Tag Archives: rear impact guards

Advisory Committee on Underride Protection, February 8, 2024 Meeting Record

The NHTSA Advisory Committee on Underride Protection held its third meeting on February 8, 2024, via Zoom. The main agenda item was rear underride. Presentations and discussions from the meeting can be viewed by using the YouTube video links below.

Meeting Segment
ACUP Welcome & Call to Order
Rulemaking Process – Lina Vallivullah (NHTSA)
A History of Trailer Rear Impact Guards from Utility’s Perspective; Jeff Bennett (Utility Trailers)
Truck Rear Underride; Matt Brumbelow (IIHS) 
Hydro Concept Rear Impact Guard (RIG); Malcolm Deighton (Hydro Aluminum Extrusions) 
Crash Avoidance Technology; Wolfgang Hahn (ZF CV Systems North America) 
Rear Underride Guard Report Recommendations & References; Lee Jackson & Jennifer Tierney (Truck Safety Coalition) 
A Historical Overview of Rear Underride Research, Recommendations, & Rulemaking; Marianne Karth (AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety)
Rear Underride Prevention – Creating Crash Compatibility: Rear Guard Standards; Rear Guard Weight; Rear Guard Retrofit; Aaron Kiefer (Collision Safety Consulting) 
ACUP Member Discussion of Past & Present Motions – NHTSA Response to Information Requests, Assessment, & Recommendations, as well as ACUP communications

Truck Impact Guards = Underride Protection

So, you ask, what are Truck Impact Guards? To borrow from NHTSA terminology, Rear Impact Guards are devices attached to Commercial Motor Vehicles in order to GUARD against deadly underride and intrusion into the occupant survival space of a passenger vehicle when there is a collision or IMPACT [an impinging or striking especially of one body against another, Merriam Webster] at the REAR of a large truck.

The difference a well-designed rear impact guard can make

Although NHTSA does not yet require them, a Side Impact Guard is, likewise, a device attached to a large truck to GUARD against deadly underride and intrusion into the occupant survival space of a passenger vehicle when there is a collision or IMPACT at the SIDE of a large truck.

Underride Crash Tests – Without & With Side Impact Guards

Thus, it stands to reason, even though NHTSA apparently has no plans at present to require this life-saving device, a Front Impact Guard is a device attached to a large truck to GUARD against deadly underride and intrusion into the occupant survival space of a passenger vehicle when there is a collision or IMPACT at the FRONT of a large truck.

Volvo Trucks Safety – Front Impact Guard crash test

Truck Impact Guards do not prevent crashes. But, they do compensate for the lack of crash compatibility, which exists due to the geometric mismatch between the “bumpers” of two colliding vehicles that allows one to slide UNDER the other. Effective impact guards ensure that the passenger vehicle’s crashworthiness features — air bags, crumple zones, bumpers, seat belt tensioners — operate as intended to preserve the occupant survival space. This improved crash compatibility can, therefore, serve to make truck crashes more survivable.

These engineer-designed devices can also GUARD Vulnerable Road Users (VRUs) — pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorcyclists — reducing the likelihood of catastrophic injuries during collisions with large trucks.

What is Front Underride Protection? (Find out on April 17)

Upcoming Underride Advisory Committee Meeting Schedule

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has announced the next four meetings of the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP):

  • February 8, 12:30 – 4:30 p.m. ET; Topic: Rear Underride
  • March 13, 12:30 – 4:30 p.m. ET; Topic: Side Underride
  • April 24, 12:30 – 4:30 p.m. ET; Topic: Front Override
  • May 22, 12:30 – 4:30 p.m. ET; Topic: Underride Data

Register here to observe via Zoom.

February 8 will be the third public meeting of the committee, which was established to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation on safety regulations to reduce underride crashes and fatalities relating to underride crashes.

May 4, 2013 seems like just yesterday; has anything changed?

There’s no easy way to get through that time of year when we remember how AnnaLeah & Mary were suddenly snatched from this earthly life. How can it have been ten years ago? May 4, 2013 seems like just yesterday.

Read this post all the way through to find out what advances have come about, or skip to the end to find out how you can help. Despite our loud voices continuously raising awareness and pushing for change, progress has been painfully slow. But these are some actions which the USDOT has taken:

  • Rear underride guards are now on the annual commercial motor vehicle inspection checklist (rule issued by FMCSA in December 2021). This is important because poorly-maintained rear guards increase the chance of crash severity.
  • After beginning work on an improved rear guard rule in December 2015, in response to our 2013/2014 petitions, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) finally issued an improved rule in July 2022. Incredibly, it fell short of requiring that the guards had the full strength already proven possible by the IIHS testing of nine major trailer manufacturers! We have petitioned NHTSA to reconsider this ill-advised decision.
  • NHTSA began taking applications for membership on an Advisory Committee on Underride Protection (ACUP) in July 2022. They finally announced the selected committee members in April 2023. The first ACUP meeting will take place virtually on May 25. I’m thankful that I will, at last, be able to sit “around the table” with a diverse group of stakeholders to hammer out reasonable solutions to this century-old problem.
  • Simultaneously with the ACUP announcement, and in advance of receiving any recommendations from the Advisory Committee, NHTSA published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for a potential side guard regulation. Their cost benefit analysis is based on questionable data and concludes that a side guard regulation would not be cost effective. We are working hard to provide more accurate information in order to correct the CBA in favor of saving lives.

