Category Archives: Truck Safety

Possible Study By FMCSA To Study The Way Truckers Are Paid

I hope that nothing gets in the way of a proposed study by FMCSA:

“. . . the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration is pursuing plans to study whether the way truckers are paid leads to unsafe driving habits, rule-breaking and deadly crashes.

It’s an important study. It’s one that could open the door to federal regulations that determine how drivers are paid, if not how much. And, more significantly, it could lead to safer highways.”

http://savannahnow.com/opinion/2015-05-14/editorial-get-tired-truckers-road

IMG_4491

Underride Conversation with David Friedman, NHTSA Deputy Administrator

Shortly after we delivered the 11,000+ AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petitions to Washington, DC, we were invited to tour the research & design center of a tractor-trailer manufacturer. After doing so, my immediate reaction was to wonder what would ever bring about a major improvement in underride guard strength. And I wished that I could just sit down with the trailer manufacturers and hammer out a solution.

An underride (or rear impact) guard is required by federal law for some large trucks to prevent a vehicle from sliding underneath a truck in the event of a collision. Too often, these guards–as in our crash–even if they meet specifications, are properly installed, and are maintained, do not withstand the crash and the smaller vehicle slides under the truck. As a result, life-saving technologies are not put into effect and there is intrusion into the passenger compartment.

In other words, the back of the truck comes into contact with people in the smaller vehicle who then experience horrific injuries and–too often–death.

IMG_4465

I emailed many people–hoping to drum up some interest in addressing this issue jointly. When I found out that there was going to be a new administrator, Mark Rosekind, at NHTSA, I wrote to him and asked that NHTSA host an underride roundtable discussion.

After exchanging a few emails, I was contacted by his scheduling assistant, who said that we would have a phone call in mid-February. As it turns out, that conversation never took place. Instead, Mark Rosekind arranged for me to speak on the phone with David Friedman, Deputy Administrator at NHTSA, on March 27, 2015.

When we met with DOT on May 5, 2014, David Friedman was the one who told me that he would let me know when a rulemaking was announced for underride guards. And he did so on July 9, 2014 (after promising that they would make a decision in two months, he was very close!): https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/nhtsa-has-initiated-a-rulemaking-process-to-evaluate-options-for-improving-underride-guards/ . So, it was fitting that he would be the one to let me know about any progress on meeting our petition requests.

We discussed my hopes for an underride roundtable–to bring together those who could do something about improving underride guards. David told me that–while NHTSA would like to host such events–a discussion of underride would likely not occur until 2016. And, even then, it would probably be only one part of a broader truck safety conference.

That would definitely be a good thing but, in my mind, not give adequate attention to the underride issue. In fact, as we talked, it became clear that if an underride roundtable were going to occur, we would have to spearhead the effort.

So, after thanking him for the update, I scheduled a quarterly phone call for June–at which time he promised to provide me with information on the progress of the truck safety issues in our petition. Then I began brainstorming ways in which we could actually work to organize an underride roundtable–with NHTSA as potential participants.

Earlier,  I had spoken about that possibility with John Lannen, Director of the Truck Safety Coalition. So, after speaking with David Friedman, I resumed that conversation. John and I came up with some initial steps to get the process underway. I made a few contacts, and so did he.  As a result, we have had some interesting developments and hope to unveil the details soon.

Perhaps we are closer to seeing improvements in underride protection. Perhaps our loss can serve as a catalyst to encourage the development of The Best Possible Protection for preventing future losses from truck underride crashes.

Washington DC 129

 

 

Had it up to here with the impact of political battles on the safety of travelers on the road!

Maybe its’s just me–and my frustrated opinion–but I have had it up to here with the impact of political battles on the safety of travelers on the road.

Just one example is the HOS (Hours of Service) Rules which have been debated forever and a day. Back & forth, back & forth–until what are we left with but an unenforceable mess of regulations and little accountability for truck drivers who are too often driving fatigued, under pressure to drive too many hours to make a living.

Washington DC 151

Then there is the provision which ties the hands of DOT to increase minimum insurance levels (not done for 35 years)–though they have already issued a lengthy report saying that it is necessary.

