Tag Archives: NHTSA

Truck industry, engineers & safety advocates comment on Truck Underride Protection for motorists, pedestrians & cyclists

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

The Public Comment Period is Closed now for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. I appreciate those who took the time to comment and I look forward to in-depth dialogue among these people and organizations at our Spring 2016 Underride Roundtable. You can find their published comments here:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

These include comments from:

With funds which we raise for underride research, we are hoping to cover the costs of the crash test for the innovative combined side & rear guard designed by this engineer, Aaron J. Kiefer MSME, PE . See his Comment:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0013

And we have been in correspondence with these two engineers in Australia who have researched solutions to deadly underride for 30 years.  Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre . See their Comments:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0021  & my posts on them:  https://annaleahmary.com/2015/09/australian-engineers-champion-the-cause-of-better-truck-underride-  protection/

Contrast their comments to the conclusion of the NTEA: “Based on the published data and expected benefits, there is no justification for requiring rear underride guards on single unit trucks.” Maybe they ought to watch this video from Australia.

Someone in Australia was asked this question: “So last year, 249 people died on our roads. What do you think would be a more acceptable number?”

See what he answered:

IIHS October 2014 Status Report CoverBefore & After Photos

Cover of IIHS Status Report on guards; photos of our car before/after

Support Underride Research to Prevent Unnecessary Deaths & Injuries.

Donate Now: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Australian engineers champion the cause of better truck underride protection

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

I have spoken and corresponded with George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta from the Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre in Sydney. I have also written about their work on underride protection in Australia.

Yesterday, I received from them a copy of their submission to the Public Comments on the Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. It is worth a read to find out what is being said in other countries about this vital issue.

NHTSA-Docket-Submission-Grzebieta&Rechnitzer 20 Sept 2015

Here are some highlights:

    • Whilst there are force based design rules, e.g. in USA, Canada and Europe, it is apparent that these rules are inadequate. In our submission we strongly recommend crash test based performance requirements for under-run protection catering for both centred and off-set impact.
      Around 10 people per year on average are killed in Australia in rear under-run crashes resulting in horrific injuries such as decapitation.13 Yet the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS)14 for Underrun Protection publish by the Vehicle Safety Standards Branch at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in July 2009 recommended that only front under-run protection be applied to all rigid and articulated trucks. Their conclusion was that the cost-benefit ratio for frontal under-run barriers was greater than one whereas for side and rear under-run the benefit was negative, and hence such protection should not be mandated in an Australian Design Rule. Yet despite these numerous calls for changes over the past three decades, we continue to consistently kill people in such crashes, ignoring the fact that practical low cost effective under-run barriers can be fitted. That is the real unforgivable tragedy.
    • The Vison Zero and Safe System approach adopted by most of the world now and on which Towards Zero Deaths is anchored, boldly moves away from the economic- rationalist ‘cost-benefit’ models (cited in this Docket as still being used by NHTSA), to a humanistic more rational model. The important aspect of a ‘Vision Zero’ principle is that it introduces ‘ethical rules’ to guide the system designers. In other words:
      • Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society
      • Whenever someone is killed or seriously injured, necessary steps must be taken to avoid similar events.
    • The Authors of this submission would further point out to those at NHTSA considering how the Rear Impact Protection for Single Unit Trucks should be revised; they should consider placing themselves in the position of the gentleman being asked in the following Australian Government advertisement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsyvrkEjoXI&feature=youtu.be. This advertisement was commissioned and paid for by the Victorian State Government in Australia. We would ask the NHTSA staff responsible for this NPRM which members of their family would they allocate to die that would be acceptable to them and would meet the NHTSA cost benefit ratios being considered?

  • To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016. The tests requirements are in part based on the US Manual for Assessing Road Hardware (MASH) and are presented below.
    We would strongly recommend that NHTSA consider such dynamic performance tests when they deliberate their development of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for under-ride barriers.
  • TUB’s are designed to prevent a vehicle impacting the rear of a stationary truck under-riding the back of the truck in a manner where the truck structure intrudes into the impacting vehicle’s occupant compartment. The TUB’s main function is to protect the occupants in the impacting vehicle.
  • If the car is designed to such ANCAP and IIHS test protocols with the maximum crashworthiness rating, it is likely that the occupants would not sustain serious injuries in a vehicle impacting such a TUB in the configurations shown in Figure 1.
  • The manufacturers of such TUBs and operators of heavy vehicles are encouraged to explore the application of energy absorbing systems for TUBs including rear air bags mounted on the rear of trucks.

