On April 17, 2024 via Zoom, 8:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. (Eastern)
AGENDA
Welcome
Current Regulation – Iain Knight, Director & Principal Engineer at Apollo Vehicle Safety, UK
Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) View – Reimert Sjoblom, Expert Engineer Passive Safety with the Scania Group
Crash Data & Future Needs – Rikard Fredriksson, Senior Advisor at the Swedish Transport Administration, Professor at University of Chalmers, Euro NCAP Board
New Countermeasures & Test Methods – Rob Thomson, Professor of Vehicle Safety at the Chalmers University of Technology (Sweden)
Wrap up with Opportunity for Q&A and Discussion of What This Means for US
If you’d like to know more about front underride protection, join a Zoom presentation/discussion on April 17, 8:00 – 10:00 a.m. (EST). I know it’s going to be early, but we’ll be hearing from FUP experts located in the UK and Sweden. To receive a Zoom link, send your request to: marianne@annaleahmary.com.
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.
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.
The newly-released NTSB preliminary report describes June 3, 2019, Mississippi box truck/van crash with 8 fatalities: right front of the truck hit the right front of the van head-on. The truck OVERRODE the front of the van & penetrated the passenger compartment. Deadly PCI (Passenger Compartment Intrusion) occurred.
The driver of the van sat in a part of the van which did not go under the truck — no PCI (just like me). He walked away with minor injuries. The eight other van occupants all suffered fatal injuries.
On October 21, 2010, the NTSB issue a Truck Underride Safety Recommendation based upon the investigation of a 2009 crash in which a truck overrode 3 cars and 10 people died as a result. The Recommendation reads like this:
Since 2003, European Union countries have required front underride protection systems on all newly manufactured heavy-goods vehicles, which indicates that such a standard is feasible. The NTSB concludes that collisions between passenger vehicles and the front of single-unit trucks or tractor-trailers are common types of crashes that result in fatalities, and front underride contributes to crash severity. The NTSB therefore reiterates its prior recommendations that NHTSA. . . require all newly manufactured trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds to be equipped with front underride protection systems. . .
That was 9 years ago. Tell me, how many people could still be alive today had NHTSA acted upon that safety recommendation? Congress, I’ll say it again: the ball is in your court. Will you act decisively to STOP all forms of truck underride? Front, side, rear, tractor-trailer, single-unit truck, passenger vehicle, pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist.
June 26, 2009 front override crash near Miami, Oklahoma. Investigated by the NTSB
Being a passionate advocate for making truck crashes more survivable, I signed up for Google Alerts on truck crashes. Every night I get an email notifying me of truck crashes across the country. Mostly I look for evidence of underride. But I have noticed the frequency of truck crashes that involve fire. Why is that?
Last fall, I looked further into the problem of front override/underride of trucks over passenger vehicles — either in head-on collisions or when trucks rear-end passenger vehicles. What I found was that many countries have front underride protection standards to improve the outcome in such crashes — including Europe, Australia, India, and Japan.
The front underride/override protection (FUP) protects the passenger vehicle occupants. However, it also protects the truck’s components from damage — including the steering mechanism, which means a truck driver will be more likely to maintain control in a collision. Additionally, underride protection can potentially prevent contact with a fuel tank and thus prevent a fire from starting.
Offset front underrun in head on crashes where the light vehicle is likely to collide with
the steer axle and compromise the heavy vehicles steering, and/or the underrun leads to
heavy intrusion of the cabin space by the heavy vehicle structure. Front underrun in truck into car crashes where the underrun can:
• rotate the light vehicle downwards and lead to the heavy vehicle running over the light
vehicle with catastrophic results;
• push the petrol tank down and lead to fire when the truck impacts the rear of the light
vehicle (p.4).
Where there was the ability for the truck to overrun the car bumper bar, the effect would beto compromise the cars energy absorption and increase the likelihood of intrusions into the cabin space. A further effect is that the rear of the car is pushed down and so there is an increased likelihood of fuel tank ruptures and of sparks being generated by steel contact with the road surface and hence significant increases in the risk of fire. Hence overrun would be likely to increase the chance of fatalities in these crashes. (p.31)
Watch the rear of the car being pushed down in this side underride crash test:
The protection for the components of the truck are noted in this video of Volvo Front Underrun Protection System crash testing (starting at around 44 sec.):
So, tell me again why there is opposition and lack of action in the U.S. to mandate and install comprehensive underride protection — including Front Underride Protection (FUP). We are at a fork in the road: we can continue to let people die horrific underride deaths OR we can act decisively to mandate and move forward with comprehensive underride protection.
