Tag Archives: ATA

Taking On a Safety Issue: Hazardous Railroad Crossings

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , , , , , , ,

I made a Public Comment at the meeting of the Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC) on June 6, 2023, related to railway crossing safety. I was motivated to do so by two things.

First of all, I have listened to members of the trucking industry point to the potential of side guards causing an increase in tractor-trailer hang ups on high centered railroad crossings — using it as a basis for opposing a side guard regulation. Yet, in ten years, I have never heard them discuss how they could address this safety problem, which occurs even without side guards.

Secondly, when I was around 26, I worked as a Hospice Pilot Program Analyst for Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Michigan. After some time on the job, one of my coworkers had a baby, who was the delight of her life.  After my family moved away from the Detroit area, we kept in contact mostly through exchanging Christmas cards. One year I received a note from our former boss, who told me that my friend’s now 16 year-old had died when the car in which she was a passenger was hit by a train on her way to her high school. I wrote about her story in a post, Too Often, Too Little, Too Late; A Conspiracy of Silence , in 2015:

“Fast forward to 2013, when I, too, experienced the awful devastation of losing a child [make that two] to an unexpected, horrific, potentially-preventable, premature death due to a car crash [this time hit by a truck]. Now I understood what my friend had faced.

Just recently, I tried to reach out to her again–to no avail–after I ran across the news article and the picture of baby “Joy” when going through boxes at our home. I re-read the details of the crash and discovered that there had been no flashers or guard at the fateful railroad crossing–less than a mile from her high school.

As a bereaved-mom-become-safety-advocate, I wanted to know if something had been done to improve safety at the site of that crash 34 years ago. I was encouraged to find out, from the township responsible for that section of roads, that they had bypassed the option of flashers and guards and immediately closed off that particular dirt road where it crossed the tracks.

A good move. Chances are it saved someone. But it was Too Late for Joy.

Why does it Too Often take a death to wake us up to the dangers that were there all along?”

I did not hear from my friend for 40 years because her grief was so intense and it was hard for her to see me with my family of nine living children. In 2020, out of the blue, I received an email from her. Among other things, she shared with me what she and her husband and younger daughter had done following their tragic loss:

[We] took on the State of Michigan after the train crash that killed [Joy and her friend Hope].  After a public hearing, we convinced the state to close the railroad crossing near [the] High School where the crash occurred.  The crossing was at the bottom of a gravel hill and no warning lights or gates were at the site.  State inspectors would park at the top of the hill and walk down to “inspect” it, too concerned to drive down. The site could not be fixed to make it safe for others and the road leading to it is now closed.  No one else will die there.  During our investigation, we found that many other dangerous railroad sites like this exist.  I was too devastated to do anything about those sites in the way you have, and I admire your courage for that.

June 6, 2023

Administrator Hutcheson,

I hope that FMCSA will seriously consider our attached petition and do what is within your power to make railway crossings safer.

Respectfully,

Jerry & Marianne Karth

Here’s our petition to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Petition to the FMCSA for Railway Crossing Safety Measures

Here’s our petition a few days earlier to the Federal Railroad Administration: Petition to the FRA for Railway Crossing Safety Measures

Relevant Resources On This Topic:

What can we learn about industry concerns regarding a potential side guard regulation?

“As a. . . result of Utility Trailer’s negligence. . . Riley Hein LOST A CHANCE AT A BETTER OUTCOME”

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , , , , , , ,

According to a WUSA9 Investigative Report on Underride, court documents show, “As a direct, legal, and proximate result of Utility Trailer’s negligence, Plaintiffs’ decedent Riley Hein LOST A CHANCE AT A BETTER OUTCOME when instead of simply colliding with the semitrailer, his car became trapped underneath the semitrailer, resulting in a fire and directly leading to his death.”

That’s what the #STOPunderrides Bill is all about!  If passed, this legislation will give motorists and vulnerable road users A CHANCE AT A BETTER OUTCOME when they have the misfortune of colliding with a truck. Effective underride protection will prevent underride and enable the car’s crashworthy safety features, like the crumple zone, airbags, and seat belt tensioners, to do their job and protect the car’s occupants from deadly injuries.

This includes not only SIDE underrides but also those collisions that occur at the FRONT and the REAR of trucks. A few weeks ago, I obtained a FARS data report from NHTSA (DOT) for “reported” underride deaths during 1994-2017. It clearly shows that the number of reported underride deaths did not significantly decrease after a federal standard for rear underride guards was implemented in 1998.

NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS): Underride Deaths, 1994-2017

Apparently, neither NHTSA nor the trucking industry bothered to make it a priority to look at those statistics and ask some hard but important questions, “Why are people continuing to die under trucks?” and “What can we do about it?”

In fact, just the opposite apparently occurred as evidenced by court documents which reveal that the trucking industry deliberately acted to protect themselves from being forced to add underride protection to their trucks. The TTMA (Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association) did not do this alone; the ATA (American Trucking Associations) played their part as well.

The question is: Where do we go from here? Congress, I’d say that the ball is definitely in your court.

Rebuttal to Concerns Raised By the ATA About Proposed Underride Legislation

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , ,

From the very beginning of our journey to make truck crashes more survivable with the installation of effective underride protection, we have been reaching out to members of the trucking industry — manufacturers, transport companies, truck drivers, industry associations, and engineers among others. We have found some who are cooperative and many who are committed to working on solutions. However, we have also observed a reluctance to move forward with R&D — not to mention installation of solutions.

Beyond industry hesitation, we have also read about and listened to outright opposition. While I appreciate that they would find it important to express concerns they might have about the legislation and the technology, I do not find it helpful if their statements are not backed up with facts or documentation — especially when there is little openness to sit down together and discuss how to address those concerns collaboratively.

I remain hopeful that we can yet reach that point where we will be able to hold conversations through the process laid out in the STOP Underrides Act for a Committee On Underride Protection. It holds the potential for cooperation, transparency, and accountability which could help us reach the goal of ending preventable death by underride in a timely fashion.

