Save Lives Not Dollars: Urge DOT to Adopt a Vision Zero Policy
“U.S. can do better than simply adopt Canada’s rear underride guard standard” IIHS Status Report
The Insurance Institute on Highway Safety issued their latest Status Report last week, including the article, “U.S. can do better than simply adopt Canada’s rear underride guard standard.”
A proposed upgrade to rear underride guard regulations for tractor-trailers is a move in the right direction but isn’t comprehensive enough to deliver the safety gains IIHS outlined in a 2011 petition for rulemaking, especially when it comes to preventing underride in offset crashes. . .
Thank you, IIHS, for your ongoing involvement in underride protection.
Mary & AnnaLeah would have been sad today at the loss of a family pet.
Our son and daughter-in-law lost a beloved pet today. After having lost another one earlier this week. Mary and AnnaLeah would have been sad at their loss.
Here is a video of Mary with another one of their dogs (I apologize if you cannot access this link, as Facebook currently has our Memorial Page UNPUBLISHED): Mary & Django
Less than 400 signatures needed to reach 20,000 on our Vision Zero Petition. Washington: March 4
Save Lives Not Dollars: Urge DOT to Adopt a Vision Zero Policy Help us take 20,000 signatures to Washington on March 4. Less than 400 to go!
The AnnaLeah & Mary Memorial Facebook Page got Unpublished last night because someone flagged it for inappropriate content due to Community Guidelines. I had just posted this same call to action–only with a crash scene photo which I have posted countless times before.
No explanation of what post or what the supposed violation consisted of and no way to ask any questions for clarification. Just a button to click: APPEAL.
This is what the Facebook Notification message said:
Your page has been unpublished
Your Page is currently not visible on Facebook. It looks like content posted on your Page doesn’t follow the Facebook Terms and Community Standards, so your Page was unpublished. These Terms and Standards help ensure Facebook remains a welcoming, respectful environment.
We work hard to prevent actions that compromise people’s privacy or security on Facebook, including contacting people for commercial purposes without their consent.
If you think your Page was unpublished in error, you can appeal. Before you appeal, we suggest removing any violating content from your Page. Please keep in mind that if your appeal is denied, your Page will be permanently deleted.
You appealed this decision Yesterday at 11:44pm
Facebook Community Guidelines: https://www.facebook.com/communitystandards
I’m waiting to hear if my Appeal will overturn that decision. Please pray that it get resolved quickly so that I will be able to post updates on that page when we take the Petition to Washington on March 4.
Meanwhile, please share this post and sign our Vision Zero Petition if you have not already done so. In memory of Mary & AnnaLeah. Thank you: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/…/save-lives-not-dollars-ur…/
Innovation to Make Highway Work Zones Safer
RoadQuake 2™ Temporary Portable Rumble Strip: Road Safety Reinvented!
RoadQuake 2 Alerts Drivers to Changing Road Conditions
Where daily installation and removal of the work zone is required for:
- Pilot car or flagging operations
- Lane closures
- Traffic safety check-points
- Routine maintenance projects
- Paving operations
For speed limits of 75 mph or less, and temperatures from 0° to 180° F.
The best kind of preparation for going to Washington to speak up for vulnerable road users. . .
I have heard this encouragement four different times now this week, through different means: Be strong and courageous.
I needed to hear that. Especially because I have had some hard days of missing AnnaLeah and Mary, at the same time that the task feels overwhelming.
One of the times was just tonight when I searched for a facebook post with a photo of a drawing which Isaac made of Mary at Lake Michigan. I haven’t found it yet. But I did serendipitously find some good treasures recorded in our Journey through Grief Page. They were the best kind of encouragement as we prepare to go to Washington next week.
September 14, 2013:
September 13, 2013:
Here am I, send me! https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.511293028953216.1073741899.464993830249803&type=1
September 20, 2013:
My what a lot we have learned since then!
September 30, 2013:
October 3, 2013:
April 16, 2014:
Importance of uniform legislative standards in reducing accidents cannot be overestimated, July 31, 1934
I can’t get this out of my head: why are we waiting for states to adopt their own traffic safety standards instead of establishing National Traffic Safety Standards which states are required to adopt? What is this–the Wild, Wild West? We are the united states of America–are we not?
Why on earth don’t we establish National Traffic Safety Standards & require them to be adopted by States? (Advocates for Highway & Auto Safety held a press conference which I watched live-stream. They released their 13th Roadmap of State Highway Safety Laws–outlining the 319 proven safety laws which many states have not adopted, including such things as seat belt usage, motorcycle helmet laws, impaired driving, child passenger safety, teen graduated licensing laws, and distracted driving.)
Should not proven safety standards be applied universally?
Note this statement from the 1934 National Conference on Highway Safety:
The importance of uniform legislative standards in reducing accidents and facilitating the movement of traffic cannot be over estimated, and the adoption of these standards by all States and municipalities is earnestly recommended.
Daniel C. Roper, Secretary of Commerce, Chairman, National Conference on Highway Safety, Washington, DC, July 31, 1934 ACT III – UNIFORM MOTOR VEHICLE CIVIL LIABILITY ACT
Later, Uniform Gudelines for State Highway Safety Programs were released by NHTSA. Where are we with that? Have we moved away from mandating states to adopt specific traffic safety standards? Is it optional? What is working and what is not working at this point?