This latter recommendation is relevant to our goal of seeking research money to provide to Dean Sicking whose proposal intends to do just that: explore the application of the SAFER Barrier — an energy absorbying system — to the prevention of truck underride tragedies.

Dean Sicking’s Research Proposal: Development of Trailer Underride Preventive Measures

As soon as their Public Comment is published, I will post a link so that you can read the entire document online for a better understanding of their detailed analysis and proposal for crash test based performance requirements for truck underride protection, for both centred and off-set impact, in contrast to the force based design rules in the current U. S. federal underride standards. The Australian recommendations are based on 30 years of research and experience. (Note: the document in its entirety can be accessed at the top of this post.)

The formal period for submission of Public Comments ends today, September 21, 2015. Upon the request of several groups, I made a request that the period be extended for a short time. That request is under consideration by the agency. All published Public Comments can be found at this site, which is updated as submissions are made:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta have, unfortunately, faced similar challenges in Australia in trying to persuade the powers that be to make rules which would prevent unnecessary and horrific deaths and injuries. However, they  are encouraged by potential upcoming changes in their country:

To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016.

Other posts on their work include:

We look forward to working with George and Raphael at the Underride Roundtable in the Spring of 2016 and know that our country can greatly benefit from their expertise.

Underride Research Meme

WarsawINFilmPhotographer_MIMemoria_Film_063

Donate toward the  Underride Roundtable & Research Now: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Be a part of this timely push to prevent unnecessary deaths.

It could save someone you love.

Request for Extension of Public Comment Period on Single Unit Truck Rulemaking Process

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

After hearing that several groups were hoping that they could have more time (beyond the current deadline of September 21) to prepare a Public Comment on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks, I contacted NHTSA and filed a request to extend the Public Comment period.

The agency replied that they are considering my request. It usually takes at least 10 calendar days for such a process. I hope that this helps with providing useful information but does not lead to unnecessary delay of the needed rulemaking.

Trip North May 2015 035

Photo by me of a Single Unit Truck I saw on the expressway a few months ago.

Note the wimpy rear underride guard.

Donate now & support Underride Research to Prevent Underride and Save Lives:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Underride Guards: a topic of conversation on TruckingInfo.com

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

Underride guards have been a topic of conversation over the months (many of them now since our crash) at TruckingInfo.com:

Why Better Underride Guards, and Maybe Other Stuff, Are Worth It
June 3, 2013,  http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/trailer-talk/story/2013/06/why-better-underride-guards-and-maybe-other-stuff-are-worth-it.aspx

NHTSA to Issue New Rules on Underride Guards
July 11, 2014,  http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/safety-compliance/news/story/2014/07/nhtsa-to-issue-new-rules-on-underride-guards.aspx

NHTSA to Upgrade Truck Underride and Conspicuity Rules
July 20, 2015,  http://www.truckinginfo.com/channel/fleet-management/news/story/2015/07/nhtsa-initiates-upgrade-of-truck-underride-and-conspicuity-rules.aspx

Crash Argues for Better Impact Guards, and Better Driving
August 14, 2015, http://www.truckinginfo.com/blog/trailer-talk/story/2015/08/rear-end-crash-argues-for-better-impact-guards-and-better-control-of-one-s-car.aspx

(Just a note: It doesn’t matter who is at fault in these kinds of crashes of a smaller vehicle into a larger truck; if the underride guards could prevent the smaller vehicle from riding under the truck, the tragedy of death and horrific injury could be avoided.)

Underride Research MemeSupport Underride Research/Donate Now: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Thoughts on making a Public Comment on rulemaking for Single Unit Truck underride protection (Ends September 21)

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , ,

DOT is studying whether or not they should require “single unit (or straight)” trucks to be safer, i.e., be built so that–when a vehicle rear-ends them–the smaller vehicle does not slide underneath the larger truck. And they are asking people to let them know what they think about this.

What might you say about the proposed rulemaking for underride protection on these trucks? (Examples of SUTs are dump trucks, garbage haulers, concrete mixers, tank trucks, trash trucks, and local delivery trucks.)

What I would suggest is that you point out the fact that people die every year when their vehicle hits the back of single unit trucks so that the truck actually enters the passenger vehicle in the area where people are sitting. And, if manufacturing companies were required to provide adequate underride protection on these trucks, many of those deaths could be prevented.

Sure, it will cost some money to provide that protection. And that cost will have to be passed on to someone–whether it be the manufacturing company, the company which purchases the truck, the consumer of the trucking industry services, etc. Are we willing to bear that cost as a society, or would we rather keep our costs as low as possible–at the price of human life?

