Tag Archives: NHTSA

Supplemental Underride Rulemaking Can Create Loophole In New DOT “Rule On Rules” Just Signed By Secretary Chao

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

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Chao announced she has signed a “rule on rules” that will ensure the department’s regulations aren’t too complicated, out of date or contradictory.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.”

“This effort enhances the Department’s regulatory process by providing greater transparency and strengthening due process in enforcement actions,” Chao said in a statement. Transportation Department cements Trump administration’s deregulatory policies with a ‘rule on rules’

On the one hand, there are hints of good things there in calling for rules that are not out of date, cooperation from the private sector, and greater transparency.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.)

What Will Come Next in the Timeline of Underride Regulatory History?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

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?

Underride-timeline

Joshua Brown/Tesla Side Underride Crash Coded as “No Underride” in FARS Data

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

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.

You can see it for yourself in this pdf, p. 10:

FLORIDA_2016_FARS_CASE_120918 (1)

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.4:

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.

Is it time for a Congressional Underride Hearing?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

STOP Underrides UPDATE: September 2019

  1. Jury Verdict $42 million in Riley Hein Side Underride Case: Found the Trailer Manufacturer Negligent — The jury found that Utility Trailer was negligent and that its negligence caused Riley Hein’s death.  They determined the total damages to Riley’s estate and his parents was $42 million. However, the jury found that Utility Trailer was 45% at fault, while the truck driver was 55% at fault, so the total verdict against UTM is $18.9 million.
  2. Joint Defense Agreement of the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association — collaborating to defend themselves from lawsuits when people die under trucks — perfectly legal.
  3. Great Dane Trailers 2016 Side Underride Case. Incriminating signs of industry lobbying efforts to prevent regulations which would have saved lives.
  4. Meanwhile, what could the manufacturers have been doing instead of defending themselves for the last 50 years? (1969 DOT intention of adding a side guard regulation, 1970 DOT expectation that side guards would be developed, & 2019 Vanguard Trailers side guard patent application) If they had concentrated on R&D for the best possible underride protection instead of opposing underride regulations, imagine how many people could have been saved!
  5. NHTSA not doing its job and continuing to undercount underride deaths: NHTSA says that the TIFA data is what they used in their regulatory analysis. Yet, FARS data is undercounted and TIFA data is based on FARS data! How does that make any sense?!
  6. Here are 3 examples of errors in specific known underride crashes: #1– Roya’s FARS report says that there was NO underride; #2 — AnnaLeah & Mary’s FARS report shows that only 1 person died from REAR underride in Georgia in 2013 but 2 daughters died under the truck; #3 — In this well-known May 2016 side underride of a Tesla car under a trailer, the FARS report says “NO UNDERRIDE”. Joshua Brown/Tesla side underride FARS Report
  7. September 3, 1969: Congress was discussing the need to pass a law for improved rear, front, and side underride protection on all trucks to permanently remove this deadly problem from American roadways.
  8. Congress, the ball is in your court. What more do you need to know to convince you to take action? Is it time for a Congressional Underride Hearing?

September 3, 1969, Congressional Underride Discussion & Call for Immediate Action to End Deadly “Telescoping Under Trucks”

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

Last night, I was reading “Truck by Trailer”; The History of the Truck Trailer Manufacturing Industry, published by the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association(TTMA) in 2017. It had come in the mail this week, and I thought that I would see what I could discover. What I discovered was that there was a photo of a May 29, 1969, Western Union Telegram from the Director of the National Highway Safety Bureau (equivalent of today’s NHTSA at DOT) to the TTMA. The message was:

THE TIME FOR COMMENT ON DOCKET 1-11–REAR UNDERRIDE PROTECTION–HAS BEEN EXTENDED UNTIL AUGUST 1, 1969.

That was referencing the rulemaking which was posted in the Federal Register on March 19, 1969, and in which DOT had stated their intention to add underride protection to the sides of large trucks. Interesting, I thought. So I started searching online to see if I could find a copy of that telegram to post online. After all, I was reading it 50 years later on August 1, 2019.

