Tag Archives: NHTSA rulemaking

Somebody, please get me an audience with President Obama to respond to my Vision Zero Petition!

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

As I was contemplating whether to go next week to Ralph Nader’s Breaking Through Power: A Historic Civic Mobilization, 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 underride guards from being mandated and manufactured.

TTMA_Side_impact_Exhibits_A-D_2016-05-13

TTMA_Side_Impact_Main_Comment_2016-05-13

The rationale: Cost/Benefit Analysis shows that adding side guard protection from underride of trucks by passenger vehicles 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: 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!!!

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  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.

And, no, I cannot imagine that it would have to weigh the 750 pounds which they claim it will (which the NHTSA cost/benefit analysis is based upon, by the way). I helped roll up the side guard designed by Aaron Kiefer last month and it did not weigh that much. I just talked to Aaron 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 204 pounds.

And, by the way, look at this crash test of Aaron’s side guard, which I witnessed in North Carolina less than a month ago:

Somebody, please get me an audience with President Obama next week (now I have to go to that conference). 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 him, 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 not do so, TTMA has clearly shown us that nothing will be any different and any new underride rule issued will likely continue to be 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.

IMG_4465Vision Zero Petition screenshot 001

Underride Roundtable To Consider Underride Research From Around the Globe

Truck Underride Roundtable is one week away! May it be sehr gut!

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

On June 25, 2014, after a tour of the research & design center of a truck trailer manufacturer in Georgia, I wrote down these perplexing thoughts about the too-long unresolved underride problem:

Now, it is understandable, amid the multitude of demands and the tyranny of the urgent, that—without a ready solution, in fact, one which would require time and money to develop—this problem has not been given much attention. But, if those who bear responsibility for making sure that this problem gets solved (one way or another) had lost two of their beloved children—or any other loved one—I can guarantee you that they would have moved heaven and earth to find a way to prevent underride.

What makes it even more distressing is that there are many individuals and organizations, who truly seem concerned about safety, including the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and the trailer manufacturers. Yet, from what I can see, very little communication has taken place to move this problem forward from point A (guards that fail and result in death and/or horrific injuries) to Point B (coming up with a better design that will provide the best protection possible). Underride Guards: Can we “sit down at the table together” and work this out?

From where I stood, there seemed to be no light at the end of the tunnel for this life-ending/changing problem. I had lots of ideas about what needed to be done but no sense that any thing was going to get done about it any time in the near future.

So, in trying to process what we learned at the meeting, I kept thinking over and over: Could an independent work group of qualified individuals, such as an engineering school, take on the challenge of creating such a design—which could then be tested by IHHS, proposed to NHTSA to aid in defining improved rear impact guard specifications, and provided to all trailer manufacturers? Could we do some kind of crowd funding or grant proposal to obtain the necessary funds to support such an endeavor? Could we perhaps even approach the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) and ask them to seek contributions from their members for such a project?

Is cost truly not a factor? Is safety really a priority and not a competitive matter? Is it possible to improve the communication necessary to prevent more unnecessary deaths? Can we “sit down at the table together” and work this out?

I am so happy to be able to say that at the Underride Roundtable, one week from now on May 5, 2016, over 65 representatives from the trucking industry, government, safety advocates, engineers, crash reconstructionists, attorneys, and media will be on hand at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Vehicle Research Center to”sit down at the table together” and discuss and demonstrate truck underride crashes.

This group will include representatives from:

  • Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association
  • American Trucking Associations
  • Seven Hills Engineering
  • Airflow Deflector
  • Accident Research Specialists
  • Sapa Extrusions
  • Truck Safety Coalition
  • AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety
  • Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
  • Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
  • Virginia Tech
  • East Carolina University
  • National Transportation Safety Board, Office of Highway Safety
  • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
  • J. Hunt Transport
  • Batzer Engineering
  • Injury and Crash Analysis
  • Vanguard Trailer
  • Smart Cap Technologies
  • UNC Highway Safety Research Center
  • Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety
  • Volpe, The National Transportation Systems Center
  • Interstate Distributor
  • NYC Citywide Adminstrative Services
  • Nurenberg Paris Law Firm
  • Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance
  • Sanders & Parks Law Firm
  • The University of North Carolina at Charlotte
  • North Carolina Department of Transportation
  • Cargo Transporters
  • Stoughton Trailers
  • Great Dane Trailers
  • North Carolina State Highway Patrol
  • City of Boston, Mayor’s Office of New Urban Mechanics
  • Interstate Distributors
  • Media representatives
  • Underride victims and families
  • and joined by an unknown number of individuals globally as the event will be livestreaming at this webcast link.

