21st Century Truck Partnership Third Report mentions front override but not front override protection.

Truck Safety, , , , , , ,
Just found a 21st Century Truck Partnership Third Report in which SAFETY is mentioned. Front override is also mentioned! I have not yet read every single word, but I see little mention of Front Underride/Override Protection (only crash avoidance technologies).
Here is Chapter 7 from that report. It is entitled, “Safety” (21st Century Truck Partnership — Third Report, 2015).
Please read it with the STOP Underrides Bill in mind (in which Front Underride Protection would be mandated by Congress).
(Note: How is it that I brought up the 21st Century Truck Partnership with NHTSA officials in 2017 but they did not once mention this report!)
p.s. Some quotes:
The review of LTCC cases produced evidence that front override and side underride are significant problems in serious crashes between heavy trucks and light vehicles. Front override and side underride were found in most of the crashes examined. Preliminary estimates from this review are that override occurs in almost three-quarters of crashes involving the front of the truck and in over half of the crashes when the sides of the trucks were struck (Blower and Woodrooffe, 2012).
 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 7-1. Many safety technologies could be effectively evaluated and demonstrated in a safety-focused program— for example, a Safety SuperTruck similar to the DOE fuel consumption reduction SuperTruck program. 
 
Recommendation 7-1. DOT should consider implementing a Safety SuperTruck program to develop, integrate, and evaluate safety technologies such as cab structural integrity, side curtain airbags, advanced forward warning and collision mitigating systems to help industry attain a more integrated and complete safety package with a view to generating greater purchaser acceptance of safety technology not mandated by law.
 
My posts last year on this:

Mary Barra: “If it’s a safety issue, there should not be a business case calculated.” What about underride?

Truck Safety, , , ,

I have been wrestling with the question: Does NHTSA do a cost/benefit analysis before issuing a recall on an auto safety defect which has been shown to cause deaths? And if not, then why do they do a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not to require underride protection be put on trucks to prevent deadly underride?

And, in general, is the cost/benefit analysis which they have done on underride been flawed? Cost Benefit Public Comments on Underride Rulemaking

 

The Price Of Human Life, According To GM

Cost benefit analysis of safety recalls cspan video footage of GM Ignition Recall Senate Hearing, Mary Barra, CEO at GM

Mary Barra at 0:25: “If there is a safety defect, there is not a calculation done on business case or cost. It’s how quickly we can get the repair. . .whatever needs to be done to make sure the vehicles are safe that our customers are driving.”

Mary Barra at 3:21: “Again, if it’s a safety issue, there should not be a business case calculated.”

The difference is that underride is not about an auto safety defect. It is not about occupant protection on a car, and it is not about occupant protection on a truck. It is about equipment on a truck to protect those who might collide with it. No man’s land in terms of perceived responsibility.

See this description of that dilemma from a Transportation Research Board report titled, The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research, May 2017, p. 135:

An added complication for safety technologies is that the beneficiaries of heavy-truck safety are primarily other drivers, not the owners or drivers of the trucks. In a highly competitive business atmosphere, truck buyers are not easily motivated to purchase new technologies solely for the public good. Added equipment must also contribute to their company’s profitability in some way and thereby enable them to compete with other companies that have not purchased the same technologies. For this reason, many new safety technologies that are developed and demonstrated are very slow to be deployed. Those safety devices that do gain widespread acceptance generally have secondary-ancillary functions or capabilities that offer a short-term payback to the buyer.

Given these realities, the federal government plays an important role in the process of introducing new safety technologies into the commercial market. Large demonstration programs, involving broad involvement of all the suppliers of a given technology and all the medium-to heavy-truck manufacturers are essential to creating both a sufficient body of data and evidence that a product or technology performs well, in addition to a sense within the industry that the product will be cost-effective and, therefore, worth buying. It is a difficult task to create this critical mass and one that often only the government can accomplish.

