Tag Archives: NHTSA

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.

New NHTSA Study: Computer Modeling & Evaluation Of Side Underride Designs

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , ,

NHTSA has finally released the report from the side underride study which they commissioned Texas A&M to do in 2016-2017. Here is the press release:  https://www.nhtsa.gov/crashworthiness/truck-underride

The study: Computer Modeling and Evaluation Of Side Underride Protective Device Designs

More later on our analysis of the research.

Knee-jerk reaction: I am glad that they finally proceeded with technical studies on side underride. But countless lives have been lost since 1969 when DOT announced that they intended to extend underride protection on the sides of large trucks after technical studies were completed.

It is high time for someone to act responsibly. Either Senator Thune can respond and move the STOP Underrides Bill forward, or NHTSA can act on its own and do supplemental comprehensive underride rulemaking. Either way, many lives will be saved.

If they refuse to act appropriately, who should bear the blame for continued preventable underride tragedies?

Hearing to Consider Heidi King to Head Natl Highway Traffic Safety Administration

Truck Safety, , ,

Lois and I met with Heidi King in March to discuss the underride problem. We are looking forward to the upcoming hearing which could put her in a key leadership role — enabling her to appropriately address underride.

May 16, 2018

Nominations Hearing

U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, will convene a hearing at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, May 16, 2018, to consider three presidential nominees.

Completed nomination questionnaires are available at www.commerce.senate.gov/nominations

Witnesses:

  • Mr. Joseph Gruters, of Florida, to be a Director of the Amtrak Board of Directors
  • Ms. Jennifer Homendy, of Virginia, to be a Member of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB)
  • Ms. Heidi King, of California, to be Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

*Witness list subject to change.

Hearing Details:

Wednesday, May 16, 2018
10:00 a.m.
Full Committee

This hearing will take place in Russell Senate Office Building, Room 253. Witness testimony, opening statements, and a live video of the hearing will be available on www.commerce.senate.gov.

What are we waiting for? People continue to die from underride crashes. Solutions are available.

Truck Safety, , ,

Four more reasons to move forward with the STOP Underrides! legislation.

Why Has the Truck Underride Problem Been Left Unchecked for Decades?

Truck Safety, , ,

Truck underride is what frequently happens when a passenger vehicle collides with a large truck. Because the truck was unfortunately defectively designed to be above the level of the crush zone of the smaller vehicle, the passenger vehicle goes under the truck and the crashworthy safety features of the car are not able to work. Or, to put it another way, the truck enters the occupant space of the passenger vehicle — too often resulting in horrific death and debilitating injuries.

Hundreds of people die this way every year — the victims of senseless, preventable death by underride.  Yet, for decades, this problem has been left unchecked. Little has been done to preserve the occupant space and make truck crashes more survivable. Why is that?

Basically, the government has waited for the trucking industry to prove that it could do something to prevent these deaths. The trucking industry, for its part, has been waiting for the government to tell it whether or not, and how, to address this problem — before devoting R & D resources to it in order to come up with solutions. Meanwhile, the unsuspecting traveling public is left vulnerable and precious blood continues to be needlessly spilled on our roads.

Stalemate. Catch 22. Limbo. Standstill. Impasse.

The STOP Underrides! Bill will break this deadlock and get the ball rolling so that creative engineers can put effective underride protection on every truck — resulting in more truck crash survivors who can live to see another day.

This bill has been drafted by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand. On December 12, 2017, Senator Gillibrand, Senator Rubio, and Congressman Steve Cohen will be introducing it in Congress.  They are all seeking Republican co-sponsors for this long-overdue, life-saving legislation.

Sign & Share the STOP Underrides! Bill Petition here: Congress, Act Now To End Deadly Truck Underride!.

Find out more about underride at our Underride Guards Page.

“Even if cost-benefit analysis is theoretically a neutral tool. . . it is biased against strong public protections.”