We are thankful to Cool Breeze Studio for creating this recently-released underride documentary — telling the stories of underride victims to shed light on this preventable problem.
Two days ago, I found an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Status Report from August 26, 1989. It had two articles about front underride protection which clearly demonstrated the benefit of installing that kind of technology on large trucks to reduce the severity of collision injuries.
Here’s another report which I found the next day. It is a NTSB Safety Recommendation from May 8, 2006, which clearly explains the benefits of front underride protection. Thirteen years ago. And I find myself to be the only one in the country talking about this at any level of insistence that we do something about this. Now.
I found it interesting that NHTSA stated in June 2000 that, “the common belief is that not much can be done to diminish the consequences of crashes between smaller vehicles and large trucks because of the significant differences in vehicle mass.
[I know this to be a MYTH both because I know that underride protection can significantly change the outcome and because I am a truck crash survivor of a horrific crash due to the fact that the truck did not come into my part of the car.]
“However, research has shown that geometric height differences and a lack of forgiving front truck structures CAN be modified to help reduce heavy truck aggressivity and to mitigate the severity of these types of accidents. Examples of these modifications, often referred to as ‘front underride protection systems’–which can result in reduced intrusion or occupant injury–include energy-absorbing front structures to offset the weight differences between two impacting vehicles, as well as bumpers designed to deflect the impacted vehicle away from the front of the truck, thereby reducing the total change in velocity of the smaller vehicle.”
This added information stirs up anger in me at what could have been done well before our crash — in which a truck hit us (front underride protection) and in which we collided with the back of a second trailer (rear underride protection). Fortunately, it also stirs up in me renewed energy and zeal to bring down the walls of Jericho and an end to this senseless loss of lives.
Every evening, I receive an email notification from Google Alert letting me know about recent truck crashes. Cheery, right? Many of them are frontal, head-on crashes between a car and a truck — or crashes when trucks rear-end cars, too. I know from research that Front Underride Protection (FUP) on trucks could reduce the severity of these crashes.
So when I read about one more of those in tonight’s Alert, I decided to do some more searching online about how FUP might help to prevent the fiery crashes which I frequently read about. One thing I found, that I had not read in the past, was a Status Report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety describing the benefits of FUP to reduce frontal crash severity. It was published on August 26, 1989 — thirty years ago.
The chart below shows that NHTSA has recorded front underride deaths for decades (although it is known to be greatly underreported). Yet, they have done nothing to mandate technology which could prevent these deaths.
In 2002, the trucking industry predicted that there would be front underride regulations by 2006 (dubbed frontal aggressivity). Yet, they have done nothing to make sure that their trucks are as safe as possible around the traveling public.
Why would a major semi-truck manufacturer, Volvo Trucks, install FRONT UNDERRIDE PROTECTION [FUP] — safety equipment which could prevent catastrophic injuries and unimaginable deaths — on their trucks in some countries (Europe and Australia) but leave it off in other countries (North America)? Any guesses?
A Road to Zero Coalition quarterly meeting was held on March 20, 2018, at the National Transportation Safety Board Conference Center in Washington, DC. The topic was Commercial Vehicles, from Safe Systems to Technology Innovations. (View the March 20 meeting agenda.)
The speakers and panelists at the Road to Zero Coalition spent the morning talking about Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety. Not one word was mentioned about underride until the end of the panel when the Safety VP of Schneider Trucking, Tom DeSalvio, mentioned that they are looking at using the improved rear bumper (on new trailers). I think that they have something like 56,000 trucks in their fleet. I could be wrong.
When I asked him if they would retrofit existing trucks he talked about looking at the fleet and what ones would be turning over. I assume by that that he meant when they would get rid of old trailers and purchase new. Not retrofit existing.
I asked Skip Yeagel, Volvo Trucks, about when would Volvo put Front Underride Protection (FUP) on their trucks [in the United States] or does he think that it would take a federal mandate for them to do so. He said that he couldn’t really say but he figured that it would probably take a mandate.
