Tag Archives: NHTSA

Government Accountability Office (GAO) Truck Underride Report Published After a Year-Long Investigation

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , , , , , , ,

After the STOP Underrides Bill was first introduced on December 12, 2017, several members of Congress –Senators Thune, Rubio, Burr, and Gillibrand — requested that the Government Accountability Office prepare a report on truck underride guards. That report was published today and can be found here.

The online report is organized into sections, including Fast Facts, Highlights, and Recommendations. The GAO Recommendations are:

  1. Recommendation: The Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should recommend to the expert panel of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria to update the Criteria to provide a standardized definition of underride crashes and to include underride as a recommended data field.
  2. Recommendation: The Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should provide information to state and local police departments on how to identify and record underride crashes.
  3. Recommendation: The Administrator of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration should revise Appendix G of the agency’s regulations to require that rear guards are inspected during commercial vehicle annual inspections.
  4. Recommendation: The Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should conduct additional research on side underride guards to better understand the overall effectiveness and cost associated with these guards and, if warranted, develop standards for their implementation.

Here is a 46-page pdf of the Full Report.

I’m curious what Members of Congress along with the Department of Transportation and the trucking industry were anticipating to come out of the report. What did they expect to be uncovered that we have not already been talking and writing about and demonstrating for all to see at the D.C. Underride Crash Test on March 26, 2019 — not to mention, more importantly, with the lost lives of countless underride victims?

In a nutshell, the GAO team told the National Highway Safety Administration (NHTSA) that  Improved Data Collection, Inspections, and Research were needed. In fact, we already knew that, in order to get an accurate count of underride deaths (and injuries), better collection was needed. We have been talking about the need for rear underride guards to be added to the Vehicle Inspection Checklist.  And the STOP Underrides Bill calls for research to find the outer limits of underride protection.

But what the STOP Underrides Bill does not do is say to wait until better data collection has been collected before issuing a mandate to install proven underride protection. That would be like saying: Wait for 14 more years of underride deaths until you have improved collection of how many people are dying and then start using equipment (that was already available) so you know how many people you could have kept alive!

The GAO Report recommends that NHTSA take steps to add underride to the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) — a guideline to states to use for their crash report forms. However, the next version will not be issued until 2022.

If NHTSA uses this recommendation to justify holding off on underride rulemaking, then they will set us all up for a continuation of same old, same old. NHTSA might sooner or later (in 2022 when the updated MMUCC comes out) START urging states to improve their underride data collection. But then how many years of improved data will they insist that they need before they can proceed with rulemaking (which itself takes 3 or more years before it gets to the implementation phase)?
 
This is what I foresee, if NHTSA is left to their own devices (unless something else intervenes):
2022     New MMUCC
2024     States are ready for better underride data collection
2028     FARS underride data has maybe improved
2029     NHTSA issues an ANPRM to test the waters
2030     NHTSA issues a NPRM side underride rulemaking (what about the rest?)
2033     Implementation of side guard rule begins for new trucks

2043    The whole fleet will have them on (maybe).

Conservative estimate of 300 underride deaths/year x 14 years (2033) = 4,200 more needless deaths (plus catastrophic injuries) if Congress does not mandate that the Department of Transportation move forward with comprehensive underride rulemaking immediately.

What GAO recommends to NHTSA are good actions, but they fall short of an acknowledgement that people have, are, and will continue to die from truck underride unless we act decisively as a nation to mandate that the industry install equipment to prevent it.

The GAO report acknowledges that the trucking industry is waiting for a mandate before it will act. The report also illustrates how NHTSA has been less than diligent to address the underride problem. So, why would we expect that a mere recommendation to NHTSA (when they have received multiple underride safety recommendations from NTSB and multiple petitions from IIHS and others over the years) would cause them to act in a timely and effective manner to fulfill their safety mission and protect the people of this country from deadly underride?

The fourth GAO recommendation is this: The Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration should conduct additional research on side underride guards to better understand the overall effectiveness and cost associated with these guards and, if warranted, develop standards for their implementation.