Truck Safety, , ,

Recently, NHTSA announced statistics for 2016 traffic fatalities:

  • 37,461 people killed in crashes on U.S. roadways in 2016
  • Up 5.6% from 2015
  • Tucked in the back of the report, if you look for it, you will see that there were 4,317 fatalities in crashes involving large trucks — up 5.4% from 2015, the highest since 2007.
  • Of those, 722 (16.7%) were occupants of large trucks and 10.8% were nonoccupants
  • 72.4% of the truck crash fatalities were occupants of other vehicles, or 3,125.5 (Do I round that up to 3126? Now that really bothers me because this is about people who died in a crash with a truck last year and not merely statistics!)

If you look at NHTSA’s press release, here is their summary:

The 2016 national data shows that:

  • Distraction-related deaths (3,450 fatalities) decreased by 2.2 percent;
  • Drowsy-driving deaths (803 fatalities) decreased by 3.5 percent;
  • Drunk-driving deaths (10,497 fatalities) increased by 1.7 per­cent;
  • Speeding-related deaths (10,111 fatalities) increased by 4.0 percent;
  • Unbelted deaths (10,428 fatalities) increased by 4.6 percent;
  • Motorcyclist deaths (5,286 fatalities – the largest number of motorcyclist fatalities since 2008) increased by 5.1 percent;
  • Pedestrian deaths (5,987 fatalities – the highest number since 1990) increased by 9.0 percent; and
  • Bicyclist deaths (840 fatalities – the highest number since 1991) increased by 1.3 percent.

Do you see the 4,317 truck crash fatalities mentioned there? I don’t! Yet they accounted for 11.5% of the total traffic fatalities.

Is that indicative of what I tend to observe — the truck crash fatalities are considered a transportation issue and left to the trucking industry to solve? And so potential lives saved always lose out in any cost/benefit analysis, and we all know who ends up paying the price for this unresolved public health & safety crisis.

Along that line, check out this interesting read about cost/benefit analysis (which agencies have to do in rulemaking) related to safety regulations. . . https://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2332

Even given the many uncertainties of cost-benefit analysis, proponents still argue that it acts as a neutral tool. Yet, as David Driesen points out, “if CBA only makes regulation weaker, and never strengthens overly weak regulation, it cannot improve priority setting and consistency in the manner its proponents envision.” Driesen lays to rest the argument of CBA’s neutrality by dissecting the use of CBA both in practice and theory. Driesen finds that both in OMB’s implementation of cost-benefit analysis as well as in the assumptions of the cost-benefit analysis itself, CBA is weighted in favor of the regulated industry and against health, safety and environmental protections.
 
Driesen focuses his look at cost-benefit analysis on the role of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), a subagency of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) charged with carrying out cost-benefit analysis through Executive Order 12866. According to a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, between June of 2001 and July of 2002, OMB “significantly affected 25” environmental, health and safety regulations. If cost-benefit analysis is in practice a neutral tool, then OIRA’s use of cost-benefit analysis to review regulation would sometimes strengthen protections and sometimes weaken them. Driesen found that none of OIRA’s changes made environmental, health or safety protections more stringent, and 24 out of the 25 weakened protections. Even if cost-benefit analysis is theoretically a neutral tool, in the hands of this administration, it is certainly biased against strong public protections.
 
 OMB tends to see cost-benefit analysis as a criterion under which the cost of implementing a regulation can never exceed the benefit. Another option is that cost-benefit analysis is used as a criterion under which cost must always equal benefit, optimizing the efficiency of the regulation. Driesen shows that in each case cost-benefit is not a neutral tool and will always favor the regulated community over the health, safety and environmental regulation.
 
Previous posts on this issue:

History of Truck Underride Recommendations in the U.S.

Truck Safety, , , , , ,

A senator’s Office recently asked me to provide them with a one-page history of reports and recommendations made on the truck underride problem in the U.S. Here it is (with clickable links):

Truck Underride Reports & Recommendations in the U.S.