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act
Highway Safety Program Guidelines:
Section 402 of title 23 of the United States Code requires the Secretary of Transportation to promulgate uniform guidelines for State highway safety programs. These guidelines offer direction to States in formulating their highway safety plans for highway safety efforts that are supported with section 402 and other grant funds. The guidelines provide a framework for developing a balanced highway safety program and serve as a tool with which States can assess the effectiveness of their own programs. NHTSA encourages States to use these guidelines and build upon them to optimize the effectiveness of highway safety programs conducted at the State and local levels.
- Periodic Motor Vehicle Inspection
- Motor Vehicle Registration
- Motorcycle Safety | PDF version for print
- Driver Education
- Non-Commercial Driver Licensing
- Codes and Laws
- Judicial and Court Services
- Impaired Driving (updated)| PDF version for print
- [Reserved]
- Traffic Records
- Emergency Medical Services
- Prosecutor Training
- Older Driver Safety
- Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety(updated) | PDF version for print
- Traffic Enforcement Service (updated) | PDF version for print
- Management of Highway Incidents
- Pupil Transportation Safety
- Crash Investigation and Incident Reporting
- Speed Management(updated) | PDF version for print
- Occupant Protection(updated) | PDF version for print
- Roadway Safety
Is this still operative today? If so, why are there 319 traffic safety laws which have not been adopted by states? Is it the duty of the federal government to protect its citizens from crash deaths & serious injuries?
NOTE the connection with federal funds to states:
(2)Waiver.—
The Secretary may waive the requirement of paragraph (1)(C), in whole or in part, for a fiscal year for any State whenever the Secretary determines that there is an insufficient number of local highway safety programs to justify the expenditure in the State of such percentage of Federal funds during the fiscal year.
(c)Use of Funds.—
(1)In general.—
Funds authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section shall be used to aid the States to conduct the highway safety programs approved in accordance with subsection (a), including development and implementation of manpower training programs, and of demonstration programs that the Secretary determines will contribute directly to the reduction of accidents, and deaths and injuries resulting therefrom. Title 23 › Chapter 4 › § 402 23 U.S. Code § 402 – Highway safety programs
Delayed adoption and implementation of proven safety standards inevitably results in unnecessary, preventable deaths.
Noncompliance Inconsequential to Motor Vehicle Safety
I was just reading about this yesterday and noted the multitude of links for this sort of thing:
concept of noncompliance inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. http://www.
Let’s make sure that we have identified properly what is consequential to motor vehicle safety/highway safety and how we determine what has/is SIGNIFICANT SAFETY CONSEQUENCE.
Then, I got this email from the Truck Safety Coalition this morning:
The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) sent a letter telling the FMCSA to remove and limit the number of exemptions the agency grants. The CVSA argues that FMCSA is granting excessive exemptions, which hinder enforcements efforts by creating inconsistency and confusion. TSC has been and continues to be firmly opposed to state or industry exemptions for this very reason. We support the CVSA’s stance on this issue, and also urge the FMCSA to reconsider and reduce the many exemptions it grants to carriers, particularly those pertaining to training and hours of service.
Link to Article: http://www.overdriveonline.com/cvsa-to-fmcsa-scale-back-on-hours-and-other-exemptions/
The Truck Safety Coalition Team
A Canadian comments on the US proposed adoption of Canadian underride standard
Insightful Public Comment from a Canadian road safety expert on the NPRM for upgrade of Rear Underride:
Regarding the above noted proposed rulemaking, I support fully a new rear guard standard that exceeds the Canadian standard, which was developed some time ago and that current research shows does not provide adequate passenger compartment protection in all crash scenarios. I also support fully that the new standard apply to all trucks including single unit ones. I believe the NHTSA has overestimated the costs and underestimated the benefits of such changes. More importantly, however, we must modernize the very way we think about road safety in the United States and Canada. We need to make the default design for every car, truck and bus to be one that simply minimizes all levels of human harm.
The use of a cost-benefit analysis for motor vehicle design and upgrades represents outdated thinking. The air, marine and rail industries have a much more forward approach when it comes to safety and more often works to ensure that these modes are safe for all persons. We must do the same with motor vehicles as the use of cost-benefit analysis involves assigning a monetary value to a human life and it is unethical and crass to do that.
Thank you for considering my comments on this important matter.
Regards,
Neil Arason
6 more Public Comments on Rear Underride Rulemaking
Here are the latest posted Public Comments on the NPRM for Rear Underride Guards.
Six Most Recently Posted Comments at:
Notifications from Regulations.gov
———————————-
DOCKET: NHTSA-2015-0118 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0118)
NOTIFICATION NAME:
FREQUENCY: Daily
EXPIRES: 01/11/2017
NUM DOCUMENTS: 6
DOCUMENT ID: NHTSA-2015-0118-0031 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0031)
DOCUMENT TYPE: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE: 02/23/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Stephen Batzer
DOCUMENT ID: NHTSA-2015-0118-0032 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0032)
DOCUMENT TYPE: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE: 02/23/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)
DOCUMENT ID: NHTSA-2015-0118-0033 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0033)
DOCUMENT TYPE: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE: 02/23/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Stephen Batzer
DOCUMENT ID: NHTSA-2015-0118-0034 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0034)
DOCUMENT TYPE: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE: 02/23/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Aaron Kiefer
DOCUMENT ID: NHTSA-2015-0118-0035 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0035)
DOCUMENT TYPE: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE: 02/23/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Truck Safety Coalition (TSC)
DOCUMENT ID: NHTSA-2015-0118-0036 (http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0118-0036)
DOCUMENT TYPE: PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS
POSTED DATE: 02/23/2016
DOCUMENT TITLE: Comment from Neil Arason
