Tag Archives: IIHS

“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.