Good news: The 11,000+ AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety Petition signers have been added to the Public Comments for the ANPRM Underride Protection for Single Unit Trucks.

To see all of the signatures/comments from the Petition, go to this link:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

At that site, click on Karth Family/Care 2 Petition. Then click on Supporting Documents. There is a PDF and an XLS spreadsheet. The PDF can be read better by magnifying the chart.

You are allowed to add your own comments to the ANPRM–even if you signed the Petition. You can do so by clicking the COMMENT NOW button on that website. Please take the time to express your thoughts on this vital issue.

I am grateful for the countless people across the earth who care about these life and death matters and are willing to stand up and ask for safer roads.
Please note: Public Comments Period ends September 21, 2015.
Rebekah photo of crash

ELDs for Trucker Hours; Minimum Liability; & Underride Guards: AL&MSUFTS Petition Update

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

AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition

Petition Request

Current Rulemaking Stage

Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs)

The Petition’s 11,000+ signatures were added to the Public Comments for the Electronic Logging Device Rule.  The comment period ended May 27, 2014.

Final Rule is scheduled to be published by 9/30/15.

Companies would then have 2 years from that date to comply.

Minimum Liability Insurance

ANPRM was issued on 11/28/14 meaning: FMCSA announced that it is considering a rulemaking that would increase the minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/11/28/2014-28076/financial-responsibility-for-motor-carriers-freight-forwarders-and-brokers

Public Comments closed on 2/26/15.

Those Comments are now being reviewed.

Trucking industry has attempted to get an amendment passed this summer on the THUD Appropriations Bill which would take away funding from FMCSA for continuing the rulemaking process.

Underride Guards

“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.“

Proposed Rulemaking was issued for rear impact guards on tractor-trailers on July 10, 2014. This is the rulemaking stage in which an agency proposes to add to or change its existing regulations and solicits public comment on this proposal. Recommendations for revision of existing regulations are expected to be issued for Public Comments before the end of 2015.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2014/07/10/2014-16018/federal-motor-vehicle-safety-standards-rear-impact-guards-rear-impact-protection

The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for Single Unit Trucks was issued on 7/23/15, with the Public Comments Period closing on September 21, 2015. This will be followed by an analysis of the Comments and a determination about whether or not, or how best, to initiate a rulemaking.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

Here is an outline of the rulemaking process:  https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf

Update on Electronic Logging Devices: “FMCSA advances e-log mandate, rule sent to OMB for approval”

http://www.overdriveonline.com/fmcsa-advances-e-log-mandate-rule-sent-to-omb-for-approval/

This means that the Electronic Logging Devices rule could be going into effect by September 30 and the industry would have to comply with it within two years.

“Still seemingly on target for its projected Sept. 30 publication, a Final Rule to mandate the use of electronic logging devices has been sent from the DOT to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for final approval before being published.

The DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sent the e-log rule to the OMB July 30, along with a Final Rule that will implement stiffer penalties for carriers, shippers, brokers and others who coerce or pressure drivers to not abide by federal safety standards like hours-of-service limits.

The OMB legally has 90 days to approve the rules or send them back to FMCSA to be changed, which is unlikely.

The rule, which will take effect two years following its publication in the Federal Register, will require all truck drivers who are required to keep records of duty status to use an electronic logging device, formerly known as electronic onboard recorders.”

Battle over Truckers’ Hours of Service: http://www.overdriveonline.com/report-fmcsa-cant-effectively-study-2013-hours-of-service-safety-conclusions-likely-skewed/

“In responding to the report, the DOT noted the GAO had recognized achievements associated with the hours rule: A decrease in the frequency of long work schedules, lower risk of driver fatigue generally, and reduced fatal truck crashes. It agreed with the GAO recommendation to adopt guidance outlining research standards for future analyses and promised a detailed response to the entire effort within the next 60 days.”

Petition Photo Bags at DOT, best

 

11,000+ AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety Petition signers added to Public Comments for the ANPRM Underride Protection for Single Unit Trucks.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, ,
Good news: The 11,000+ AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety Petition signers have been added to the Public Comments for the ANPRM Underride Protection for Single Unit Trucks.
To see all of the signatures/comments from the Petition, go to this link:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

At that site, click on Karth Family/Care 2 Petition. Then Click on Supporting Documents. There is a PDF and an XLS spreadsheet. The PDF can be read better by magnifying.the chart.
You are allowed to add your own comments to the ANPRM–even if you signed the Petition. You can do so on the Comments Now button on that website.
I am grateful for the countless people across the earth who care about these life and death matters and are willing to stand up and ask for safer roads.
gertie 2946

Congress, Please give NHTSA the authority & resources to do their job and keep us safe on the road!