I just found this pdf from the expert from the European Commission. . . a draft amendment to update the Frontal Underrun Protection regulation. “The amendment is proposed in particular to allow more rounded shape of the cab in light of better aerodynamic performance.” https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2018/wp29grsg/GRSG-115-25e.pdf
Good job! Join my Underride Hero Hall of Fame. Certainly ongoing traffic safety research & development is appropriate if the pursuit of the best possible protection for road users is our goal.
Europe and Australia have underride protection on the front of large trucks. Yet, here in the U.S., there is not much talk about installing front underride protection to stop the horrific devastation which occurs when the front of a truck goes over the top of a car. Why is that?
Well, for one thing, it is not mandated by law in the U.S. whereas it is in Australia and European countries. And because it is not required, the trucking industry is not particularly motivated to use it since they don’t directly benefit from it — although they might change their mind if they look at the whole picture.
And the other thing is that front underride is a vastly misunderstood problem. The general attitude seems to be that it’s not something we can do anything about. Of course, a truck is so much bigger than a smaller passenger vehicle. So if a truck hits your car, you don’t stand a chance. The only thing we can do is try to stop the collision in the first place. Is that true?
As with rear and side underride, we continue to discover appalling facts about the problem of front underrride and how it, too, has been swept under the rug despite available research and technology. Supposedly, there has not been much research done to solve this problem. I’m finding that that’s not the case, after all. Let’s start with these links:
Update on November 23, 2018: Found this pdf from the expert from the European Commission. . . a draft amendment to update the Frontal Underrun Protection regulation. “The amendment is proposed in particular to allow more rounded shape of the cab in light of better aerodynamic performance.” https://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/doc/2018/wp29grsg/GRSG-115-25e.pdf
Australian FUP signed into law on September 16, 2009. Of note are some of the comments in a press release: a) FUP involves an impact barrier of prescribed strength and dimensions that catches or deflects a light vehicle during a collision to stop it sliding under a heavy truck. b) It can either be built in to the structure of the truck, or added on – in some cases replacing the function of a bull bar at the same time. c) By catching or deflecting the light vehicle, its occupant protection systems are then able to work effectively, mitigating injury to the light vehicle occupants. d) The international regulation (United Nations Economic Commission for Europe – UNECE – R 93) that the ADR is based on has been adopted in Europe. It will be adopted by Japan in 2012. It has not been adopted by the United States. e) In 2007, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government invited public comment on a Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS) for Underrun Protection. A draft ADR was then developed that took into account local requirements.It is estimated that FUP will provide benefits of over $20 million a year (including lives saved and injuries reduced and averted), once fully implemented. http://anthonyalbanese.com.au/new-truck-safety-rule-to-save-lives-2
We should be very concerned about the fact that, in a collision, when the FRONT of a truck hits a smaller passenger vehicle — either in a head-on collision or when a truck rear-ends a car — the lack of a front underride protection system (FUPS) means that we are very vulnerable to that truck going over the top of our car. FUPS can change the outcome.
Sapa Front Underride Presentation (international aluminum extrusion company has made FUP in Europe): Sapa Front Underride Presentation
That means there is a potential front override 96 times/day, 672 times/week, 2,912 times/month, and 34,944 times/year! So, tell me why we would not want to have Front Underride Protection (FUP) on trucks in this country!!!
And there are countless head-on collisions every year. I’m not sure how many of those are even being counted as truck underride fatalities.
Abstract, “Improvements to highway safety are in continual demand. One of the most severe instances of vehicle collision occurs as a result of vehicle weight and sizing mismatch. The fitment of Front Underride Protection Devices (FUPDs) upon tractor-trailers is studied as a method to improve crash compatibility between passenger vehicles and tractor-trailers involved in head-on highway crashes. While some countries require the use of FUPDs, no such regulation exists in North America. North America’s use of Conventional Tractors also presents a variation to Cab-over Engine Tractors popular in Europe. The distinction presents variations to FUPD design boundary conditions. A three tier design strategy is proposed and implemented in an effort to guide development of FUPDs for improved performance and robustness. Extensive testing is undertaken in establishing guidelines for further development and testing of Front Underride Protection Devices.” from a Canadian Thesis on Front Underride Presentation on Front Underride Protection: https://ir.library.dc-uoit.ca/xmlui/handle/10155/413?show=full
Although Europe has a different design for their Semi-Trucks, we discovered this weekend that Australia has a combination of trucks such as are found in Europe and those manufactured in the U.S. But because they are all required to have FUPS, major truck manufacturers, such as Kenworth, Freightliner, Mack, Mercedes-Benz, etc., have all developed FUPS designs which would work on North American trucks (Canada and the U.S.).