It is unfortunate that, over the decades in which no adequate solution to this tragic problem has come about, there has been much miscommunication, misunderstanding, misinformation, and mistakes made. I, for one, am ready to encourage things to move forward with positive momentum–aiming for the best possible underride protection.

In my morning reading, I was reflecting on some verses in Mark 11, which reminded me that the outcome is not totally dependent on me or any of the others who will be gathering in Ruckersville, Virginia, next Thursday. Instead, we are to. . .

“Have faith in God. Truly I say to you, whoever says to this mountain, ‘Be taken up and cast into the sea,’ and does not doubt in his heart, but believes that what he says is going go happen; it shall be granted him. Therefore I say to you, all things for which you pray and ask, believe that you have received them, and they shall be granted you.” Mark 11:22-24

And one more key thing, no matter what has and has not been done during the decades following the discovery of the horror of underride, we all need to forgive, put the past behind us, and find ways to work together to overcome this challenge.

“And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your transgressions.” Mark 11:25

And though we may forgive, we will never forget those we have lost and the reason we are here. . .

Never forgotten

Regulators, manufacturers, & advocates need to read this engineer’s comment on truck underride.

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

Take note of a recent public comment on NHTSA’s truck underride rulemaking:

Comment_from_Seven_Hills_Engineering,_LLC

Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 1Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 2Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 3

Perry Ponder from Seven Hills Engineering makes some timely observations. Anyone concerned about preventing deadly underride crashes will want to make sure that regulators and manufacturers are listening.

Here is the 1969 DOT document to which Perry refers–in which they indicate their intent to extend underride protection to the sides of large vehicles: 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2 p.2

Looking forward to a lively Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016.

2

What kind of underride protection would be the result of a Vision Zero Rulemaking Policy?

 

National Vision Zero Goal: Unifying Force in Development of Automated Vehicles

Safety Advocacy, , , , ,

Vision Zero Petition Book 010Mom Continues to Fight for Truck Safety After Daughters’ Tragic Death

Need Nat’l Safety Stds @POTUS: MD Car Safety Disclosure Bill Does Little to Protect & Inform Drivers

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

“MD House Car Safety Disclosure Bill Does Little to Protect and Inform Drivers” Maryland House Car Safety Disclosure Bill

ANNAPOLIS, Md., April 1, 2016 /PRNewswire/ — The auto safety disclosure bill the MD House passed in March (HB 525) does very little to protect drivers from dangerous defects, leading safety and consumer advocates say, and flies in the face of new safety and defect disclosure rules issued last week by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA). Leading consumer groups including Public Citizen, the Center for Auto Safety, and the Consumer Federation of America have joined Consumer Auto in calling on the MD Senate to strengthen the bill to better protect consumers.

“The bill would sharply limit our ability to share with our customers the information about defects the manufacturers share with us in service bulletins, warranty updates, and other communications,” notes Jack Fitzgerald, the president of Fitzgerald Auto Malls who has run a string of car dealerships in Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Florida for 50 years. 
“It’s absurd for Maryland law to prevent us from telling our customers about information that Congress and NHTSA say should be public. That’s a terrible disservice to the people who rely on us to sell and service their cars,” Mr. Fitzgerald argues.

My answer: National Traffic Safety Standards and Rules to be adopted by every state. A task of a White House Vision Zero Task Force. What are you waiting for, President Obama?

If we do not pursue this course of action, then who is ethically responsible for all of the deaths which will occur as a result?

Number Line Rulemaking Method

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.