Truck Safety, , ,

I don’t know about you, but I am tired of the ongoing battle over highway safety. The opposition, as far as I can tell, to measures designed to protect travelers on the road demand more research. But are they listening to the research already being done?

One specific example is regarding longer trucks (Double 33s):

“The legislation would force states to allow “twin 33s” — trucks that pull two trailers, each 33 feet long. Only 11 states allow them now, and Pennsylvania is not among them. Double trailers here cannot be more than 28 feet, 6 inches, and single trailers can be no more than 53 feet long.

“Supporters say the change would eliminate 6 million trips each year, improve the environment and cut down on crashes. . .

“The former head of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration likens the massive trucks to “trains on highways” that would damage roads and endanger motorists. Trucks weigh 20 to 30 times more than cars, and they take longer than cars to come to a stop, particularly on wet and slippery roads. A U.S. Department of Transportation study found that the twin 33s require 22 more feet for braking than the current trucks on the road. In 2013, 3,964 people died in crashes involving large trucks.

“Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey, a Democrat who is crusading against the change, says longer trucks would cause more than $2 billion in damage to the nation’s roads and bridges.” http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/editorials/2015/07/26/Bigger-s-not-better-Longer-tractor-trailers-spell-trouble-on-the-road/stories/201507310057

NHTSA has had some weak areas, but then let’s do what we can to improve their ability to do what they were commissioned to do in 1966–not sabotage their efforts. In October 1966, Dr. William Haddon became the first administrator of the new federal safety agency.

“Haddon announced twenty-three proposed standards on November 29, 1966, at the Auto Industry Dinner held at the Detroit Automobile Show. . . Haddon began his speech by reminding the auto executives and others present of the ‘continuing national tragedy’ of nearly three times as many Americans dying ‘on our streets and highways,’ as have died in all America’s wars. ‘As civilized people,’ Haddon said, we can no longer tolerate these fatalities, ‘year after year, like a medieval plague beyond our power of influence.’ America must, he said, ‘manufacture safer automobiles.’

“The infant agency raced against the clock to issue new safety standards within about one year of its creation by early 1968. It was not an easy task. . . Haddon himself worked nights and weekends while building the structure of NHTSA and simultaneously writing the final safety standards. . .

“NHTSA’s twenty-three ‘final’ safety standards were drawn mostly from existing General Service Administration standards, from the Society of Automotive Engineers’ (SAE) voluntary ‘guides,’ and one–banning hubcaps that could become dangerous projectiles–based on a Swedish government standard. They were organized into three categories, paralleling Haddon’s original accident matrix: 100-level standards designed to prevent crashes from occurring; 200-level standards designed to reduce the likelihood of injury when crashes occurred; and 300-level standards designed to reduce the risk of injury after a crash occurred. They were issued on time.

“Once a federal standard was adopted it had real teeth. It became the law of the land and could not be ignored or offered only as an option by car makers selling motor vehicles in the United States. The scope of federal motor vehicle safety standards (FMVSS) started with the initial twenty-three, but it has expanded and now includes more than fifty major standards, covering passenger cars, pickup trucks, vans, SUVs, motorcycles, large trucks, buses, and school buses.

“The initial 1968 standards ranged from relatively modest changes such as uniform and visible labeling of dashboard controls, to ground-breaking rules, such as those requiring front seat shoulder harnesses and seat belts built to the GSA standard. There were standards that represented major improvements, such as common transmission shifting sequences (Park-Reverse-Neutral-Drive-Low), warning lights for braking system failures, improved exterior lighting, front seat head restraints, collapsible, energy-absorbing steering columns, and safer door latches.

“The first NHTSA standards were met with sharp criticism from automobile manufacturers. They derided them as ‘useless,’ ‘inadvisable,’ ‘illegal,’ and ‘impossible to meet.’. . .

