Letter from Vice President Biden on Traffic Safety Advocacy

March 20, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck SafetyPresident Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Vision Zero, Vision Zero Executive OrderMarianne

This week, I received a letter from Vice President Joe Biden in response to my December 9, 2015, letter to him asking that he champion our efforts to reduce the traffic safety tragedies in our country. I asked him to back our petition to President Obama requesting a Vision Zero Executive Order.

I truly appreciate his heartfelt letter expressing compassion for the loss of our daughters in a truck crash, and his promise to keep us in their prayers. He also mentioned that my commitment to the issue is inspiring.

Please pray that he is inspired to the extent of actively promoting our petition requests with the powers that be in Washington.

Letter from Vice President Joe Biden

My letter to Vice-President Biden

Letter From One Father to Another

Tell Obama you are standing with us in this: “Family Continues Fight for Trucking Safety”

Truck Industry Could Take a Cue From Collaborative Medical Research Strategy

March 19, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyunderride crash, underride guards, underride research, underride roundtableMarianne

I hope that the truck trailer manufacturing community (and those who purchase from them) take a cue from the CMTA–a non-profit organization which is supporting an effective research strategy to find treatment for Charcot-Marie-Tooth, a hereditary disorder which multiple members of my family have.

CMTA has organized a collaborative process which brings together a global interdisciplinary team:

One of the most important ways the CMTA accelerates the research process is by putting together teams of top scientists recruited from an international body of scientific and clinical Key Opinion Leaders in CMT. The STAR program’s unique character stems from the willingness of the scientists to come together to advance CMT research collaboratively, sharing and communicating ideas, discoveries and research findings.

The CMTA’s funding and operations focus is on translational research that will lead as directly as possible to therapeutic treatments of CMT. To further this goal, the CMTA has put in place a STAR Advisory Board that includes both a Scientific Expert Board and a Therapy Expert Board. The CMTA’s STAR (Strategy to Accelerate Research)

This is the kind of strategy which we hope will be taking place at, and following, the Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016, at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Vehicle Research Center in Ruckersville, Virginia.

Underride Roundtable Registration Now Open: May 5, 2016 at IIHS Vehicle Research Center

March Historically a Momentous Month for Truck Underride Safety Advocacy; Beware the Ides of March!

March 18, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyfront underrun, Ides of March, NHTSA rulemaking, side guards, side underride, underride guards, Vision ZeroMarianne

March has historically been a momentous, memorable month for truck underride safety advocacy. Not that other months are totally devoid of such activity, but I have observed a noticeable pattern:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has studied and reported on the truck underride problem for many years. After our underride crash on May 4, 2013, we discovered that they had published a report on this issue just a few months earlier on March 14, 2013, as well as a prior report on March 1, 2011.
On the 37th anniversary of our marriage, our family launched the AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up for Truck Safety Petition on March 19, 2014, with one of the petition requests being to improve truck underride protection (rear, side, and front on tractor trailers, as well as for Single Unit Trucks).
Later that week, on March 23, 2014, I published a Youtube video to explain why we had launched the petition and what we were asking for–including an upgrade of the weak, ineffective federal underride standards.
During the almost three years which have passed since that terribly tragic day in May, we continue to uncover new (to us) information which surely should have led to improved underride protection long before now. For example, about a month ago, I became aware of a March 16, 1977 (when I was 21–just a few days from my wedding) Senate Investigative hearing, which was reported on in the March 29, 1977 IIHS Status Report.
This is how that report began: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has released the results of a crash test program focused on the deadly problem of car-into-truck underride crashes. Appearing as lead-off witness at a March 16 Senate Investigative hearing, the Institute’s president, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., presented crash test films and analyses showing that: The 25 year-old federal “rear end protection” standard for devices on the backs of tractor-trailers and trucks is “a sham.”
Further, Haddon warned Senators, “Blood has been shed, heads literally have rolled and countless thousands of Americans have been injured because these agencies did not act. Further inaction would be inexcusable.”
On March 5, 2016, we delivered our second petition to Washington, DC, when we took our Vision Zero Petition Book with 20,000 signatures to the Department of Transportation and President Obama. We asked for a Vision Zero Executive Order to pave the way for Vision Zero Rulemaking policies so that a truly effective and comprehensive underride standard can be issued.
On March 10, 2016, the Vision Zero Petition Book and 20,000 signatures were posted as a Public Comment on the current rear underride rulemaking.
On March 12, 2016, Jerry and I were privileged to participate in a successful side guard crash test in Hillsborough, North Carolina. This innovative side/rear combination can be retrofit to existing trucks on the road. Imagine the potential for saving lives!
On March 2, 2016, just three days prior to our recent delivery of the Vision Zero Petition, I discovered a March 19, 1969, Federal Highway Administration underride rulemaking document on the Federal Register which indicated that their intent was to extend underride protection to the sides of large vehicles! Eight years before my wedding day, when I was 13 years-old, DOT was intending to call for stronger underride protection. And yet, 44 years later, when my daughter Mary was 13 and AnnaLeah was 17, we still had not gotten it right! That’s just wrong!
It is my fervent hope that, when March 2017 rolls around, we will be celebrating a vastly improved federal standard–enthusiastically and immediately adopted by the trucking industry–for all-around-the-truck underride protection at higher speeds, including now-exempt single unit trucks as well as retrofitted to existing trucks and trailers.
If this seems like a costly venture, try comparing it to the price paid by thousands upon thousands of individuals and families during the past decades of ineffective underride protection–added to the countless precious people who will be saved in the years to come from tragic, preventable death by underride.
This is not rocket science; it can be done and the technology is already available!

