The U.S. has been talking about the tragedies of side underride and the possibility of using side guards on trucks since 1969.
The recent Tesla S underride crash fatality could quite likely have been prevented if there had been a side guard on the tractor-trailer it collided with.
Let’s change that, people. Make use of the federal rulemaking process which provides a way for the public to make comments on issues of national importance. Right now, the federal government is working on a rule to upgrade the regulation of truck underride guards; it addresses the rear guards for tractor-trailers–but not side guards.
YOU CAN HELP GET THE RULES CHANGED: Go to the Federal Register and hit the Comment Now button to tell them that you want trucks to be required to have side guards to prevent people from dying. It will then ask you to choose a CATEGORY; choose PUBLIC COMMENT.
Note: It will say that the Public Comment Period is closed as of February 16, 2016. Don’t worry; they will continue to look at Public Comments submitted after that date because the Final Rule is not yet issued.
Stand up and be heard. Government of the People. By the People. For the People.
Now tell other people that they can do it, too! Thank you.
Note: See a Youtube video from Aaron Kiefer, a North Carolina crash reconstructionist, who has recently designed an innovative side/rear underride guard:
Pray for an important meeting on Friday at IIHS in Arlington, VA. We will be discussing details for underride regulations and hearing a presentation from an Australian on their proposed underride rule.
Also, here is a draft of the “Visualizing Rulemaking” law review article (to be published in the fall). See pp. 43-44 and 65 for reference to AnnaLeah & Mary and our safety advocacy efforts. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2799334
Meanwhile, as the discussion continues, people all over the world die every day because their vehicle is not prevented from riding under a truck. Just like AnnaLeah. Just like Mary.
There will be a meeting on June 24, at IIHS in Arlington, VA, with some of the participants from the Underride Roundtable, attempting to hammer out a better solution.
Last December 8, the US National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) announced plans for a major upgrade to its 5-Star Safety Ratings new car assessment program, effective for vehicles manufactured after January 1, 2019. A major driver behind this announcement has been the heavy criticism from the US Congress following the failure of NHTSA to remedy the GM ignition and Takata airbag defect before they resulted in the deaths of 133 people.
NHTSA Administrator Mark Rosekind took up his post in December 2014 and quickly found himself playing defense against an assault of accusations, especially following the release of the NHTSA Inspector General’s report detailing shortcomings in the agency’s Office of Defects Investigations. In an effort to get ahead of this criticism, Rosekind has moved aggressively to assuage congressional concerns. . .
. . . the new NCAP would incorporate a number of collision avoidance technologies into the five-star rating (rather than listed as recommendations) described as: (1) forward collision warning, (2) crash imminent braking, (3) dynamic brake support, (4) lower beam headlight performance, (5) semi-automatic headlamp beam switching, (6) amber rear turn signal lamps, (7) lane departure warning, (8) rollover resistance, and (9) blind spot detection. NHTSA also plans to include pedestrian collision avoidance and rear automatic braking within its pedestrian safety rating under the NCAP.
The author mentions this possible concern with the process:
Nonetheless, rapid advances in vehicle safety technologies have challenged NHTSA capabilities, especially since the US rulemaking system requires NHTSA to clear a series of high hurdles before any new regulation can be enacted. Unable to rapidly issue changes to the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS), NHTSA has resorted to a voluntary agreement with automakers on automatic braking and the upgrade to its consumer information NCAP to reassure Congress that it is on the job and up to the challenge of new technologies.
John Creamer is the founder of GlobalAutoRegs.com and a partner in The Potomac Alliance, a Washington-based international regulatory affairs consultancy. In his client advisory role, Mr. Creamer is regularly involved with meetings of the UN World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). Previously, he has held positions with the US International Trade Commission and the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (representing the US automotive supplier industry), as the representative of the US auto parts industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc. (a leading global automotive safety systems supplier).