What more would NHTSA need to know — than what they already know, along with what would come about through the process of issuing a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, and what they would learn through working with knowledgeable members of the Committee On Underride Protection (or COUP, as mandated in the STOP Underrides Bill), who could help them identify and understand the effectiveness and costs of underride protection?

It seems clear to me that even the under-reported 219 underride deaths, on average each year documented by NHTSA in the FARS data, do indeed warrant the development of standards for implementation of comprehensive underride protection. The side guard crash testing by IIHS and others have proven that this technology is effective at preventing underride. Therefore, I would interpret the fourth GAO recommendation as supporting the need for Congress to mandate that DOT proceed with the rulemaking outlined in the STOP Underrides! Bill. DOT has demonstrated that they have no intention of issuing rulemaking without a mandate which would force them to do so.

In my mind, the GAO Truck Underride Guards Report only confirms and strengthens my opinion that it is high time for Congress to pass the STOP Underrides Bill and get NHTSA and FMCSA started on a rulemaking process for comprehensive underride protection, which we petitioned them to do on May 5, 2014.  After years of inaction on that petition, on April 4, 2018, we submitted another petition (for supplemental comprehensive underride rulemaking) to Secretary Chao — still with no tangible action taken.

Congress, the ball is in your court.

If you want to go beyond a cursory understanding of the GAO Truck Underride Report, please read this lengthy analysis of the GAO Underride Report: Karth Cliff Notes on the GAO Truck Underride Report.

Nat’l Sheriffs’ Association Resolution Advocates to STOP Underrides & Improve Commercial Vehicle Safety

Uncategorized, , , , , , , , ,

Law enforcement officers might not always be familiar with the term underride, but they all too often are familiar with the devastation of an underride crash. For that reason, the National Sheriffs’ Association (NSA) Traffic Safety Committee was eager to provide us with a Letter of Support when the STOP Underrides! Bill was introduced.

Additionally, the NSA Board of Directors included this public health and traffic safety issue in their 2018  Resolutions. Find the NSA Underride Resolution here.

Of particular note, the Resolution states:

Be It RESOLVED, that the National Sheriffs’ Association and The National Sheriffs’ Association’s Traffic Safety Committee believe that retrofitting commercial vehicles is vital to the efforts to prevent these crashes from occurring, first and foremost and also to lower roadway deaths, injuries, and property damage.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the National Sheriffs’ Association and the National Sheriffs’
Association’s Traffic Safety Committee encourages further collaborative efforts by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; the Federal Highway Administration; the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration; the Governors Highway Safety Association; the National Sheriffs’ Association and the International Association of Chiefs of Police to monitor and collect data that properly identifies underride deaths caused by Commercial Vehicle-involved crashes.

My heroes! Thank you, NSA!

@NTSB & @NHTSAgov didn’t call for side guards after 2016 Tesla underride fatality; will they after a 2nd?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , ,

NHTSA investigated the May 2016 side underride crash of Joshua Brown’s Tesla. Here is the report which they published in January 2018.

Special Crash Investigations:
On-Site Automated Driver Assistance
System Crash Investigation of the
2015 Tesla Model S 70D 812481

Read this description of the injuries which the driver suffered as a result of Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI) from truck underride:

The front plane of the Tesla underrode the mid-aspect of the semi-trailer in the intersection, and the first crash event occurred as the base of the windshield and both A-pillars of the Tesla impacted and engaged the sill/frame of the semi-trailer’s right plane/undercarriage. Directions of force were in the 12 o’clock sector for the Tesla and the 3 o’clock sector for the UTI semitrailer. The Tesla maintained its momentum and completely underrode the semi-trailer, which sheared the entire greenhouse and roof structure from the Tesla.

During the underride impact, the driver’s face and head contacted multiple intruding components. These contacts produced fatal injuries to the driver. Intruding components and the semi-trailer also contacted and deformed both front row seatbacks and all of the Tesla’s structural pillars. The sheared roof and tailgate/hatch of the Tesla were captured by the right plane of the semi-trailer as the vehicle continued beneath it, and became deposited in the roadway at the location of the impact.