Meanwhile, because I have been unable to get them to participate in a meeting to discuss these concerns, I am going to share two documents here:

  1. A letter which the American Trucking Associations emailed to Members of the Transportation & Infrastructure Committee’s Highway & Transit Subcommittee on June 19, 2019, following the trucking hearing on June 12, 2019. The ATA letter outlines their concerns about, and opposition to, the STOP Underrides! Act. ATA Stop Underrides Act Follow Up Opposition Letter 6.19.19
  2. A rebuttal to that letter — detailing what we have discovered over the last several years regarding those concerns. RESPONSE to ATA Stop Underrides Opposition Letter

May we allow nothing to interfere with reaching the goal of protecting all travelers from the unimaginable injuries and grief which all too often come about when we don’t equip our trucks with underride protection so that passenger vehicles and vulnerable road users cannot go under them.

Rose, Star Wars: The Force Awakens

“Words without facts” is Propaganda

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

There is no trucker who would want to be a part of a tragic under-ride crash and there is no just-lawmaker who would feel content with having the opportunity to do something and remain silent and out of the conversation.

That’s what I read in a recent blogpost. If only the trucking industry would recognize that fact, re-examine some of their wrong-headed thinking, and get behind the win/win STOP Underrides! Bill.

I’d like to take a stab at correcting some of the misunderstanding floating around out there about the STOP Underrides! Bill. I’m concerned that “words without facts,” if left unchallenged, is propaganda with power to confuse the uninformed.

(Note: I know that this post is lengthy and not the easiest to read format. I wanted to get it published before heading back to D.C. So I will try and edit it to correct errors in links and messy format as soon as possible.  Thank you for your patience.)

So what words have been said about the STOP Underrides! Bill?

`From the OOIDA Letter of  Opposition:

  • OOIDA is the largest trade association representing the views and interests of small-business truckers and professional drivers. We have more than 160,000 members nationwide, all of which would be directly impacted by S. 665. This raises an interesting question. I have personally asked the management of OOIDA to provide me with information about how many owner-operators own their own trailer. He said that he did not have those numbers. Although numbers (1.2 trailer/owner-operator) are listed online, I have seen no documentation that this is the case. I’d love to have proof of this claim but, until then, it does not seem valid to make a blanket statement that all of the OOIDA members would be directly impacted without spelling out what that means.
  • Over the last several decades, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has considered numerous options involving underride guards, but has consistently concluded federal mandates would be impractical and costly, thus outweighing any perceived safety benefits. The reintroduction of the Stop Underrides Act intentionally disregards this reality and ignores the safety, economic, and operational concerns we raised with you last Congress. Many Public Comments were submitted to the Federal Register, in response to NHTSA proposed underride rulemaking, which raised questions about the validity of the NHTSA cost/benefit analysis. Additionally, Senator Gillibrand responded to all of the concerns, which OOIDA raised in their January 2018 letter, in a letter which she sent to OOIDA on March 16, 2018. Read her reply here.
  • To be clear, OOIDA supports efforts to improve highway safety. In fact, we agree the existing rear underride guard on trailers – commonly referred to as a “DOT Bumper” in the United States – could be enhanced to reduce the risk of rear underrides for personal automobiles. If the Canadian standard was applied in the U.S. on the manufacture of new trailers, we would not oppose it. Actually, many of the trailers on the road today in the U.S. already meet the Canadian standard because U.S. transport companies which cross the border need to comply with it. So the U.S. trailer manufacturers responded to that situation. However, those are the same guards which have been tested by the IIHS and found to be ineffective and too weak to withstand offset crashes — even at 35 mph. So simply upgrading the U.S. standard to meet the Canadian standard would not solve the problem — underride, with deadly Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI), would still be occurring.The eight major trailer manufacturers have exceeded the Canadian standard by stepping up to meet the new de facto standard of the IIHS ToughGuard award. It is that standard which we are requesting be mandated by the STOP Underrides legislation to ensure that it is installed on every new trailer manufactured. As of this date, some manufacturers are still selling the older, ineffective rear guard as Standard with the improved guard being offered as Optional.In addition, there are millions of existing trailers on the road today which still will allow deadly passenger compartment intrusion upon collision. Yet, there are Retrofit Kitsavailable for $500 (or less) which can be installed to upgrade the safety level of rear guards — compared to the $125 it would cost to replace rusted, cracked or bent horizontal tubes at the existing level of ineffective protection.
  • Unfortunately, S. 665 goes too far. Regarding rear underride guards, it would mandate truckers install them on trailers that can’t physically accommodate them, such as low boys, household goods trailers, auto transporters, etc. The mandate would retroactively apply to all trailers, including those nearing the end of their service. This comment ignores a basic fact about federal standards. If a CMV is designed in a way that underride is not possible (i.e., there is no geometric mismatch because the truck body is low enough to engage with the passenger vehicle bumper), then, of course, the manufacturer or owner can apply for an exemption. Why would we demand installation of unnecessary equipment?
  • 665 would also mandate the installation of side underride guards. While existing technologies may reduce passenger compartment intrusion in certain situations, the bill fails to recognize numerous other issues limiting the real world practicality of side underride guards. For example, installation of the equipment would unquestionably create challenges for truckers navigating grade crossings and high curbs, backing in to sloped loading docks, properly utilizing spread-axle trailer configurations, conducting DOT-required trailer inspections, and accessing vital equipment located under the trailer – such as brakes. We also want to reiterate S. 665 would mandate side underride guards on trailers that can’t physically accommodate them, such as intermodal, bulk, specialized, and flatbed trailers. This comment uses an interesting choice of words, e.g., claiming that side guards would “unquestionably” create challenges for truckers. As far as I can tell, these statements are all based on speculation rather than proven fact or documentation. See this post for a lengthy reply to these concerns.
  • 665 also mandates a front underride guard on CMVs. Admittedly, we’re less familiar with these devices, because they aren’t currently commercially available in the U.S. However, similar to the rear and side underride guard provisions, this requirement would likely be extremely problematic for reasons we can discuss in more detail at a later time. I am confident that, if OOIDA genuinely delved into the front underride/override problem — as I did — they would find that there are practical solutions available to change the outcome of crashes which involve trucks rear-ending passenger vehicles or head-on collisions. In fact, U.S. truck manufacturers have patents for front underride protection devices and some are already selling them in countries which have a FUP mandate — including Europe, India, Japan, and Australia.
  • We would also point out that the bill would require the creation of performance standards for underride devices. Meaning, if an underride guard fails to meet the standard while in operation, the vehicle would be placed out of service and unable to operate. We have no idea how a trucker would get a side underride guard, weighing approximately 1,000 pounds, delivered to the roadside. Admittedly, it is a challenge to get trucks safely off the road to a repair facility when they have underride protection in a condition which makes them unsafe to travel around. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ( CVSA ) has addressed this concern in their consultation with the bill sponsors regarding the bill language. But do we just ignore the problem when it is challenging? Do we simply allow the truck driver to continue on with business as usual? Besides, ideally, the truck driver/transport company will do regular pre-trip inspections of the underride protection and address the problem with preventive maintenance or appropriate repair BEFORE the truck ever gets on the road.Furthermore, OOIDA does not appear to have done their research regarding the weight of side guards currently available. The AngelWing upon early production was weighing in at 800 pounds and has, since then, been reduced to about 500 pounds. Likewise, the Wabash Trailers side guard prototype was reported to weigh approximately 500 pounds.
  • Nor do we have any idea how the equipment would be installed on the roadside. In sum, the bill mandates devices that aren’t practical, that don’t physically work, and that would create operational impossibilities. We should also note that the bill impacts millions of CMVs, trailers, straight trucks, and other vehicles. With an estimated price tag of tens of billions of dollars, S. 665 would implement the single most costly federal trucking mandate in history. It seems irresponsible to make a claim about an estimated price tag of tens of billions of dollars. DOT is reportedly a data-driven agency. Please provide specifics as to the equation for reaching conclusions about a safety countermeasure which could save countless lives. In fact, the previous cost/benefit analysis reported by NHTSA actually uses underride data which is well-known to be undercounted. As is also a widely-accepted fact, once the safety equipment is mandated, solutions and manufacturers are likely to rise up to meet the need. Costs will likely go down from their current amounts with competition in the marketplace and improvement of designs/products.Let’s do some of our own back of the envelope math. Just for the sake of discussion, let’s say that a tractor-trailer owner put $3,400 into underride protection equipment — and that’s for a retrofit. Divide that $3,400 into 15 years average trailer life and you have $227/year or $0.62/week. Don’t forget IRS Section 179 allows a tax deduction for business equipment.And on what information does OOIDA base their claim that “S. 665 would implement the single most costly federal trucking mandate in history”? From what I read, the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate cost truck owners on average $495/truck/year. And read what that website says about the rumors spread about prohibitive costs of ELDs which would put trucking companies out of business (sound familiar?): Considering the overall operational costs of a trucking business, ELD investment doesn’t rank when compared to operating expenses, like fuel, liability insurance, tractor-trailer equipment, and permitting costs.Is it truly inappropriate to think that safety equipment, like underride protective devices, should be considered a normal, acceptable Cost Of Doing Business (CODB)?While we’re at it, please answer a question which I have had for several years now. . . even if you estimate the industry’s safety budget at $9.6 billion, as Chris Spear did in a conversation with me in March 2017, please tell me what percentage that is of the total operating budget — or revenue or profit or whatever figure you want to use — for the trucking industry.