That’s exciting. I woke up to a comment on our website related to my post about the World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations.
Here’s the comment:
The United States has been involved with WP.29 since its inception; however, the Forum originally focused on developing standards for Europe. It has only been a truly global effort since the late 1990’s. The US (NHTSA and the EPA) has been a major contributor to international research and development efforts, but when it comes to specific regulations, the US legal system operates under different principles from Europe.
The US was the first nation to set up a regulatory system for vehicle safety. Ralph Nader and others saw the issue as one of consumer protection and product liability while Europe later addressed safety more as an engineering and product certification issue. As a result, we have two main approaches (self-certification and type approval) and there are two international agreements (1958 and 1998) to allow for uniform regulations. Under the 1998 Agreement, WP.29 establishes Global Technical Regulations (GTR) that can be used under any system. (UN Regulations can only be used under a type approval system.) So at the international level, a state-of-the-art standard for rear underrun protection would involve looking at the current regulations in use around the world to see if the harmonization of requirements through a GTR would be practicable and beneficial. John Creamer, globalautoregs.com
John Creamer is the founder of GlobalAutoRegs.com and a partner in The Potomac Alliance, a Washington-based international regulatory affairs consultancy. In his client advisory role, Mr. Creamer is regularly involved with meetings of the UN World Forum for the Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations (WP.29). Previously, he has held positions with the US International Trade Commission and the Motor & Equipment Manufacturers Association (representing the US automotive supplier industry), as the representative of the US auto parts industry in Japan, and with TRW Inc. (a leading global automotive safety systems supplier).
I just emailed John to see what else I can find out from him about this possibility for world-wide collaboration on improving protection against deadly underride. Stay tuned.
(Just so long as it does not get in the way of forward progress meanwhile!)
In memory of AnnaLeah and Mary (and so many others). . .
Energy absorbing bumpers, crumple zones, and seatbelts could not save the lives of backseat passengers, 13 year-old Mary and 17 year-old AnnaLeah. They were traveling in a four-door sedan driven by their mother, Marianne Karth.
Highway traffic slowed to a stop as the Karth sedan was hit from behind by a semi-truck. The first impact spun their blue, four-door sedan 180 degrees. The same semi-truck’s momentum caused a second impact which shoved the Karth sedan backwards underneath yet another truck’s trailer. The rear bar on the second truck’s trailer was not strong enough to prevent the Karth vehicle from going underneath. The rigid structure of the trailer’s steel frame effortlessly shattered the back window, which failed to protect the back of the Karth girls’ heads and bodies. AnnaLeah died instantly. Four days later, Mary died as a result of her catastrophic injuries.
None of the car’s manufactured, safety engineering made a difference to save the lives of Marianne’s daughters. Why? Because the dynamics of the crash resulted in a truck underride.
Little did Marianne Karth know at that moment, on May 4, 2013, that she would become one of the nation’s leading truck safety advocates working toward meaningful prevention of underride truck crashes.
Jerry submitted his original public comment regarding the proposed underride rulemaking on February 16, 2016. Here is an excerpt from that which addresses NHTSA’s preliminary cost/benefit analysis:
I would like to respond to the utilitarian logic approach that NHTSA has appeared to have applied to this issue. Their utilization of a cost/benefit analysis (called for by Executive Order 12866) is sadly lacking moral and ethical depth on the benefits side.
This type of logic was applied in 2000 by the Philip Morris Company in the Czech Republic when they funded a research study on the costs/benefits of smoking in the Czech Republic. http://www.mindfully.org/Industry/Philip-Morris-Czech-Study.htm The study concluded that it would be more beneficial for the people of the Czech Republic to smoke than not. What was this startling conclusion based on? A cost/benefit analysis.
