Tag Archives: front underrun

NTSB Preliminary Report: Box Truck Overrode Van Killing Eight

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

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.

Read it here. NTSB Preliminary Report, July 24, 2019: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HWY19FH009-preliminary-report.aspx

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

STOP Underrides! Petition to Congress: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/104/712/045/congress-act-now-to-end-deadly-truck-underride/

Overlooked Vulnerabilities in Truck Crashes: Damage to Steering Mechanism & Fuel Tank

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

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.

NTSB Recommended FRONT OVERRIDE PROTECTION In 2010

after Truck OVERRODE 3 vehicles

Note the mention of fire and damage to the steering mechanism related to an underride crash in this research study, REVIEW OF TRUCK SAFETY: STAGE 1: FRONTAL, SIDE AND REAR UNDERRUN PROTECTION

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 be to 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.

Congress, Act Now To End Deadly Truck Underride!

Front Underride Protection Brochure 6

Myth: Significant differences in vehicle mass responsible for truck crash severity. #STOPunderrides

Truck Safety, , , , , , , ,

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.

“Front End, Energy-Absorbing Truck Guards Reduce the Risks for Motorists”, 8/26/89, IIHS Status Report

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.

https://www.ntsb.gov/…/safety-recs/recletters/H06_16.pdf

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.

“Front End, Energy-Absorbing Truck Guards Reduce the Risks for Motorists”, 8/26/89, IIHS Status Report

Truck Safety, , , ,

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.

Read it for yourself:  IIHS Status Report on Front Underride Protection August 26 1989

Now, tell me again why we don’t have FUP on trucks in the United States (though many other countries do). I’m waiting. . .

Front Underride Protection Brochure 6

Posts on Front Underride Protection

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.

Truck Underride Deaths by TYPE 1994-2014

NHTSA FARS data on underride deaths BY STATE, 1994-2015

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.

2002 ATA Prediction of Underride Regulations

NTSB FUP Recommendations

NTSB Recommended FRONT OVERRIDE PROTECTION In 2010 after Truck OVERRODE 3 vehicles

@VolvoTrucksNA Why would you install safety equipment on your trucks in some countries but not others?

Truck Safety, , , , , , ,
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?
 
 
I would like to talk to their CEO and/or President and find out if they are aware of this situation.

Volvo U.S. Patent Application for Front Underrun Protection, 2001

Previous Front Underride Posts

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.

Front Underrun Protection (FUP) on Volvo Trucks in Australia

Capitol Hill Underride Briefing, October 2017: Front Underride Protection Presentation Keith Friedman

European Commission Expert Proposes Draft Amendment to Improve Front Underrun Protection Standard

Truck Safety, , , , , ,

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.

Well, then. . . let’s get on with it, shall we?

Major truck manufacturers have Front Underride Protection designs which can work on American trucks.

Truck Safety, , , , ,

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?

Front Underride Protection Brochure 6

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:

  1. 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
  2. IIHS Status Report, August 26, 1989: Front End, Energy-Absorbing Truck Guards Reduce the Risks for Motorists
  3. 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
  4. 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.
  5. Sapa Front Underride Presentation (international aluminum extrusion company has made FUP in Europe): Sapa Front Underride Presentation

  6. “Fred Andersky, director, customer solutions, controls with Bendix, said at the North American Commercial Vehicle show that every 15 minutes in the U.S., a large truck rear-ends a passenger car.”  https://www.trucknews.com/equipment/bendix-developing-next-gen-safety-systems/1003081127/

    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!!!

  7. 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.
  8. Andreas Ratzek, a German crash test manager with ADAC, shared this information with us: United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Front Underride Protection Standard from 1993:   http://www.unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/trans/main/wp29/wp29regs/R093e.pdf
  9. EUR-Lex: Access to European Union Law
  10. a link to VC-compat, a European research project that also covers FUP
  11. Raphael Grzebieta shared with us the Australian FUP Standard: Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 84/00 – Front Underrun Impact Protection) 2009
  12. 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
  13. 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.).
  14. 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.”
  15. Kenworth Trucks brochure, Kenworth, Safety By Design, August 2019, mentions Front Underride Protection (https://www.kenworth.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/Kenworth-Safety-Brochure-Aug-2018-Web-Version.pdf): FRONT UNDERRUN PROTECTION SYSTEM (FUPS)
    Designed to prevent a car from being trapped underneath the truck
    in the event of a frontal collision, factory fit FUPS are standard on
    all Kenworth models.
    FUPS also helps to protect against any damage to the truck’s
    steering, thus enabling the truck driver to stay in control.
  16. 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!
  17. 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
  18. 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. 
  19. 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.
  20. Then I noticed the crash test manager mention that very thing in the Volvo Youtube video of FUPS crash testing:

  1. Also, Volvo is the first vehicle manufacturer to fit this type of underrun protection system to buses.
  2. 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. 
  3. 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.
  4. 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. 
  5. 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. 
  6. Energy Absorbing Front Underrun Protection for Trucks: Developing a test procedure By Iain Knight
  7. Photo of an Isuzu FUPS: Our front axles now come with FUPS (Front Under-run Protection System) meaning you can safely carry up to 6.5 tonnes over the front axle.
  8. 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/ 
  9. The Influence of Recent Legislation for Heavy Vehicles on the Risk of Underrun Collisions: Axel Malczyk, Unfallforschung der Versicherer, Berlin
  10. VOLVO’s motto of safety:

    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

  11. 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?!
  12. 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.

  13. National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) Front Underride/Override Crash Investigation and underride safety recommendations. See crash photos here and the report here: NTSB Recommended FRONT OVERRIDE PROTECTION In 2010 after Truck OVERRODE 3 vehicles
  14. NHTSA FARS data on front underride deaths (remember, this is an under-reported problem): https://annaleahmary.com/2016/08/truck-underride-deaths-by-type-from-dot-fatality-analysis-reporting-system-fars-1994-2014/
  15. Really, what NHTSA could do is adopt the UNECE 93, FUPS Standard. Novel idea.
  16. annaleahmary.com posts on FUP: https://annaleahmary.com/2017/10/understanding-underride-v-front-underride/and https://annaleahmary.com/tag/front-underride/

Understanding Underride V: Front Underride

Truck Safety, , , , ,

Update, December 22, 2018: Front Underride Protection Brochure 6

Posts on Front Underride Protection

A panel of experts discuss underride at a Briefing on The Hill, October 12, 2017, to bring greater understanding of the problem and solutions of deadly but preventable truck underride. Keith Friedman, Friedman Research Corporation, discusses Front Underride Protection.

For more information on the STOP Underrides! Act of 2017, go to https://annaleahmary.com/ and/or https://stopunderrides.org/

Note: On November 14, 2018, I found a 2015 21st Century Truck Partnership report which mentions SAFETY and the huge problem of FRONT OVERRIDE: 21st Century Truck Partnership Report

Previous Posts on Front Underride Protection (FUP):

  1. People die, on a regular basis, when their car goes under the front of a large truck. Europe has a Front Underride Protection standard for large trucks. Here is some research on this topic to help inform U.S. lawmakers, regulators, and industry leaders on how we can bring this added level of protection to our roads.  .  . Read more here: Front Underride Protection Research; Why don’t we have FUP in the U.S.?
  2. How Far Have We Come In The 50 Years Since Jayne Mansfield’s Death By Truck Underride?
  3. “Crash Analysis of Front UnderRun Protection Device using Finite Element Analysis” research from India
  4. Powerful & Informative Case Made for Underride Guard Improvement by Trucker/Attorney
  5. Why Front Underride or Front Underrun is Important (Deadly yet preventable?)
  6. FRONT Underrun Protection Systems (FUPS) Research; So why does Europe require this & US does not?

Front Underride Protection Research; Why don’t we have FUP in the U.S.?

Truck Safety, , ,

People die, on a regular basis, when their car goes under the front of a large truck. Europe has a Front Underride Protection standard for large trucks. Here is some research on this topic to help inform U.S. lawmakers, regulators, and industry leaders on how we can bring this added level of protection to our roads.

