We’ve been waiting 52+ years for DOT to move forward with side guards on large trucks — not to mention improving rear guard regulations and adding front underride protection. After numerous petitions, comprehensive underride rulemaking still has not made it the onto the DOT Unified Regulatory Agenda.
A public commitment to Vision ZERO is lip service when it does not result in substantive action. What would constitute tangible progress?
2013 & 2014 Petitions for Comprehensive Underride Rulemaking2016 Petition for Comprehensive Underride RulemakingD.C. Underride Crash Test less than a mile from DOT, March 26, 20192021 Petition for Comprehensive Underride Rulemaking
On April 17, 2020, over 40 people participated in a virtual meeting of a volunteer Underride Protection Committee’s “Side Guard Task Force.” This included two engineers from trailer manufacturers. As a follow-up, several subcommittees began to hold virtual meetings, including an Underride Engineering Subcommittee.
The engineering subcommittee met at least monthly and sometimes every other week from May through November. At the outset, the VP of Engineering of one of the trailer manufacturers provided valuable input. Subcommittee members also participated in a Virtual Briefing for Senate Commerce Committee transportation staffers on August 19, 2020.
The goal of the Underride Engineering Subcommittee was to create a Consensus Side Guard Standard which would provide additional insight for the development of a side guard regulation and industry standard. Lengthy conversation and exchange of information has led this group to submit the following recommendation:
A side underride guard shall be considered to meet the performance standard if it is able to provide vehicle crash compatibility with a midsize car, to prevent intrusion into the occupant survival space, when it is struck at any location, at any angle, and at any speed up to and including 40 mph.
The subcommittee members are in agreement as to the details shaping this long-overdue standard, which they anticipate will lead to the saving of countless lives in the days and years to come. The following group of individuals participated in the Underride Engineering Subcommittee and are willing to continue to provide input.
NOTE: It should be mentioned that this standard has, in fact, been evaluated through research conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety when they crashed a car at 40 m.p.h. into the side of a tractor-trailer equipped with AngelWings side guards on August 29, 2017, during the Second Underride Roundtable at their Ruckersville, Virginia, testing facility.
There was no underride, no Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI), and the crash dummy data showed that it was survivable. In other words, this standard is not pie-in-the-sky; it has been proven that the Consensus Side Guard Standard is attainable.
Crash test at 40 mph into AngelWings side guards, August 29, 2017, during the Second Underride Roundtable at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
Perry Ponder, who first brought the 1969 DOT discussion of side underride protection to my attention in 2016 and has invented the AngelWing side guard, recently submitted another Public Comment to NHTSA. He addresses industry concerns about side guards — providing thorough documentation.
IIHS Side Guard Crash Test, March 20, 2017
An excerpt of Ponder’s 2020 comments: Continuing to allow truck and trailer induced PCI in rear and side underride crashes to occur at otherwise survivable crash speeds (delta-V’s of 45mph and beyond) discards years of crashworthiness efforts and wastes the safety benefits we have come to expect and pay for in our cars.
From an engineering perspective the need for vehicle crash compatibility in the form of adequate heavy truck underride guarding is apparent in order to protect against the hazard of PCI which exposes the vulnerable head and neck region to severe, potentially fatal or crippling injury. This hazard is easily remedied by readily available materials and simple structural analysis. Read more here.
Here is Perry’s 2016 Public Comment in which he asked 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.
Here is that 1969 document:
This was the original intent of NHTSA rulemakers in the 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2.
UPDATE, June 18, 2020: Thank you to those who took action. The Garcia Amendment passed. The Cohen Amendment did not pass.
When a vehicle goes under a big truck, it’s called an underride crash. This type of crash is extremely dangerous and completely preventable. Installing better guards on big trucks would prevent this type of crash. There is a bill being considered now under the INVEST in America Act which would require these life saving guards.
The Infrastructure Bill includes an Underride Section.
Become part of the solution by sending an email TODAY to U.S. Representatives on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I). They will be considering the INVEST in America Act on Wednesday, June 17, at 10:00 a.m. in a live hearing.
Use this website link to search for your U.S. Representative, or ones from your state who are on the T&I Committee. Send these two simple messages in your own words — asking them to make trucking safer by:
Supporting the Cohen Amendment 089 to strengthen the Underride legislation in the INVEST in America Act by directing NHTSA to do a pilot program in order to prove that underride protection is effective and technically feasible.
