Tag Archives: rear underride guards

Underride Crash Test Videos

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

If a picture is worth a thousand words, an underride crash test video is worth at least a million. Nothing is more convincing of the fact that underride protection can mean the difference between life and death. Well, nothing except viewing a crash test in person.

To that end, here is a sample of crash test videos which serve to document the technical effectiveness of underride protective devices — more startling when juxtaposed against crash tests with no underride protection or too-weak designs.

The difference a well-designed rear underride guard can make
Benefits of side underride guards for semitrailers
Underride Crash Tests – Unguarded Trailer vs Guarded Trailer
D.C. Underride Crash Test: Left Side Overall Vertical
Crash Test of Rear Reinforcement Attachment

In case you need a reminder, these crash tests are not conducted merely to satisfy curiosity, but in an effort to bring an end to ongoing preventable, unimaginable underride tragedies.

Fleet Managers, Please take note:

Trailer Safety: How to prevent underride crashes and save lives

Can the Insurance Industry Help End the Unfair Fight of Truck Underride Tragedies?

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, , , , , , ,

Today is #MLKDay. Mary loved that day because it was a special holiday which she liked to think was in honor of her — Mary Lydia Karth. And Mary loved holidays. Unfortunately, her life was abruptly ended after only fourteen celebrations of that holiday. It was “an unfair fight” on May 4, 2013 — our car against a tractor-trailer with a too-weak rear underride guard.

Karth crash scene, May 4, 2013

The National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies (NAMIC) recently wrote about our story, our advocacy, and that Unfair Fight which has already claimed too many lives and continues to do so nearly every day:

An Unfair Fight – Winter 2021 IN magazine

We’re hoping that insurance companies will catch the vision that they, too, can play an important role in advancing underride protection by providing financial incentives for installing the best possible protection. Let’s end this unfair fight and STOP Underrides!

Birth Pangs In Advance of Long-Awaited Rear Underride Regulations

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

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.

Thoughts on Landmark Underride Legislation

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

The video below may be meaningless to you. But the November 5 vote in the U.S. House on the Infrastructure Bill represents over 8 years of hard work and dedication. It symbolizes the answer to many prayers and petitions to bring to this nation the end of Death by Underride on the nation’s highways.

The historic inclusion of #underride provisions in this legislation is a major step forward in the long “fight” to end death by underride. We are thankful for the support and prayers which have lifted us up from far too many people to list here.  But we want you to know that we thank you all very much.

It is notably significant that part of the Infrastructure Bill that was passed on 11/5/2021, as shown above, is the part not mentioned in the news concerning safety items included in the bill.

Underride Section of the Infrastructure Bill of 2021

“(4) UNDERRIDE CRASH.—The term ‘‘underride  crash’’ means a crash in which a trailer or semitrailer intrudes into the passenger compartment  of a passenger motor vehicle.”

The bill includes the following provisions:

  • A mandate for the USDOT to upgrade the 1996 federal standard for rear underride guards so that all new trailers must “be equipped with rear impact guards that are designed to prevent passenger compartment intrusion from a trailer.” (rear crash test video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VucNLZIsIU)
  • The bill also calls for: “ADDITIONAL RESEARCH.—The Secretary  shall conduct additional research on the design and development of rear impact guards that can—(A) prevent underride crashes in cases in which the passenger motor vehicle is traveling at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour; and (B) protect passengers in passenger motor vehicles against severe injury in crashes in which the passenger motor vehicle is traveling at speeds of up to 65 miles per hour.”
  • The bill requires that DOT revise the regulations relating to minimum periodic inspection standards, so that underride protection is included in commercial motor vehicle annual inspections.
  • It also requires action on side underride, that is, “SIDE UNDERRIDE GUARDS.—   IN GENERAL.—Not later than 1 year after  the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary  shall—  (A) complete additional research on side underride guards to better understand the overall effectiveness of side underride guards; . . . (D) if warranted, develop performance standards for side underride guards.” (Side guard crash test video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh-_KNKeYz4)
  • “The Secretary shall establish an Advisory Committee on Underride Protection to provide advice and recommendations to the Secretary on safety regulations to reduce underride crashes and fatalities relating to underride crashes.”

In addition to this historic federal underride legislation, we are awaiting a response to our September 2021 Petition for a Safety Recall of trailers without side guards. The American Association for Justice (AAJ) supports our petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to recall semitrailers due to lack of side underride guards. We received a letter of support from AAJ on October 25, 2021:

AAJ Letter of Support – Trailer Safety Recall Petition

Of particular significance is this statement in the AAJ letter to Secretary Buttigieg:

“Van-type and box semi trailers vehicles that do not have underride guards are defective in design, under the statutory definition of defect, because they are missing the critical safety feature of the side underride guard. NHTSA is well within its authority to issue a recall on this critical design defect, that clearly poses an unreasonable risk to highway safety.“

Meanwhile, we have been assured by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Office of Defects Investigation that they are taking this petition into serious consideration and will shortly be posting our petition online. We expect that there will then be an opportunity for anyone to submit a Public Comment on this petition.

All of this has been possible because of your prayers and support. THANK YOU.