The results are summarized in Figure 1:
Figure 1: The public finance balance of smoking in the Czech Republic in 1999 is estimated at +5,815 mil. CZK
Income and positive external effects
21,463 mil CZK
Savings on housing for elderly
28,mil CZK
Pension & soc. expenses savings due to early mortality
That’s how much a study sponsored by Philip Morris said the Czech Republic saves on health care, pensions and housing every time a smoker dies.
photo: American Cancer Society full-page SF Chronicle advertisement 2aug01
In comparison, let’s look at how this approach could be applied to the underride issue. This type of cost/benefit analysis could lead us to conclude that it is not beneficial to require stronger underride guards because the benefits of keeping weak and ineffective standards for underride guards are greater than the cost of upgrading them to the best possible protection. What might those benefits be?
Save the trucking industry money by holding down manufacturing and installation costs.
Save the consumer money by holding down shipping costs.
Reduce medical costs by killing people at a younger age (and avoiding costly medical costs of the elderly population).
Preserve the Social Security fund by decreasing the number of people who draw from their account due to early Death by Motor Vehicle.
Improve the job market due to the decrease in the workforce from the elimination of workers through Death by Motor Vehicle.
In both cases, the conclusions lack common sense. I hope that we can agree upon that.
In other words, this kind of analysis could potentially require that we decide whether we are willing to fork over money to protect people from Death by Motor Vehicle. It forces us to choose between saving a life or saving costs. When that life is one of your loved ones, what would you choose?
In contrast, a cost-effectiveness approach may be a better solution because it compares the relative costs and outcomes (effects) of two or more courses of action. “Cost-effectiveness analysis is distinct from cost-benefit analysis, which assigns a monetary value to the measure of effect.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost-effectiveness_analysis In this situation, the desired outcome of both courses of action would be an underride guard which did not fail upon collision with a vehicle. The two solutions could be compared based upon cost, but a performance standard of a successful crash test would guarantee that lives would be saved.
It is my hope that we can pursue a recommendation, made by a participant of the Underride Roundtable during the afternoon panel discussion, and organize a group of affected individuals and organizations/companies to meet together and develop a proposal to take to NHTSA in order to bring about a comprehensivenegotiated rulemaking.
I am willing to do the organizing necessary to bring this meeting about. First of all, we need a location for the meeting and therefore I am asking if anyone would like to step forward and host this Negotiated Rulemaking Underride Roundtable. Once that is arranged, then we can proceed with selecting a date, developing an agenda, and sending out the notice.
After our family was instrumental in getting underride rulemaking initiated in July 2014, I realized that, though we had made it over one hurdle, in reality the battle had only begun. I became concerned that the cost/benefit analysis, which had so often compromised past underride rulemaking, was still a very real threat.
The participants, of the May 5, 2016, Underride Roundtable at IIHS, would be qualified to help meet the mandate given to NHTSA to prepare a thorough Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the underride issue: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently issued Circular A-4 guidance on regulatory analyses, requiring federal agencies to “prepare a CEA for all major rulemakings for which the primary benefits are improved public health and safety to the extent that a valid effectiveness measure can be developed to represent expected health and safety outcomes.” Appendix G–Health Based Cost Effectiveness Analysis.pdf
A Negotiated Rulemaking Underride Roundtable could provide a format for development of a more effective and comprehensive underride rule, which would cover all the bases with existing and proposed technology to save as many lives as is humanly possible. It would also get the manufacturing companies out of limbo so that they can make long-term plans and move forward with designing and producing safer products. Win/Win. N’est-ce pas?
Now that the formal comment period is over for the NPRM on Rear Underride on Trailers, the next step is for NHTSA to review the comments and develop a final rule. Let’s strike while the iron is hot and present them with a unified recommendation to enhance their efforts. Before it’s too late.
Let’s send the message to NHTSA that we are all willing to do the work to bring about an acceptable, all-inclusive underride rule.
Virginia Tech underride guard installed by Senior Design Team, April 2016
LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Safety advocates say automakers and regulators have acted with “criminal” negligence in failing to remedy a long-acknowledged auto safety flaw that watchdogs say has played a role in hundreds of deaths, creating a “public health crisis.”