Supporting the Garcia Amendment 062 which will raise the Minimum Insurance Liability for truck companies from $750,000 – an amount set in 1980 – to $2 million in a simple adjustment for inflation. This needed change has been neglected for decades and will help not only truck crash victims but also truck drivers, who are often victims of truck crashes. It creates a financial incentive to enforce safety.
Late-breaking addition: Ask them to OPPOSE the Perry Amendment 115, which strikes Automatic Emergency Braking from the Bill. This amendment appears to be getting in the way of advancing crash avoidance technology to prevent or reduce the severity of crashes. Why would they want to do that?
Watch this short video which vividly tells the story of Mike, a truck crash victim who was impacted by the woefully-low insurance requirement:
You can also tag them on a Tweet.
Thank you for taking action. Share this message with your friends so we can make a significant impact at a crucial time.
Finally, we’re getting someplace in our efforts to make trucking safer. Legislation is being considered which looks promising to address the issues from our AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition in 2014.
You can become part of the solution by making a quick phone call or send an email to U.S. Representatives on the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I). They will be considering the INVEST in America Act on Wednesday, June 17, at 10:00 a.m. in a live hearing.
Use this website link to search for your U.S. Representative, or ones from your state who are on the T&I Committee. Send these two simple messages in your own words — asking them to make trucking safer by:
Supporting the Cohen Amendment 089 to strengthen the Underride legislation in the INVEST in America Act by directing NHTSA to do a pilot program in order to prove that underride protection is effective and technically feasible.
Supporting the Garcia Amendment 062 which will raise the Minimum Insurance Liability for truck companies from $750,000 – an amount set in 1980 – to $2 million in a simple adjustment for inflation. This needed change has been neglected for decades and will help not only truck crash victims but also truck drivers, who are often victims of truck crashes. It creates a financial incentive to enforce safety.
Watch this short video which vividly tells the story of Mike, a truck crash victim who was impacted by the woefully-low insurance requirement:
Thank you for taking action. Share this message with your friends so we can make a significant impact at a crucial time.
The current underride rulemaking was issued as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on December 16, 2015. Over four years ago. It’s time to take care of business. People continue to die horrific, violent, unimaginable underride deaths.
Is it time to move forward with negotiated rulemaking to hammer out practical, effective solutions for the deadly underride problem? Is it doable? Would this process enable us to overcome the stalemate between industry and safety advocates — to get the current underride rulemaking out of limbo?
NOTES ON NEGOTIATED RULEMAKING:
Declares that any agency may consult with the Administrative Conference of the United States and other individuals and organizations for information and assistance in forming a negotiated rulemaking committee and conducting negotiations.
Authorizes the Chairman of the Conference to pay, upon request of an agency head, all or part of the expenses of convening and conducting a negotiated rulemaking proceeding.
{NOTE: Apparently, this ability was later taken away from the ACUS and they are no longer able to assist in this way with negotiated rulemaking. Oh, well. Back to SQUARE ONE!}
The negotiated rulemaking process is unique in several ways from both listening sessions and advisory committees. . . a negotiated rulemaking committee’s goal is to make binding, enduring decisions that will resolve the underlying issues and, if present, disputes.
Compared to participation in hearings/meetings and advisory committees, the role of non-Agency participants in interacting with the Agency through the negotiated rulemaking process is often far more robust, expansive, and issue-focused.
An SNPRM may be issued if a proposed rule has been substantially changed from the original notice of proposed rulemaking. The supplemental notice advises the public of the revised proposal and provides an opportunity for additional comment. To give the public a reasonable opportunity to become reacquainted with a rulemaking, a supplemental notice may also be issued if considerable time has elapsed since publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking. An SNPRM contains the same type of information generally included in an NPRM. § 1.05-40 Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
What are we waiting for?
The AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition was delivered to DOT on May 5, 2014 — one year after our crash. It called for comprehensive underride rulemaking. We’ve uncovered a lot more information since then; we’re well-equipped to participate in this process. Let’s get on with it.
