Tag Archives: FMCSA

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?

DOT Announced A National Roadway Safety Strategy; Now It’s Time To Talk About What That Means

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

I’m grateful that the U.S. Department of Transportation announced their National Roadway Safety Strategy (NRSS) on January 27, 2022. Like others, I’ve waited a long time to hear that news.

  • “We cannot tolerate the continuing crisis of roadway deaths in America. These deaths are preventable, and that’s why we’re launching the National Roadway Safety Strategy today – a bold, comprehensive plan, with significant new funding from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law,” said U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. “We will work with every level of government and industry to deliver results, because every driver, passenger, and pedestrian should be certain that they’re going to arrive at their destination safely, every time.” U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg Announces Comprehensive National Roadway Safety Strategy, January 27, 2022
  • While U.S. DOT has many tools at its disposal and will shoulder our
    responsibility, this must be a coordinated effort with our stakeholders across the public sector, private sector, advocacy, and research communities. National Roadway Safety Strategy, USDOT, January 2022

On the other hand, I heard strikingly similar rhetoric when Secretary Foxx spoke about the Toward Zero Deaths initiative in March 2015, as well as when NHTSA launched the Road to Zero Coalition in partnership with the National Safety Council on October 5, 2016 (more than a year after we launched our Vision Zero Petition). Here are some relevant quotes:

Deja vu. And what has changed? In any case, here we are. So let’s talk about how the NRSS could be applied to a specific traffic safety issue — truck underride. One Safe System principle included in the NRSS is Redundancy:

  • Redundancy is Crucial. Reducing risks requires that all parts of the transportation system be strengthened, so that if one part fails, the other parts still protect people.
  • The Safe System Approach emphasizes that redundancy is critical, and safer roadways mean incorporating design elements that offer layers of protection to prevent crashes from occurring and mitigate harm when they do occur.

This sounds exactly like the combination of crash avoidance technologies (along with improving driver behavior) to prevent crashes from happening, plus underride protection to reduce injuries when crashes do occur. In fact, I’ve previously written about that very topic:

The reality is that crash avoidance technologies cannot prevent all crashes. Even though crash avoidance technologies may be able to reduce speed at impact, they doesn’t necessarily prevent a collision from happening in every instance. In fact, when collisions do occur between a passenger vehicle and a large truck — even at 15 mph — they will likely result in deadly underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion unless effective underride protection has been installed on the truck. 

The NRSS uses the word zero 16 times, including here:

  • Zero is the only acceptable number of deaths on our highways, roads, and streets. The United States Department of Transportation is committed to taking substantial, comprehensive action to significantly reduce serious and fatal injuries on the Nation’s roadways.
  • U.S. DOT recognizes the Safe System Approach as encompassing all the roadway safety interventions required to achieve the goal of zero fatalities, including safety programs focused on infrastructure, human behavior, responsible oversight of the vehicle and transportation industry, and emergency response.

Therefore, I will expectantly draw the conclusion that the redundancy principle and the goal of zero fatalities will spur the US DOT to carry out their responsibility to oversee the transportation industry and thereby issue comprehensive underride protection rulemaking — front, side, & rear, on both tractor-trailers and Single Unit Trucks. To do otherwise is hypocrisy.

Will it be necessary for me to continue to ask the question: Is every death unacceptable? Were my daughters’ lives considered worth saving — along with countless other victims of Death By Underride? Is #ZeroTrafficDeaths meaningless rhetoric? Or, is it possible that I can count on the Department of Transportation to prioritize the saving of lives by issuing comprehensive underride rulemaking in which cost benefit analysis is no longer weighted in favor of industry?

Likewise, can I expect when NHTSA is informed of potential safety defects that they will proceed with formal investigations  — no matter how many deaths and serious injuries have been reported?

Underride Crash Victim Memorial Posts

@SecretaryPete, Will you fix flawed underride analysis or let deaths continue?

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

In 2020, I became aware of further proof that underride regulatory analysis was both flawed and non-transparent. For some reason, in 2017, the FMCSA contracted with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to carry out a Study of Truck Side Guards to Reduce Pedestrian Fatalities. Originally the study goals were listed on the website like this:

Five key tasks are included in this project: (1) study interaction of a potential side guard with other truck parts and accessories (e.g., fuel tanks, fire extinguisher, exhaust system) and the implications for a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation; (2) investigate applicable international side guard standards; (3) perform a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of truck side guard deployment; (4) propose recommendations; and (5) propose means for voluntary adoption.“  