Beware the Ides of March!

We aim to put an end to preventable underride deaths and serious injuries.

What is justice as it relates to traffic safety?

March 15, 2016Safety AdvocacyjusticeMarianne

Here is a timely article by Ralph Nader on the topic of Justice:

Suing for Justice Your lawsuits are good for America

He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly [circumspectly] with your God? Micah 6:8

What’s on my mind today regarding traffic safety. . .

March 15, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety AdvocacyMarianne

So many things are running through my head that could make up multiple posts. But I will summarize them all here and see what happens with it.

First of all, in regards to the condition of the underride guard on the trailer crash tested on Saturday. At the time when it was purchased for use in the crash test, the underride guard was already in sub-standard condition. Had it been in a collision, it is quite likely that underride would have occurred. And how many other trailers on the road are in similar condition? Something’s wrong with this picture. Witnessed safety defect in action at underride crash tests; this is what snuffed out my daughters’ lives.
In that same post, I asked forgiveness of those who have lost loved ones in underride crashes. I don’t want to be misunderstood. I was not confessing any particular personal failure to address the underride problem because I have done nothing but pursue a solution ever since I found out about it. (Although I, too, have part of the problem by putting my head in the sand regarding traffic deaths in general.) What I was doing was speaking on behalf of this nation and society and industry and government. I was repenting for our country’s great sin of omission in not doing something to prevent this murderous Death by Underride — especially when it has been known that it needed to be addressed and research has shown that it can be addressed. I was following Daniel’s example when he confessed and repented before the LORD for what his people, the nation of Israel, had done.I prayed to the Lord my God and confessed:

“Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps his covenant of love with those who love him and keep his commandments, ⁵we have sinned and done wrong.

¹⁸Give ear, our God, and hear; open your eyes and see the desolation of the city that bears your Name. We do not make requests of you because we are righteous, but because of your great mercy. ¹⁹Lord, listen! Lord, forgive! Lord, hear and act! For your sake, my God, do not delay, because your city and your people bear your Name.” ²⁰While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God. . .
The other thing which I just wanted to mention again is the idea of a nationwide network of Vision Zero Traffic Safety Community Action Groups. I have observed through my involvement in social media safety advocacy that there are a multitude of individuals and organizations attempting to impact the traffic safety problem. Unfortunately, with a likewise multitude of specific issues upon which they are focusing, efforts to address the problem are fragmented and scattered. It seems to me that if we all come together, at least on some level, we could be more effective.

Do it, President Obama, for We the People of this United States of America! #VisionZero

March 14, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck SafetyVision Zero, Vision Zero Traffic Safety Community Action GroupsMarianne

What will it take to make a significant reduction in the number of people who die on our roads?

I firmly believe that, in order to move as a nation Toward a Vision of Zero Crash Deaths, it will take a commitment to a National Vision Zero Goal and a coordinated endeavor of government, private industry, workers of every skill imaginable, and informed citizens. Anything short of this will be disjointed and less effective, which translates into — not simply unmet project goals but — people dying. It is not an impossible dream but it will require sacrifice and will be well worth the effort.

Among other things, I also believe that it will take listening to the hundreds of thousands of families who have lost loved ones due to traffic crashes and apologizing, as a society, for letting them down–for not addressing it as the priority it should be.

Bring a deeper measure of healing and hope by acknowledging their frustration and anger and grief. Let them know that they are being heard and that their petitions for change are being taken seriously.

