Tag Archives: IIHS

May 4, 2013 seems like just yesterday; has anything changed?

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

There’s no easy way to get through that time of year when we remember how AnnaLeah & Mary were suddenly snatched from this earthly life. How can it have been ten years ago? May 4, 2013 seems like just yesterday.

Read this post all the way through to find out what advances have come about, or skip to the end to find out how you can help. Despite our loud voices continuously raising awareness and pushing for change, progress has been painfully slow. But these are some actions which the USDOT has taken:

  • Rear underride guards are now on the annual commercial motor vehicle inspection checklist (rule issued by FMCSA in December 2021). This is important because poorly-maintained rear guards increase the chance of crash severity.
  • After beginning work on an improved rear guard rule in December 2015, in response to our 2013/2014 petitions, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finally issued an improved rule in July 2022. Incredibly, it fell short of requiring that the guards had the full strength already proven possible by the IIHS testing of nine major trailer manufacturers! We have petitioned NHTSA to reconsider this ill-advised decision.
  • NHTSA began taking applications for membership on an Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP) in July 2022. They finally announced the selected committee members in April 2023. The first ACUP meeting will take place virtually on May 25. I’m thankful that I will, at last, be able to sit “around the table” with a diverse group of stakeholders to hammer out reasonable solutions to this century-old problem.
  • Simultaneously with the ACUP announcement, and in advance of receiving any recommendations from the Advisory Committee, NHTSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for a potential side guard regulation. Their cost benefit analysis is based on questionable data and concludes that a side guard regulation would not be cost effective. We are working hard to provide more accurate information in order to correct the CBA in favor of saving lives.

“How can I help?” I thought you’d never ask!

  • Pray for the ACUP members and for this process to produce meaningful outcomes.
  • Only 17 states have an UNDERRIDE FIELD on their state crash report form. This contributes to underreporting of these deaths. By 5:00 p.m. EST on MAY 3, submit a simple, brief Public Comment here. Tell NHTSA you want them to require (not merely suggest) that states have an Underride Field (and which indicates whether it was front, side, or rear) on their crash report form.
  • By June 20, submit a Public Comment on the side guard ANPRM here. Tell them why you think that there should be a side guard regulation (simple reason: To Save Lives).
  • Tens of thousands of underride victims have been a nameless group whose senseless deaths have been swept under the rug for decades despite the ingenuity of engineers to prevent horrific underride. No more. We would like to remember these Precious Ones Gone Too Soon in a special way. We hope to receive permission from the USDOT to install a Commemorative Bell of Hope at their office building in Washington, D.C. We will be organizing a day In Memory of Underride Victims — to ring the bell and call out the names of individuals who lost their lives to underride. We do not know every name, but we will include as many as possible. If you would like to contribute to the purchase of this bell or participate in this event, please let me know by writing to me at marianne@annaleahmary.com.
Side Guard Crash Test in Raleigh, September 2022
To remember how AnnaLeah & Mary lived — full of love & laughter — not merely how they died.

Someday, Seeing Side Guards & Strong Rear Underride Guards Will No Longer Surprise Me

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

On the way home from our recent side guard crash test in Raleigh, I saw a Carolina Trucking Academy tractor-trailer turn the corner — with side guards! The ones that Jerry helped install not too long ago. Such a good feeling.

Another Side Guard On The Road

And today, on my way home from getting groceries, I saw a tractor-trailer with a rear #underride guard which met the strength of an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety TOUGHGuard Award. I knew it for sure because it had a sticker saying so — like the one we saw on our recent trip North.

I hope that, someday soon, I won’t be so surprised to see these things because they will be commonplace and known for saving lives. I might not get so excited, but I’ll still be grateful.

Five Years Have Passed Since the Historic IIHS Side Guard Crash Test

Truck Safety, , , , ,

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted an important crash test on March 30, 2017. They crashed a car at 35 mph into the side of a trailer equipped with AngelWing side guards. This crash test was later repeated successfully at 40 mph at the Second Underride Roundtable on August 29, 2017. It was official. Deadly side underride tragedies could be prevented.

What seemed perhaps even more significant was the fact that the following day, March 31, 2017, the IIHS conducted a second crash test into the side of a trailer — only this time, there was no side guard. The stark contrast of the two crashes was captured on film for all to see. Who could argue the benefit of this feasible feat of engineering technology?

Apparently it has not been enough to convince everyone, as we are still struggling to bring this uphill battle to an end five years later. Pray that Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, who is tasked by Congress with making a determination this year, will conclude that saving lives is worth the cost to require trailer manufacturers to equip new trailers with side guards. Otherwise, the inaction of industry and government will allow the senseless, violent slaughter of unprotected road users to continue day after day, year after year — while engineering solutions sit on the shelf gathering dust.

Back of the Envelope Math: How many side underride deaths since March 19, 1969?