Please explain to me why NHTSA did not suggest that side guards might have changed the outcome of the crash and, furthermore, took no action to initiate rulemaking to mandate side underride protection.

NTSB also investigated the May 2016 Tesla crash and made no side guard recommendations.

Another Tesla Side Underride Tragedy Points to Need for Truck Side Guard Mandate

Congress, Act Now To End Deadly Truck Underride!

Another Tesla Side Underride Tragedy Points to Need for Truck Side Guard Mandate

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Late yesterday afternoon, I heard the news that another man has lost his life when his Tesla went under the side of a tractor trailer in Florida. No matter how it actually came about, doesn’t it seem tragic that we didn’t learn our lesson from Joshua Brown’s tragic death going under the side of a tractor trailer in a Tesla in May 2016?

Earlier today, a Tesla Model 3 owner died in a tragic accident with a semi truck. The Model 3 went under the truck’s trailer resulting “in the roof being sheared off as it passed underneath,” which is known as a “side underride” accident. Tesla Model 3 driver again dies in crash with trailer, Autopilot not yet ruled out

NTSB is sending a team to investigate this crash

Earlier this week, I wrote about the disturbing documentation that current Automatic Emergency Braking (AEB) technology on passenger vehicles is not reliably detecting large trucks: “AEB that reliably detects trucks could prevent underride crashes.” Meanwhile, what should we do? Yet, many of the voices opposing the STOP Underrides! Bill point to Collision Avoidance technology as the better route to prevent underride crashes.

Clearly, collision avoidance technology is not ready to prevent truck underride tragedies at this point in time. In contrast, comprehensive underride protection technology is ready to go — awaiting a mandate to get the ball rolling to save lives.

Here are two practical, viable solutions offered by engineers to prevent the gruesome, deadly passenger compartment intrusion (PCI) which occurs with side underride:

Download this video file to view a recent crash test by Aaron Kiefer into the side of a trailer equipped with the latest version of his SafetySkirt: Video Feb 24, 2 24 45 PM

AngelWing side guard successfully tested at the IIHS at 35 and 40 mph in 2017:

We cannot wait for the trucking industry to handle it themselves and the automotive industry is not prepared to prevent collision with large vehicles. Congress should feel proud to be the ones to make sure that this happens. Unless they want people to die!

STOP Underrides! Petition

D. C. Underride Crash Test, March 26, 2019

From the May 2016, Joshua Brown Tesla side underride crash: Witnesses reveal new details behind deadly Tesla accident in Florida

The police report indicated that Brown’s Model S collided with a tractor trailer that was perpendicular to it and continued to travel underneath it after having its windshield and roof sheared off. Because the vehicle was in Autopilot at the time, the vehicle continued to travel before veering off the road, careening through two fences, and finally coming to a rest after striking a utility pole approximately 100 feet south of the road.

Tesla released a statement on their blog:

“What we know is that the vehicle was on a divided highway with Autopilot engaged when a tractor trailer drove across the highway perpendicular to the Model S. Neither Autopilot nor the driver noticed the white side of the tractor trailer against a brightly lit sky, so the brake was not applied. The high ride height of the trailer combined with its positioning across the road and the extremely rare circumstances of the impact caused the Model S to pass under the trailer, with the bottom of the trailer impacting the windshield of the Model S.”

By the way, these are not “extremely rare circumstances.” Hundreds of vehicles collide with the sides of large trucks every year. Furthermore, both of these crashes clearly involved side underride. Why is this not being acknowledged and addressed?

Myth: Significant differences in vehicle mass responsible for truck crash severity. #STOPunderrides

Truck Safety, , , , , , , ,

Two days ago, I found an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) Status Report from August 26, 1989. It had two articles about front underride protection which clearly demonstrated the benefit of installing that kind of technology on large trucks to reduce the severity of collision injuries.