    Well, if they don’t want to tell me, I’ll have to estimate it myself. This article quotes ATA as saying that in 2017 the trucking industry revenue was $700.3 billion. That would mean that the safety budget (which included drug tests for drivers) was 1.4%. What is included in that?

    These investments include technologies on the truck such as collision avoidance systems, electronic logging devices for driver hours of service compliance and video event recorders. They also include driver safety training, driver safety incentive pay, and compliance with safety regulations (e.g., pre-employment and random drug tests and motor vehicle record checks). The largest investment category is in driver safety training, equaling 36% of all investment. Driver safety training was followed by expenditures in compliance with safety rules (26%), on-board safety technologies (25%) and driver safety incentive pay (13%).https://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/News%20and%20Information/Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statistics/06%2028%2016%20-%20Trucking%20Industry%20Invests%20%249%205%20Billion%20in%20Safety%20Annually.pdf

    OOIDA hasn’t shared with us their back of the envelope math equation. But here is mine:

    Let’s say that there are approximately 2 million existing trailers and 300,000 new trailers/year. Make that 2,500,000 or even 3,000,000 x $3,000/tractor-trailer = $9,000,000,000 or $9 billion. That would be 1.3% of the revenue amount. Is that an unreasonable cost of doing business?

    If 1000 lives were saved (plus untold catastrophic, debilitating injuries prevented), that would be $9,000,000/life saved. The DOT sets the Value of a Saved Life (VSL) at $9.6 million.

    Obviously, that amount includes retrofitting existing trailers which would not have to be repeated every year. But, even with this rough math calculations, I’m having a hard time seeing what is causing a panic.

    Furthermore, is OOIDA helping their membership to look at the broad picture of how comprehensive underride protection can actually benefit the trucking industry? That includes the greatly decreased insurance risk when truck crashes lead to fewer fatalities.