“For the first time, the automobile industry was required to follow federal safety rules in the design of much of its cars. The standards established a base level of safety in automobiles sold to Americans. And they demonstrated that a federal agency could, if it was forceful enough, require automobile manufacturers to change their car designs to produce safer vehicles.” (Car Safety Wars; One Hundred Years of Technology, Politics, and Death, by Michael R. Lemov, pp. 115-116, 118)

Fortunately, these standards were made law and not voluntary standards,

“The House proposal gave the manufacturers the right to initially write voluntary standards before the federal government would have the chance and the heavy burden of showing that further action was necessary. Detroit should have grabbed the offer. Voluntary industry standards, in any industry, have the reputation of often being weak standards. They are enforceable only through publicity and public awareness, not by government action. The level of such voluntary standards, set by industry committees with limited public participation, can be that demanded by the weakest company, the one with the tightest profit margins. Voluntary standards are ‘consensus’ standards, based on agreement of all industry participants. In dealing with the lives and safety of so many people, safety standards, are, and were then, matters not of consensus but of public importance.” (Lemov, p. 94)

Just one example of this is the rear underride guard standard for tractor-trailers. The current standard is weak and ineffective and does not prevent many deadly underride crashes. The current rule was implemented in 1998 and, despite research to show that it needs to be strengthened, the industry has done little to voluntarily improve the situation. This is a matter of public importance and it is my sincere hope that industry and government can work together and not in opposition.

FMVSS No. 224: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2015/07/23/2015-17973/rear-impact-protection-lamps-reflective-devices-and-associated-equipment-single-unit-trucks

Let’s not cave in to industry pressure at the price of compromising the safety of all who travel on the road. Let’s give them the authority and resources to do the job they were given to do. That includes the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) as well.

I, for one, am thankful and will do all I can to promote thorough research and informed decision-making. Saved lives are well worth the price.

Safety is not a priority 002

“‘. . . get the auto industry more proactive. Everybody is reactive, even NHTSA.'”

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety,

“Mark Rosekind, the federal government’s chief auto safety official in metro Detroit this week to deliver the opening address at the Automated Vehicles Symposium in Ann Arbor on Tuesday, said he wants the agency to work on preventing tragedies, not just react to them.”

“. . . ‘ I don’t mind telling you that I also think one of our agendas clearly — because I keep talking about this — is to try to get the auto industry more proactive. Everybody is reactive, even NHTSA.'”

http://www.freep.com/story/money/cars/auto-leadership/2015/07/20/nhtsa-rosekind-detroit-ignition-switch-general-motors/30412571/

Sounds good to me.

IMG_20140508_114515_341

Let’s Move From: “A Failure of Compassion, & Tactics of Conceal-­‐Delay-­‐Deny While Fiery Crashes Occur” to a “Vision of Zero Fatalities”

Truck Safety, , , , , , , ,

Chrysler and the Defective Design of Jeeps with Unsafe Fuel Tanks …..
A Failure of Compassion, and Tactics of Conceal-­‐Delay-­‐Deny While Fiery Crashes Occur
by Byron Bloch, Auto Safety Expert, Potomac, Maryland
www.AutoSafetyExpert.com   Byron@AutoSafetyExpert.com
Presentation at National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NHTSA Public Hearing on July 2nd, 2015 -­‐-­‐-­‐Washington, D.C.

“From my perspective of about 50 years in the auto safety trenches, I’ve seen that NHTSA has too often been a slowly reactive agency, rather than being pro-active in analyzing vehicle design and performance in real-world accidents.

I’ve seen where automaker documents produced in product-liability court cases reveal that the company has known of the dangers and safety defects for many years, but preferred to conceal that knowledge, then delay its release, and then deny that it ever knew what the documents revealed.

The Chrysler secretly-negotiated deal with NHTSA, without any public hearing, to provide trailer hitches as a so-called recall fix to improve fuel tank protection, but only in low-speed accidents, makes a mockery of what should be done.

Look instead to what NASCAR and helicopters and military aircraft utilize for fuel tank safety, and you’ll see safety technology that could and should be utilized. But that would require compassion… and that’s not yet a Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard.

Let’s together join forces to fight for safer vehicles for us all, with the vision of zero fatalities… by preventing vehicle accidents, and by more crashworthy vehicles to protect occupants when accidents occur, and by the elimination of needlessly unsafe and defective designs.

Thank you.” Byron Bloch

Preach it, brother! (Fine Print: And that includes truck underride guards! https://annaleahmary.com/2015/06/truck-underride-prevention-research-too-long-neglected-how-long-will-this-highway-carnage-continue/ )

Chrysler and Defective Design of Jeeps with Unsafe Fuel Tanks

Safety is not a priority 002

Different Version of Highway Safety Bill by Republicans and Democrats Reflect Different Vision of Public Safety Needs in Response to the Largest Vehicle Safety Recalls in History and Mounting Truck Crash Deaths and Injuries:  Safety Advocates JOINT STATEMENT 7-10-2015

Care for Crash Victims Monthly Report July 2015

Crash Fatalities by State 2013