Set a National Vision Zero Goal and then give these motivated people a voice. Launch a nation-wide network of Vision Zero Traffic Safety Community Action Groups which can channel their zealous energy in positive ways. In concert with a White House Vision Zero Task Force and a Cabinet which is authorized to conduct Vision Zero rulemaking, these groups could work at the local level as a powerful tool for changing the future and moving us more surely Toward Zero Crash Deaths, Serious Injuries, and Fear of Traffic.

Do it, President Obama, for We the People of this United States of America!

Witnessed safety defect in action at underride crash tests; this is what snuffed out my daughters’ lives.

March 14, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyrear underride, safety defects, side guards, underride crash tests, underride guards, underride research, Vision ZeroMarianne

We have been following the progress of Aaron Kiefer’s development of an innovative side/rear underride guard, which he has designed on his own time when not working as a crash reconstructionist or spending time with his family. So we eagerly welcomed his invitation to help out in his MacGyver-style crash test this past Saturday. (By the way, I am a big fan of MacGyver–watched every episode on DVD with Mary & AnnaLeah.)

Aaron wanted to take this opportunity to test his design and find out what changes might be needed to make it a marketable and affordable option for trailer owners to install as a retrofit safety improvement. We joined a crew of his family, friends, and fellow crash reconstructionists at a junkyard in the Triangle area.

The morning was for set-up. Then we took a break for some brats and chips before devoting the afternoon to three crash tests. I had been unsure before arriving as to how a pick-up could tow a car and make it crash into a trailer. It became clear to me when I saw Aaron’s pulley contraption.

Test 1 was a side crash. The collision of the car into the side guard caused the innovative side guard to pop off its brace. But, as Aaron and Jerry said, the test was successful because the side guard stopped the car from going under the trailer beyond the windshield; it prevented Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI). People in the car could have walked away alive.

Test 2 was a second side guard crash with the same car. Again, the car did not go under past the windshield and there was no PCI. The guard would have protected the people in the car from death and/or severe injuries. This time the added aluminum brace at the rear sheared off. Aaron thinks that he will have to go back to the drawing board and make a stronger brace.

Test 3 was a rear crash test. This time the side guard got rolled up and set aside. The trailer was turned around and the test car set up to aim at the rear of the trailer. The original rear underride guard on the trailer had actually been damaged at some point in the past and only had four of its original eight bolts. (That was the condition the underride guard was in when Aaron purchased the trailer, which had sustained damage from collision with an overpass. The guard had clearly not been properly maintained.)

In this crash, the underride guard failed and the car rode under the trailer. There was PCI and, if there had been people in the car, they would not have escaped unharmed. The added brace on the outer edge did not hold up. In fact, it was still fastened on (come to think of it, as it took a lot of work to unfasten it from the trailer afterward), but the original underride guard popped entirely off and flew to the side — doing nothing to stop the car from going under the truck.

Aaron had actually aimed the car to hit the left outer edge of the trailer, which he had reinforced with some aluminum braces. (Note: The current federal standard, as well as the proposed improved rule, does not require this area of the trailer to be protected against underride.) Instead, the car hit the vertical bar of the guard; the entire original guard then popped off and the car went under the truck.

It’s back to the drawing board for Aaron to find a way to improve his design. It was definitely a great success in that it prevented deadly side underride. On top of that, the trailer was not damaged by the collision (except for a few little nicks). But the bracing needs to be made stronger.

From what I could see, the day’s events only served to strengthen Aaron’s resolve to put a stop to senseless deaths, which he sees all-too-often in his work. I for one am truly thankful for the wonderful work he is doing, along with the group of people who willingly set aside a Saturday to support his effort.

Photo Album of the Day’s Events

The day gave me a deeper appreciation for all who take the time to solve the problem of preventable traffic fatalities. This includes the Virginia Tech Senior Design Team and Wabash and Manac and many researchers for decades, such as George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta in Australia and Luís Otto Faber Schmutzler in Brazil, and countless other un-named individuals.

It was also personally very intense. As one participant commented, “That was violent!”

Indeed, it was very violent. All three crashes gave me a jolt. But after the third crash, which resulted in deadly underride, I found myself standing still in the aftermath. Others were busy finding tasks to measure the results and get the clean-up started–including getting the car unstuck from under the trailer. But all I could do was stand there and stare.

Not until the next day really did it all begin to sink in: how I had witnessed from observing from afar what I and my children had gone through ourselves (although with a different crash scenario). I had watched, as an onlooker, the instantaneous destruction of a vehicle and how it was that AnnaLeah’s life had been inconceivably snuffed out in the twinkling of an eye and how, in a matter of mere seconds, Mary’s body had been broken beyond repair by just such a tragically-unresolved traffic safety problem.