  • We would encourage you to learn more about the trucking industry, including its incredible diversity, before continuing to promote S. 665. One-size-fits-all solutions simply don’t work. I would encourage OOIDA, and others in the trucking industry, to thoroughly do their due diligence on the underride problem and solutions. Take it on as collaborative challenge to reach a mutually-beneficial goal: safer trucking. Take advantage of the upcoming opportunity to witness an underride crash and two successful side underride protective devices firsthand at the D.C. Underride Crash Test on March 26.As a bonus, here are my responses to concerns expressed by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) about the STOP Underrides! Bill:Question for the ATA: Is it necessary to choose EITHER crash avoidance OR occupant protection — not BOTH?My knee-jerk reaction to the ATA Letter of Opposition to the STOP Underrides! Bill

Actually, let’s address the March 14, 2019 letter of opposition from ATA directly:

  • . . . safety anchors the very foundation of the trucking industry, shaping our core values and decision-making. If that were true, then why have they been opposing underride initiatives for years and not taken an active role in making sure that the underride problem was solved?
  • This legislation, while a well-intended heartfelt response to family tragedy, seeks to address a certain type of truck involved accident through a highly prescriptive industry-wide mandate. Oh, my goodness! First of all, as one of the co-authors of the STOP Underrides! Bill, I declare that a ridiculous statement! Thousands of people lost their lives to underride long before our truck crash took place on May 4, 2013. The underride problem did not start with my family’s tragedy. Underride is a factor of the geometric mismatch between bumpers of cars and trucks which started way back when they started to share the road. (1915 side guard patent)
  • Regrettably, the bill is not based on science, data or safety benefit. Upon what is that statement based? What do they call the crash testing done on side guards and rear guards and front underride/override protection? How do they define science and data? In fact, what kind of data and science or they even looking for? Give me some clarification here. Are they calling into question the testing capability of crash testing facilities and universities and engineers around the country? And, jeepers creepers, what on earth do they even mean by safety benefit?!?!?!!?
  • Moreover, it ignores potential technical issues a mandate of this nature raises,  Please see my comments to similar concerns raised by OOIDA. Furthermore, let me say here that the bill did not come out of thin air or the imaginations of two grieving moms. It is entirely based upon consultation with qualified engineers beginning with a working group which gathered at the Washington, D.C., offices of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in June 2016 after the First Underride Roundtable which took place at the IIHS Ruckersville, Virginia, testing facility on May 5, 2016. This group included representatives from Virginia Tech, IIHS, safety organizations, side guard designers, crash reconstructionists, the ATA, the Truck Trailer Manufacturing Association (TTMA), and a trailer manufacturer. Following this meeting, there was collaboration on a consensus document submitted to the Department of Transportation in September 2016. This document formed the basis of the original draft of the STOP Underrides! Bill. It was later refined with the help of legislative counsel before being introduced on December 12, 2017, and again on March 5, 2019.
  • . . . as well as the other technologies that exist for addressing these and other crashes, such as automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring systems, and adaptive turning assist. Those who want to end all preventable traffic fatalities take a safe system approach which recognizes that there is not just one cause of crashes and not just one way to reduce traffic fatalities. To put all your eggs in the basket of CRASH AVOIDANCE TECHNOLOGIES would be foolish and ineffective — especially when underride protection does not depend on driver behavior to work. Besides which, I have it on good authority that, at present, AEB in cars does not reliably detect large trucks. And, of course, as we all know, it will take some time before effective crash avoidance technologies are in the fleet 100%. Meanwhile, thousands of people could be saved through the use of comprehensive underride protection.
  • Finally, the bill ignores the diversity of our industry. In trucking, we know that one size does not fit all, and that investments in certain technologies that one company makes may not make sense for another. I have no idea who started that rumor. In fact, the bill does not prescribe a one size fits all solution. Rather, the bill calls a performance standard — meaning that the manufacturers/engineers would create design solutions which would be proven through crash testing to prevent underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI). We have already seen two engineers design completely different solutions to the side underride problem — both of them effective. In this country (well, this planet), we have an amazing pool of engineering minds and resources. I say, give them the green light to tackle the problem of underride!
  • Standards for new and in-service truck equipment should be based on sound economic and engineering principles that enhance safety, take into account real-world operations, and weigh possible unintended consequences. Again, where have they been? Have they not seen the research that has been done on front, side, and rear underride protection? What are they talking about? They certainly don’t specify. What do they mean, “enhance safety? And clearly they have never closely investigated the details of underride crashes. What unintended consequences are they referring to (they don’t elaborate a great deal) and what could be worse than having a truck enter your part of the car and crush or shatter your body?
  • As an example of an unintended consequence, in comments filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in May 2016, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) noted a European trailer manufacturer’s experience of trailer failures due to the increased rigidity in the trailer structure from
    added frame supports for side underride guards. The trailers were less flexible when operated over uneven road surfaces or on surfaces that produced twisting forces, which led to the trailers becoming disabled during highway use, presenting safety risks to other motorists. Okay, so they give a specific example here. This is talking about the problem in Europe with the Krone company’s side guards. First of all, if such a problem occurs, surely this should be detected through regular inspection and preventive maintenance. Secondly, an installed AngelWing side guard has had multiple miles on the road without incidence. And, third, if the industry were only willing to put resources into R&D of underride protection, any glitches or weaknesses in the equipment could be addressed. Engineers love to solve problems. If we gave up before even trying on every kind of technology, I would not even be typing these words on my computer or searching for valuable information on the internet or myriad other activities. Get my drift?
  • High-centering incidents already occur when operators of low frame trailers misjudge clearance heights at railroad crossings, which can result in tractor-trailers becoming stranded on railroad tracks. If all commercial vehicles were to have substantial side underride guards, as this bill requires, high-centering incidents would likely become more frequent. I addressed this question in the OOIDA letter. But I want to add that I recently looked up this issue and it really isn’t unique to side guards but a broader problem with infrastructure and routes. This is certainly something which could be discussed as a part of the Committee On Underride Protection.

    The Federal Railway Administration keeps a list of all railroad crossings with low ground clearance and posted signage like this: W10-5 Low Ground Clearance Railroad Crossing Sign

    So, do truck drivers plan their routes and search  this data base and look for crossings to avoid — with or without side guards?!?!!?!?!?!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCyb85kZm-w Charter bus got hung up on railroad tracks.
    Is there a physical fix? Not always. That leaves it up to the driver’s judgment.
    Up to city and county officials to work on crossings.
     
