Tag Archives: motor vehicle crash fatalities

Truck Underride Prevention Doesn’t Fit Mold of Occupant Protection or Public Health Injury Prevention

So why has the underride problem — known about for decades — not been adequately addressed? It does not fit into traditional Public Health injury prevention categories such as driver behavior, air bags, seat belts or car seats.  It has fallen between the cracks because it does not properly fit into traditional Occupant Protection classifications.

Underride protective devices are meant to protect the occupants of passenger vehicles, but they are not installed in or on the passenger vehicle. They are (or would be if they were mandated) installed on commercial motor vehicles, but they do not protect the occupants of commercial motor vehicles.

The owners of commercial motor vehicles receive no benefit from underride technology. In fact, it has generally been their perspective that it would cost them far more than the risk that they would avoid, because, if they meet the federal underride standard, then they have no liability for deaths and injuries which occur when cars go under their trucks.  So, why would they bother to install this equipment? TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CIRCULAR E-C117 The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research, pp. 133-135

Beyond that, at least some in the industry have made the claim that the manufacturer has no duty to protect non-occupants  — that is, occupants of vehicles which collide with the commercial motor vehicle:

The Mieher court made a critical distinction between its holding and other cases where Illinois courts have held that vehicle manufacturers owe a duty to their vehicle’s occupants to manufacture a vehicle in which it is safe to collide. In such cases, the courts have held that a manufacturer can be liable for defects in its vehicle that cause injuries over and above those that would have occurred from the accident but for the defective design. This is commonly referred to as the “enhanced injury,” “second collision” or “crashworthiness” doctrine. In these cases, after the initial impact, occupants of a vehicle sustain enhanced injuries due to alleged defects in the vehicle.

In Larsen v. General Motors Corp., 391 F.2d 497 (8th Cir. 1968), the court held that injury-producing impacts are “foreseeable” and, therefore, a manufacturer has a duty to design its vehicle to avoid subjecting its user to an unreasonable risk of harm. The Mieher court, however, refused to expand the “foreseeability” rule set forth in Larsen to find that a vehicle manufacturer owes a duty to non-occupants of its vehicle. The Mieher court explained that the foreseeability rule was not “intended to bring within the ambit of the defendant’s duty every consequence which might possibly occur.” The Mieher court logically explained that “in retrospect almost nothing is entirely unforeseeable” and, therefore, vehicle manufacturers do not have a duty to design vehicles to prevent injuries to non-occupants who collide with their vehicles. Thus, following Mieher, a plaintiff could bring a claim for enhanced injuries against the manufacturer of the vehicle in which he was riding, but could not bring a claim against the manufacturer of the vehicle with which his vehicle collided. Illinois vehicle manufacturers have no duty to protect non-occupants who collide with their vehicles

See where that leads. . . no liability. No responsibility for protection of the vulnerable motoring public who is daily at risk of underride upon collision with commercial motor vehicles due to the geometric mismatch between truck and car bumpers.

The problem has, in fact, been studied by the NHTSA, as described in that same article,

In fact, in looking at the history of the federal regulations, there is evidence that rear underride guards may not even decrease the risk of injury to occupants of vehicles that collide with the rear of tractors and trailers. The NHTSA began to study the rear underride issue in an attempt to improve underride protection for passenger car occupants as far back as 1967. 32 Fed. Reg. 14278 (10/14/67); see also NHTSA Docket No. 1-11. In 1971, however, the NHTSA abandoned its initial efforts after reviewing accident data and evaluating costs. It determined that the benefit from underride guards was not commensurate with the cost of implementing a standard. In fact, subsequent studies showed that rigid underride guards increased deceleration forces on the colliding vehicle and actually increased the risk of injury to occupants. See, e.g., 46 Fed. Reg. 2136, 2138 (1/8/81). As a result, the NHTSA began to perform testing in an effort to identify a guard that would absorb a sufficient amount of energy during impact without increasing deceleration forces. The NHTSA, however, estimated that only between four and fifteen lives per year would be saved even with this new type of guard. Illinois vehicle manufacturers have no duty to protect non-occupants who collide with their vehicles

Two problems which I have with that are:

  1. It is well known that underride has been under-reported and thus under-counted — perhaps it is actually involved in 50% of truck/car fatalities rather than the FARS reported 4% according to this study. And consider that only one of my two daughters is listed as an underride fatality in the 2013 FARS data. Thus, the cost/life saved will always seem to be higher than it actually would be. In addition to that, technology has been developed to prevent more underride events than what NHTSA has previously considered possible; that will also change the cost/benefit analysis.
  2. I’d like to see the sources for the studies referred to here: subsequent studies showed that rigid underride guards increased deceleration forces on the colliding vehicle and actually increased the risk of injury to occupants. And I would like to know how those studies would be interpreted now given the change in passenger vehicle crashworthiness since those studies were completed (including crumple zones and airbags). What might we gain were public health injury prevention professionals to take an interest in this dilemma? Certainly crash testing has produced data from studying the impact on crash dummies.

Along that line, check out this very enlightening 2010 article by Safety Research & Strategies, Inc.:  Are Rear Underride Guards Overrated?

Also, read this discussion of the deceleration forces controversy: Urgent Underride Discussion of Deceleration Forces/High Speeds. Don’t Dawdle.

My conclusion, therefore, is that Underride Protection has not previously been categorized as a Public Health Injury Prevention or Occupant Protection issue. Traffic Safety professionals have apparently turned a blind eye to the problem (whether out of ignorance or helplessness, I don’t know) and left it to the trucking industry to deal with. The bottomline is that: No one has been able to effectively stick up for the occupants of passenger vehicles who are at risk of going underneath large trucks and experiencing life-threatening injuries — despite the fact that promising technology has been and continues to be suggested.

It is high past time for underride to get the attention it deserves. Certainly underride victims themselves, for the most part, are not still around to speak up. Had our car rear-ended a truck in the normal fashion, I would be one of those victims myself — rather than my daughters AnnaLeah & Mary — and so I would not be here to uncover and expose the facts.

Perhaps we need a Public Health professional to be appointed as National Traffic Safety Ombudsman  — someone who has a visible role and can serve as a vigilant voice to advocate for vulnerable victims of vehicle violence, in this case the very violent Death By Underride. Let this person serve on the Committee On Underride Protection which the STOP Underrides! Act of 2017 mandates be established in order to facilitate effective collaboration to solve the underride problem.

Just ask those who have already lost a loved one because of misconceptions or outright resistance. I’m sure they might tell you, “Please don’t dawdle. Preventing underride is an urgent matter!”

Other posts on Public Health & Underride:

Particularly poignant photos of 3 young girls who lost their lives 6 short years later

Last night, as I often do, I was looking for some photos or video to create a Youtube and soothe the ache of missing AnnaLeah and Mary. I found a particularly poignant photo of AnnaLeah and another young girl, Bethany, in Michigan on July 30, 2007.

Along with our other kids, they were having some simple water balloon fun. What made it heart-wrenching was that, within 6 short years, they–along with Mary–would lose their lives in crashes.

I put together continuously-snapped photos into a fast-moving slideshow. Laughing & weeping at the result.

Short Version (27 seconds):

Longer Version (6 minutes):

Bethany’s Untimely End February 23, 2012: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/article/20120224/NEWS/302249856 & http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/02/hamilton_teen_hit_killed_in_cr.html

AnnaLeah’s & Mary’s Untimely End in May 2013:  http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/obituaries_today_annaleah_and.html & http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/in_mourning_former_grand_rapid.html & https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=174784632666076&story_fbid=258980320913173

Because we want to do everything we can to prevent others from such heartache, we launched our Vision Zero Petition online:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Comments from Signers of the Vision Zero Petition

We are thankful for everyone who has signed the Vision Zero Petition. And certainly your signature is enough, but I wanted to share the comments which I have found on The Petition Site from those who have signed our petition:

  1. Michelle Novak, NY Another family member whose deceased 22 year-old nephew’s life was weighed against a load of cookies and found lacking. We have had enough. You can stop this. But your political will seems to always lose to the monetary will of those executives and shareholders in the industry. Oh, if you could feel shame…..or empathy.
  2. David M. Dunn, MI
    Seriously? Putting profit before human life is short term thinking and, by the way, immoral.
  3. Ed Slattery, MD
    My wife was killed and two sons seriously injured, one permanently, when a trucker fell asleep at the wheel and pushed their car under the rear end of another semi in front of them while coming into a construction zone.
  4. Sonya Silver, NC
    Everyone’s life is priceless. So is the unconditional love that we express to our loved ones. So we need to make a change and to anyone denying us to do so need to ask themselves how much is their families worth?
  5. Ryan McMahan, NC
    I work in the accident reconstruction industry and see countless underride accidents each year, many ending in serious injury or death. The severity of injury in these types of crashes could be significantly reduced with the simple implementation of additional bracing on the trailers that travel our roadways.
  6. Brie Handgraaf, NC
    The bottom line should NEVER outweigh the cost of a human life. The status quo needs to be changed before anyone else suffers such a tragedy as the Karths.
  7. Rebekah Black, TX
    Please adopt stronger safety rules so that more lives can be saved. My sisters AnnaLeah and Mary Lydia are gone forever due to a truck collision, and no other family should have to go through this. Save lives.
  8. Name not displayed, IL
    I worry every day about my children’s safety.
  9. Marianne Karth, NC
    There is no one that this does not potentially impact in some way. We are asking for bold and decisive action to reduce tragic, preventable crash fatalities. Don’t wait until it touches you personally to move heaven & earth to identify and require the best possible protection. Once a loved one becomes a motor vehicle crash statistic, it will be too late–they will not come back to you.
  10. Janet Watson, NC
    I have good friends who lost 2 beautiful daughters in a horrific truck underride accident that could have been prevented with tougher trucking laws. Please sign this petition to help make a change in regulations that will help prevent more deaths on the road.
  11. Name not displayed, IL
    I always want to avert my eyes when I see the highway billboards that announce the number of traffic death to date in Illinois, but I make myself look to remind myself and my kids to drive safely and defensively. The numbers are staggering and devastating.
  12. Sherri Gillespie, CA
    OMB & DOT 1. Adopt rational Vision Zero Safety strategy. 2. Apply Vision Zero principles initiating rulemaking to require forward collision avoidance.
  13. Lana Briscoe, NY
    Secretary Foxx, it is avoidable and inexcusable that about 40,000 Americans die in vehicular crashes every year. Stop the cost/benefit analysis bean counting. The lives of Americans are at stake.
  14. Lucy Schneider, NJ
    This is a horrific tragedy that could have been prevented. I urge the Department of Transportation to adopt a VISION ZERO Policy!
  15. Jeanette Naumann, TX
    I was with members of this family when they suffered the tragic loss of their sisters and daughters. No parent should have to go through this when it can be prevented.
  16. Keith C Schnip, WA
    Big trucks, i.e. 18 wheelers, etc. should be banned from the nation’s Interstate Highway System. They cannot coexist safely with regular automotive traffic, i.e. cars. The roads simply are not big enough or safe enough.
  17. Name not displayed, CA
    Bring back freight trains! Lessen roadway and highway long hauls by bring back freight trains.
  18. Todd Freese, TX
    These dear friends lost their daughters due to a needless crash. Would you please join me as I join them in their quest for safer roads. God Bless You.
  19. Charlie Gray, NC
    Driver training and qualification standards must be heightened
  20. Darla Creel, TX
    I knew this family. What was sad is that these lives were lost going to a weekend of three graduations and a wedding. We need to support change for lives.
  21. Road Crash, United Kingdom
    Best wishes Marianne not far to 6,000
  22. Isaac Karth, NC
    Three years ago, I was sitting in my apartment, working on my class projects, when I got a phone call that turned my world upside down. My family’s car had been hit by a truck, and I was the first person that the hospital was able to reach. There was a lot of confusion; no one knew where my two sisters who had been in the back seat of the car had been taken. I had a pair of dice in my pocket that day, the same pair of dice that I had when my father called me later that evening with the news that my sister had died in the crash. Humans are bad at estimating probabilities. A one-in-a-million chance sounds rare, but that’s close to the odds the NWS reports for being struck by lightning, and 330 Americans are injured that way every year. It’s rare, but it happens. In probability theory, it’s called the law of large numbers. If you roll the dice often enough, or for enough people, the dice are going to come up as ones at a predictable, measurable rate. The IIHS reported that in 2013, there were 10.3 deaths from motor vehicle crashes per 100,000 people. That’s about one-in-ten-thousand, way more likely than one-in-a-million. And, unlike other leading causes of death, this is an entirely human-created problem, one that didn’t exist two hundred years ago. Automotive safety has been improving over time. But it is still one of the leading causes of death in America. Curing cancer, one of the other leading causes, is expensive and difficult, requiring research just to figure out if it is even possible. In contrast, for motor vehicle deaths there are many cases where we already know simple ways to reduce motor vehicle fatalities, such as effective underride guards, and we have promising research for even more. We shouldn’t settle for one-in-ten thousand, or even one-in-a-hundred-thousand. We should strive to be better than that. Human lives shouldn’t be a nickel and dime proposition. Even low chances of death are still too high. I shouldn’t have to roll the dice every time I need to leave my house. I shouldn’t have to wonder, every time my family is out on the road, if today is going to be the day that they roll too many ones again.
  23. Catherine Memmer, MI
    You could put signs way ahead!!! This is senseless. What if it was your kids that were killed!! Don’t be so cheap!!!!
  24.  Donna Profeta, NY Our families’ lives are worth more than the cost in dollars.