When I found out that there were no plans to publish the completed study results, I made multiple inquiries at DOT and Congress. Some months later, after Departmental multimodal review, the results were whittled down to a literature review and finally published here:

A Literature Review of Lateral Protection Devices on Trucks Intended for Reducing Pedestrian and Cyclist Fatalities

When I realized that the majority of the report was missing, I submitted a FOIA Request asking for a copy of the entire report but was denied due to Exemption 5:

Exemption 5 protects the integrity of the deliberative or policy-making processes within the agency by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinion, conclusions, and recommendations included within inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters. Exemption 5 also exempts from disclosure draft documents and recommendations or other documents that reflect the personal opinion of the author rather than official agency position.  Finally, Exemption 5 exempts from disclosure deliberative records that may cause public confusion where the information were not the basis for an agency’s action or final report .

Any reasonable person could look at the conclusions from the published study and compare the data to the literature referenced and realize that there were problems. Here’s a fact sheet outlining the apparent flaws in the report published by FMCSA in May 2020:

Fact Sheet on FMCSA Side Guard (LPD) Report

A flawed conclusion and inconsistent crash analysis cut the apparent Vulnerable Road User safety benefit of side guards by approximately half.

This is bad. This is wrong. In the first place, the error leads to a flawed cost benefit analysis for underride rulemaking. In the second place, even the undercounted underride deaths for Vulnerable Road Users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists) – to the best of my knowledge – have not been included with data on underride deaths in prior NHTSA underride regulatory analysis. Really flawed cost benefit analysis.

Logic says that a flawed cost benefit analysis will lead to a faulty conclusion. The conclusion from multiple underride rulemaking efforts in the past has been that a regulation is not cost effective. In other words, those lives which could have been saved by underride regulations were not deemed worth the cost.

And, by the way, what exactly was the rationale behind leaving out information from the original study? What was DOT concerned about revealing? Would it have actually justified a side guard regulation, which would, of course, have not been looked on very favorably by many in the trucking industry? Would the study have provided a broader look at additional advantages of side guards, including their ability to increase aerodynamic fuel savings, spray reduction, wind stability, GHG reduction, or other accompanying side guard benefits?

As far as I can tell, NHTSA’s faulty analysis has resulted in “guidance” to the industry which effectively turned a blind eye to the fact that trucks with a dangerous design indisputably allow cars and Vulnerable Road Users to go under trucks and sentence thousands of road users to Death By Underride.

Quote is from Ride for Sylvia – Cleveland – 2020

To compound the problem, at least in recent years, underride rulemaking has been assigned to the Crashworthiness Standards division of NHTSA in the USDOT. In my opinion, that is not a good fit. The majority of rulemaking done by NHTSA has to do with the auto industry, whereas FMCSA is the agency charged with motor carrier safety.

Furthermore, underride protection doesn’t fit the definition of crashworthiness, namely, “the ability of a car or other vehicle to withstand a collision or crash with minimal bodily injury to its occupants.“ Underride protection is installed on trucks but does not protect truck occupants. So the trucking industry gets away with claiming they’re not responsible to take care of the problem. And it isn’t a feature of the car whose occupants need to be protected, so the automakers don’t have any responsibility. Consequently, underride protection doesn’t truly fit into the current NHTSA division of responsibilities as far as  I can tell. The result: on top of industry opposition, underride rulemaking seems doomed because, organizationally, it falls between the cracks.

It appears to me that this complex issue would be better suited as a multimodal collaborative project under the coordination of the Office of the Secretary rather than buried at NHTSA without suitable input from other agencies and the yet-to-be-established Advisory Committee On Underride Protection. Maybe then the Underride Initiative would get the priority status it requires and All Road Users would finally be protected from Death By Underride.

Oh, look, DOT just published their priority Innovation Principles, including this one:

The Department should identify opportunities for interoperability among innovations and foster cross-modal integration. In addition, DOT’s posture must remain nimble, with a commitment to support technologies that further our policy goals.

Will the U.S. DOT let the flawed analysis stand? Or will the coming year see significant progress in underride rulemaking? Secretary Pete, the final determination will be in your hands. Will you decide that comprehensive underride protection is warranted?

Why are we working so hard to get weak rear underride guards replaced?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

Not only have we lost two daughters due to a weak rear underride guard, but we continue to see countless loved ones lost to other families in a similar way. Senseless deaths. Solutions are available — developed by innovative engineers but too often left on the shelf while people continue to die.

I get Google Alert notifications of truck crashes every day. Here are the rear underride fatalities which I have found in the last few months:

This memorial remembers a few of the countless underride victims from past years.

This video shows the difference between too weak & stronger guards:

Convinced?