  • We need to be smart in directing safety-related resources, leveraging industry investments to result in the greatest potential benefit to highway safety, which is the only way we can hope to achieve the goal of accident and fatality-free highways. Clearly they do not have a Vision Zero or Toward Zero Deaths attitude — though supposedly NHTSA does, as does the House Highways & Transit Subcommittee — Every Life Counts.
  • The STOP Underrides Act would divert a significant amount of NHTSA and industry resources away from important crash avoidance technologies with wide-ranging benefits in all types of crashes to focus on a narrow type of crash and specific countermeasure unproven in real-world applications. Unproven? What kind of proof are they looking for? And NHTSA has had a lot of the work done for them already in the Bill and by engineers.
  • The Stop Underrides Act also fails to consider numerous complicating factors such as engineering tradeoffs involving weight, strength, and effectiveness of side guards. Currently, the only testing that has been accomplished involves a closed course staged dry van 53’ trailer with a dummy car speeding perfectly perpendicular at its side underride guard well below highway speed limits. Furthermore, the bill raises
    significant operational issues related to ground clearance, moveable trailer axles, and the diversity of truck and trailer designs. For example, the ridged specified design of side underrides would not work well with tank and bulk trailers that are cylindrical in size and require underbelly accessibility; flatbed trailers, which unloaded, are naturally curved to suppress weight; and intermodal trailers that are shipped and locked onto specific designed chassis for hauling. Simply put, these glaring operational concerns do not signify real world applicability, nor justify an industry-wide mandate.  Come on, people! A lot of these questions will be answered in the R&D process once the ball gets rolling. Have they no business sense? The people who have been working on solutions have been doing it out of their own pocket. Investors don’t want to invest until they know there is a market. It is a chicken & egg dilemma, a Catch 22. And until the industry recognizes the benefit to them and/or the government finally sees the light and issues a mandate, it will be in limbo and guess who will continue to pay the price!

My knee-jerk reaction to the ATA Letter of Opposition to the STOP Underrides! Bill

Truck Safety, , , ,

The American Trucking Associations (ATA) sent a letter, on June 4, 2018, to the sponsors of the STOP Underrides! Bill — including Senator Gillibrand — listing the reasons that they are opposing this life-preserving legislation.

ATA letter to Commerce TI on Safety and the STOP Underrides Act FINAL 6.1.18

Here is my knee-jerk reaction written as soon as I read the ATA’s letter. If there is a more official response, I will update this post.

    1. What % of the industry annual revenue and profit is the $10 billion Safety Spending?
    2. What is the industry annual revenue and profit for the same time period?
    3. ATA states that, “Without question, these investments are paying dividends in highway safety. Over the past decade, the number of truck-related fatalities has decreased by 11 percent despite steady growth in the overall number of trucks and truck-miles traveled” RESPONSE:  NHTSA: Large truck crash fatalities increased in 2016 According to data released by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), 4,317 fatalities occurring last year in crashes involving large trucks, which is 5.4% higher when compared to 2015 and is also the highest level of large truck crash deaths since 2007. http://www.trucker.com/safety/nhtsa-large-truck-crash-fatalities-increased-2016
    4. ATA states that: “significantly increased likelihood of high-centering of the side guards on steep changes in highway and street levels, such as elevated railroad crossings, and at warehouse docking wells. High-centering incidents already occur when operators of low frame trailers misjudge clearance heights at railroad crossings, which can result in tractor-trailers becoming stranded on railroad tracks. If all trailers were to have substantial side underride guards extended beneath the trailer sides, high-centering incidents would likely become more frequent.” Response: In fact, that is not a true statement. The engineers who have worked on trying to solve the side underride problem are ENGINEERS; they think about every aspect of the problem. They listen to truck drivers and motor carriers. Here is a reaction to that concern from Perry Ponder, an engineer for a small trailer manufacturer and designer of the AngelWing side guard: A 2002 Study by the University of West Virginia showed that trailers and trucks must be much lower to the ground than an underride guard to hang up on regulation railroad crossings and driveway and dock slopes.  One need look no further than how low semi-tractors are to the ground, or low-boy trailers. or car hauling trailers, to dispel the notion an underride guard at 16 to 18 inches from the ground cannot operate safely over the road.    Development of Design Vehicles for Hang-Up Problem (https://trrjournalonline.trb.org/doi/abs/10.3141/1847-02) , 2002 “Design vehicles were developed to evaluate the operation of low-ground-clearance, long-wheelbase, overhang vehicles on extreme hump or sag profile alignments. The literature review indicated that although formal studies had been conducted to develop design vehicles, these vehicles did not include the information needed to assess hang-up susceptibility on a particular vertical alignment. Relevant design vehicle dimensions for 17 vehicle types prone to hang-up were developed.  Relevant dimensions included wheelbase, ground clearance, and front and rear overhang. These vehicles can be used in conjunction with the HANGUP software or other tools in designing vertical alignments that reduce the likelihood of hangup problems. Because they are based on representative samples of both field-collected and manufacturers’ data and have been evaluated using the HANGUP software, the design vehicles are reasonable and have a rational basis. The proposed vehicles should receive broad review with an eye toward inclusion in appropriate design policies and guidelines.”
    5. ATA states that, “ the bill is not based on science, data or safety benefit. Moreover, the bill ignores the potential technical issues it raises, as well as the diversity of our industry and other technologies for addressing these and other crashes. In trucking we know unequivocally that one size does not fit all, and that investments in certain technologies that one company makes may not make sense for another. Standards for new and in-service truck equipment should be based on sound economic and engineering principles that enhance safety, take into account real-world operations, and weigh the potential unintended consequences.” Response: Their statement ignores the multitude of research studies (including NHTSA’s own Texas A&M virtual side underride study which was recently completed) and crash tests which have been done by engineers for decades. And, in fact, the ATA — knowing that the underride problem is vastly undercounted — could have been conducting their own research or putting tangible support behind ongoing research when they were predicting underride regulations in 2002. How much money could have been devoted to solving this problem if they had contributed $1 billion every year for 16 years since that time? See this ATA/TMC 2002 paper: A Brief Look at the Far Horizon An Exploration of What’s to Come for Trucking
    6. ATA states: “Recently, twenty automakers representing more than 99 percent of the U.S. auto market committed to make automatic emergency braking a standard feature on virtually all new passenger vehicles by 2022, which will help reduce many of the crashes where a passenger vehicle strikes a truck.” Response: How long before this will be present in 100% of the passenger vehicle fleet? What about weather-related conditions when that technology will not be effective? What about front override? What about side underride?
    7. ATA states: “the Stop Underrides Act would divert a significant amount of both NHTSA and industry resources away from important crash avoidance technologies with wide-ranging benefits in all types of crashes to focus on a narrow type of crash and a specific countermeasure that is unproven in real-world applications.” Response: Please specify exactly which resources will be taken away from crash avoidance technologies. What is now being put toward them? What will be required to be put into underride protection technology?
    8. ATA states:  “Regrettably, the bill is not based on science, data or safety benefit.“ Response: What do they call what the IIHS has done for years if not scientific, data-driven, safety-proven research? Jerry says, “The bill is based upon the NTSB Truck Underride Safety Recommendations to NHTSA in 2014.
      The bill was developed by a team of experts, engineers, manufacturers,  academic both national and international, lawyers, safety advocates and victims. The research by IIHS is scientific data driven and safety benefit research and testing. I recommend a field hearing at IIHS to not only disprove this point but to inform and educate the  House T&I Committee and Senate Commerce Committee on the facts of underride.
      “The courts differ on this as the Dodgen vs PJ Trailers case demonstrated through crash testing that the trailer design was dangerous and added known safety measures would have prevented the fatality in that situation.”
    9. ATA states: “a narrow type of crash and a specific countermeasure that is unproven in real-world applications.” Response: Terry Rivet is a good example of a proven countermeasure. 
       We know for certain that Terry Rivet is alive today because Stoughton trailers voluntarily upgraded the rear guard on their trailers. Mr. Rivet had an accident in snowy weather in New York and collided with a new Stoughton trailer with an improved rear underride guard on March 2,  2017. Tractor trailers need to be safer to prevent underride deaths, Gillibrand says  Maybe we should ask him if we should have waited until 2022 to see if the crash avoidance technology works. On January  3, 2018, there was another traffic pile-up in New York during whiteout conditions with dozens of vehicles involved. The only fatality was from a car rear-ending a tractor trailer with an older, weak rear underride guard — resulting in an underride death. 1 dead, 1 critical from Thruway crash involving dozens of vehicles Unfortunately, we cannot ask that driver how he feels about the idea of waiting until crash avoidance technology is available to end truck underride tragedies.

