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?
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.
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.
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. . .
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.
After two full days of attending the ATA’s Technology & Maintenance Council conference in Nashville, I am having a hard time figuring out what to talk about first.
It has been very good to spend that time with Lois Durso, a mom who also lost a daughter to truck (side) underride. We first began talking on the phone a couple of weeks ago and planned to meet at the conference. Having a bond of similar grief, we have talked almost non-stop — both about our daughters as well as strategies for truck safety.
In fact, we were both guests of Stoughton Trailers at the conference and they asked me to share our family’s crash story and the safety advocacy which followed, as well as our appreciation of how Stoughton stepped up and voluntarily improved their rear impact guard and are able to offer it as standard on all new dry van trailers — at no added cost or weight penalty to their customers.
Gary Fenton, VP Engineering, Stoughton Trailers, Marianne Karth, Bob Wahlin, CEO Stoughton Trailers
I received a wonderful surprise this morning when I unexpectedly found out that Stoughton now has a rear impact guard (RIG) retrofit kit available for purchase to install as a replacement on all existing (compatible) Stoughton trailers, as far back as 2007. I talked with the Products manager and she roughly estimated the cost to trailer owners to be around $500-600.
I am not indicating that Stoughton’s new RIG is necessarily better than any of the other manufacturers who have also stepped up to the plate and designed rear guards to receive the Toughguard award. But I am commending them for making the safety of the driving public a priority. In fact, I do not have specific crash test information to rate one new design compared to the others. At the end of the day, Jerry and I are thankful to the many persons and companies which have helped to bring about this progress in underride protection.
We will continue to advocate for the strongest possible underride protection on all trucks. That, of course, includes side underride protection, which Lois and I discussed with many industry leaders this week. It also means that Single Unit Trucks still need to be addressed, along with front override, retrofitting, maintenance, and identifying the outer limits of underride protection.
We are not done yet. They haven’t seen the last of us. We’ve got more lives to save.
Lois Durso, Dick Giromini, CEO of Wabash Trailers, Marianne Karth
Stay tuned for news from IIHS on trailer manufacturer underride protection awards.
Thank you, IIHS for your commitment to this crash testing project, which has highlighted the continuing underride problem and guided the way to a solution. Thank you, as well, to the trailer manufacturers who have voluntarily improved the rear underride protection on the trailers which they produce and sell (and/or lease).
Here is a Youtube video, of IIHS crash testing research, which shows improvement in the rear underride guards of major trailer manufacturers.
They have proven that creative minds can come up with better underride protection. The cars are damaged from the crash, but underride is prevented and lives are preserved.
Comments can now be submitted on NHTSA’s proposed rule for rear impact guards and rear impact protection on trailers. The Public Comment period will end on February 16, 2016.
It is our hope that public comments on this rule, and the Underride Roundtable planned for May 5, 2016, will result in the best possible protection on the backs of trucks. Please pray for this important process.
First of all, let me say that I am grateful for the work which NHTSA has done on this problem and their willingness to address it at this time. Then, I have to admit that I am not an engineer. So it’s a good thing that we don’t have to depend on me to be the one to provide a thorough analysis of the recently released proposed rule for the improvement of tractor trailer rear impact protection standards and all of its technical pros and cons.
But I can provide a summary of the highlights included in the NPRM, along with some of my knee-jerk reactions as a mom of two girls, who perished due to a truck underride crash, and as an advocate for better underride protection.
These are my general reactions. . .
While this proposed rear underride rule is definitely a much-needed improvement to the existing standards, it does not appear to embrace a Vision Zero policy approach which would seek to reduce crash deaths and injuries whenever and however possible.
Many of the trailer manufacturers are already meeting Canadian standards, but IIHS research has shown that this is still not adequate to prevent underride in many crash scenarios–particularly offset crashes. http://www.iihs.org/ externaldata/srdata/docs/ sr4907.pdf
Also, when I look at what NHTSA is predicting in terms of lives saved by this proposed rule–1 out of the 125 annual reported PCI underride crash fatalities–I have to ask, “What about the other 124?!” And our daughters, AnnaLeah and Mary, were not even counted in the 2013 FARS crash data for PCI crash fatalities because our crash was listed as “Passenger Compartment Intrusion Unknown“!!!
(Note: See our FARS crash report in my Public Comment on the Single Unit Truck rear impact protection ANPRM and a discussion of the problem of underride crash fatality UNDERREPORTING and how it might impact the count of potential saved lives. . . http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0018)
In addition, there are many engineers around the globe who have come up with improved designs for underride protection, and there are many who are even now working on solutions that are stronger than the Canadian standards. They just have not yet been widely implemented or required.