And don’t forget the increase in truck length (Double 33s). . . do we really want to share the road with them & will the drivers be trained to handle them?

http://www.roadscholar.com/content/2016-transportation-housing-and-urban-development-appropriations-bill

It seems to me that those who have crafted & approved the anti-safety provisions in the FY2016 THUD Appropriations Bill have either had the wool pulled over their eyes or care very little for the human lives that are ended on a daily basis–whose blood is spilled on the highways of our country.

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/truck-safety-needs-bipartisan-support-protecting-its-citizens-is-one-of-the-basic-purposes-of-government/

There has got to be a better way to move this mountain! It’s a matter of life & death.

certificates and pens 010

Thanks, Phil & WNCN, for shedding light on truck crashes. It can happen to anyone at anytime.

http://www.wncn.com/story/29036149/mother-who-lost-2-daughters-raises-concerns-about-bigger-trucks

Preventable, though-unforeseen, inconceivable, unimaginable, irrevocable. . . all these words describe too many truck crash tragedies year after year–as a result of numerous factors which have been argued over too many times.

WNCN: News, Weather, Raleigh, Durham, Fayetteville

Ask Congress to strip the FY2016 THUD bill of all the ANTI-SAFETY Provisions. Send an email tonight.

We have learned that Congressman David Price (D-NC), Ranking Member of the House THUD Appropriations Subcommittee, is going to be offering an amendment during Wednesday morning’s House Committee on Appropriations markup to strip the FY2016 THUD bill of all of the anti-safety provisions from the bill.  Please make as many calls or emails as you can to House Appropriations Committee Members before Wednesday morning and ask them to:

Vote Yes on the Price (NC) Amendment”.  Choose SAFETY: we all travel the roads of this country.

 CONTACT INFORMATION for members of the House Committee on Appropriations is listed below.

IMG_4464

 

Special Interest Riders in the FY2016 THUD Bill Include:

 FedEx Double 33’ tractor trailers on federal and local roads (House THUD bill Sec. 125).  The anti-safety, pro-industry plan will overturn state laws and bulldoze states to accept trucks that are at least 84 feet long on federal, state and local roads.

  • If truck lengths are increased from 28 to 33 feet, the laws of 39 states (AL, AK, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, GA, HI, IL, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MI, MN, MS, MO, NE, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI) which currently prohibit longer trailers may be overturned.  States where double 33s are prohibited and states where they are not running will be pressured to allow these longer trucks on their roads which are not equipped to accommodate them.
  • Longer double-trailer trucks will make passing even more dangerous than it already is. A double-trailer truck using 33-foot trailers would be at least 84 feet long, the height of an 8-story office building, and a triple-trailer truck would be at least 120 feet long, equivalent to a 12-story building. These longer trucks would dwarf the size of an average car and are the equivalent of 5 to 8 passenger cars in length

 

Special interest weight and length exemptions for specific states including Idaho and Kansas (House THUD bill Secs. 124 and 126) or specific industries. The provision would allow Idaho to operate trucks up to 129,000 pounds and Kansas to operate trucks potentially more than 100 feet long.

  • 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% of respondents oppose longer and heavier trucks on the highways and 79% 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.

 

Extension and expansion of the  “Collins Amendment” tucked into the 2015 overall federal spending bill last December that dramatically increases the working and driving hours of truck drivers up to 82 hours a week and takes away their “weekend” off, resulting in more tired truckers and jeopardizing safety (House THUD bill Sec. 132).

  • A provision added to the Omnibus spending bill (Pub. L. 113-235) in December 2014 rolled back important safety reforms to hours of service (HOS) rules which were implemented by the DOT in July 2013 after a lengthy rulemaking process which considered 21,000 formal public comments, thorough and compelling scientific research, extensive stakeholder input, as well as three lawsuits.
  • This major change will significantly increase working and driving hours for truck drivers, from 70 hours to 84 hours. Essentially, this provision takes away the two-night off “weekend” for truck drivers.
  • With this provision, the HOS rule reverts to the Bush Administration rule in effect when a 2006 survey of truck drivers found an alarming 65% of truck drivers reported they had often or sometimes felt drowsy while driving and nearly half admitted to falling asleep while driving in the previous year.

