Tag Archives: 1969

On September 3, 1969, Congress discussed UNDERRIDE. How many more people have to die before Congress lays down the law?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

On September 3, 1969, U.S. Congressman Vanik from Ohio was given the floor. He made a lengthy statement, with noteworthy comments about underride protection, including the inadequacy of the proposed regulation for rear underride and the absence of regulations for smaller straight trucks, as well as protection on the sides and front of trucks.

Wait! What? Imagine! Fifty years ago, not only was DOT proposing rulemaking, but the U.S. Congress had become informed on this issue and wanted to see immediate action taken to make comprehensive and effective underride protection on all trucks THE LAW!

Are you listening, Congress? NOW is the time to act! Pass the STOP Underrides Bill into law already!

Too many people have already paid the price since that public Congressional discussion which took place fifty years ago on September 3, 1969. No more.

The standard should be applicable to all vehicles and trucks so that the risk of damage and fatalities resulting from nonmatching bumper guards is permanently and forever removed from American highways.
. . . I hope that your committee will issue a mandate for this regulation next year [1970].
. . . the unsafe conditions resulting from the use of high-front bumpers on heavy trucks are to be evaluated for eventual development of a regulation.

Congressional Record for September 3, 1969

See relevant excerpts from pp. 13-14 and more details in this post:

Congressional Record on Underride 9.3.1969 pp. 13-14

Congress, Act Now To End Deadly Truck Underride! PETITION

The Significance of March 19, 1969, & Truck Underride

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety,

Of special interest to those concerned about truck underride is information which I discovered on March 2, 2016. It refers to a published statement by a U.S. DOT agency on March 19, 1969.

That information stuck in my mind more than it would for most people because March 19 is my anniversary and today I celebrated 42 years of marriage to my loving husband, Jerry. Only at the time, I was 13 — not even driving yet.

On that day, 50 years ago, the DOT said that they intended to extend underride protection to the sides of large vehicles. Why would they do that? Because underride is a potential risk all around the truck (except at the tires). They had mandated a weak (we found out thanks to IIHS) rear underride guard but not side.

Imagine. They still have not done so! Many years have come and gone. I have raised a family of nine and buried two of them due to truck underride. And, yet, this country has dragged its feet and neglected to make it a priority to solve the underride problem — despite the fact that technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in other areas.

From that March 2, 2016 post: A Public Comment on Underride Rulemaking re: original intent of NHTSA in 1969

I just read an interesting Public Comment on the Underride Rulemaking: Comment from 7-E Seven Hills Engineering, LLC – Transport Canada

Perry Ponder also commented on the Single Unit Truck Underride Rulemaking last fall: Comment from 7-E Seven Hills Engineering, LLC – Transport Canada

Of special interest to me was the information in both of his Comments on 1969 rulemaking:

“I will begin by pointing out that continuing to allow truck and trailer induced PCI to occur at otherwise survivable crash speeds (delta-V’s of 45mph and beyond) discards years of crashworthiness efforts and wastes the safety benefits we have come to expect and pay for in our cars.

From an engineering perspective the need for vehicle crash compatibility in the form of adequate heavy truck underride guarding is apparent in order to protect against the hazard of PCI which exposes the vulnerable head and neck region to severe, potentially fatal or crippling injury.

This hazard – easily remedied by readily available materials and simple structural analysis – is present also on the sides of heavy trailers and trucks. The FMVSS standard should be broadened to include guarding for the sides and rear of heavy straight trucks, as well as the sides of heavy trailers. This was the original intent of NHTSA rulemakers in the 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2.”

Note: Perry Ponder later that year came to the First Underride Roundtable and through connections made there completed development of his AngelWing side guard — successfully tested on March 30, 2017 at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrL7AUMT4To

The AngelWing, along with the Safety Skirt, will be tested at the D.C. Underride Crash Test Event on March 26 — as well as a crash into the side of a trailer with no side underride protection.

Other March underride posts:

March has indeed been an eventful month for truck underride. And next week at this time, we will have hosted the first ever D.C. Underride Crash Test Event. 

 

In 1969, DOT planned to add side guards after technical studies. Well, they’ve been completed. Now what?

Truck Safety, , , , , ,

Well, on the way home from DC on Amtrak, I read Computer Modeling & Evaluation Of Side Underride Protective Device Designs — the 90-page side underride research report published in April 2018 by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute from a study they did through a NHTSA contract. Here are my preliminary thoughts. . .

From the report’s Introduction:

Use of side underride protection devices (SUPDs) has been suggested to mitigate passenger car underride during impacts with the side of a trailer. SUPDs attach to the frame of the trailer and act as a guard or a barrier to prevent the impacting passenger car from underriding the truck. However, attachment of additional weight to the truck is viewed unfavorably by some due to the related increase in fuel consumption and reduction in cargo capacity.

Past studies have looked at designing SUPDs for 90-degree impacts with passenger cars at speeds up to 50 mph (Bodapati, 2006; Galipeau-Belair, 2014). Different design impacts may result in different SUPD characteristics and weight. If the design impact conditions are
changed from 90-degree impacts to oblique impacts, it may be possible to further reduce the weight of the SUPDs, thus making them more favorable for use on heavy trucks.

[Besides hoping to get the trucking industry to agree to a lighter weight side guard — and assuming that they would get resistance to a rulemaking with a heavier guard], why would the Department of Transportation (NHTSA) commission a study of guards to prevent only oblique angle (less than 90 degrees) side impacts? Especially when there is talk of a weight exemption (with the legislation) for the underride safety equipment.

Presumably, these lighter weight guards would not stop cars impacting a truck at 90 degree angles. Yet, we know that many people have died and are dying from both 90 degree or T-bone crashes as well, like these two cases:

Are we going to issue a rule that will protect people from some side underride crashes but not others — even though it is technologically and practically feasible? Really?!

What was the point of designing the study that way — as directed by NHTSA? In my opinion, that research money could have been better spent — since we already have proof that cars can be stopped in a T-bone crash at 40 mph. Like on research to prevent front underride/override or to find the outer limits of rear underride protection (are the updated rear guards as strong as they could be?) — as called for in the STOP Underrides! Bill.

In 1969, DOT planned on adding side guards to trucks after technical studies had been completed. Well, they’ve been completed. We’ve been waiting almost 50 years. Will they act now?

Let’s get the Committee On Underride Protection (COUP) established immediately — as called for in the STOP Underrides! Bill. Let’s get engineers, along with an interdisciplinary team, talking together and collaboratively communicating to inform effective actions. Daylight’s burning!

Note: As I hear from engineers, I will share their feedback as well.