  1. Heavy Truck Front Underride Protection Devices Design Principles, International Journal of Vehicle Systems Modelling & Testing, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2011
  2. Heavy truck front-end deployable system opportunities for crash compatibility with passenger vehicles, Keith Friedman, D. Mihora, & J. Hutchinson, Pages 1-12 | Received 07 Aug 2015, Accepted 31 Jan 2017, Published online: 22 Feb 2017,  ABSTRACT
    By 2030, substantial increases in the number of heavy trucks are expected to be on roadways throughout the United States. Currently, 3000 to 5000 occupant fatalities occur in the vehicles impacted by heavy trucks. A significant portion of these engage with the front end of the heavy truck. The use of radar systems has been shown to significantly mitigate many of these rear-end crashes. In this study, the use of deployable front-end airbags is evaluated in terms of the potential effects on passenger vehicles when they are struck in the front or rear by the front of a heavy truck. A virtual testing methodology for the evaluation of various designs under impact conditions is described. The study reports on the potential effects of radar-activated, heavy-truck, front-end airbag systems on crash mitigation in front- and rear-end impacts.
  3.  Rear underride crashes are easier to address than front or side ones, IIHS Status Report, Status Report, Vol. 48, No. 2 | March 14, 2013, Front underride guards, which are required in the EU to protect vehicle occupants in crashes with combined speeds of about 35 mph, also might prevent some deaths. An earlier Institute study of fatal truck crashes in Indiana found that 9 out of 44 front underride crashes might have been survivable in the absence of underride (see “FARS undercounts fatal large truck-car underride crashes,” Feb. 15, 1997).
  4. SuperTruck project for fuel efficiency might also provide better front underrun protection with tractor design. In trucking today, it seems nothing is off the table when it comes to enhancing vehicle fuel efficiencies. Old technologies are being reexamined, while new ones are studied and tested. A new era of ultra-clean, ultra-efficient trucks is just around the corner, likely putting old-style, long-nosed, slab-grilled rigs out to pasture once and for all. See SuperTruck tractor photos here: Fuel Smarts The Future of Fuel Economy, Truckinginfo.com, by Jack Roberts, June 2016
  5.   Design of a Tractor for Optimised Safety and Fuel Consumption 3.4 Future Design Concept Trucks
    The EC funded integrated project Advanced PROtection SYStems “APROSYS” is one of the most important projects for this study because it is intended to start this project based on these results. In the APROSYS project a safety concept for commercial vehicles which is able to deflect a vulnerable road user (VRU: pedestrians and cyclists) sideways in case of an accident by using the impact impulse was developed. The achieved deflection reduces the risk of a run over. A tapered truck front has been designed and analysed that allows additional deformation space for frontal collisions. Such a front shape can be realised by an add-on structure mountable to the front or by a fully integrated concept as shown in Fig. 3-13. In this project the integrated concept will be scaled to a 40 t-HGV truck.                                                                                                             During the development phase of the new front structure in APROSYS a large number of design versions were generated and assessed. The resulting final principal shape was compared to the basic truck in various numerical simulations with different accident scenarios, pedestrian models and parameter settings. Due to the deflection principle, which is used in the rounded front design for the weakest traffic participants, the structure underneath can be designed mainly for protecting the heavy vehicle’s occupants and integrating partner protection relating to passenger vehicles (improved compatibility). The deflection is not only a solution for the protection of pedestrians, but also reduces the impact energy introduced into the heavy vehicle and the passenger car in a HGV-to-car-accident.
    Such a convex truck front can significantly reduce the risk of a run over for VRU and also deflect passenger cars. In addition, it provides a crush zone for energy absorption. The enhanced passive safety could be shown in avoiding serious rollover accidents by 87.5 % of the simulated cases in APROSYS [FAS08].
    Another concept truck shown in Fig. 3-14 was presented at the IAA Commercial Vehicles
    2002 in Hannover. The Aero Safety Truck is a semi-trailer tractor for long-distance transport.
  6.  NHTSA – THE HEAVY GOODS VEHICLE AGGRESSIVITY INDEX

    http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0323.pdf  Currently the structural AI is addressing the primary
    contact only (the contact with the truck front).
    However, numerical studies and experiments [14]
    have shown the severity of the secondary impact
    makes it a highly relevant aspect for future
    consideration. Studies of the “nose cone” [6]
    indicated not only a reduced likelihood for run-over,
    but also a reduced severity of the secondary impact
    (prevent forward-projection of pedestrian).
    Existing test methods for passenger cars are
    continually under development, such as the research
    into rotational acceleration as an assessment method
    The concept was developed in the innovation and design centre of the vehicle manufacturer Hymer. The improved aerodynamics lead to a reduction in fuel consumption of up to 3 l/100 km. An improvement of safety is realised by an extremely stiff safety cage [LAS03, HYM02]                                                                                                              The DAF Xtreme Future Concept (XFC), which can be seen in Fig. 3-15, was presented at the IAA Commercial Vehicles in 2002. The improved aerodynamic concept reduces fuel consumption and the danger of overrunning other road users by a deflecting frontend. The cabin is designed to be based on an aluminium space frame [EAA02].                                                                                                                                                    The Scania Concept illustrated in Fig. 3-16, was also presented on the IAA Commercial
    Vehicles in 2002 as a bonnet truck concept for the future. The targets are to identify the market interest for this concept and to optimise aerodynamics. In 2003 an additional concept was presented with the Scania Crash Zone Concept. It has an added structure of 600 mm at the front that absorbs more energy than that of a conventional truck. Therefore the survivable collision speed rises from 56 to 90 km/h. It has potential to reduce the number of fatalities in car to truck collisions. The extra weight for nose concept amounts to 250 kg [SCA02, HAH03].                                                                                         In 2008 MAN presented the Bionic Truck with the body form of a dolphin shown in Fig. 3-19. The design of the truck leads to a reduction of fuel consumption up to 25 % according to the manufacturer’s declaration. Therefore the cabin needs to be lengthened by 70 cm and the trailer by about 50 cm. So over all, the truck is 1.2 m longer than a conventional truck.
    Furthermore comprehensive design changes are carried out at the tractor and at the trailer. The trailer has a much rounder front shape. The trailer has a tear drop shape with a tapered rear part and its wheels are covered. For these reasons the truck has a cD value of 0.29 [SCH08].