I Survived Because Of Stoughton.

Here are some other relevant trucking industry communications related to Underride Technology Mandates (with a response from Senator Gillibrand & a blogpost from a truck driver advocate):

It is unfortunate that the regulated industry has such power over how they are regulated. Their decisions and actions are apparently informed by a strong inclination to protect the bottomline rather than by the conscience of individuals within that industry. How frustrating that they do not truly take into account the “honest bottomline” for, if they did, they would know that it would be to their ultimate advantage to make full use of every safety technology available to them.

Here is a FAQ document with answers to frequently asked questions about the STOP Underrides! Bill: FAQ STOP Underrides Bill. I hope that it helps to get us all on the same page and moving more quickly toward effective collaboration to end truck underride tragedies with Win/Win solutions.

After all, this is not about making the truck industry get in line — or else. To quote Rose in The Last Jedi: That’s how we’re gonna win. Not fighting what we hate, saving what we love.

 

 

 

More Incriminating Evidence Points To Needless Neglect of Preventable Death By Truck Underride

Truck Safety, , ,

As I was getting ready to attend the American Trucking Associations’ Technology & Maintenance Council (ATA/TMC) Annual Meeting at the Georgia World Congress Center in Atlanta on Monday, I received an email with another document which points to the needless neglect of preventable Death By Truck Underride which has gone on for decades.

The latest piece of incriminating evidence just happened to be published in 2002 by the TMC themselves. It is entitled, TMC Future Truck Committee Information Report: 2002 — A Brief Look at the Far Horizon; An Exploration of What’s to Come for Trucking.

This document*, which was developed by the Technology & Maintenance Council’s (TMC) Future Truck Committee Far Horizons Subcommittee, predicted that there would be:

  • “Underride regulations for straight trucks (estimated)” [Single Unit Trucks] in 2005
  • “Frontal aggressivity regulations (tractors)” [Front Underride Protection] in 2006; and
  • “Side underride regulations for trailers (estimated)” in 2006.

Imagine! The trucking industry was predicting — 16 years ago — that there would be regulations in place 12 years ago to end preventable truck underride, yet they took no initiative to solve this engineering problem themselves! It has taken 2 moms (families), who lost daughters to this travesty in 2004 and 2013 (when the problem could have already been addressed), to push the industry and federal government to take action.

Not only that. . . there doesn’t seem to be any end in sight for this preventable highway carnage as the trucking industry continues to publicly oppose the STOP Underrides! Bill and the legislative offices, who could take action to move it forward, appear to be waiting for a Government Accountability Office (GAO) study to be completed on this issue — which could take a year to complete. Don’t we already have enough evidence, studies, reports, and recommendations* to indicate that this legislation will provide a practical solution to end an ongoing public health problem and should be given top priority?