At issue are car seats that malfunction and collapse backward when a car is rear-ended. The impact of the crash and collapsing seat can cripple or kill drivers, as well as passengers in the back seat, in many cases, children. . .
In my opinion, a Vision Zero Executive Order, if signed by President Obama, could end the kind of Cost/Benefit Analysis which allows for the excuse that “not enough people die,” from an automotive defect, to justify taking action on deadly automotive defects. See why here:
Yesterday morning, I checked my email and saw that there was a new Public Comment posted on the Federal Register regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Underride Guards.
I quickly went to the site and saw that the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association had posted a comment (see their comments in the PDFs below). Apparently our Underride Roundtable two weeks ago at IIHS has spurred them to spell out the steps which have been taken over the years to squash side guards from being mandated and manufactured to prevent smaller passenger vehicles from riding under trucks upon collision with the side of the larger vehicle.
Their rationale: Cost/Benefit Analysis shows that adding side guard to trucks is “not cost-effective”.
“In its 1991 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation of proposed guards for rear underride, NHTSA’s Plans and Policy Office of Regulatory Analysis stated: “Combination truck side underride counter-measures have been determined not to be cost-effective.” [Docket I-11; Notice 9; Comment 002, page 15 (emphasis added) {by TTMA}].”
Translate that: Not enough people die from side underride crashes to justify the money it would take to add this safety feature. If this attitude and rulemaking policy is allowed to continue unabated, then innocent, unsuspecting travelers on our road will continue to experience preventable underride crashes and receive a Sentence of Death by Preventable Underride. And no one will be held responsible for that–not the trailer manufacturers, not the trucking companies, not the truck drivers (unless perhaps they were blamed for the collision itself), not the regulators, not the insurers; I repeat, no one!!! No one will be penalized for this despicable, unconscionable action–except, of course, the victims.
And, yes, TTMA is repeating the oft-heard industry argument that the solution is to concentrate on Crash Avoidance Technology instead–as if it were an either/or not a both/and question!
Meanwhile, people will continue to needlessly die — like AnnaLeah and Mary — and people like me will undergo tremendously traumatic ongoing grief multiplied exponentially by the anger and frustration of knowing that it might well have been prevented were it not for the endless opposition to implementing solutions which are readily available.
I helped roll up the side guard designed by Aaron Kiefer last month and it did not seem to weigh that much. I talked to Aaron yesterday and he estimates that his side guard, once in mass production, might weigh about 175 pounds. Currently, his prototype, when combining the weight of it on both sides of the truck, weighs in at around 300 pounds. And what percentage of the total allowed 80,000 lbs. is that anyway? (.4%?)
And, by the way, look at this amazing crash test of Aaron’s side guard, which I witnessed in North Carolina less than a month ago (April 30, 2016):
Somebody, please get me an audience with President Obama. I need him to tell me to my face that it is not a matter of life & death for him to adopt a National Vision Zero Goal, to establish a White House Vision Zero Task Force, and to sign a Vision Zero Executive Order which will pave the way for Vision Zero Rulemaking at DOT.
Of course, what I would really like to have happen is to speak with the President, have him catch the vision and promise me that he will actually take those actions. Wouldn’t that be exciting!
However, if President Obama does nothing about the traffic safety travesty, TTMA has clearly shown us what to expect: Continued opposition and resistance to efforts to make trucks safer to drive around.
I truly hope that I am wrong and that the outcome of the Underride Roundtable will have made a huge difference in the future of underride protection. However, it appears that, if TTMA has anything to say about it, we should expect that any new underride rule issued will either be opposed or be unchanged and, therefore, weak and ineffective. When it is Technologically Unnecessary for that to be so.
And then who will be ethically responsible for the continued carnage on the highways of this great country?! That’s what I want to know.