What I found instead was a Congressional Record from September 3, 1969, which included discussion of the National Traffic & Motor Safety Act of 1966 to fund, extend, & expand upon it. After some in-depth discussions about safety head gear and tire safety, Congressman Vanik from Ohio was given the floor. He made a lengthy statement, with noteworthy comments about underride protection, including the inadequacy of the proposed regulation for rear underride and the absence of regulations for smaller straight trucks, as well as protection on the sides and front of trucks.

Wait! What? Imagine! Fifty years ago, not only was DOT proposing rulemaking, but the U.S. Congress had become informed on this issue and wanted to see immediate action taken to make comprehensive and effective underride protection on all trucks THE LAW!

Are you listening, Congress? NOW is the time to act! What are we waiting for? Too many people — maybe well over 50,000 — have already paid the price since that public Congressional discussion which took place on September 3, 1969.

Congressional Record for September 3, 1969: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1969-pt18/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1969-pt18-2-1.pdf

Relevant excerpts from:

Congressional Record on Underride 9.3.1969 pp. 13-14

Mr. VANIK. . .  I would like to take this time to ask the chairman of the committee whether any consideration was given in this proposed legislation to direct the Administrator to provide for regulations which would bring about uniformity of bumper levels. With the intermix of automobiles and trucks on our Interstate Highway System, I ride in terror, as does everyone else on the public highways, when approach is made to trucks which have no bumper levels to meet those of an automobile. The fear of telescoping under a truck is something that haunts every driver on our highways.

There are thousands of accidents and hundreds of deaths that occur every year as a result of the telescoping problem. Some people have been decapitated in this way. And, it seems to me that some definite action should be taken to provide for uniformity of bumper levels between all vehicles. . . I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, whether or not your committee considered this matter in connection with this legislation?

Mr. STAGGERS. I might say that the Secretary and the agency or the bureau has this authority now. I am informed that they have probably been looking into it. We do not know whether they plan to come up with any recommendations. But this is their duty and I might say that we can call to their attention now the fact that they should come up with some recommendation in the manufacture of trucks and cars so that there might be, as nearly as possible, developed some safety device as the gentleman has suggested that will prevent these accidents in order to keep these vehicles from overlapping upon impact.

I think the gentleman has raised a very good point. When this bill was brought up in 1966 this authority was given to the Secretary and to the National Safety Bureau.

Mr. VANIK. . . I understand that the Department of Transportation has published, as of March 19, 1969, a proposed rule which would become effective as of January 1, 1971, to provide rear underride protection for trailers and trucks with gross vehicle weight of over 10,000 pounds. . . {this rule was actually not finalized and effective until 1998}

But the Department’s rule is inadequate. The rule does not “apply to truck tractors, or any vehicles with gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or less.” What these smaller trucks lack in danger in weight they make up for in speed. The standard should be applicable to all vehicles and trucks so that the risk of damage and fatalities resulting from nonmatching bumper guards is permanently and forever removed from American highways.

All trucks should be covered under the ruling and the ruling should have the force of law behind it. If such a regulation is not adopted during this year, I hope that your committee will issue a mandate for this regulation next year.

Following is a letter which I received on this subject from Mr. Robert Brenner of the National Highway Safety Bureau on August 4, 1969:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Washington, D.C., August 4, 1969. Hon. CHARLES A. VANIK, House of Representatives, Washington, D .C.

DEAR MR. VANIK: This is in further reply to your letter of July 14, 1969, requesting that the Secretary of Transportation issue regulations to improve bumper surface relationships between heavy trucks and passenger cars.

We concur with your views on the benefits that can be realized in reducing highway injuries and collision damage by requiring improved performance capabilities from motor vehicle bumpers. The National Highway Safety Bureau is, in fact, in the midst of developing several regulations that should alleviate, to some extent, the problems created by mismatched vehicle bumpers. . .