Guided Tour of the Truck Underride Exhibit at the IIHS:

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)

Engineers, Trucking Industry, & Victim Advocates Collaborate at Side Guard Task Force

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

On a Friday afternoon — February 26, 2021 — over 50 people met via Zoom to discuss comprehensive underride protection. The purpose of the meeting was to report on progress which has been made by several subcommittees since an earlier meeting in 2020 — including Industry Engagement, Research, and Engineering Subcommittees.

The goal of the Underride Engineering Subcommittee — to which trailer manufacturers were invited — was to create a Consensus Side Guard Standard which would provide additional insight for the development of a side guard regulation. Lengthy conversation and exchange of information has led this group to submit the following recommendation:

A side underride guard shall be considered to meet the performance standard if it is able to provide vehicle crash compatibility with a midsize car, to prevent intrusion into the occupant survival space, when it is struck at any location, at any angle, and at any speed up to and including 40 mph.

The Task Force went so far as to suggest that the Truck Trailers Manufacturers Association (TTMA) discuss the Consensus Side Guard Standard at their upcoming annual meeting in San Antonio, April 7-10, 2021. We encouraged them to come together in a Joint Agreement to adopt or improve the Consensus Side Guard Standard, as an association, and fast track the manufacturing of side guards by their 80th Anniversary in 2022.

Accept the standard; build a guard.

IIHS successful 40 mph AngelWing side guard crash test, 8/29/17
Zoom Video Recording of the Side Guard Task Force Meeting on February 26, 2021
NOTE: The meeting begins at around 7:00 minutes into the video.

Sean O’Malley, Senior Test Coordinator at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), gave a presentation at the Side Guard Task Force. He stated that, “Everything we do here, we do to save lives. I wasn’t kidding when I said the rear underride program (ToughGuard) is what I’m most proud of. ” Trailer manufacturers responded to the IIHS creation of a safety marketplace for improved rear underride guards by working to meet the TOUGHGuard Award level of protection at the rear of tractor-trailers. Why then would they not do the same to meet the Consensus Side Guard Standard of protection at the sides of tractor-trailers — particularly since the IIHS supports it with their 40 m.p.h. test?

Underride is underride no matter with what part of the truck you collide — because the bottom of large trucks sit up higher from the ground than the bumpers of passenger vehicles. All the way around.

So now what do we do? Will we wait another 100 years? How many more lives will be sacrificed?

This compelling video will show you why Death By Underride, though unnatural & preventable, still continues.

Trucking companies could demand trailers with side underride guards. Trailer manufacturers could supply trailers with side underride guards. Or the government could mandate side underride guards — ideally with the support of industry because a government law or regulation will place all manufacturers on a level playing field.

Families of underride victims and engineers appealed to trailer manufacturers to take the bull by the horn, embrace the Consensus Side Guard Standard, and move forward with developing and installing side underride guards ahead of government requirements.

Today, I was reflecting on the Side Guard Task Force meeting and a strategy for action going forward. As I was looking up information on an engineer from one of the manufacturers, whom I’d met several years ago, I noticed that the manufacturer is making plans to hire an engineering intern for the Summer of 2021. Beautiful! Brilliant! How about we show this young intern how engineers can save lives.

Imagine engineering students from universities around the nation spending the coming year doing internships or senior capstone projects at trailer manufacturing companies working alongside industry engineers on side underride guard development. Collaboration could take place and serve to more rapidly bring about the development and implementation of long-overdue, life-saving technology.

MEETING RESOURCES:

Note: The Side Guard Task Force meeting on February 26, 2021, was a follow-up to an earlier meeting. On April 17, 2020, over 40 people participated in a virtual meeting of a volunteer Underride Protection Committee’s “Side Guard Task Force.” This included two engineers from trailer manufacturers. As a follow-up, several subcommittees began to hold virtual meetings, including an Underride Engineering Subcommittee.

After listening to Andy Young interview Eric Hein about the loss of his son, Riley, in a side underride, participants viewed a photo memorial slideshow of some of the countless underride victims:

Underride Victim Photo Memorial – The Tip of the Iceberg

Some of the many individuals and organizations who have made contributions to the work on underride protection were celebrated in this Underride Hero Hall of Fame video:

Underride Hero Hall of Fame

Note: the video of the complete meeting is an unedited Zoom recording. As excerpts from the agenda are created, Youtube video links will be added.

What Will Come Next in the Timeline of Underride Regulatory History?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

People have died under trucks since passenger vehicles and trucks have shared the road. What changes have we seen in underride protection? Here is a Timeline put together by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety for the first Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016.

What’s next? What will the future hold for underride rulemaking? More of the same or significant progress in preventing underride tragedies?