  7.  Investigating the extent to which UNECE Regulation 93 constrains the ability of Europe to permit longer trucks to improve environmental and safety benefits By Iain Knight
  8. Piercing the Passenger Compartment — Voluntary Efforts to Stop the Horrors of Underride Truck Crashes by Andy Young

Other posts on Front Underride Protection:

March Historically a Momentous Month for Truck Underride Safety Advocacy; Beware the Ides of March!

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

March has historically been a momentous, memorable month for truck underride safety advocacy. Not that other months are totally devoid of such activity, but I have observed a noticeable pattern:

  1. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has studied and reported on the truck underride problem for many years. After our underride crash on May 4, 2013, we discovered that they had published a report on this issue just a few months earlier on March 14, 2013, as well as a prior report on March 1, 2011.
  2. On the 37th anniversary of our marriage, our family launched the AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up for Truck Safety Petition on March 19, 2014, with one of the petition requests being to improve truck underride protection (rear, side, and front on tractor trailers, as well as for Single Unit Trucks).
  3. Later that week, on March 23, 2014,  I published a Youtube video to explain why we had launched the petition and what we were asking for–including an upgrade of the weak, ineffective federal underride standards.
  4. During the almost three years which have passed since that terribly tragic day in May, we continue to uncover new (to us) information which surely should have led to improved underride protection long before now. For example, about a month ago, I became aware of a March 16, 1977 (when I was 21–just a few days from my wedding) Senate Investigative hearing, which was reported on in the March 29, 1977 IIHS Status Report.
  5. This is how that report began: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has released the results of a crash test program focused on the deadly problem of car-into-truck underride crashes. Appearing as lead-off witness at a March 16 Senate Investigative hearing, the Institute’s president, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., presented crash test films and analyses showing that: The 25 year-old federal “rear end protection” standard for devices on the backs of tractor-trailers and trucks is “a sham.”
  6. Further, Haddon warned Senators, “Blood has been shed, heads literally have rolled and countless thousands of Americans have been injured because these agencies did not act. Further inaction would be inexcusable.”
  7. On March 5, 2016, we delivered our second petition to Washington, DC, when we took our Vision Zero Petition Book with 20,000 signatures to the Department of Transportation and President Obama. We asked for a Vision Zero Executive Order to pave the way for Vision Zero Rulemaking policies so that a truly effective and comprehensive underride standard can be issued.
  8. On March 10, 2016, the Vision Zero Petition Book and 20,000 signatures were posted as a Public Comment on the current rear underride rulemaking.
  9. On March 12, 2016, Jerry and I were privileged to participate in a successful side guard crash test in Hillsborough, North Carolina. This innovative side/rear combination can be retrofit to existing trucks on the road. Imagine the potential for saving lives!
  10. On March 2, 2016, just three days prior to our recent delivery of the Vision Zero Petition, I discovered a March 19, 1969, Federal Highway Administration underride rulemaking document on the Federal Register which indicated that their intent was to extend underride protection to the sides of large vehicles! Eight years before my wedding day, when I was 13 years-old, DOT was intending to call for stronger underride protection. And yet, 44 years later, when my daughter Mary was 13 and AnnaLeah was 17, we still had not gotten it right! That’s just wrong!
  11. It is my fervent hope that, when March 2017 rolls around, we will be celebrating a vastly improved federal standard–enthusiastically and immediately adopted by the trucking industry–for all-around-the-truck underride protection at higher speeds, including now-exempt single unit trucks as well as retrofitted to existing trucks and trailers.
  12. If this seems like a costly venture, try comparing it to the price paid by thousands upon thousands of individuals and families during the past decades of ineffective underride protection–added to the countless precious people who will be saved in the years to come from tragic, preventable death by underride.
  13. This is not rocket science; it can be done and the technology is already available!

2

Beware the Ides of March!

We aim to put an end to preventable underride deaths and serious injuries.