For your added information, the unsafe conditions resulting from the use of high front bumpers on heavy trucks are to be evaluated for eventual development of a regulation. . .Sincerely, ROBERT BRENNER, Acting Director.

He then lists specifics of the proposed rear underride rule, including this statement which was also included in the March 19, 1969, Federal Register:

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.

STOPunderrides! PETITION: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/104/712/045/congress-act-now-to-end-deadly-truck-underride/

NTSB Preliminary Report: Box Truck Overrode Van Killing Eight

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

The newly-released NTSB preliminary report describes June 3, 2019, Mississippi box truck/van crash with 8 fatalities: right front of the truck hit the right front of the van head-on. The truck OVERRODE the front of the van & penetrated the passenger compartment. Deadly PCI (Passenger Compartment Intrusion) occurred.

The driver of the van sat in a part of the van which did not go under the truck — no PCI (just like me). He walked away with minor injuries. The eight other van occupants all suffered fatal injuries.

Read it here. NTSB Preliminary Report, July 24, 2019: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Pages/HWY19FH009-preliminary-report.aspx

On October 21, 2010, the NTSB issue a Truck Underride Safety Recommendation based upon the investigation of a 2009 crash in which a truck overrode 3 cars and 10 people died as a result. The Recommendation reads like this:

Since 2003, European Union countries have required front underride protection systems on all newly manufactured heavy-goods vehicles, which indicates that such a standard is feasible. The NTSB concludes that collisions between passenger vehicles and the front of single-unit trucks or tractor-trailers are common types of crashes that result in fatalities, and front underride contributes to crash severity. The NTSB therefore reiterates its prior recommendations that NHTSA. . . require all newly manufactured trucks with gross vehicle weight ratings over 10,000 pounds to be equipped with front underride protection systems. . .

That was 9 years ago. Tell me, how many people could still be alive today had NHTSA acted upon that safety recommendation? Congress, I’ll say it again: the ball is in your court. Will you act decisively to STOP all forms of truck underride? Front, side, rear, tractor-trailer, single-unit truck, passenger vehicle, pedestrian, cyclist, motorcyclist.

June 26, 2009 front override crash near Miami, Oklahoma. Investigated by the NTSB

STOP Underrides! Petition to Congress: https://www.thepetitionsite.com/104/712/045/congress-act-now-to-end-deadly-truck-underride/

Underride Retrofit; or, What is an acceptable number of underride deaths?

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

If there are people dying from an automotive defect, would we want those cars to be fixed or left as is? If there are people dying from a dangerous truck design, would we want those trucks to be fixed or left as is — knowing that if we leave the millions of trucks on the roads as is, we are sentencing countless people to death by underride?

Is there any precedent for issuing a recall on unsafe trucks, in other words, doing a retrofit of safety equipment on an existing truck? I’m glad you asked. Yes, there is.

The first one I’ll mention is conspicuity or reflective tape. NHTSA issued a mandate for retro reflective tape to be installed on trucks and trailers to increase their visibility to nearby motorists. FMCSA issued a mandate for retrofitting of existing trucks and trailers with this safety countermeasure.

These requirements were set up by the FMCSA to help improve visibility in low light conditions and help reduce potentially fatal motor vehicle crashes into the sides or back of stopped or parked trucks and tractor trailers at night or in poor visibility.

On December 10, 1992, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration or NHTSA published a final rule requiring that trailers manufactured on or after December 1, 1993, which have an overall width of 80 inches or more and a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of more than 10,000 pounds, (with the exception of pole trailers and trailers designed exclusively for living or office use) be equipped on the sides and rear with a means for making them more visible on the road. The NHTSA ruling allows trailer manufacturers to install either red and white retro reflective tape or sheeting or reflex reflectors. This tape is commonly referred to as DOT C2 reflective tape and is thus marked for easy identification. https://ifloortape.com/requirements-for-conspicuity-dot-c2-reflective-tape-for-trucks-tractor-trailers-to-meet-federal-dot-fmcsa-nhtsa-regulations/