 

A prohibition on rulemaking going on right now at the U.S. Department of Transportation to determine whether or not motor carriers have sufficient insurance coverage, which has not been reviewed and revised since 1985. (House THUD bill Sec. 134) The bill will STOP progress on this needed & already-too-long-delayed increase.

  • Congress gave the DOT Secretary and FMCSA the authority to review the insurance level.  The rule making process, which includes public comments, should be respected and followed.
  • Minimum levels of insurance for trucks, currently set at $750,000, have not been increased in over 35 years and are woefully insufficient.
  • The underinsured segments of the industry are effectively subsidized by American taxpayers through unreimbursed social welfare programs including Medicaid and Social Security.
  • If all of the industry were required to absorb more of the losses they cause, significant changes in the industry would occur, resulting in safer highways for all.

According to Michael R. Lemov, Car Safety Wars, p. 31, “Today, the U.S. DOT uses a figure of $9.2 million per lost life (2013) which includes value for both economic costs and other costs including value for pain and suffering.” Compare this to the $750,000 current trucking minimum liability insurance.

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/12/good-news-fmcsa-announces-first-step-toward-increasing-minimum-liability-for-trucker-insurance/

Urge Members of the House Appropriations Committee:

Stand Up For Safety –Vote YES on the Price (NC) Amendment!

 

To Contact the Members of the House Committee on Appropriations:

  1.  Hal Rogers (R-KY) at 202-225-4601 or through email at: shannon.rickett@mail.house.gov
  2. Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) at 202-225-5034 or through email at: kathleen.hazlett@mail.house.gov
  3. Robert Aderholt (R-AL) at 202-225-4876 or through email at: mark.dawson@mail.house.gov
  4. Kay Granger (R-TX) at 202-225-5071 or through email at: shannon.meade@mail.house.gov
  5. Mike Simpson (R-ID) at 202-225-5531 or through email at: nathan.greene@mail.house.gov
  6. John Culberson (R-TX) at 202-225-2571 or through email at: catherine.knowles@mail.house.gov
  7. Ander Crenshaw (R-FL) at 202-225-2501 or through email at: erica.striebel@mail.house.gov
  8. John Carter (R-TX) at 202-225-3864 or through email at: steve.gilleland@mail.house.gov
  9. Ken Calvert (R-CA) at 202-225-1986 or through email at: Ian.Foley@mail.house.gov
  10. Tom Cole (R-OK) at 202-225-6165 or through email at: maria.bowie@mail.house.gov
  11. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) at 202-225-4211 or through email at: miguel.mendoza@mail.house.gov
  12. Charlie Dent (R-PA) at 202-225-6411 or through email at: drew.kent@mail.house.gov
  13. Tom Graves (R-GA) at 202-225-5211 or through email at: jason.murphy2@mail.house.gov
  14. Kevin Yoder (R-KS) at 202-225-2865 or through email at: patrick.carroll@mail.house.gov
  15. Steve Womack (R-AR) at 202-225-4301 or through email at: Adrielle.Churchill@mail.house.gov
  16. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) at 202-225-4806 or through email at: alan.feyerherm@mail.house.gov
  17. Tom Rooney (R-FL) at 202-225-5792 or through email at: jessica.moore@mail.house.gov
  18. Chuck Fleischmann (R-TN) at 202-225-3271 or through email at: alek.vey@mail.house.gov
  19. Jaime Herrera Beutler (R-WA) at 202-225-3536 or through email at: chad.ramey@mail.house.gov
  20. David Joyce (R-OH) at 202-225-5731 or through email at: john.miceli@mail.house.gov
  21. David Valadao (R-CA) at 202-225-4695 or through email at: Kristina.Dunklin@mail.house.gov
  22. Andy Harris (R-MD) at 202-225-5311 or through email at: john.dutton@mail.house.gov
  23. Martha Roby (R-AL) at 202-225-2901 or through email at: Andrew.Ashley@mail.house.gov
  24. Mark Amodei (R-NV) at 202-225-6155 or through email at: Kyle.Thomas@mail.house.gov
  25. Chris Stewart (R-UT) at 202-225-9730 or through email at: cam.madsen@mail.house.gov
  26. David Jolly (R-FL) at 202-225-5961 or through email at: Jenifer.Nawrocki@mail.house.gov
  27. Scott Rigell (R-VA) at 202-225-4215 or through email at: John.Thomas@mail.house.gov
  28. Evan Jenkins (R-WV) at 202-225-3452 or through email at: Brian.Barnard@mail.house.gov
  29. David Young (R-IA) at 202-225-5476 or through email at: Tara.Morgan@mail.house.gov
  30. Steven Palazzo (R-MS) at 202-225-5772 or through email at: Patrick.Large@mail.house.gov
  31. Nita Lowey (D-NY) at 202-225-6506 or through email at: drew.jacoby@mail.house.gov
  32. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) at 202-225-4146 or through email at: mike.berman@mail.house.gov
  33. Pete Visclosky (D-IN) at 202-225-2461 or through email at: kevin.spicer@mail.house.gov
  34. José Serrano (D-NY) at 202-225-4361 or through email at: matthew.alpert@mail.house.gov
  35. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) at 202-225-3661 or through email at: Eric.anthony@mail.house.gov
  36. David Price (D-NC) at 202-225-1784 or through email at: kate.roetzer@mail.house.gov
  37. Lucille Roybal-Allard (D-CA) at 202-225-1766 or through email at: victor.castillo@mail.house.gov
  38. Sam Farr (D-CA) at 202-225-2861 or through email at: debbie.merrill@mail.house.gov
  39. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) at 202-225-4001 or through email at: elizabeth.king@mail.house.gov
  40. Sanford Bishop (D-GA) at 202-225-3631 or through email at: jonathan.halpern@mail.house.gov
  41. Barbara Lee (D-CA) at 202-225-2661 or through email at: colin.foard@mail.house.gov
  42. Mike Honda (D-CA) at 202-225-2631 or through email at: eric.werwa@mail.house.gov
  43. Betty McCollum (D-MN) at 202-225-6631 or through email at: Jennifer.Holcomb@mail.house.gov
  44. Steve Israel (D-NY) at 202-225-3335 or through email at: Mark.Snyder@mail.house.gov
  45. Tim Ryan (D-OH) at 202-225-5261 or through email at: ryan.keating@mail.house.gov
  46. Dutch Ruppersberger (D-MD) at 202-225-3061 or through email at: Deborah.Haynie@mail.house.gov
  47. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) at 202-225-7931 or through email at: coby.dolan@mail.house.gov
  48. Henry Cuellar (D-TX) at 202-225-1640 or through email at: megan.swearingen@mail.house.gov
  49. Chellie Pingree (D-ME) at 202-225-6116 or through email at: Joe.Marro@mail.house.gov
  50. Mike Quigley (D-IL) at 202-225-4061 or through email at: joseph.bushong@mail.house.gov
  51. Derek Kilmer (D-WA) at 202-225-5916 or through email at: Kevin.Warnke@mail.house.gov 

Mary Gave the Gift of Life Even After Her Death Through Tissue Donation

Tissue donation was a way that Mary gave to others after her life here was ended. Consider how you might plan to do so as well.

Mary Gift of Life Tissue Donor Thank You

EEOC 7 0761 gertie 2782gertie 132

Minolta DSCDsc00920

Bear Photo Story 1 004

 

Remembering Mary, Forever 13, Until We Meet Again

We said goodbye to Mary on May 8, 2013.

Remembering Mary–the moments, days and years she was in our life. A photo memorial slideshow lovingly prepared by her brother & sister a few weeks after her untimely death on May 8, 2013.

No Time To Say Goodbye; Breaks My Heart

The truck crash was around 2 in the afternoon on May 4, 2013. AnnaLeah left us right away–no time to say goodbye.

Mary died in the early morning hours of May 8.

Although the nurses I have talked with reassured me that Mary was medicated to be comfortable, it still breaks my heart when I think of what she must have gone through. I have no idea of her level of awareness at any point after the crash. And I am thankful that Jerry and many others were able to be with her–after he was able to get there the next day.

