Tag Archives: NTSB

IIHS Research Provides Foundation for Traffic Safety Legislation – Including Underride

Truck Safety, , , , , , , , , ,

This week, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) justifiably pointed out how their amazing safety research has led to much of the bipartisan traffic safety legislation which the Senate and House recently passed — likely to see final confirmation in the coming weeks. Thankfully, this legislation includes underride provisions — for an updated rear guard standard and further research on side underride.

Years of work by IIHS-HLDI paved way for safety provisions in infrastructure bill, August 25, 2021

What the IIHS did not mention was how long it has taken for that legislation to come about — decades. Further, they didn’t stress, as strongly as I would have, how frustrating it is that the IIHS research — coupled with recommendations from the NTSB — still doesn’t seem to be enough to warrant a straight-out mandate for side guards.

On top of that, the IIHS did not mention the missing components of the underride legislation; the infrastructure bill does not include even a hint of research regarding protection of the traveling public from deadly underride under Single Unit Trucks (otherwise known as straight or box trucks) or at the front of large trucks. And we’re talking not only about passenger vehicle occupants but, also, Vulnerable Road Users — pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists. Yet, IIHS and FMCSA have published reports about those safety hazards:

IIHS Status Report, August 26, 1989

If NHTSA is truly data-driven, then shouldn’t the fact that 61% of the two-vehicle truck crash fatalities in 2019 occurred with first impact at the front of large trucks spur significant research into front underride protection? Shouldn’t we at least consider the potential for proven technology — already installed by major international truck manufacturers on their products in other countries — to make truck crashes more survivable?

Will we, instead, continue to ignore the preventable deaths which occur year after year? Perhaps might we, at least, engage in meaningful, collaborative conversation about potential solutions — active and passive — to end these tragedies? Other countries have done so.

Volvo Trucks Safety – FUPS crash test, published 2009
Front Underride Protection Panel
Engineers, Trucking Industry, & Victim Advocates Collaborate at Side Guard Task Force February 2021
Front Underride Protection Presentation at a Congressional Staff Briefing, by Friedman Research Center

What is wrong with US? Dare I hope that we might finally come to our senses and pursue significant change?

Will DOT Respond to Petition for Underride Rulemaking on Single Unit Trucks?

Petition for Underride Rulemaking on Single Unit Trucks (sign here)

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.3:

INDIANA_2004_FARS_CASE_180748 (1)

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.

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/

NTSB Published a Preliminary Report on the March 2019 Tesla Side Underride Fatal Crash

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

The National Transportation Safety Board, on May 16, 2019, released a Preliminary Report on the March 1, 2019, Tesla side underride fatal crash. Read it here: Highway Preliminary Report: HWY19FH008

In summary, the report says:

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) continues to gather information on the operation of the Tesla’s ADAS and the Tesla driver’s actions leading up to the crash. The investigation will also examine the driver of the combination vehicle, the motor carrier, highway factors, and survival factors. All aspects of the crash remain under investigation as the NTSB determines the probable cause, with the intent of issuing safety recommendations to prevent similar crashes. The NTSB is working in partnership with the Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Office during the investigation.

Previous posts on this website related to Tesla side underride crashes:

D.C. Side Underride Crash Tests, March 26, 2019 — with and without side guards:

More D.C. crash test videos can be seen here.

The STOP Underrides! Act mandates comprehensive underride protection on all large trucks. This will make truck crashes more survivable.

As a mom of two daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13), who died from a truck underride crash in Georgia on May 4, 2013,  I know the life & death difference that strong underride guards can make (but only if they are installed on the millions of trucks on our roads) — as demonstrated by these crash test videos: The difference a well-designed rear underride guard can make and Benefits of side underride guards for semitrailers and Truck Front Underrun Protection System Crash.

People have died from truck underride for decades and will continue to do so if we do not take decisive action to make trucks safer to be around.

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.

Overlooked Vulnerabilities in Truck Crashes: Damage to Steering Mechanism & Fuel Tank

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

Being a passionate advocate for making truck crashes more survivable, I signed up for Google Alerts on truck crashes. Every night I get an email notifying me of truck crashes across the country. Mostly I look for evidence of underride. But I have noticed the frequency of truck crashes that involve fire. Why is that?