Vision Zero Petition Book with 20,000+ signatures now posted on Federal Register for Underride Rule

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety,

Regulations.gov - Your Voice in Federal Decision Making

The call for Vision Zero nationally and specifically to be applied to DOT Rulemaking Policy for Underride Regulations as well as countless other traffic safety measures is now posted on the Federal Register: NPRM Upgrade Underide: Vision Zero Book by Marianne Karth for President Obama

LOGO AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety

Warning is only the tip of the iceberg: CAS petitions NHTSA to warn parents of back seat dangers

Safety Advocacy, , ,

Children vulnerable while in back seats Center for Auto Safety asks NHTSA to issue Warning to Parents: Center for Auto Safety Rear Seat Petition

We request that the agency modify its child seating recommendations by adding the following or similar warning language and that such language be required in Owner’s Manuals under 49 CFR § 571.208 S4.5.1(f):

If Possible, Children Should Be Placed In Rear Seating Positions Behind Unoccupied Front Seats. In Rear-End Crashes, the Backs of Occupied Front Seats Are Prone To Collapse Under the Weight of Their Occupants. If This Occurs, the Seat Backs and Their Occupants Can Strike Children in Rear Seats and Cause Severe or Fatal Injuries

Until cars on the American highway are equipped with adequately strong front seats and seatbacks, children in rear seats behind occupied front seats will continue to be in danger of death or severe injury from front seatback failures in rear-end impacts. For this reason the Center for Auto Safety today petitions for action by the agency to warn parents of this danger and how to avoid it when possible. Separately, the Center is filing a detailed analysis of police reports and lawsuits that shows the dangers of seat back collapse are far greater than what the agency recognizes because seat back collapse is not captured by the FARS database on which the agency has relied for all too long to deny there is a seatback collapse danger.

This is admittedly an interim measure which is made necessary by the continued absence of a federal motor vehicle safety standard requiring that cars be equipped with adequately protective front seats, but it is essential. The agency can take most of the requested steps on its own, without time-consuming rulemaking, and should do so promptly.

Sincerely,

Clarence M. Ditlow Executive Director

cc: Secretary of Transportation

As a mom of nine children (although they are now all adults), this is of great concern to me on behalf of those who don’t have an option of picking a “safer” spot to seat their young children. This warning is not enough; lives are at stake!

Another case of the need for presidential Vision Zero action to end unconscionable, unimaginable, and unethical delays in implementing traffic safety measures!

Tell Obama you are standing with us in this: “Family Continues Fight for Trucking Safety”

Minolta DSC
Minolta DSC

Will the Nat’l Technology Transfer & Advancement Act give us a Dragon Underride Protector?

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

Well, now I have found out about an interesting requirement for regulatory rulemaking related to safety standards.

“National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law 104– 113, Section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272), directs agencies to use voluntary consensus standards in regulatory activities unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standard bodies, such as SAE.  NTTAA directs agencies to provide Congress explanations when they decide not to use available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.” TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH CIRCULAR E-C117 The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research

Now here’s a question: How would the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act be interpreted and applied in the case of underride regulatory standards?

First, let’s look at an example related to seat belt assembly compliance testing:

The agency identified an ISO technical report (TR 1417-1974) and an SAE International standard (J384, Rev. JUN94) that have testing recommendations for vehicle seat belt anchorages. Both recommend the use of body blocks, similar to those currently specified in FMVSS No. 210, for applying the required test loads. The alternative strategy the agency is now considering in this SNPRM would continue the use of the FMVSS No. 210 body blocks. Accordingly, the alternative strategy employing the current body blocks is consistent with the ISO report and SAE standard. However, NHTSA has tentatively determined that the ISO report and SAE standard, among other matters, do not specify the positioning of the body blocks referenced in both with sufficient specificity to achieve the goals of this rulemaking. Thus, NHTSA has decided to base this SNPRM on the existing FMVSS No. 210 body blocks rather than explore using new ones, and to develop possible test procedures that make clear how the body blocks are to be positioned during FMVSS No. 210 compliance testing. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards: Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages

Now, let’s look at what the current proposed underride rule for rear impact protection on trailers says:

This NPRM proposes to adopt requirements of CMVSS No. 223, as discussed later in this section. NHTSA’s consideration of CMVSS No. 223 accords with the principles of NTTAA, in that NHTSA is considering an established, proven standard, and has not had to expend significant agency resources on the same safety need addressed by CMVSS No. 223. Rear Impact Guards, Rear Impact Protection,

So, does this mean that NHTSA is choosing to adopt an existing underride standard (Canadian’s rear underride standard) rather than explore existing or future research, or standards from other countries, which might prove that stronger, more effective guards could be manufactured and thus save more lives?