It is, undoubtedly, an enormously significant step for NHTSA to acknowledge the need for stronger guards and to propose an improved guard. However, we do not want them to base the final rule merely on what will provide a “cost-effective” solution if, in fact, technology could be utilized which would save additional lives and prevent additional injuries.
One of our big concerns has been the apparently more vulnerable crash scenario when the smaller passenger vehicle hits the rear of the truck at the outer edges of the rear of the trailer. When Jerry and I visited Great Dane’s Research & Design Center in Savannah in June 2014, they pointed out that the company, Manac, which passed the 30% offset crash test had proven to be more vulnerable (although it still withstood the crash) at the 100% overlap test.
I reported on that in a previous blogpost in June 2014: “Great Dane, one of the major trailer manufacturers, observed that they passed all but one of the quasi-static crash tests—the narrow overlap. Great Dane also noted that their guard appeared to perform better on the full overlap test than Manac’s (which was the only company to pass all three tests in 2013). So Great Dane does not want to make a change which will strengthen one section of their guard but weaken another section. That’s understandable.” https://annaleahmary.com/2014/06/underride-guards-can-we-sit-down-at-the-table-together-and-work-this-out/
NHTSA’s comments in the NPRM indicate that they do not want to compromise safety in the more common crash scenario and so have proposed to concentrate on making that area of the trailer safer and do nothing, at least at this stage in the game, about the other weaker area where crashes are reportedly less common. (See p. 44, ” NHTSA is not convinced that improved protection in the less frequent 30 percent overlap crashes should come at the cost of adequate protection in the more common 50 and 100 percent overlap crashes.”)
I just have to ask, Is it really an Either/Or situation? Are we sure that we cannot reasonably address both problems?
We are hoping and working toward the possibility that the Public Comments which will be submitted, the underride research both underway and proposed, and the Underride Roundtable which will be taking place at the IIHS Vehicle Research Center on May 5, 2016, will help to refine this rule so that it results in the best possible protection.
As I reviewed the NPRM document for rear impact protection on tractor-trailers, I created my own 9-page document by copying and pasting some of the highlights of the proposed rule (page numbers are indicated in case you want to go to the original document for further details). You can read my summary of the proposed rule here: Highlights of the NPRM Rear Impact Guards, Rear Impact Protection December 2015 document
When we were headed from North Carolina to Texas, on May 4, 2013, and hit by a truck, not only did we lose our two youngest daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13), but we lost the joy of celebrating fully with four of our children as they became college graduates in Texas during that month of May.
So, this past weekend, we were looking forward to a more uneventful trip to celebrate one of our sons’ graduation on December 5, 2015, from Concordia University in Austin, Texas. Unexpectedly, it really became a whole lot more.
In fact, we thoroughly enjoyed Levi’s graduation ceremony as he walked across the stage summa cum laude, along with the party afterwards at a Peruvian restaurant where we were able to spend an enjoyable afternoon with his friends.
On our way back home to North Carolina, we stopped in Arlington to visit with our oldest daughter, Rebekah, and her husband, John. Instead of taking them out to dinner, they took us out to a holiday party hosted by her Tae Kwon Do instructor. There we had the pleasure of meeting with her friends and being there in person as she was presented with an unexpected award for her Indomitable Spirit.
The next day, as we started back toward North Carolina, I found myself going again through many emotions as I realized anew that this trip was the one we were supposed to be taking back home in May 2013 after a week of family celebrations–with AnnaLeah & Mary a part of our festivities and part of the crew returning home. I must admit that the trip was hard–with many memories triggered as we passed by landmarks.
Exit 128 was where the crash took place 2 hours before ours and 2 miles ahead of our crash at Exit 130. That caused the traffic backup which the truck driver did not notice in time and consequently hit our car pushing us into another truck.
This is where our crash took place–about where that truck is is where we ended up after being dragged under the truck ahead of us.
That night, as we decided to call it a day and stop for the night in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, I saw a sign for the University of Alabama and I knew that Birmingham was just down the road apiece. I thought, hey, that’s where Dean Sicking is! We had only talked with Dean on the phone and corresponded with him via email about his proposed Underride Research Project.
So, the next morning, before eating breakfast, I emailed Dean and his Research Assistant, Kevin Schrum, and said we were going to be driving through Birmingham and to give me a call if we could meet. A bit later, first Dean called to say he was going to be in a meeting that morning but he thought Kevin would be available. Then Kevin called and said that he would love to meet with us. We then had a very good meeting with Kevin and even recorded a few minutes of him talking about his passion for research and his confidence that much improvement could be made.
Kevin shared how he–like his mentor Dean Sicking–believes that the underride problem is not insurmountable and is hopeful that, with adequate backing, they could develop a step-by-step solution which could be adopted by the industry to ultimately reduce underride deaths to zero.