In some cases, regulation may be the only way to achieve significant deployment. Even when there is a general consensus that the total benefits of introduction of a new safety technology would outweigh the total costs, there is still the problem of convincing individual vehicle buyers to pay for societal benefits. A regulatory requirement would level the playing field by requiring all companies to buy the equipment and thus eliminate the competitive financial disparity. Regulations are always controversial. It is extremely difficult to quantify the benefits of a technology before the fact. The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research

Another interesting read: The Hidden Benefits of Regulation: Disclosing the Auto Safety Payoff, 1985, Joan Claybrook and David Bollier

What do you think?

@SenatorBurr, the underride problem clearly has not gone away since we discussed it with you 5 years ago.

Truck Safety, ,

We are hoping for another meeting with our senator, Richard Burr. Clearly the underride problem has not gone away since our family met with him five years ago — just a few months after our crash.

Our TV interview, including Senator Burr, on August 13, 2013: https://tinyurl.com/y7ynscpr

Recent underride crashes which have occurred just in the last few days (there may well be more that I have not yet heard about):

Indiana: https://www.wndu.com/content/news/Deadly-crash-on-US-30-in-Kosciusko-County-slows-traffic-498880541.html

Kansas: https://www.kansas.com/news/local/article220852645.html

Michigan: https://wincountry.com/news/articles/2018/oct/30/cass-county-woman-injured-in-crash-with-semi/

Texas: https://www.wcmessenger.com/2018/news/1-killed-in-wreck-on-287-2/

Idaho: https://www.dailyrepublic.com/all-dr-news/solano-news/vallejo/idaho-man-dies-when-car-hits-parked-tractor-trailer-in-vallejo/

Maine: http://www.sunjournal.com/jay-woman-injured-after-running-into-tractor-trailer-in-wilton/

Good News for Traveling Public: “All major trailer makers earn IIHS award for good underride protection”

Truck Safety, , ,

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced this week that all eight major trailer manufacturers have now improved their rear underride guards. This is good news for the traveling public.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Seven years after the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found serious shortcomings in the rear underride guards of most semitrailers, the eight largest North American manufacturers are now making rear guards capable of preventing deadly underride in a range of scenarios. All eight companies earn the IIHS TOUGHGUARD award.

The companies — Great Dane LLC, Hyundai Translead, Manac Inc., Stoughton Trailers LLC, Strick Trailers LLC, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., Vanguard National Trailer Corp. and Wabash National Corp. — represent approximately 80 percent of the trailers on the road in the U.S. All but one of them, Manac, had to make changes to its underride guard before they were able to pass the three IIHS tests.

“We’re pleased that all the major manufacturers responded positively to our underride tests,” says David Zuby, IIHS chief research officer. “By improving their guards, these companies have demonstrated a commitment to the safety of passenger vehicle occupants who share the road with their trailers.” . . .

By the time IIHS announced the TOUGHGUARD award last year, 5 of the 8 guards met the criteria.

Since then, Hyundai Translead and Utility have earned the award. Strick now joins them, thanks to a new underride guard that completes the industry’s effort to improve protection against rear underride. . .

See the complete IIHS report here: All major trailer makers earn IIHS award for good underride protection

This is great news, and I am glad for the trailer manufacturers commitment to meet the TOUGHGuard award. But I would have phrased it a little differently myself because I don’t think that this “completes” the industry’s efforts on rear underride.  Still to be done, in my mind:

1. TOUGHGuard rear underride protection become standard on all new trailers — not merely an option.

2. Test the guards to see if they are effective at speeds higher than 35 mph. After all, an aluminum extrusion company has produced a rear underride guard which has been officially and successfully tested at 40 mph.

3. Make retrofit kits available for all trailers at least 10 years back.

4. Install effective rear underride protection on single unit trucks.

5. Enforce the requirement for rear underride guards to be kept in like-new condition because a weakened guard is less likely to perform as needed upon collision.

That is, if we want to prevent rear underride tragedies no matter what truck someone might collide with on the road today or in the years to come. . .

And oh, by the way, the STOP Underrides! Bill would mandate every one of those steps to end preventable underride.

Crash cars from previous crash tests  — one with & one without effective underride protection.