Let’s work together to get damaged rear underride guards off the road!

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

Anyone, who observes a rear underride guard in an obvious state of disrepair, can report it to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) via their online National Consumer Complaint Database. Make note of the name of the trucking company. If possible, memorize its DOT# and get a photo of the guard. Then follow these step-by-step instructions for reporting this truck safety hazard as soon as possible:

Here are some examples of rear underride guards in disrepair — a condition which weakens their ability to stop a car from riding under the truck in the event of a collision:

Millions of trucks on the road have rear underride guards which are already too weak to prevent deadly underride. When they are not properly maintained, their strength is reduced even further.

See the DIFFERENCE: IIHS crash tests of weak & stronger rear underride guards

As of December 9, 2021, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) is requiring that trucking companies monitor the condition of the rear underride guards on the back of their trailers. Truck drivers should look over this safety equipment when they do a pre-trip inspection. If this Rear Impact Guard has not been properly maintained, the trucking company and the truck driver could receive violations with fines attached at the time of annual vehicle inspection due to a Final Rule published by the FMCSA.

If a truck fails the inspection, the violation could cost a motor carrier a maximum of $15,876 and a truck driver $3,969. This could lead to the replacement of many rear underride guards — hopefully, with guards that meet the TOUGHGuard level of strength proven possible by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and now on many new trailers.

Motorists who notice guards in questionable condition can help to make sure that this important regulation gets enforced by using this tool to report them to the U.S. Department of Transportation:

Let’s hope that trucking companies and truck drivers will take responsibility themselves to properly maintain this safety equipment and even go so far as to replace outdated equipment with the stronger retrofit kits which are available thanks to innovative engineers — at a cost less than that of fines!

Recent Rear Underride Fatalities:

Why are we working so hard to get weak rear underride guards replaced?

FMCSA Issues Final Rule: Rear Underride Guards To Be Part Of Annual Inspections

Truck Safety, , , ,

FMCSA has issued a Final Rule, effective December 9, 2021, requiring Rear Impact Guards to be inspected as part of commercial motor vehicle inspections on those trucks which must have them installed. This is good because a guard weakened by cuts, tears, rust, bends, or loose connections is going to be less likely to prevent a car from going under a truck.

If a truck fails the inspection, the violation could cost a motor carrier a maximum of $15,876 and a truck driver $3,969. This could lead to the replacement of many rear underride guards — hopefully, with guards that meet the TOUGHGuard level of strength proven possible by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and now on many new trailers.

This is what I know about the availability of replacement equipment:

Retrofit Solutions for Rear Impact Guards to Prevent Deadly Underride

Examples of poorly-maintained guards:

Proper Maintenance of Underride Guards Can Spell the Difference Between L-i-f-e & D-e-a-t-h

IIHS Research Provides Foundation for Traffic Safety Legislation – Including Underride

Truck Safety, , , , , , , , , ,

This week, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) justifiably pointed out how their amazing safety research has led to much of the bipartisan traffic safety legislation which the Senate and House recently passed — likely to see final confirmation in the coming weeks. Thankfully, this legislation includes underride provisions — for an updated rear guard standard and further research on side underride.

Years of work by IIHS-HLDI paved way for safety provisions in infrastructure bill, August 25, 2021

What the IIHS did not mention was how long it has taken for that legislation to come about — decades. Further, they didn’t stress, as strongly as I would have, how frustrating it is that the IIHS research — coupled with recommendations from the NTSB — still doesn’t seem to be enough to warrant a straight-out mandate for side guards.

On top of that, the IIHS did not mention the missing components of the underride legislation; the infrastructure bill does not include even a hint of research regarding protection of the traveling public from deadly underride under Single Unit Trucks (otherwise known as straight or box trucks) or at the front of large trucks. And we’re talking not only about passenger vehicle occupants but, also, Vulnerable Road Users — pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. Yet, IIHS and FMCSA have published reports about those safety hazards:

IIHS Status Report, August 26, 1989

If NHTSA is truly data-driven, then shouldn’t the fact that 61% of the two-vehicle truck crash fatalities in 2019 occurred with first impact at the front of large trucks spur significant research into front underride protection? Shouldn’t we at least consider the potential for proven technology — already installed by major international truck manufacturers on their products in other countries — to make truck crashes more survivable?

Will we, instead, continue to ignore the preventable deaths which occur year after year? Perhaps might we, at least, engage in meaningful, collaborative conversation about potential solutions — active and passive — to end these tragedies? Other countries have done so.