RETROFIT requirement for retro reflective tape on tractor trailers: Under federal requirements, trailers and semi-trailers manufactured prior to December 1, 1993 must be retrofitted with retroreflective tape or an array of reflex reflectors. The final date for compliance is June 1, 2001. . . Trailers built after the 1993 date are delivered from the factory with reflective tape and do not need to be retrofitted. Bulk Transporter, March 22, 2001, Deadline Approaches for Reflective Tape Retrofit

Another example of a retrofit involving tractor trailers, or in this case a recall, is the Strick Trailers recall of faulty rear impact guards in 2016:

Strick Trailers is recalling certain single-axle 28-foot van trailers for a rear-impact guard issue, according to a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration document. More specifically, 2005-2009 van trailers manufactured July 25, 2004, to Feb. 3, 2009, and equipped with rear-impact guards using gussets 55997 and 55998 are affected. Gussets on affected trailers can increase the chances of injury during a crash, thereby violating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, “Rear Impact Guards.” Owners will be notified by Strick to have reinforcements installed to the rear-impact guards at no cost. For more information, contact Strick’s customer service at 260-692-6121. The recall was set to begin on June 17.

Side by side with the notice of the Strick recall in the Landline Magazine in May 2016 was another notice announcing that the FMCSA had issued a safety advisory for one manufacturer’s tankers due to “inadequate accident damage protection:”

Affected TYTAL tankers are unauthorized, according to the FMCSA, until repairs and testing have been completed. Effective June 1, enforcement and fines will be given to owners and drivers operating any of the above tankers that have not made necessary repairs. TYTAL has notified known customers, and repairs have begun free of charge.

It seems to me that these examples demonstrate the existence of a precedent for recalls and retrofitting rules to correct dangerous designs in Commercial Motor Vehicles which could, if uncorrected, result in death and/or injury in the event of a crash.

Clearly, a truck that does not have effective and comprehensive underride protection is a safety concern. After all, the warning label which is found on the horizontal bar of a rear underride guard specifically says so:

Failure to comply with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Act Standards FMVSS 223/224 (US) or FMVSS 223 (Canada) could result in injury to occupants of another vehicle in the event of a rear end collision with the trailer which, if not avoided, could result in death or serious injury.

Who will pay for the cost of the retrofitting? The ATA made the assertion, in their Letter of Opposition, that if Congress mandated the STOP Underrides Act — which includes a retrofitting requirement — then the trucking industry would be put out of business and the U.S. economy would be adversely affected:

Equipping the estimated 12 million trailers with a side underride guard, identified in Mr. Young’s testimony as costing approximately $2,900 including shipping, would equate to approximately $34.8 billion spent on underride guards. That staggering figure would result in what is likely the largest unfunded mandate on a private sector industry in U.S. history. Furthermore, when combined with the expected cost of labor in installing these guards, would exceed the industry’s annual net revenue, essentially putting trucking out of business, and grinding our economy to a screeching halt.

ATA Stop Underrides Act Follow Up Opposition Letter 6.19.19

RESPONSE to ATA Stop Underrides Opposition Letter

On what basis (what facts and formula) do they make such an exaggerated claim? The fact is that mass production will bring the costs down from the current price of retrofit kits (now at very low voluntary production). Furthermore, the industry should be well aware that adjustments can be made to spread the cost over multiple parties and multiple years.

Take as an example the increased manufacturing costs of trailers due to the tarriff on aluminum and steel and the ability of the manufacturers to share those costs with their customers.

Besides which, there are numerous other reasons to expect that this mandate provides many benefits to the trucking industry and the U.S. economy, including protecting the livelihood of truck drivers. Side guards will add additional fuel savings to that provided by side skirts. Production and installation of this technology will create jobs. Liability risk will go down. IRS Section 179 allows for tax deduction for equipment.

In the end, if we do not retrofit, there will continue to be many underride deaths for years to come. We then have to face the question, What is the acceptable number of underride deaths? And, who should decide that question? Congress, the ball is in your court.


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!