It seemed like my own body experienced whiplash as it tensed up and relived, through traumatic muscle memory, what I had gone through. Meanwhile my heart continues to break with the grief that knows no end even as I process this experience.

It is beyond my comprehension how we, in this country, can allow such things to occur year after year without moving heaven and earth to learn how to prevent these tragedies. I can only ask forgiveness, and apologize to the countless families who have lost loved ones through violent death by motor vehicle, for letting them down–for not addressing it as the priority it should be. As a society, we have dropped the ball.

This is why I continue to push for President Obama to set a Vision Zero National Goal and strategies to reach that goal–including Vision Zero Community Action Groups. This is why I am looking forward to the Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016, and why we continue to ask for donations to AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety to support underride research and the effort to improve underride protection on trucks and trailers.

Jerry said several times, “It’s not every day you get to see a dream become a reality–kind of a humbling experience actually.” May there be many more such days.

Third Crash Test: Side Guard Crash Test #3: Successful Prevention of Truck Underride Once Again!

Private litigants in auto safety defect suits should pay heed to NHTSA’s recommendations for settlement

March 13, 2016Safety Advocacyauto safety defects, Vision ZeroMarianne

Civil lawsuits have too often contained provisions which barred NHTSA from gaining access to vital auto safety defect information = End result being more deaths needlessly lost to same auto defects.

Those who support a Vision Zero strategy to reduce every crash death possible should take note of this information on NHTSA’s recommendations for those who are engaged in private litigation which might be relevant to this situation. The following is a recent email bulletin from Lou Lombardo to the Care for Crash Victims Community:

Dear Care For Crash Victims Community Members:

NHTSA Notice of Guidelines Summary states:

“NHTSA’s ability to identify and define safety-related motor vehicle defects relies in large part on manufacturers’ self-reporting. However, although federal regulations may require them to report certain information to NHTSA, manufacturers do not always do so, or do not do so in a timely manner. Additionally, the information a manufacturer is required to report varies greatly depending on the product and company size and purpose. Given these constraints, safety-related information developed or discovered in private litigation is an important resource for NHTSA.

This Enforcement Guidance Bulletin sets forth NHTSA’s recommended guiding principles and best practices to be utilized in the context of private litigation. To the extent protective orders, settlement agreements, or other confidentiality provisions prohibit information obtained in private litigation from being transmitted to NHTSA, such limitations are contrary to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, its state corollaries, and sound principles of public policy. Although such restrictions are generally prohibited by applicable rules and law, the Agency recommends that litigants include a specific provision in any protective order or settlement agreement that provides for disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety information to NHTSA, regardless of any other restrictions on the disclosure or dissemination of such information.”

Please see Guidelines for reporting at

https://www.federalregister. gov/articles/2016/03/11/2016- 05522/nhtsa-enforcement- guidance-bulletin-2015-01- recommended-best-practices- for-protective-orders-and

Please also see [attached] comment to NHTSA by Investigator Steve Gray that notes the past legal practices that permitted deaths and injuries to occur for decades. Steve_Gray_-_Comment

Now we still have to make sure that legal information transmitted to NHTSA is made public and acted upon in the public interest.
Lou

Cover of Car Safety Wars by Michael Lemov

We need all engineers and federal officials concerned with public health to take the professional Hippocratic Oath “Do No Harm”.

March 11, 2016Safety Advocacy, Truck Safetyauto safety defects, Care for Crash Victims, corporate liability, corporate negligence, manufacturer liabilityMarianne

This post is from a recent demand for accountability from Care for Crash Victim’s Lou Lombardo entitled, “Seat Back Failures: Who Has The Power? & Who Has the Responsibility?”:

Dear Care for Crash Victims Community Members:

Please watch this excellent video and report by CBS News on Seat Back Failures.