    Sign The Vision Petition:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

    Petition screenshot 001

Does a vehicle manufacturer bear responsibility for death and injury caused by a safety defect in their product?

After writing a post yesterday,  https://annaleahmary.com/2015/07/who-should-bear-the-responsibility-for-deaths-injuries-due-to-known-safety-defects/,  I have been wrestling with this question:

Does a vehicle manufacturer bear responsibility for death and injury caused by a safety defect in their product:

  • ever?
  • and, especially do they do so when it is publicly known (in the engineering realm) that there is a solution to the problem which could — if implemented — prevent death and horrific injury?

Or, are they protected by following the letter of the law — which likewise might have been negligent to require the best possible protection?

Furthermore, if they do bear responsibility, then what price should they pay for negligence to act on that knowledge in a timely fashion?

I have been trying to look at it every which way and not merely as the mother of two daughters, AnnaLeah (forever 17) and Mary (forever 13), who happened to get killed by a truck underride crash in which the underride guard met current federal standards, and possibly even the Canadian standards, but did not make use of safer known technology and did not withstand the crash.

Before & After PhotosI am plagued by so many questions:

  • Did the manufacturer’s act of omission contribute to Mary’s and AnnaLeah’s deaths? (omission: http://tinyurl.com/o2z6meb )
  • If so, why are they not being held responsible for such a heinous action? (heinous: http://tinyurl.com/ncak6o2 )
  • What consequences should they pay for their negligence?
  • Can it be considered criminal negligence? (criminal: http://tinyurl.com/p5syqnl )
  • Can a charge of manslaughter be applied? (manslaughter: http://tinyurl.com/nl6ms8l )
  • Is the manufacturer excused from responsibility for their deaths because it was not technically illegal (they abided by the letter of the law)?
  • If current and future research shows beyond a shadow of a doubt that safer underride prevention systems can, in fact, be put in place on trucks, can truck manufacturers be freed from responsibility to implement such technology due to supposed “unreasonable” costs? (A frequent reason for less-than-adequate rules to be issued — if issued at all.)
  • Do informed regulators who do not write into law the safest possible technology bear any responsibility?
  • Do informed truck purchasers who do not buy trucks with the safest possible technology (even if not required by law) bear responsibility?
  • I even have to ask myself if I am taking the chance of sabotaging our goal of seeking stronger federal standards by raising these controversial, potentially-inflammatory questions.

So you see, I am not struggling with easy questions. But you have to admit, don’t you, that they are questions with life & death implications.

WarsawINFilmPhotographer_MIMemoria_Film_063WarsawINFilmPhotographer_MIMemoria_Film_082

 

This question of manufacturer criminal liability is addressed in a New York Times editorial today (July 21, 2015):

“The Senate bill also falls well short of addressing important issues raised by recent scandals involving defects in General Motors’ ignition switches and Takata airbags. While it would raise the maximum fine that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration can levy against automakers that do not promptly disclose defects to $70 million from $35 million, that increase is a pittance for companies that make billions in profits. And by not proposing criminal liability for executives who knowingly hide the life-threatening dangers of their products, the bill simply sidesteps the issue of individual accountability.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/21/opinion/a-senate-bill-that-makes-roads-and-railroads-less-safe.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&_r=1

From my morning reading: “The mouth of the righteous utters wisdom, and his tongue speaks justice. The Law of his God is in his heart; his steps do not slip.” Psalm 37:30-31