Underride-timeline

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Truck Underride Report Published After a Year-Long Investigation

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

After the STOP Underrides Bill was first introduced on December 12, 2017, several members of Congress –Senators Thune, Rubio, Burr, and Gillibrand — requested that the Government Accountability Office prepare a report on truck underride guards. That report was published today and can be found here.

The online report is organized into sections, including Fast Facts, Highlights, and Recommendations. The GAO Recommendations are:

  1. Recommendation: The Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should recommend to the expert panel of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria to update the Criteria to provide a standardized definition of underride crashes and to include underride as a recommended data field.
  2. Recommendation: The Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should provide information to state and local police departments on how to identify and record underride crashes.
  3. Recommendation: The Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration should revise Appendix G of the agency’s regulations to require that rear guards are inspected during commercial vehicle annual inspections.
  4. Recommendation: The Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should conduct additional research on side underride guards to better understand the overall effectiveness and cost associated with these guards and, if warranted, develop standards for their implementation.

Here is a 46-page pdf of the Full Report.

I’m curious what Members of Congress along with the Department of Transportation and the trucking industry were anticipating to come out of the report. What did they expect to be uncovered that we have not already been talking and writing about and demonstrating for all to see at the D.C. Underride Crash Test on March 26, 2019 — not to mention, more importantly, with the lost lives of countless underride victims?

In a nutshell, the GAO team told the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) that  Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research were needed. In fact, we already knew that, in order to get an accurate count of underride deaths (and injuries), better collection was needed. We have been talking about the need for rear underride guards to be added to the Vehicle Inspection Checklist.  And the STOP Underrides Bill calls for research to find the outer limits of underride protection.

But what the STOP Underrides Bill does not do is say to wait until better data collection has been collected before issuing a mandate to install proven underride protection. That would be like saying: Wait for 14 more years of underride deaths until you have improved collection of how many people are dying and then start using equipment (that was already available) so you know how many people you could have kept alive!

The GAO Report recommends that NHTSA take steps to add underride to the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) — a guideline to states to use for their crash report forms. However, the next version will not be issued until 2022.

If NHTSA uses this recommendation to justify holding off on underride rulemaking, then they will set us all up for a continuation of same old, same old. NHTSA might sooner or later (in 2022 when the updated MMUCC comes out) START urging states to improve their underride data collection. But then how many years of improved data will they insist that they need before they can proceed with rulemaking (which itself takes 3 or more years before it gets to the implementation phase)?
 
This is what I foresee, if NHTSA is left to their own devices (unless something else intervenes):
2022     New MMUCC
2024     States are ready for better underride data collection
2028     FARS underride data has maybe improved
2029     NHTSA issues an ANPRM to test the waters
2030     NHTSA issues a NPRM side underride rulemaking (what about the rest?)
2033     Implementation of side guard rule begins for new trucks

2043    The whole fleet will have them on (maybe).

Conservative estimate of 300 underride deaths/year x 14 years (2033) = 4,200 more needless deaths (plus catastrophic injuries) if Congress does not mandate that the Department of Transportation move forward with comprehensive underride rulemaking immediately.

What GAO recommends to NHTSA are good actions, but they fall short of an acknowledgement that people have, are, and will continue to die from truck underride unless we act decisively as a nation to mandate that the industry install equipment to prevent it.

The GAO report acknowledges that the trucking industry is waiting for a mandate before it will act. The report also illustrates how NHTSA has been less than diligent to address the underride problem. So, why would we expect that a mere recommendation to NHTSA (when they have received multiple underride safety recommendations from NTSB and multiple petitions from IIHS and others over the years) would cause them to act in a timely and effective manner to fulfill their safety mission and protect the people of this country from deadly underride?

The fourth GAO recommendation is this: The Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should conduct additional research on side underride guards to better understand the overall effectiveness and cost associated with these guards and, if warranted, develop standards for their implementation.

What more would NHTSA need to know — than what they already know, along with what would come about through the process of issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and what they would learn through working with knowledgeable members of the Committee On Underride Protection (or COUP, as mandated in the STOP Underrides Bill), who could help them identify and understand the effectiveness and costs of underride protection?

It seems clear to me that even the under-reported 219 underride deaths, on average each year documented by NHTSA in the FARS data, do indeed warrant the development of standards for implementation of comprehensive underride protection. The side guard crash testing by IIHS and others have proven that this technology is effective at preventing underride. Therefore, I would interpret the fourth GAO recommendation as supporting the need for Congress to mandate that DOT proceed with the rulemaking outlined in the STOP Underrides! Bill. DOT has demonstrated that they have no intention of issuing rulemaking without a mandate which would force them to do so.

In my mind, the GAO Truck Underride Guards Report only confirms and strengthens my opinion that it is high time for Congress to pass the STOP Underrides Bill and get NHTSA and FMCSA started on a rulemaking process for comprehensive underride protection, which we petitioned them to do on May 5, 2014.  After years of inaction on that petition, on April 4, 2018, we submitted another petition (for supplemental comprehensive underride rulemaking) to Secretary Chao — still with no tangible action taken.