Volvo Trucks Safety – FUPS crash test, published 2009
Front Underride Protection Panel
Engineers, Trucking Industry, & Victim Advocates Collaborate at Side Guard Task Force February 2021
Front Underride Protection Presentation at a Congressional Staff Briefing, by Friedman Research Center

What is wrong with US? Dare I hope that we might finally come to our senses and pursue significant change?

Will DOT Respond to Petition for Underride Rulemaking on Single Unit Trucks?

Petition for Underride Rulemaking on Single Unit Trucks (sign here)

Collaborative Discussion of Side Guard Challenges on Specialty Trucks

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

I was very pleased with the collaborative discussion which took place via Zoom on Monday, March 29, 2021, regarding the challenges of adding side guard safety technology to specialty trucks. Participants included primarily engineers and small companies who have been working on researching, designing, and/or marketing solutions to the underride problem. The meeting was also quietly observed by families of underride victims and administrative officials from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

Here is a summary of the discussion regarding the challenges of installing side guards on a variety of large trucks:

Discussion of Side Guards for Specialty Trucks – Underride Engineering Subcommittee

I have heard comments, in the past, that individuals and companies, which are designing, testing, and marketing innovative underride protection technology, are just in it to make money — as if they shouldn’t be trusted. I have found this to be far from the truth. I have observed selfless commitment to staying the course for the long haul to bring about solutions to a deadly problem which has been swept under the rug for far too long — with little hope, along the way, that there would be either a mandate or widespread voluntary adoption. Despite the decades of uncertainty, these resourceful people have held fast to this impossible dream.

The friendly and informative discussion among what-might-be-considered competitors was productive and appreciated. I hope that this meeting’s cooperative interaction to reach a shared goal is a foretaste of good things to come.

Utility Trailers Encourages Retrofit of Rear Impact Guards To Prevent Underride

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

Last evening, I received some amazing news! Utility Trailer Manufacturing has announced that their improved Rear Impact Guard (RIG) will be offered at a discount.

Utility “is pleased to announce its dry vans, refrigerated vans and flatbeds produced after 2002 can be retrofitted with Utility’s standard 7” deep horizontal Interstate Commerce Commission (I.C.C.) bumper. . .

“Utility strongly recommends their 7” deep horizontal bumper for horizontal bumper replacement on new or older Utility trailer models that were built after 2002 in order to exceed all rear trailer guard safety regulations. Utility will discount the new bumpers as an incentive to replace the old bumpers with the new upgraded 7” deep bumper. . .

“. . .is also I.I.H.S. certified and TUFF Guard awarded. TUFF Guard awards trailers with guards that prevent underride in all three of the institute’s rear underride tests . . . Utility Implements Standard 7’’ Rear Impact Guard on All Trailer Models

We are hopeful that this bold move will pave the way for all trailer manufacturers to follow suit. These retrofit kits will be available to replace not only damaged RIGs but the RIGs on millions of trailers on the road today which have rear underride guards which are TOO WEAK to stop underride all across the back of the trailer.

Thankfully, there are many RIG retrofit solutions available. This is what I know:

This just goes to show you that, by working together, we can STOP underrides. I’m hoping that 2021 will bring significant progress in underride protection!

FMCSA Proposed Rule For Inspection of Rear Underride Guards

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

A red letter day: The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) at long last has proposed a rule to add rear underride guards to Appendix G. What does that mean? It means that rear underride guards will be required to be in good condition in order to pass an annual vehicle inspection. Once the rule is actually issued.

The Public can comment on this proposed rule through March 1, 2021, by going here.

This describes the current status of rear guard inspection requirements, according to FMCSA:

While the FMCSRs have required rear impact guards for more than 65 years, they are not included on the list of components in Appendix G that must be inspected during the annual CMV inspection. This means that a vehicle can pass an annual inspection with a missing or damaged rear impact guard. https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2020-27502.pdf

Imagine!

In response to petitions from the CVSA and Jerry and Marianne Karth (“the Karths”1 ); a recommendation included in GAO Report GAO-19-264, “Truck Underride Guards: Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research Needed;”2 and Congressional correspondence,3 this rulemaking proposes to amend the FMCSRs to include rear impact guards on the list of items that must be examined as part of the required annual inspection for each CMV.

I have not yet read the whole document, but I am getting ready to do so now in order to make an informed and practical comment. I will definitely recommend that damaged guards be replaced with ones which meet the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) TOUGHGuard level of strength to STOP deadly underride — not merely with an older model which has been proven to be too weak.

Over one hurdle. On to the next.

Proper Maintenance of Underride Guards Can Spell the Difference Between L-i-f-e & D-e-a-t-h