We were also able to talk about some ways in which they might be able to help us seek additional funding to back the research.
After such an eventful trip, I did not have much memory or battery left on my camera, but I was able to capture some of Kevin’s passion and ideas on this video:
As if all of this were not enough, shortly after we got back on the road, I discovered that I had missed a call from Mark Rosekind, the Administrator of NHTSA, who wanted to give me a heads up that they were releasing a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) proposing that the requirements for rear underride guards on tractor trailers be improved!
We have been awaiting this news ever since the initial Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) was announced in July 2014 following our delivery of over 11,000 petition signatures requesting this on May 5, 2014. So this was unexpected excitement to add to our trip.
Not being at my computer hampered the following hours as I attempted to find out as much as I could. A summary of the proposed rule is that it will upgrade the requirements to match the Canadian standards (requiring them to withstand a crash at 35 mph rather than 30 mph), which many U.S. companies are already doing.
However, after a very cursory review of the 108 pages, as far as I can tell it does not address the problem with current standards failing in offset crashes (when the smaller vehicle does not hit dead center at the back of the truck). And the NPRM anticipates 1 saved life out of the 125 reported PCI underride crash fatalities on average annually. (Our crash is not reported as a PCI crash fatality but rather is listed in the federal crash data as “Passenger Compartment Intrusion Unknown“!) What about the other 124?
Take a moment to read Administrator Mark Rosekind’s thoughts on this important development in truck safety:
“Although the responsibility for both of these measures [this NPRM along with the ANPRM on Single Unit Trucks] lands on truck owners, that’s a function of vehicle design more than crash causality. We’ve also taken a number of steps over the years to prevent crashes resulting from driver behaviors, such as drunk driving, speeding, and distracted driving. And, we’re accelerating the spread of crash avoidance technologies such as automatic emergency braking and lane departure warning for passenger vehicles sold in the US.
“But, when we have a cost-effective solution that can reduce the risk of death or injury to passenger vehicle occupants in the event of a crash into the rear of a trailer or semitrailer, our commitment to safety obligates us to propose it. Which is why today we’re proposing this enhancement of current rear impact guard standards.” https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/nhtsa-proposes-new-rear-impact-guard-standards
All in all, it was quite an eventful–albeit SAFE–trip!
I wrote to a number of people last week about my frustration with the many trucks which I see on the road with underride guards that I am not very confident could withstand a crash. This, naturally, is distressing to someone who has lost a loved one due to an underride guard that did not withstand a crash.
I expressed my concern that little appeared to be happening in terms of monitoring underride guards. I asked them to show me if I was wrong.
This week, I got a reply from Jack Van Steenburg, Chief Safety Officer with the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) in Washington, DC. This is what he explained to me about their role in monitoring underride guards (among other things):
“Marianne,
I will reply to this email as your others on this subject are captured below.
First, let me state that underride protection requirements are identified in our Safety Regulations under 49CFR§393.86, Rear impact guards and rear end protection. (http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/393.86) This section is covered and taught to all certified Inspectors across the United States in our North American Standard Truck Inspection course.
To date, in 2014 there have been 2,358 violations of this regulation written by Inspectors. If a traffic ticket was written to a driver for this violation, then he/she is responsible for the violation. In all cases, the motor carrier has to repair or fix any violation cited on the inspection report within 15 days following the date of inspection. The states follow up with the carriers to assure the violations are fixed.
The violations cited for this section, and any other vehicle equipment violation, are captured in our safety data and are a component of the formula that drives our CSA Safety Measurement System Unsafe Driving BASIC. If that BASIC (as well as others) exceeds a certain threshold, then we will take some type of intervention ranging from a warning letter outlining the equipment concerns to a full comprehensive on site compliance review. There are many penalties a carrier can receive ranging from a notice of violation all the way to an Unsatisfactory rating. Those processes are set out in our regulations as well.
I might add that all states have adopted the 49CFR §393.86, Rear impact guards and rear end protection, section within their own laws.
I hope this answers some of your questions.
Thanks
Jack Van Steenburg”
I replied to his email:
“Jack,
Thank you for your detailed response in describing the regulation, training, and inspection process. I am glad to see that there is a procedure in place.
Marianne
2,358 violations issued out of 2 million tractor trailers = .12%
Hopefully, the other 1,997,642 (or 99.88%) are in better shape than the ones which received violations this year.
http://www.truckinfo.net/trucking/stats.htm
“How many trucks operate in the U.S.?
Estimates of 15.5 million trucks operate in the U.S.. Of this figure 2 million are tractor trailers.”
(Unfortunately, there is nothing that I can do to make those existing 2 million trailers have a more effective design. But I wish that I could hurry along even faster the improvement of the underride guards on future tractor trailers!)