Furthermore, though we had some encouraging meetings with trailer manufacturer leaders while at the conference, they could provide us with no timeline for when effective solutions might be available to prevent side underride or when upgraded rear guards will be offered as standard features on all trailers. In addition, although I have repeatedly attempted to organize a forum of manufacturers and engineers to collaboratively solve this problem more quickly, there is resistance to this idea — despite the claim that “Safety is not competitive.”

We know all too well that our daughters paid the price for the reality that safety is indeed, from all appearances, sacrificed to gain a competitive edge in the marketplace.

*The ATA/TMC Future Truck Committee (2002) report adds one more layer of proof that           truck underride has been a well-known and documented problem, including these         additional publications:

Sen. Gillibrand questions Chris Spear, CEO of ATA, on truck underride protection.

Truck Safety, , , ,

This morning, Senator Gillibrand took the opportunity at a Senate Environment & Public Works Committee Hearing on to ask Chris Spear, CEO of the American Trucking Associations, some questions about truck underride.

Thank you, Senator Gillibrand, for continuing to move us forward toward an end to preventable underride tragedies.

I met with Chris Spear on March 29, 2017, to discuss our newly drafted underride bill. And I wrote a post in May in response to the kinds of concerns he raised in the hearing today. He asked Senator Gillibrand to encourage NHTSA to speed their evaluation of whether the added weight of side guards would compromise the structural integrity of trailers.

Here is that post: Question for the ATA: Is it necessary to choose EITHER crash avoidance OR occupant protection — not BOTH?

And here is the response to Mr. Spear’s concerns — from the inventor of the AngelWing side guard, Perry Ponder:

AngelWing has undergone extensive standard industry testing and analysis including durability track testing. Designed by a trailer engineer (me), AngelWing works in harmony with existing trailer designs with no effect on the trailer structure or durability. 

Help hasten the installation of effective truck underride protection. Sign & Share our petition: Congress, Act Now To End Deadly Truck Underride!

Question for the ATA: Is it necessary to choose EITHER crash avoidance OR occupant protection — not BOTH?

Truck Safety, , ,

After the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) released their news about side underride crash testing, I began searching online for media reports on the results of their dynamic crash testing of a collision into the side of a trailer with and without a guard.

Among other things, I found —  in at least one article — explanations from the IIHS and a reaction from the American Trucking Associations (ATA):

“These guards can reduce the likelihood the car will go underneath the trailer and therefore save some lives,” said David Zuby, chief research officer for IIHS. “We wanted to show it is possible to provide a counter-measure.”
 
Since 1952, the federal government has required underride guards for the back of trucks as protection in rear-end collisions.
 
It does not have a similar rule for safety systems like the one tested by IIHS, a relatively new device known as an AngelWing side underride guard.
 
The crash protection “has several complicating factors,” said Sean McNally, a spokesman for the American Trucking Association.
 
Side guards add significant weight and can cause cracks in the frame rails of trailers, creating another safety issue, McNally said.
 

“Avoiding the crash in the first place is even more effective than trying to manage the impact of a crash,” he said. 

Read more here: ‘These crashes are catastrophic.’ The deadly impact of truck underride crashes, Patrick Terpstra, Cox Media Group Washington News Bureau, May 10, 2017

Sean McNally, as spokesman for the American Trucking Associations (ATA), is also quoted in another recent article:

The American Trucking Associations said the industry hasn’t come to an agreement on guardrails because they require trade-offs, including added weight. Side guardrails require stiffer trailers that can develop cracks in their frames, which presents another safety risk, ATA spokesman Sean McNally said.

McNally said the trucking industry wants to avoid crashes in the first place, and is supporting efforts to deploy safety technology like automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. Electronic logging devices, which track truckers’ driving and will be required by the end of this year, will also help to prevent crashes, he said.

“It’s important to recognize that all crashes are tragedies, but we also need to recognize that these guards are collision mitigation — and not collision avoidance — equipment and ATA’s primary safety goal is to prevent crashes,” McNally said. Safety group says truck guard rails could prevent deaths, Dee-Ann Durbin, AP Auto writer, Detroit, May 10, 2017

I have some questions for Sean McNally, as a representative of the ATA, but also for anyone else who might share his stated concerns:

  1. Have you seen the specifications for the AngelWing side guards, including weight and installation requirements?
  2. Have you spoken with (Perry Ponder) the designer and (Airflow Deflector) the manufacturer of the AngelWing side guard? I have.
  3. Have you considered that concerns about added weight can be addressed innovatively? For example, Stoughton Trailers was able to creatively engineer a way to offer stronger rear guards at no added cost or weight penalty to their customers (a guard which, I might add, has already saved at least one life!). Likewise, side guards used in conjunction with side skirts can offer fuel savings/efficiency to trucking companies.
  4. Upon what are you basing your conclusion that the Angel Wing side guards require stiffer trailers — which you say can cause cracks in the frame rails of trailers?
  5. You said, “Avoiding the crash in the first place is even more effective than trying to manage the impact of a crash.”  I assume that you are inferring that crash avoidance technology is more effective at saving lives than underride protection. Do you draw the same conclusion about other safety countermeasures, including air bags, seat belts, and crush zones in cars, as well as rear underride guards? Are you suggesting that it is not advisable to use available (and/or to develop new) safety countermeasures to protect occupants of passenger vehicles, as well as pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists?
  6. Is it necessary to choose either one or the other strategy to save lives, i.e., either crash avoidance or occupant protection? Why would we not proceed with both/and?
  7. I would also like you to clarify your statement that “ATA’s primary safety goal is to prevent crashes.” Just what does that mean anyway? Does that mean it is your only safety goal? Does that mean that you are unwilling to take whatever steps are necessary/possible in order to preserve life and health when a crash does occur?
  8. You made the statement that “all crashes are tragedies.” What is your definition of a tragedy? I think that it must differ from my definition of a tragedy. I do not agree that every crash is a tragedy. A “totaled” vehicle is not a tragedy. A life ended or a life permanently altered by physical injuries — especially when that outcome could have been prevented — that is a tragedy.
  9. I was in the horrific truck crash which killed my daughters, AnnaLeah and Mary. Because the truck’s rear underride guard was not effective in preventing underride, the truck entered my daughters’ occupant space and caused them to suffer fatal injuries. But, unlike them, I survived because the truck did not enter my occupant space.
  10. It was not the initial collision of our car with the truck which caused my daughters to die. It was underride which caused the “Second Collision” of the truck with their innocent, unprotected bodies.
  11. Therefore, to say that every crash is a tragedy is a misleading statement. Words are important. Words have power. Let’s make sure that our words are accurate — based on facts and truth — because those words may well shape the beliefs and decisions of those who have the authority to take actions which could prevent future tragedies.