“How can I help?” I thought you’d never ask!

  • Pray for the ACUP members and for this process to produce meaningful outcomes.
  • Only 17 states have an UNDERRIDE FIELD on their state crash report form. This contributes to underreporting of these deaths. By 5:00 p.m. EST on MAY 3, submit a simple, brief Public Comment here. Tell NHTSA you want them to require (not merely suggest) that states have an Underride Field (and which indicates whether it was front, side, or rear) on their crash report form.
  • By June 20, submit a Public Comment on the side guard ANPRM here. Tell them why you think that there should be a side guard regulation (simple reason: To Save Lives).
  • Tens of thousands of underride victims have been a nameless group whose senseless deaths have been swept under the rug for decades despite the ingenuity of engineers to prevent horrific underride. No more. We would like to remember these Precious Ones Gone Too Soon in a special way. We hope to receive permission from the USDOT to install a Commemorative Bell of Hope at their office building in Washington, D.C. We will be organizing a day In Memory of Underride Victims — to ring the bell and call out the names of individuals who lost their lives to underride. We do not know every name, but we will include as many as possible. If you would like to contribute to the purchase of this bell or participate in this event, please let me know by writing to me at marianne@annaleahmary.com.
Side Guard Crash Test in Raleigh, September 2022
To remember how AnnaLeah & Mary lived — full of love & laughter — not merely how they died.

Update on Underride Protection Progress

In July 2022, eight years after our original petition was delivered to the Department of Transportation, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), whose mission it is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to road traffic crashes, through education, research, safety standards, and enforcement, took the following actions related to underride protection:

In this crash test video, the top test shows what IIHS has proven possible, the bottom test shows what the 2022 rule will require:

By refusing to revise the December 2015 NPRM to the TOUGHGuard proven level of strength, NHTSA has demonstrated an unwillingness to require that all manufacturers install these stronger guards as Standard on new trailers. To state the obvious, the result is that manufacturers may continue to offer these guards as an Option, thereby allowing the ongoing production of trailers — into the future — with guards having a known unreasonable risk of Death By Underride. How do they sleep at night knowing that their meaningless rhetoric and regulatory malpractice means many more innocent people will needlessly die?

This is nothing less than a reckless disregard for human life.

Why are we working so hard to get weak rear underride guards replaced?

Why are we working so hard to get weak rear underride guards replaced?

Not only have we lost two daughters due to a weak rear underride guard, but we continue to see countless loved ones lost to other families in a similar way. Senseless deaths. Solutions are available — developed by innovative engineers but too often left on the shelf while people continue to die.

I get Google Alert notifications of truck crashes every day. Here are the rear underride fatalities which I have found in the last few months:

This memorial remembers a few of the countless underride victims from past years.

This video shows the difference between too weak & stronger guards:

Convinced?

FMCSA Issues Final Rule: Rear Underride Guards To Be Part Of Annual Inspections

FMCSA has issued a Final Rule, effective December 9, 2021, requiring Rear Impact Guards to be inspected as part of commercial motor vehicle inspections on those trucks which must have them installed. This is good because a guard weakened by cuts, tears, rust, bends, or loose connections is going to be less likely to prevent a car from going under a truck.

If a truck fails the inspection, the violation could cost a motor carrier a maximum of $15,876 and a truck driver $3,969. This could lead to the replacement of many rear underride guards — hopefully, with guards that meet the TOUGHGuard level of strength proven possible by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety and now on many new trailers.

This is what I know about the availability of replacement equipment:

Retrofit Solutions for Rear Impact Guards to Prevent Deadly Underride

Examples of poorly-maintained guards:

Proper Maintenance of Underride Guards Can Spell the Difference Between L-i-f-e & D-e-a-t-h

Birth Pangs In Advance of Long-Awaited Rear Underride Regulations

As a mom of nine, I know all too well the hardships and difficulties that accompany pregnancy, labor, and birth. So I really shouldn’t be surprised that the process of bringing about change in traffic safety regulations is similarly fraught with angst. Right?

Yet, I was still taken by surprise when I discovered last week that a long-awaited infrastructure bill contained an unexpected revision of legislative language on underride provisions — after it was already passed. Here I thought that the 2021 Infrastructure Bill — even though it didn’t contain a strong mandate for side underride regulations — contained a definite mandate to meet the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) TOUGHGuard level of strength for rear underride protection. Wrong.