But I was stuck in a hospital two hours from hers. I wish that I could have been there with Mary to comfort her. And say goodbye.

Mary at birth1 Baby AnnaLeah with Susanna, Levi and Mom1m newborn Mary and Mama43a b Mary Mom Susanna

b Mary Mom 001Mary and Mom at wedding 002

Minolta DSC

Minolta DSC

Minolta DSC

Minolta DSC

43 gertie 1682gertie 1821

IMG_4462WarsawINFilmPhotographer_MIMemoria_Film_082

 

A Low Tolerance For Crash Fatalities

I was up late last night reading a lengthy article about the engineering perspective on automotive safety issues. It was worth the read to find out how “they” think.

From The New Yorker‘s May 4, 2015 edition:

The Engineer’s Lament

Two ways of thinking about automotive safety.

BY

http://ht.ly/MyBz8

I could quote lots of things from that article, but I will start with this one from David Friedman, Deputy Administrator of NHTSA:

I would argue that our nation has a low tolerance for fatalities associated with airplanes, the N.H.T.S.A.’s David Friedman told me, when we spoke late last year. In part because of that, fatalities are very, very low from aircraft. Also in part because of that, the F.A.A. has close to fifty thousand employees—an order of magnitude more employees than we do. We have six hundred. To deal with ten thousand people who are dying from drunk driving or ten thousand dying because they didn’t wear a seat belt, or the three thousand dying from distracted driving, or the four thousand dying because they are pedestrians or bicyclists and they are hit by a car. That’s why the Administration has been asking Congress for more resources for us. With more resources, we could save more lives. And each time the answer from Congress has been no. Zero.

(Don’t forget the four thousand dying per year from truck crashes.)

That’s what I would like to become prevalent in our nation: A Low Tolerance For Crash Fatalities. An Outcry at the Rampant* Carnage on our Roads.

* Flourishing or spreading UNCHECKED

gertie 132

Will longer trucks make the roads safer? Yes OR No?

Thus far, we have not addressed the truck size and weight issue on this website. But it is clearly an issue that needs addressing.

The trucking lobby has once again thrown its weight to sabotage legislative measures meant to improve the safety of travelers on the road. What is their purpose in doing so? Can they back up their claims that the provisions they are backing will make the roads safer and that the measures that they are preventing are unnecessary?

Decide for yourself. . .

Jeff Plungis has once again thoroughly researched and reported on truck safety issues:  http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-05-04/trucking-friendly-plan-in-congress-decried-as-attack-on-safety

In particular, I have been looking into the area of increasing truck size and weight. The trucking lobby claims that allowing “Double 33s” will make the roads safer because there will be fewer trucks on the road.  And exactly what research have they done to back up this supposition?

Furthermore, has the trucking industry taken steps to provide the necessary additional training for truck drivers who would be handling these bigger trucks? I have had several conversations–in person and via email–with a seasoned trainer of truck drivers. This is what he said last night when I asked him about this concern of mine:

Drivers of modified trucks ( longer trailers or “doubles”) do in fact require additional training. Because of their size, they require a higher level of skill and knowledge. The whole idea of safer roads because of fewer trucks is just a “gimmick”. We need to be careful as we move into this area. If the training requirements are not appropriate, the roads in fact will be more dangerous. (Charlie Gray, Carolina Trucking Academy)

Here are some other articles and research studies on this issue, including evidence of possible failure to maintain lane upon braking:

I’d like to know the answers to these questions. I’d like to know because it could well be a matter of life and death. . .

Minolta DSC
Minolta DSC

IMG_4462

WarsawINFilmPhotographer_MIMemoria_Film_063WarsawINFilmPhotographer_MIMemoria_Film_082May 8, 2014 from Kathryn

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

Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death—about 40,000 people die in crashes each year. The Department of Transportation makes highway safety rules based upon how much safety measures will cost. We are hoping to change that and move toward a Vision Zero safety strategy model with goals of: Zero Deaths, Zero Serious Injuries, Zero Fear of Traffic.

“Towards Zero – There’s no one someone won’t miss.” https://youtu.be/bsyvrkEjoXI