The failures of both government and industry to protect the public from foreseeable tragedies – for decades – are described. See

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/seat-back-failures-injuries-deaths-auto-safety-experts-demand-nhtsa-action/

The Center for Auto Safety has documented the efforts by citizens that were ignored over decades. Profits were placed ahead of people decade after decade. See

NHTSA Urged to Warn Parents of Seatback Collapse Dangers to Children in Rear Seats & How to Reduce Risk While Keeping Children in Rear

March 9, 2016
(202)328-7700

The Center for Auto Safety (CAS) today petitioned the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to “take action to protect children riding in the rear seats of vehicles from the risk of being killed or severely injured when struck by a collapsing front seatback in a rear-end crash.” The petition asks NHTSA to warn parents as follows:

If Possible, Children Should Be Placed In Rear Seating Positions Behind Unoccupied Front Seats. In Rear-End Crashes, The Backs Of Occupied Front Seats Are Prone To Collapse Under The Weight Of Their Occupants. If This Occurs, The Seat Backs And Their Occupants Can Strike Children In Rear Seats And Cause Severe Or Fatal Injuries

As the petition states, “The problem underlying the need for the warnings sought by petitioner is, of course, the poor performance of seatbacks in rear-end crashes, and of serious inadequacy of the federal motor vehicle standard, FMVSS 207, which specifies minimum seat and seatback crash performance levels.” Attached to the petition is a timeline, “Collapsing Seatbacks And Injury Causation: A Timeline Of Knowledge,” which summarizes “the history of manufacturer and NHTSA inaction to ensure that in rear-end crashes, front seats provide adequate protection not only for their occupants but for people in the rear seats behind them.”

Separately, the Center filed a detailed analysis of lawsuits, police reports and litigated cases that shows the dangers of seat back collapse are far greater than what the agency recognizes because seat back collapse is not captured by the FARS database on which the agency has relied for all too long to deny there is a seatback collapse danger. FARS does not provide any information on seat back collapse. Out of 64 seat back collapse death and injury crashes, the Center only found 2 where the police report referenced seat back collapse.

For many years NHTSA has urged parents to place children in the rear seats of cars because of the risk that in the front seat, they might be injured by inflating airbags in frontal crashes. But the “unintended consequences” of this policy, the petition notes, has been to “expose them to another kind of hazard – that of being struck or crushed when the back of a front seat occupied by an adult collapses rearward… Until cars on the American highway are equipped with adequately strong front seats and seatbacks, children in rear seats behind occupied front seats will continue to be in danger of death or severe injury from front seatback failures in rear-end impacts.”

The petition reports on the results of an analysis of NHTSA data by Friedman Research Corp. Done at the Center’s request, the analysis shows that over the twenty-four year period 1990-2014, nearly 900 children seated behind a front-seat occupant or in a center rear seat died in rear impacts of 1990 and later model-year cars.

As the Timeline shows, NHTSA has frequently been alerted to the hazards of weak designs and inadequate federal performance standards for seats and seatbacks. “Papers published by the Society of Automotive Engineers as early as 1967 described the need for adequate of front-seat crashworthiness in graphic and alarming terms. A poorly designed car seat ‘becomes an injury-producing agency during collision,’ said one. Another stated, ‘…a weak seatback is not recognized as an acceptable solution for motorist protection from rear end collisions.’”

In 1974, the petition notes, NHTSA announced its intention to develop a new standard “covering the total seating system” and requiring dynamic rear-impact crash testing. But thirty years later, in 2004, it abandoned the plan, saying it needed “additional research and data analysis” and leaving in place the woefully weak requirements of FMVSS 207, a standard which has not been upgraded since its adoption in 1967. In a research study of 30-mph rear crashes done one year earlier which is not cited in the rulemaking termination, NHTSA researchers warned of the danger to children placed in rear seats at NHTSA’s recommendation. “Further, fatalities and injuries to rear child occupants due to seat back collapse of the front seat in rear impacts have also been reported. This is especially of concern since NHTSA recommends to the public that children of age 12 and under should be placed in the rear seat.”

In its conclusion, the petition states that warning parents of the hazards of front seatback collapse to children in rear seat is an essential measure “made necessary by the continued absence of a federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring that cars be equipped with adequately protective front seats.” The agency “can take most of the requested steps on its own, without time-consuming rulemaking, and should do so promptly,” the petition notes.

# # #

CAS Petitions NHTSA to Warn Parents of Seat Back Failure Dangers to Children in Rear Seats

CAS Letter to NHTSA Administrator Rosekind

Collapsing Seat Backs and Injury Causation: A Timeline of Knowledge

Friedman Study: Child Fatalities in Rear Impacts

NHTSA Seat Back Rulemaking History

Clarence Ditlow, Executive Director, Center for Auto Safety, 1825 Connecticut Ave NW #330, Washington DC 20009

For information on Who was responsible, see http://www.careforcrashvictims.com/assets/CFCV-MonthlyReport-March2014.pdf

and http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/29/opinion/weak-oversight-deadly-cars.html

We need all engineers and federal officials concerned with public health to take the professional Hippocratic Oath “Do No Harm”.

Lou