“Front End, Energy-Absorbing Truck Guards Reduce the Risks for Motorists”, 8/26/89, IIHS Status Report

Here’s another report which I found the next day. It is a NTSB Safety Recommendation from May 8, 2006, which clearly explains the benefits of front underride protection. Thirteen years ago. And I find myself to be the only one in the country talking about this at any level of insistence that we do something about this. Now.

https://www.ntsb.gov/…/safety-recs/recletters/H06_16.pdf

I found it interesting that NHTSA stated in June 2000 that, “the common belief is that not much can be done to diminish the consequences of crashes between smaller vehicles and large trucks because of the significant differences in vehicle mass.

[I know this to be a MYTH both because I know that underride protection can significantly change the outcome and because I am a truck crash survivor of a horrific crash due to the fact that the truck did not come into my part of the car.]

“However, research has shown that geometric height differences and a lack of forgiving front truck structures CAN be modified to help reduce heavy truck aggressivity and to mitigate the severity of these types of accidents. Examples of these modifications, often referred to as ‘front underride protection systems’–which can result in reduced intrusion or occupant injury–include energy-absorbing front structures to offset the weight differences between two impacting vehicles, as well as bumpers designed to deflect the impacted vehicle away from the front of the truck, thereby reducing the total change in velocity of the smaller vehicle.”

This added information stirs up anger in me at what could have been done well before our crash — in which a truck hit us (front underride protection) and in which we collided with the back of a second trailer (rear underride protection). Fortunately, it also stirs up in me renewed energy and zeal to bring down the walls of Jericho and an end to this senseless loss of lives.

21st Century Truck Partnership Third Report mentions front override but not front override protection.

Truck Safety, , , , , , ,
Just found a 21st Century Truck Partnership Third Report in which SAFETY is mentioned. Front override is also mentioned! I have not yet read every single word, but I see little mention of Front Underride/Override Protection (only crash avoidance technologies).
Here is Chapter 7 from that report. It is entitled, “Safety” (21st Century Truck Partnership — Third Report, 2015).
Please read it with the STOP Underrides Bill in mind (in which Front Underride Protection would be mandated by Congress).
(Note: How is it that I brought up the 21st Century Truck Partnership with NHTSA officials in 2017 but they did not once mention this report!)
p.s. Some quotes:
The review of LTCC cases produced evidence that front override and side underride are significant problems in serious crashes between heavy trucks and light vehicles. Front override and side underride were found in most of the crashes examined. Preliminary estimates from this review are that override occurs in almost three-quarters of crashes involving the front of the truck and in over half of the crashes when the sides of the trucks were struck (Blower and Woodrooffe, 2012).
 
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding 7-1. Many safety technologies could be effectively evaluated and demonstrated in a safety-focused program— for example, a Safety SuperTruck similar to the DOE fuel consumption reduction SuperTruck program. 
 
Recommendation 7-1. DOT should consider implementing a Safety SuperTruck program to develop, integrate, and evaluate safety technologies such as cab structural integrity, side curtain airbags, advanced forward warning and collision mitigating systems to help industry attain a more integrated and complete safety package with a view to generating greater purchaser acceptance of safety technology not mandated by law.
 
My posts last year on this:

Mary Barra: “If it’s a safety issue, there should not be a business case calculated.” What about underride?

Truck Safety, , , ,

I have been wrestling with the question: Does NHTSA do a cost/benefit analysis before issuing a recall on an auto safety defect which has been shown to cause deaths? And if not, then why do they do a cost/benefit analysis to determine whether or not to require underride protection be put on trucks to prevent deadly underride?

And, in general, is the cost/benefit analysis which they have done on underride been flawed? Cost Benefit Public Comments on Underride Rulemaking

 

The Price Of Human Life, According To GM

Cost benefit analysis of safety recalls cspan video footage of GM Ignition Recall Senate Hearing, Mary Barra, CEO at GM

Mary Barra at 0:25: “If there is a safety defect, there is not a calculation done on business case or cost. It’s how quickly we can get the repair. . .whatever needs to be done to make sure the vehicles are safe that our customers are driving.”

Mary Barra at 3:21: “Again, if it’s a safety issue, there should not be a business case calculated.”

The difference is that underride is not about an auto safety defect. It is not about occupant protection on a car, and it is not about occupant protection on a truck. It is about equipment on a truck to protect those who might collide with it. No man’s land in terms of perceived responsibility.