Really, sorting out this decades-old dilemma can be whittled down to answering a simple question. Will we choose to:

  • continue to allow underride deaths?

OR

  • act responsibly and compassionately to prevent these tragedies?

It is my fervent hope that any confusion or misconceptions will be appropriately addressed and cleared up and that the excellent research, undertaken by the IIHS to verify the underride problem and its solutions, will aid us all in working out together a more humane way to protect vulnerable road users.

2 Moms, Sick & Tired of Waiting, Draft Truck Underride Legislation

Why COMPREHENSIVE Underride Protection Legislation?

 

Good Week for Working on Traffic Safety Solutions: ATA/TMC in Nashville & Road to Zero Coalition in DC

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety

I will be on the road this week pushing for safer roads — first at the American Trucking Associations annual Technology & Maintenance Council Conference in Nashville, Tennessee, starting tomorrow. Then on Wednesday I will be in DC for a Road to Zero Coalition meeting, as well as other opportunities to discuss traffic safety issues.

Still working on trying to get an additional meeting set up. . .

I’m armed with photos of my girls and plenty of information on how we can make the roads safer — not sure that they are ready for me!

Truck Underride Roundtable is one week away! May it be sehr gut!

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

On June 25, 2014, after a tour of the research & design center of a truck trailer manufacturer in Georgia, I wrote down these perplexing thoughts about the too-long unresolved underride problem:

Now, it is understandable, amid the multitude of demands and the tyranny of the urgent, that—without a ready solution, in fact, one which would require time and money to develop—this problem has not been given much attention. But, if those who bear responsibility for making sure that this problem gets solved (one way or another) had lost two of their beloved children—or any other loved one—I can guarantee you that they would have moved heaven and earth to find a way to prevent underride.

What makes it even more distressing is that there are many individuals and organizations, who truly seem concerned about safety, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the trailer manufacturers. Yet, from what I can see, very little communication has taken place to move this problem forward from point A (guards that fail and result in death and/or horrific injuries) to Point B (coming up with a better design that will provide the best protection possible). Underride Guards: Can we “sit down at the table together” and work this out?

From where I stood, there seemed to be no light at the end of the tunnel for this life-ending/changing problem. I had lots of ideas about what needed to be done but no sense that any thing was going to get done about it any time in the near future.

So, in trying to process what we learned at the meeting, I kept thinking over and over: Could an independent work group of qualified individuals, such as an engineering school, take on the challenge of creating such a design—which could then be tested by IHHS, proposed to NHTSA to aid in defining improved rear impact guard specifications, and provided to all trailer manufacturers? Could we do some kind of crowd funding or grant proposal to obtain the necessary funds to support such an endeavor? Could we perhaps even approach the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and ask them to seek contributions from their members for such a project?

Is cost truly not a factor? Is safety really a priority and not a competitive matter? Is it possible to improve the communication necessary to prevent more unnecessary deaths? Can we “sit down at the table together” and work this out?

I am so happy to be able to say that at the Underride Roundtable, one week from now on May 5, 2016, over 65 representatives from the trucking industry, government, safety advocates, engineers, crash reconstructionists, attorneys, and media will be on hand at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Vehicle Research Center to”sit down at the table together” and discuss and demonstrate truck underride crashes.

This group will include representatives from:

  • Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
  • American Trucking Associations
  • Seven Hills Engineering
  • Airflow Deflector
  • Accident Research Specialists
  • Sapa Extrusions
  • Truck Safety Coalition
  • AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety
  • Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
  • Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
  • Virginia Tech
  • East Carolina University
  • National Transportation Safety Board, Office of Highway Safety
  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • J. Hunt Transport
  • Batzer Engineering
  • Injury and Crash Analysis
  • Vanguard Trailer
  • Smart Cap Technologies
  • UNC Highway Safety Research Center
  • Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
  • Volpe, The National Transportation Systems Center
  • Interstate Distributor
  • NYC Citywide Adminstrative Services
  • Nurenberg Paris Law Firm
  • Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
  • Sanders & Parks Law Firm
  • The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
  • North Carolina Department of Transportation
  • Cargo Transporters
  • Stoughton Trailers
  • Great Dane Trailers
  • North Carolina State Highway Patrol
  • City of Boston, Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics
  • Interstate Distributors
  • Media representatives
  • Underride victims and families
  • and joined by an unknown number of individuals globally as the event will be livestreaming at this webcast link.

It is unfortunate that, over the decades in which no adequate solution to this tragic problem has come about, there has been much miscommunication, misunderstanding, misinformation, and mistakes made. I, for one, am ready to encourage things to move forward with positive momentum–aiming for the best possible underride protection.

In my morning reading, I was reflecting on some verses in Mark 11, which reminded me that the outcome is not totally dependent on me or any of the others who will be gathering in Ruckersville, Virginia, next Thursday. Instead, we are to. . .

“Have faith in God. Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going go happen; it shall be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be granted you.” Mark 11:22-24

And one more key thing, no matter what has and has not been done during the decades following the discovery of the horror of underride, we all need to forgive, put the past behind us, and find ways to work together to overcome this challenge.

“And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your transgressions.” Mark 11:25

And though we may forgive, we will never forget those we have lost and the reason we are here. . .

Never forgotten