Pourquoi? What would qualify as “available and applicable voluntary consensus standards”? Is this an attempt to avoid having to provide Congress, through OMB, with an explanation? If so, would they have to give an explanation for:

  1. Why they decide to use standards not already being implemented elsewhere? OR
  2. Why they decide not to use proven underride technology?

And what does ” inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical” mean? Is this an insurmountable barrier? For example, does “impractical” refer to the cost/benefit analysis restrictions of Executive Order 12866 which we are asking to be addressed with a Vision Zero Executive Order?

I’m confused. Can this Technology & Transfer Act allow us to make use of advances in technology? Can we not move beyond what someone else has already used as a regulatory standard? Why would we settle for less than the best?

Here’s to hoping this question can get addressed and that the upcoming Underride Roundtable at IIHS on May 5, 2016, will serve as a “voluntary consensus standard body” to clearly and definitively delineate state-of-the-art technical voluntary consensus standards to provide the best possible underride protection in the whole wide world!

And call it the Dragon Underride Protector in honor of my son (who suggested that name and who, as a passenger, endured the same truck/car crash as his sisters and witnessed their deaths due to underride) and in memory of his sisters, AnnaLeah (forever 17) and Mary (13).

Dragon Underride Protector 004

 

Side Guards: The original intent of NHTSA rulemakers in the 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2

Truck Safety,

I was able to locate the document referred to in a Public Comment on the underride rulemaking. See this post: A Public Comment on Underride Rulemaking re: original intent of NHTSA in 1969

The Public Comment was asking for NHTSA to extend underride protection to the sides of trucks and mentioned that it was the original intent of the underride rulemaking in 1969. This is what the Federal Highway Administration said at that time,

It is anticipated that the proposed standard will be amended, after technical studies have been completed, to extend the requirement for underride protection to the sides of large vehicles.

Imagine! In 1969.

And NHTSA said this, in response to our petition request in 2014 to add side guards:

By initiating rulemaking to consider enhancing related safety standards, this notice grants the part of the petition for rulemaking submitted by Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition (Petitioners) requesting that the agency improve the safety of rear impact (underride) guards on trailers and single unit trucks. Based on the petition, available information, and the agency’s analysis in progress, NHTSA has decided that the Petitioners’ request related to rear impact guards merits further consideration. Therefore, the agency grants the Petitioners’ request to initiate rulemaking on rear impact guards. NHTSA is planning on issuing two separate notices—an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to rear impact guards and other safety strategies for single unit trucks, and a notice of proposed rulemaking focusing on rear impact guards on trailers and semitrailers. NHTSA is still evaluating the Petitioners’ request to improve side guards and front override guards and will issue a separate decision on those aspects of the petition at a later date.

 The Petitioners’ request to initiate rulemaking on rear impact guards on trailers and single unit trucks is granted on July 10, 2014

Here is that 1969 document:

1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 21969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2 p.2

This was the original intent of NHTSA rulemakers in the 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2. 

Imagine. . . when I was 13 years-old in 1969, DOT was doing proposed rulemaking on underride and “anticipated that the proposed Standard will be amended, after technical studies have been completed, to extend the requirement for underride protection to the sides of large vehicles.”

And what has happened between now and then? Certainly not any mandated, and very little voluntary, side guard protection on trucks.

UPDATE, August 21, 2020: Perry Ponder who made this Public Comment and has invented the AngelWing side guard, recently submitted another Public Comment to NHTSA.

NHTSA  mentioned side guards in their response to our 2014 petition to them: A Proposed Rule by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration on 07/10/2014

Aaron Kiefer underride design prototype photo

Innovative combined side & rear guard promises better underride protection