Congress, the ball is in your court.

If you want to go beyond a cursory understanding of the GAO Truck Underride Report, please read this lengthy analysis of the GAO Underride Report: Karth Cliff Notes on the GAO Truck Underride Report.

“AEB that reliably detects trucks could prevent underride crashes.” Meanwhile, what should we do?

Truck Safety, , , , , ,

Automatic emergency braking (AEB) on passenger vehicles is a good thing. It’s purpose is to reduce the chance of a rear-end collision or decrease the severity of the impact if it does occur. But does it function as intended when the vehicle in front of a car is a large truck?

A recent report from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) implies that it does not reliably do so:

When it comes to preventing typical front-to-rear crashes, automatic emergency braking is a proven winner. Extending its functionality to address less-common types of rear-end crashes involving turning, changing lanes or striking heavy trucks or motorcycles, for instance, would help maximize autobrake’s benefits, a new IIHS study indicates. . .

Autobrake systems that reliably detect large trucks could prevent underride crashes. Twelve percent of U.S. passenger vehicle occupant deaths in 2017 were in crashes with large trucks, and 1 in 5 of these deaths occurred when a passenger vehicle struck the rear of a large truck.

Autobrake is good, but it could be better, IIHS, Status Report, Vol. 54, No. 2, February 21, 2019

If I am interpreting this correctly, this means that, currently, AEB on many vehicles do not reliably detect large trucks in order to prevent underride crashes. This is no surprise as there is almost 4 feet from the bottom of most trucks to the ground; the sensors are apparently not located in such a way as to be able to detect the truck body. No threat is recognized.

Therefore, it appears to me that we cannot rely on the current collision avoidance technology to prevent rear-end collisions of cars into trucks. If we want to more reliably prevent deadly underride and gruesome passenger compartment intrusion, why then would we not install effective comprehensive underride protection on all large trucks?

See what happens when collision does occur into the rear of a truck which is and is not equipped with an effective rear underride guard:

By the way, the same is, of course, true for the sides of large trucks where there is nothing but open space — nothing for the car’s sensors to detect. What will we do about that?

Download this video file to view a recent crash test by Aaron Kiefer into the side of a trailer equipped with the latest version of his SafetySkirt: Video Feb 24, 2 24 45 PM

AngelWing Crash Test at IIHS, March 30, 2017

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.

Good News for Traveling Public: “All major trailer makers earn IIHS award for good underride protection”

Truck Safety, , ,

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced this week that all eight major trailer manufacturers have now improved their rear underride guards. This is good news for the traveling public.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Seven years after the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found serious shortcomings in the rear underride guards of most semitrailers, the eight largest North American manufacturers are now making rear guards capable of preventing deadly underride in a range of scenarios. All eight companies earn the IIHS TOUGHGUARD award.

The companies — Great Dane LLC, Hyundai Translead, Manac Inc., Stoughton Trailers LLC, Strick Trailers LLC, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., Vanguard National Trailer Corp. and Wabash National Corp. — represent approximately 80 percent of the trailers on the road in the U.S. All but one of them, Manac, had to make changes to its underride guard before they were able to pass the three IIHS tests.

“We’re pleased that all the major manufacturers responded positively to our underride tests,” says David Zuby, IIHS chief research officer. “By improving their guards, these companies have demonstrated a commitment to the safety of passenger vehicle occupants who share the road with their trailers.” . . .

By the time IIHS announced the TOUGHGUARD award last year, 5 of the 8 guards met the criteria.

Since then, Hyundai Translead and Utility have earned the award. Strick now joins them, thanks to a new underride guard that completes the industry’s effort to improve protection against rear underride. . .

See the complete IIHS report here: All major trailer makers earn IIHS award for good underride protection

This is great news, and I am glad for the trailer manufacturers commitment to meet the TOUGHGuard award. But I would have phrased it a little differently myself because I don’t think that this “completes” the industry’s efforts on rear underride.  Still to be done, in my mind:

1. TOUGHGuard rear underride protection become standard on all new trailers — not merely an option.

2. Test the guards to see if they are effective at speeds higher than 35 mph. After all, an aluminum extrusion company has produced a rear underride guard which has been officially and successfully tested at 40 mph.

3. Make retrofit kits available for all trailers at least 10 years back.

4. Install effective rear underride protection on single unit trucks.

5. Enforce the requirement for rear underride guards to be kept in like-new condition because a weakened guard is less likely to perform as needed upon collision.

That is, if we want to prevent rear underride tragedies no matter what truck someone might collide with on the road today or in the years to come. . .

And oh, by the way, the STOP Underrides! Bill would mandate every one of those steps to end preventable underride.

Crash cars from previous crash tests  — one with & one without effective underride protection.