Unbeknownst to me, the Senate had revised the House version of that underride requirement — despite the fact that IIHS had clearly shown that engineers could develop rear underride guards to prevent cars from going under the rear of trailers at the outer edges. This revision was noted by IIHS as an apparent and unfortunate rejection of proven safety technology.

  • Another longstanding IIHS-HLDI priority included in the legislation is improvements to truck underride guards. The bill calls for an updated rear underride standard that would incorporate at least two of the three requirements for the IIHS TOUGHGUARD award: Guards would have to prevent underride by a passenger vehicle traveling 35 mph when it strikes the rear of a trailer in the center or with a 50 percent overlap. It also calls for regulators to consider requiring the most challenging part of the IIHS evaluation, the 30 percent overlap crash. Years of work by IIHS-HLDI paved way for safety provisions in infrastructure bill

In other words, the bill stopped short of a clear mandate to NHTSA to write a rule which would require manufacturers to meet that third requirement. In contrast, the House version of the Infrastructure called for a regulation in which Rear Impact Guards would be required:

  • to be equipped with rear impact guards that are designed to prevent passenger compartment intrusion from a trailer or semitrailer when a passenger vehicle traveling at 35 miles per hour makes— (i) an impact in which the passenger vehicle impacts the center of the rear of the trailer or semitrailer; (ii) an impact in which 50 percent the width of the passenger vehicle overlaps the rear of the trailer or semitrailer; and (iii) an impact in which 30 percent of the width of the passenger vehicle overlaps the rear of the trailer or semitrailer. “

Why would they water down the underride provisions so significantly — leaving it to the discretion of the Secretary (under pressure from a resistant Industry) on whether to require a proven solution? Do we want people to die?

These crash test videos show a 30% overlap with & without a TOUGHGuard rear underride guard.

Like any mother facing childbirth, after almost nine years of advocating for change in a dangerous truck design which killed my daughters, I now await the release of the Final Rule [anticipated in January 2022]. Can I expect the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to make a recommendation to the Secretary for the strongest possible level of rear underride protection? Can I trust them to take into full consideration the years of research, along with the unimaginable toll on individuals and families? Will we see a healthy, robust regulation released for rear underride protection?

Pray with me that it will be so.

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

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.


Good News for Traveling Public: “All major trailer makers earn IIHS award for good underride protection”

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety announced this week that all eight major trailer manufacturers have now improved their rear underride guards. This is good news for the traveling public.

ARLINGTON, Va. — Seven years after the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found serious shortcomings in the rear underride guards of most semitrailers, the eight largest North American manufacturers are now making rear guards capable of preventing deadly underride in a range of scenarios. All eight companies earn the IIHS TOUGHGUARD award.

The companies — Great Dane LLC, Hyundai Translead, Manac Inc., Stoughton Trailers LLC, Strick Trailers LLC, Utility Trailer Manufacturing Co., Vanguard National Trailer Corp. and Wabash National Corp. — represent approximately 80 percent of the trailers on the road in the U.S. All but one of them, Manac, had to make changes to its underride guard before they were able to pass the three IIHS tests.

“We’re pleased that all the major manufacturers responded positively to our underride tests,” says David Zuby, IIHS chief research officer. “By improving their guards, these companies have demonstrated a commitment to the safety of passenger vehicle occupants who share the road with their trailers.” . . .

By the time IIHS announced the TOUGHGUARD award last year, 5 of the 8 guards met the criteria.

Since then, Hyundai Translead and Utility have earned the award. Strick now joins them, thanks to a new underride guard that completes the industry’s effort to improve protection against rear underride. . .

See the complete IIHS report here: All major trailer makers earn IIHS award for good underride protection

This is great news, and I am glad for the trailer manufacturers commitment to meet the TOUGHGuard award. But I would have phrased it a little differently myself because I don’t think that this “completes” the industry’s efforts on rear underride.  Still to be done, in my mind:

1. TOUGHGuard rear underride protection become standard on all new trailers — not merely an option.

2. Test the guards to see if they are effective at speeds higher than 35 mph. After all, an aluminum extrusion company has produced a rear underride guard which has been officially and successfully tested at 40 mph.

3. Make retrofit kits available for all trailers at least 10 years back.

4. Install effective rear underride protection on single unit trucks.

5. Enforce the requirement for rear underride guards to be kept in like-new condition because a weakened guard is less likely to perform as needed upon collision.

That is, if we want to prevent rear underride tragedies no matter what truck someone might collide with on the road today or in the years to come. . .

And oh, by the way, the STOP Underrides! Bill would mandate every one of those steps to end preventable underride.

Crash cars from previous crash tests  — one with & one without effective underride protection.