George Rechnitzer, Australian professor shared this with us: “The analysis of FUP requirements has been done decades ago in Great Britain and Europe, and in our studies in Australia (e.g see my 1993 MUARC report “Truck Involved Crash Study: Fatal and Injury Crashes of Cars and Other Road Users with the Front and Sides of Heavy Vehicles Monash University Accident Research Centre – Report #35 – 1993, download from here: https://www.monash.edu/muarc/our-publications/muarc035. Of course such findings and recommendations could be improved nowadays including the design and use of “large airbags on the front of trucks” – this would clearly need design, crash testing etc. But this should not stop the USA from adopting existing well established FUP designs and principles from Europe, Australia and elsewhere.”
Notice that last sentence: FUPS also helps to protect against any damage to the truck’s steering. That means not only is the passenger vehicle occupants protected but the truck’s steering is also protected and the truck driver is more likely to be able to stay in control when there is a collision. Win/Win!
I found that same good news in another document shared with us this weekend by George Rechnitzer. The Australian underride regulatory review (which unfortunately does a cost/benefit analysis unfavorable to side underride protection and improved rear protection) approved FUPS (front underride protection system): Aust Regulation Impact Statement for Underrun Protection 2009
From the Nature of the Problem section of that Australian document, p. 13: When an underrun crash between vehicles occurs, there are two noticeable outcomes. The first, as described above, is the trauma from the exposure of the smaller vehicle’s occupants to impacts with the interior compartment of their vehicle, occupant protection measures in the smaller vehicle being unlikely to engage. The second is the likelihood of further collisions arising from the loss of control of the heavy vehicle. This follows from damage to the steering or braking components of the heavy vehicle by the smaller vehicle.
Oh, look! Remember what the Kenworth Trucks brochure said about that: FUPS also helps to protect against any damage to the truck’s steering, thus enabling the truck driver to stay in control.
Then I noticed the crash test manager mention that very thing in the Volvo Youtube video of FUPS crash testing:
Also, Volvo is the first vehicle manufacturer to fit this type of underrun protection system to buses.
From the Background of that Australian document, p. 11: In terms of traffic safety, issues relating to heavy commercial vehicles have drawn considerable attention from policy makers, road safety engineers and the general public. For the purposes of this Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS), a heavy commercial vehicle is defined as a goods carrying vehicle with a Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) greater than 3.5 tonnes. Heavy commercial vehicles have many unique operating characteristics that have an effect on crash severity, such as high gross mass, long vehicle length and relatively long stopping distances. Aggregate data and previous research has shown that crashes involving trucks colliding with passenger cars, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians have an increased likelihood of producing a severe injury or fatality. This increase is in large part due to the incompatibility between vehicles due to geometric and mass differences. The compatibility of a vehicle is a combination of its crashworthiness and its aggressivity when involved in crashes with vehicles in the fleet. While crashworthiness focuses on the capability of a vehicle to protect its occupants in a collision, aggressivity is measured in terms of the casualties to occupants of the other vehicle involved in the collision. Crashworthiness is sometimes referred to as self-protection while aggressivity is sometimes referred to as partner-protection. Crash incompatibility is of concern in all vehicle-to-vehicle collisions. Heavy commercial vehicle-to-car collisions are one specific aspect of this problem but another one relates to heavy commercial vehicle-to-vulnerable road user collisions, such as motorcycles, bicycles and non-vehicles (ie pedestrians). This RIS addresses a particular type of crash event, which is a subset of heavy commercial vehicle crashes and referred to as a “heavy vehicle underrun crash”. A heavy vehicle underrun crash occurs when a passenger car, motorcycle, bicycle or pedestrian slides underneath the front, side, or rear end of a heavy commercial vehicle.
The terms aggressivity & partner protection, which I have not seen discussed at length in U.S. literature, reminds me of the 2002 American Trucking Associations/Technology Maintenance Council prediction of underride regulations by 2006 — including, Frontal aggressivity regulations (tractors) (estimated). Imagine! The trucking industry has been well aware of the great need to do something about this preventable cause of death.