Last fall, I looked further into the problem of front override/underride of trucks over passenger vehicles — either in head-on collisions or when trucks rear-end passenger vehicles. What I found was that many countries have front underride protection standards to improve the outcome in such crashes — including Europe, Australia, India, and Japan.

The front underride/override protection (FUP) protects the passenger vehicle occupants. However, it also protects the truck’s components from damage — including the steering mechanism, which means a truck driver will be more likely to maintain control in a collision. Additionally, underride protection can potentially prevent contact with a fuel tank and thus prevent a fire from starting.

NTSB Recommended FRONT OVERRIDE PROTECTION In 2010

after Truck OVERRODE 3 vehicles

Note the mention of fire and damage to the steering mechanism related to an underride crash in this research study, REVIEW OF TRUCK SAFETY: STAGE 1: FRONTAL, SIDE AND REAR UNDERRUN PROTECTION

Offset front underrun in head on crashes where the light vehicle is likely to collide with
the steer axle and compromise the heavy vehicles steering, and/or the underrun leads to
heavy intrusion of the cabin space by the heavy vehicle structure. Front underrun in truck into car crashes where the underrun can:
• rotate the light vehicle downwards and lead to the heavy vehicle running over the light
vehicle with catastrophic results;
• push the petrol tank down and lead to fire when the truck impacts the rear of the light

vehicle (p.4).

Where there was the ability for the truck to overrun the car bumper bar, the effect would be to compromise the cars energy absorption and increase the likelihood of intrusions into the cabin space. A further effect is that the rear of the car is pushed down and so there is an increased likelihood of fuel tank ruptures and of sparks being generated by steel contact with the road surface and hence significant increases in the risk of fire.  Hence overrun would be likely to increase the chance of fatalities in these crashes. (p.31)

Watch the rear of the car being pushed down in this side underride crash test:

The protection for the components of the truck are noted in this video of Volvo Front Underrun Protection System crash testing (starting at around 44 sec.):

So, tell me again why there is opposition and lack of action in the U.S. to mandate and install comprehensive underride protection — including Front Underride Protection (FUP). We are at a fork in the road: we can continue to let people die horrific underride deaths OR we can act decisively to mandate and move forward with comprehensive underride protection.

Congress, Act Now To End Deadly Truck Underride!

Front Underride Protection Brochure 6

@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.

National Transportation Safety Board Recommends Front Underride Protection on Trucks

Truck Safety, , , ,

A 2010 report from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommended that front underride protection be installed on large trucks. This recommendation was based on their investigation of a 2009 crash in Miami, Oklahoma, in which a Volvo truck rode over three vehicles in succession. Ten people died.

NTSB Truck Underride Safety Recommendations to NHTSA

Here it is, ten years later, and NHTSA has not yet issued rulemaking for Front Underride Protection.

The European division of Volvo Trucks actually has manufactured Front Underride Protection (FUP) for years because there is a European FUP standard. Europe has recognized that front underride (or override) is an engineering problem and engineers love to solve problems:

After becoming enlightened about these FUP facts, we posed a question to a representative of the U.S. division of Volvo Trucks, who was on a Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Panel at a Road to Zero Coalition meeting on March 20, 2017, in D.C. We asked him whether Volvo would put FUP on U.S. trucks voluntarily or whether it would take a mandate. He said that it would take a mandate.

People die from underride collisions with the front of trucks, but a blind eye is being turned to the problem. What’s wrong with this picture?

Actually, the NTSB has made other underride recommendations as well to NHTSA, including:

  • stronger rear underride guards on tractor-trailers
  • side guards
  • underride protection on single unit trucks (straight trucks) which are currently exempt for rear underride standards.

In other words, NTSB investigations have confirmed the importance of the comprehensive nature of the STOP Underrides! Bill because people are continuing to die from underride collisions with almost every part of trucks (and this includes pedestrians, cyclists, and motorcyclists).

Previous posts on FUP

Update, Just found this out: Fred Andersky, director, customer solutions, controls with Bendix, said at the North American Commercial Vehicle show that every 15 minutes in the U.S., a large truck rear-ends a passenger car.   https://www.trucknews.com/equipment/bendix-developing-next-gen-safety-systems/1003081127/

That’s 96 times/day, 672 times/week, 2,912 times/month, and 34,944 times/year!

So, tell me why we would not want to have Front Underride Protection (FUP) on trucks in this country!!!