When supporters of the STOP Underrides! Act of 2019 first hear the news about DOT’s new “rule on rules,” they might moan and sigh and scramble to figure out what next. On December 5, Transportation Secretary solidified the Trump administration’s approach to rulemaking:
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced she has signed a “rule on rules” that will ensure the department’s regulations aren’t too complicated, out of date or contradictory.
When it comes to investigating suspected wrongdoing and enforcing its regulations, the new rules also require the department “where feasible, foster greater private-sector cooperation in enforcement.”
On the one hand, there are hints of good things there in calling for rules that are not out of date, cooperation from the private sector, and greater transparency. But those who have been around the block in safety advocacy are right to be skeptical and devoid of hope for future traffic safety rulemaking.
Yet I remain hopeful knowing that the STOP Underrides Act fits the bill by calling for a Committee On Underride Protection (COUP), whose role is to gather a diverse group of stakeholders to collaboratively keep DOT truly transparent and progressing in underride rulemaking. Will the COUP be included in the upcoming FAST Act language? I’m doing everything that I can to make it a reality.
Now, understandably, it could cause concern that, “The new Transportation Department action formalized a Trump administration requirement that for each regulatory step a department takes, it has to undertake two deregulatory moves.” However, I’m not worried because I know that it would be procedurally acceptable for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove the existing 1996 rear underride rules, (two of them — FMVSS 223 & 224), which would satisfy that requirement.
Then, NHTSA could issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) as a revision of the December 2015 NPRM underride rulemaking, which was intended to update the 1996 rear underride guard rule. In fact, SNPRMs are a valid means of improving a NPRM — based on Public Comments and new information received subsequent to the initially issued proposed rule.
No one can argue that there has not been plenty of new information on underride which has come to the surface in the last seven years. In fact, the STOP Underrides! Act nicely packages straightforward rules, based on performance standards, to address every form of deadly underride and can easily lead to an Underride SNPRM — all with the help of the Committee On Underride Protection to mold it into the best possible underride protection.
So, in this season of expectant hope, let us eagerly continue a national conversation on the elimination of preventable underride tragedies. Let our goal be to change the face of the trucking industry by making truck crashes more survivable, thus promising a better chance that more people will be home for the holidays.
Members of Congress, Secretary Chao, trucking industry, eager engineers, and families of underride victims, let’s do this together.
(p.s. Let’s also appoint a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman so that motorists and vulnerable road users — victims of every form of traffic violence — can count on a strong voice to authoritatively advocate on their behalf.)
People have died under trucks since passenger vehicles and trucks have shared the road. What changes have we seen in underride protection? Here is a Timeline put together by the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety for the first Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016.
What’s next? What will the future hold for underride rulemaking? More of the same or significant progress in preventing underride tragedies?
Tell me again why we are letting the flawed data on underride deaths determine the Cost Benefit Analysis — and thus the decision on underride regulations. We already knew the FARS data was underreported; we just discovered additional disturbing evidence of that fact.
At the end of August, I obtained the FARS field dump data for the Joshua Brown Tesla deadly crash in Florida when his car went completely under the side of a tractor trailer and out the other side on May 7, 2016. In the field which has to be filled out related to underride, it is listed as “No Underride or Override Noted.”
What?! Imagine that! A clear-cut, well-known side underride crash — investigated by the NTSB — and NHTSA got it wrong. In 2016.
And that’s not the only one I received. I also requested the FARS data on Roya Sadigh’s crash (daughter of Lois Durso) on November 24, 2004 — one that we know is a side underride with clear evidence of Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI). Again, “No Underride/Override.” See p.3:
We had already received FARS data on our own crash on May 4, 2013. It says “Passenger Compartment Intrusion Unknown.” And the Georgia FARS report for 2013 at the Rear of trailers lists one underride — despite two daughters having died under the truck.
In response to a request for explanation of a recent withdrawal of the underride rulemaking for Single Unit Trucks, Senator Gillibrand received a letter from NHTSA in August explaining that they had used TIFA (trucks in fatal accidents) data rather than FARS data. However, upon closer examination one will discover that the TIFA data is based upon the FARS data. How reliable is that?
Scene of crash testing of Aaron Kiefer’s SafetySkirt. How silly is it to ignore solutions to prevent side underride tragedies?!
UPDATE, February 11, 2023: The Joshua Brown crash has been updated in the FARS data to indicate that it was an Underride with Passenger Compartment Intrusion.