See this description of that dilemma from a Transportation Research Board report titled, The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research, May 2017, p. 135:

An added complication for safety technologies is that the beneficiaries of heavy-truck safety are primarily other drivers, not the owners or drivers of the trucks. In a highly competitive business atmosphere, truck buyers are not easily motivated to purchase new technologies solely for the public good. Added equipment must also contribute to their company’s profitability in some way and thereby enable them to compete with other companies that have not purchased the same technologies. For this reason, many new safety technologies that are developed and demonstrated are very slow to be deployed. Those safety devices that do gain widespread acceptance generally have secondary-ancillary functions or capabilities that offer a short-term payback to the buyer.

Given these realities, the federal government plays an important role in the process of introducing new safety technologies into the commercial market. Large demonstration programs, involving broad involvement of all the suppliers of a given technology and all the medium-to heavy-truck manufacturers are essential to creating both a sufficient body of data and evidence that a product or technology performs well, in addition to a sense within the industry that the product will be cost-effective and, therefore, worth buying. It is a difficult task to create this critical mass and one that often only the government can accomplish.

In some cases, regulation may be the only way to achieve significant deployment. Even when there is a general consensus that the total benefits of introduction of a new safety technology would outweigh the total costs, there is still the problem of convincing individual vehicle buyers to pay for societal benefits. A regulatory requirement would level the playing field by requiring all companies to buy the equipment and thus eliminate the competitive financial disparity. Regulations are always controversial. It is extremely difficult to quantify the benefits of a technology before the fact. The Domain of Truck and Bus Safety Research

Another interesting read: The Hidden Benefits of Regulation: Disclosing the Auto Safety Payoff, 1985, Joan Claybrook and David Bollier

What do you think?

NHTSA’s Heidi King Responds to Senator Nelson’s Questions For The Record on Truck Underride

Truck Safety, , , ,

Senator Nelson submitted Questions for the Record to NHTSA Deputy Administrator Heidi King following her nomination hearing by the Senate Commerce Committee for the role of NHTSA Administrator. We received her answers yesterday:

Senator Nelson’s QUESTION: The National Transportation Safety Board has made several recommendations regarding underride guards that have not been completed. Every year, lives are tragically lost in truck crash accidents because trucks don’t have side underride guards that prevent cars from going under the side of a truck. Further improvements to rear underride guards could also prevent cars from going underneath the back of a truck. Several families in Florida have experienced this tragedy because the life-saving technology is not in place.

Do you believe it is time to require trucks to have underride guards so no more precious lives are lost in such tragic accidents?

Heidi King’s RESPONSE: The agency seeks to take an approach to reducing crashes involving passenger cars impacting the side and rear of commercial motor vehicles taking into account all available technologies. I am committed to a data driven approach to reducing these risks, including an examination of all options. This includes an examination of crash avoidance technologies, such as automatic emergency braking (AEB) and forward collision warning, to mitigate the severity of these crashes and to prevent them from occurring. NHTSA’s research indicates that these technologies on light vehicles have the potential of reducing underride frequency and severity.

Improvements to underride guard standards will be evaluated along with the expected changes to the vehicle crash environment.

My Reaction: Crash avoidance technologies might reduce the number of crashes which occur between trucks and cars. But when collisions do occur — because collision avoidance technology cannot prevent every crash — underride will still occur if there is not effective underride protection on the part of the truck where the collision takes place.

If we decide to use an Either/Or strategy and pick Crash Avoidance technologies instead of Underride Protective Devices, should we also stop using Air Bags and Seat Belts because we no longer expect to have crashes occur?

Why would we not use a Both/And approach to protecting the vulnerable motoring public (including pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists, as well as passenger vehicles)?

Senator Nelson’s QUESTION: What is your plan to require improvements to rear underride guards and the addition of side underride guards on commercial motor vehicles? When will DOT implement NTSB’s recommendations? Please provide specific timelines.