There were many factors which contributed to our crash and to the fact that there were fatalities, including:
There was a fatal crash two miles ahead of us two hours before our crash occurred. This had caused the traffic to back up.
There had been nothing done, that I am aware of, to divert traffic or alert travelers that they would be coming up on this situation.
Truck drivers have very long work weeks–partially a scheduling issue.
Truck drivers are under a lot of pressure to drive a lot of hours and miles due to their compensation system.
Consumers want their products delivered yesterday.
Enforcement of truck driving regulations, especially of Hours Of Service (HOS), as well as truck maintenance, is an issue–paper log books have not been considered reliable and, too often, violations are not identified until it is too late.
Opposition, to needed changes in regulations, by the trucking industry leads to delays in, or prevention of, changes which could prevent crashes and/or save lives.
Training for, and issuing of, CDLs is not always what it should be.
Federal regulations for underride guards—partially due to misinformed opposition and lack of priority assigned to this needed change—have been inadequate for far too long.
Despite evidence from crash test research and real-world crash analysis, trailer manufacturers continued to produce inadequate underride guards.
The unsafe driving habits/decisions of the truck driver who hit us may well have determined the outcome of our road trip for AnnaLeah and Mary.
Drowsy driving may have been a factor. DWF = Driving While Fatigued can impair driving as much or more than DUI. Yet, it does not receive the same consequence.
Current laws, for the most part, do not include DWF in the category of a “reckless” action. Vehicular homicide (which is a misdemeanor) would only become 1st degree vehicular homicide (which is a felony) in Georgia, if the driver were also charged with one of the following:
DUI.
Reckless driving.
Hit and run.
Passing a school bus.
Fleeing or eluding.
(Not DWF).
I’ve probably forgotten something or other. . .
Oh, yes, I got out of bed that morning, climbed into the car, and got on the road. I stopped for lunch and left the restaurant five minutes too soon (or too late). Mary and AnnaLeah had come with me.
And who is taking responsibility for this crash (and thousands more like it every year)? How will this ever be addressed adequately to end this senseless slaughter of innocent victims in potentially preventable crashes?
Please wake up, America! After all, it could be you or someone you love that it happens to next. . . Let’s mandate a federal task force to address this widespread, complicated problem once and for all.
This last year, Jerry wrote to numerous trailer manufacturing companies asking them to voluntarily step up their underride guard standards. We got some positive response and stirred up interest in companies to which he also wrote who purchase trailers–enlightening them as well. One of the manufacturers, Great Dane, invited us to tour their Research & Design Center on June 25.
Of course, we weren’t the only ones frustrated with the inaction on what seems to be a drastically-needed change. Earlier this year, when we took the petitions to DC in May, we had met with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). At that time, they put it like this: It is safer to run into a brick wall than into the back of a truck. Yet, seemingly, nothing was being done about it.
Over the course of time, in communications with IIHS, it had finally become clear to me just why that statement is true and why it didn’t seem to be understood by some in the trucking industry. I had read last fall, in a newscast which quoted Jeff Sims from the TTMA, that some thought that “too rigid” guards might cause more of a problem. (http://www.theindychannel.com/news/call-6-investigators/underride-guards-metal-barriers-on-back-of-large-trucks-often-fail-to-protect-drivers ) That didn’t make a lot of sense to me, especially considering our accident in which Caleb and I survived and AnnaLeah and Mary did not due to underride.
It turns out that, when the current federal standards were going through the lengthy process of being developed, there was some discussion that there might be a chance that the guards could be “too rigid”–so that strength had to be balanced with energy absorption. But, since then, technology has been developed to create “crush zones” in cars–effectively protecting the occupants in a crash, but not so effectively if underride occurs because then the crash technology is not allowed to do its thing.
What I found interesting, this morning, was that when I researched the history of airbags (part of that crash technology: http://web.bryant.edu/~ehu/h364proj/sprg_97/dirksen/airbags.html ), I discovered that they were first required to be installed starting in 1998—the very year that the current federal underride guard standards were required to be implemented (see the history of federal rulemaking on underride guards: http://tinyurl.com/phlaqon ). In effect, those underride guard standards were obsolete/ineffective/out-of-date as soon as they were implemented–only apparently no one was even aware of that unfortunate situation.
Happily, NHTSA has now acknowledged that they agree with us that the rear guards need to be improved, and, on top of that, IIHS told us that 5 out of the 7 companies which failed their 2013 narrow overlap test are in various stages of redesigning their guard. I sure hope that, even now, engineers across the world are wracking their brains and communicating with one another to come up with the best possible protection for us all. Could be we are getting somewhere with this problem…
Too late for AnnaLeah and Mary, but maybe just in time for someone else.