From the Summary of that Australian document, p. 6: The objective of the Australian Government is to reduce the cost of underrun trauma. To this end, heavy commercial vehicle Underrun Protection (UP) has been investigated since the 1980s in various countries and is now mandatory in the European Union (EU) for commercial vehicles exceeding a GVM of 3.5 tonnes. While the heavy commercial vehicle manufacturer or operator would bear the cost of fitting UP, the principal beneficiaries would be other road users and the community generally (through the reduction in the severity of injuries). Therefore, existing market arrangements are not likely to respond to the problem and government intervention of a non-regulatory or regulatory type may be needed. Eight options, both non-regulatory (Options 1-5) and regulatory (Options 6-8), were investigated. The provision of Underrun Protection (UP) by self-regulation (Option 1) could be a low cost option and yet is unlikely to generate the high application rate required for new vehicles if underrun trauma is to reduce significantly. This is due to the competitive nature of the industry and because the costs of the option would be borne in the main by the vehicle manufacturer, and subsequently passed onto the operator and consumer, while a significant portion of the benefits would be received by the wider community.
Also, from the Abstract document, p. 3: The aim of this Regulation Impact Statement (RIS) is to examine whether there is a need for government intervention, to be directed towards new vehicle construction, in order to reduce the trauma from road crashes involving heavy commercial vehicle underrun. These crashes are often severe, because of the incompatibility in both mass and geometry of heavy vehicles and other road users such as passenger cars, motorcycles, bicycles and pedestrians. The need for some type of Underrun Protection (UP) was identified. Costs and benefits were estimated for eight possible non-regulatory and regulatory options to introduce UP. Although self-regulation is very much on the agenda of the road freight transport industry, it was concluded that the level of competition within the industry and the externality of any benefits achieved would not make this an effective option.
The front underrun protection prevents smaller vehicles in frontal crashes from being dragged under the body of a large truck. In its function as a high-strength steel abutment, it activates the energy-absorbing areas of the body of the advancing vehicle (crumple zones) so that the energy of the collision can be dissipated. See a photo of an FUP by Kirchoff Automotive (Germany): https://www.kirchhoff-automotive.com/products/commercial-vehicles/front-underrun-protection/
The Volvo brand is the brand that is most linked to safety. The reason is that since its founding in 1927 one of the most important goals of the company has been to make motor vehicles as safe as possible in traffic.
Many of the safety solutions in use today were first introduced by Volvo. Thanks to the scale of the combined resources of the Volvo Group and Volvo Car Corporation, the companies can invest heavily in research and development on traffic safety.
Two years ago, Volvo Buses was the first to launch FIP (Front Impact Protection), a reinforced front that increases protection for the driver and guide in a front-end collision. Currently, there are no EU requirements regarding the amount of energy the front of a bus must withstand. However, there is a standard for trucks and Volvo Buses’ FIP withstands energy amounts that exceed the truck requirement by 50%. VOLVOS COACHES FIRST WITH A FRONT UNDERRUN PROTECTION SYSTEM, 2006
So, why did Volvo publicly state at the Road to Zero Coalition, in March 2018, that they would not put Front Underride Protection on trucks unless the government mandates that they do so?!
Here is the STOP Underrides! Bill text for FUP: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/2219/text“(5) ‘front underride guard’ means a device installed on or near the front of a motor vehicle that limits the distance that a vehicle struck in the rear by the vehicle with the device will slide under the front of the striking vehicle.”;
“(c) Front Underride Guards.—
“(1) RULE REQUIRED.—Not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue a final rule requiring all commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds manufactured on or after the effective date of the rule to be equipped with front underride guards.
“(2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall—
“(A) complete research on equipping commercial motor vehicles with a gross weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds with a front underride guard to prevent trucks from overriding the passenger vehicle; and
“(B) submit to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the Senate and the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure and Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives a report on the research described in subparagraph (A).
“(3) RETROFIT REQUIREMENTS.—Not later than 3 years after the date of the enactment of this section, the Secretary shall issue a rule requiring all commercial motor vehicles with a gross vehicle weight rating of more than 10,000 pounds to be equipped with a front underride guard.
“(4) COMPLIANCE DATES.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), compliance with each of the rules issued by the Secretary under paragraphs (1) and (3) shall be required beginning on the date that is 1 year after the respective issuance date of each such rule.
“(B) PHASE-IN.—The Secretary may permit a phase-in period (not to exceed 3 years) pursuant to paragraph (3) for the installation of front underride guards on commercial motor vehicles.