Heidi King’s RESPONSE: On December 16, 2015, NHTSA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for upgrading rear impact guards on trailers and semi-trailers. NHTSA is reviewing these comments and developing next steps.

NHTSA issued an ANPRM for improved rear truck underride guards and conspicuity tape on single unit trucks. NHTSA estimates that rear guards are not cost effective for single unit trucks. NHTSA is considering next steps regarding rear impact guards and retroreflective tape for single unit trucks.

Regarding crash avoidance measures to reduce underride, per an agreement reached with
automakers in 2016, AEB will be offered as a standard feature in virtually all new light vehicles by September 2022.

My Reaction: What does that mean: “developing next steps” and “considering next steps”? NHTSA has already received numerous recommendations in the Public Comments to underride rulemaking. They have not responded to those in a timely fashion, and they are not being transparent about what they plan to do and when.

In addition, we have submitted a petition for them to follow up the December 2015 Rear Upgrade NPRM with a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) which would encompass everything outlined in the STOP Underrides! Bill (as well as the NTSB underride safety recommendations). In other words, a clear path (based on the recommendations of engineers) has been laid out for them. Additionally, the Bill calls for a multidisciplinary Committee On Underride Protection to be established to guide them in the process of moving forward.

Regarding the cost benefit analysis on single unit trucks, they have not revealed the formula for their calculations, which are most certainly based on flawed data and inaccurate assumptions.

Heidi King’s response refers to the AEB on “virtually” all new light vehicles. What about the older portion of the fleet which will not yet have AEB by 2022? What about AEB on trucks? Justin Stolzfus wrote about that concern:

Although an agreement among federal safety regulators, the insurance industry and automakers will put lifesaving automatic braking systems on most light vehicles by 2022, it will be many more years before large trucks and commercial vehicles, responsible for 4,000 deaths annually, get the same technology. Automatic Braking In Trucks Will Lag Cars By Years

Senator Nelson’s QUESTION: Some trailer manufacturers currently have retrofit kits available to strengthen existing trailers to enable them to meet the Institute for Highway Safety’s ToughGuard standard. Given the availability of current technology to address this challenge, what steps can the agency now take to prevent passenger compartment intrusion and underride fatalities?

Heidi King’s RESPONSE: NHTSA continues to monitor the development of this technology and will work with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to ensure that truck and fleet operators are aware of safety considerations for trailer repairs. FMCSA operates roadside inspection programs for commercial motor vehicles and underride guards are inspected as part of these programs.

My Reaction: However, underride guards are often not properly maintained and are not currently on Vehicle Inspection Checklists and are not included in the Appendix G in the FMCSA Safety Regulations Pocketbook. It seems to me that, until they are included, underride guards are not likely to be consistently inspected or receive appropriate violations  — including an Out of Service Violation for a weak or non-existent guard, which could lead to a crash becoming deadly.

Sitting around and monitoring the development of technology seems to me to be irresponsible when the agency could take the lead and mandate that the technology — which is already developed — be installed. Any adjustments which would be required could easily be handled by the industry in the time period before implementation is required. This would save lives; people die when colliding with existing trucks not just newly-manufactured ones.

After all, the industry has had plenty of time to prepare. DOT stated in 1969 that they planned on adding underride protection to the sides of large vehicles. And the industry themselves, in 2002, predicted that there would be underride regulations for front, side and single unit trucks by 2006.

There is no excuse for the blatant inaction which is evident all-around.

Senator Nelson’s QUESTION: When will NHTSA release the results of the Texas A&M side underride study, which was completed at the end of 2017?

Heidi King’s RESPONSE: The report has been released and is available here.

My Reaction: In 1969, DOT planned on adding side guards to trucks after technical studies had been completed. Well, they’ve been completed. We’ve been waiting almost 50 years. Will they act now? (Read more of my reaction here.)

Heidi King holds a significant position in NHTSA — an agency charged with ensuring the Safety of the traveling public. I, for one, am not very satisfied with her answers. Did she explain why the agency has waited so long to effectively solve the underride problem — especially when engineering solutions are available? Did she let us know when they would move forward?

