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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
