009

** And how many deaths due to underride crashes are underreported? For example, ours was listed on FARS (NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System) as “Passenger Compartment Intrusion Unknown.”

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has been relentlessly drawing attention to this issue for some time now, including this video:

IIHS Status Reports with articles on underride guards:

  1. This issue featured our story & petition to DOT:  http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4907.pdf
  2. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/49/7/2
  3. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/46/2/1
  4. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/new-crash-tests-underride-guards-on-most-big-rigs-leave-passenger-vehicle-occupants-at-risk-in-certain-crashes
  5. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/underride-guards-on-big-rigs-often-fail-in-crashes-institute-petitions-government-for-new-standard
  6. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/49/7/1
  7. http://www.iihs.org/bibliography/topic/1756
  8. http://www.iihs.org/bibliography/topic/2025
  9. http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/46/2/2