It seems clear to me that her answers confirm the fact that, if Congress wants the Department of Transportation to address the underride problem and end preventable underride deaths & injuries, then they will need to pass a law telling them to do so.

Side Underride Crashes Kill 200 People a Year. Will Congress Act?

In 1969, DOT planned to add side guards after technical studies. Well, they’ve been completed. Now what?

Truck Safety, , , , , ,

Well, on the way home from DC on Amtrak, I read Computer Modeling & Evaluation Of Side Underride Protective Device Designs — the 90-page side underride research report published in April 2018 by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute from a study they did through a NHTSA contract. Here are my preliminary thoughts. . .

From the report’s Introduction:

Use of side underride protection devices (SUPDs) has been suggested to mitigate passenger car underride during impacts with the side of a trailer. SUPDs attach to the frame of the trailer and act as a guard or a barrier to prevent the impacting passenger car from underriding the truck. However, attachment of additional weight to the truck is viewed unfavorably by some due to the related increase in fuel consumption and reduction in cargo capacity.

Past studies have looked at designing SUPDs for 90-degree impacts with passenger cars at speeds up to 50 mph (Bodapati, 2006; Galipeau-Belair, 2014). Different design impacts may result in different SUPD characteristics and weight. If the design impact conditions are
changed from 90-degree impacts to oblique impacts, it may be possible to further reduce the weight of the SUPDs, thus making them more favorable for use on heavy trucks.

[Besides hoping to get the trucking industry to agree to a lighter weight side guard — and assuming that they would get resistance to a rulemaking with a heavier guard], why would the Department of Transportation (NHTSA) commission a study of guards to prevent only oblique angle (less than 90 degrees) side impacts? Especially when there is talk of a weight exemption (with the legislation) for the underride safety equipment.

Presumably, these lighter weight guards would not stop cars impacting a truck at 90 degree angles. Yet, we know that many people have died and are dying from both 90 degree or T-bone crashes as well, like these two cases:

Are we going to issue a rule that will protect people from some side underride crashes but not others — even though it is technologically and practically feasible? Really?!

What was the point of designing the study that way — as directed by NHTSA? In my opinion, that research money could have been better spent — since we already have proof that cars can be stopped in a T-bone crash at 40 mph. Like on research to prevent front underride/override or to find the outer limits of rear underride protection (are the updated rear guards as strong as they could be?) — as called for in the STOP Underrides! Bill.

In 1969, DOT planned on adding side guards to trucks after technical studies had been completed. Well, they’ve been completed. We’ve been waiting almost 50 years. Will they act now?

Let’s get the Committee On Underride Protection (COUP) established immediately — as called for in the STOP Underrides! Bill. Let’s get engineers, along with an interdisciplinary team, talking together and collaboratively communicating to inform effective actions. Daylight’s burning!

Note: As I hear from engineers, I will share their feedback as well.

 

Heidi King, NHTSA Nom. Hearing: Ranking Member Bill Nelson Opening Statement

Truck Safety, , , ,

The Senate Commerce Committee held a nomination hearing on May 16, which included Heidi King, nominee for the position of NHTSA Administrator. Senator Nelson (D-FL), Ranking Member, gave some opening remarks, including:

During today’s hearing, I hope Ms. King will provide a detailed plan on how she will demand accountability from those involved in the Takata fiasco and finally implement a real strategy to help drivers get safe airbags in their vehicles as soon as possible.

NHTSA also needs to do more to increase highway safety, including truck safety. 

One way to do this is to have more use of underride guards on trucks so that cars don’t slide underneath during collisions. 

The addition of this safety shield could have helped saved the lives of many, including Lois Durso’s daughter Roya. Lois is here today, along with other tireless advocates.

And I hope Ms. King has some answers for the Durso family on that issue.  They certainly deserve it. 

https://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/hearings?Id=6D165DA3-EA0F-4F1C-B1D1-A039BE79107D&Statement_id=1FB88826-73AA-49B2-8EEB-6756A07A33B7

Heidi King was grilled extensively about NHTSA’s inaction on several auto safety issues. I only wish that she had been asked to address the ongoing underride problem.