Regards,

Jerry Karth

Perry Ponder (AngelWing inventor) & Jerry Karth at the Second Underride Roundtable

“The victory is ours but the battle is the LORD’s.“

Truck Underride Victims & Families Host News Conference for STOP Underrides Act Introduction

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

On Monday, March 8, truck crash victims’ families hosted a news conference to discuss their stories and the recent introduction of the STOP Underrides Act of 2021 — on March 4, 2021 in the Senate and March 8 in the House.

If you missed this important event, here are some useful underride links & resources:

Video recording of the News Conference:

It is a well-known fact that underride crashes (and, therefore, underride deaths and injuries) are undercounted. Investigating officers & reporters can help to improve reporting on underride crashes and deaths. Here are some tips, which we’d like you to consider: Truck Crash Investigation Underride Evaluation Checklist (2021)

We know that the trucking industry has expressed concern about potential operational issues which could occur when side guards are installed on large trucks. In order to address those concerns, we asked several trucking companies to give us feedback about their experience after installing side guards on their tractor-trailers. This is what they told us:

A Timeline of Underride:

Underride Victim Photo Memorial Slideshow – the tip of the iceberg:

OOIDA supports stronger rear guards but not adding side guards. What more do they need to know?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

WUSA9 interviewed OOIDA (Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association) about the STOP Underrides Bill. Watch the latest segment of their truck underride investigative series in which OOIDA publicly committed themselves to supporting strengthening rear underride guard standards.

That’s great news. They’ve apparently seen the value of making truck crashes more survivable when cars rear-end trucks. However, it is puzzling to hear them, at the same time, oppose side guard technology which can also prevent people from dying under trucks — in this case, at the sides.

OOIDA said all the research – and crash tests like the one staged last year, just blocks from Capitol Hill, to draw attention to the fight for new underride safety requirements – doesn’t convince their organization side guards will be worth the investment.

“My last semi-trailer was $42,000 just with that trailer,” Pugh said. “So now we’re looking at upping the price another $2,000 to $3,000. That’s hard for a little guy to eat. That’s hard for a big guy to eat. There’s not that much profit in this business and if you want me to buy this technology and buy into this technology, you’re going to need to show me it works.” Lewie Pugh, executive vice president of the Owner-Operated Independent Truck Driver Association or OOIDA, which represents more than 160,000 members nationwide.

Pugh wants more government (read that taxpayer) funded side guard research:

Pugh says that means real-world testing. Prototypes, paid for by the government, studied by a federal agency like the Department of Transportation for effectiveness.

Perhaps he’s unaware of the side guard study conducted by Texas A&M on a contract from NHTSA (with taxpayer money) published in April 2018.

Is he aware of the untold number of hours put in by researchers and engineers to study and solve the underride problem over the past five decades? Here it is in a nutshell: History of Underride Research & Reports: 1896 to 2019

Maybe he doesn’t realize that the AngelWing side guard — successfully tested by the IIHS at 35 and 40 mph and by its inventor at 47.2 mph — has been installed on multiple trucks for several years and traveled thousands of miles without operational issues.

What exactly would convince him that underride protection on the sides of large trucks — promised by DOT on March 19, 1969 — can truly mean the difference between life and death? Or that they are not “too costly”?

Back-of-the-Envelope Math for Underride Protection Retrofit Cost/Trailer Equation

There are major developments in the fight to require lifesaving equipment on big rigs driving next to you on the road. Safety advocates say it could help prevent devastating crashes known as underride accidents.

One of the nation’s largest trucking groups now says it is open to some of the proposed requirements. But the question remains if the industry’s concessions will go far enough for the families of accident victims.

Read more of the story here: https://bit.ly/3awIaxU #Underrides#BigRigs#TruckUnderrides#TruckCrash#TruckDrivers

SafetySkirt Inventor Developing Rear Reinforcement Attachment to Strengthen Rear Underride Guards on Trucks

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

Eight major trailer manufacturers have designed stronger rear underride guards to withstand a crash test at 35 mph all the way across the back of the trailer — earning them the TOUGHGuard Award from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). This is significant because their previous designs — though meeting the current federal standard for rear guards — have been proven too weak and ineffective by IIHS.

There are about 300,000 new trailers sold every year. Some manufacturers are selling the stronger guard as Standard on all new trailers. Others are selling it as an Option, meaning that trailers may still be sold with guards known to be too weak to stop cars and save lives.

In addition, if we don’t retrofit the existing 11 million+ trailers with stronger guards — which will meet the TOUGHGuard criteria (plus side and rear underride protection) — it will be years before the entire fleet will be safer to drive around.

Fortunately, some of the trailer manufacturers have a retrofit kit for the rear guards, so that a trucking company could theoretically purchase kits to make their trucks safer. However, without a mandate to do so, I don’t imagine that will happen too quickly.

But I am encouraged by the work of Aaron Kiefer, a North Carolina crash reconstructionist who has seen so many underride tragedies that he decided to design some solutions on his own — primarily out of his own pocket and on his own time, with the support of his family who share their husband and dad with his life-saving project.

Just this weekend, Aaron installed the latest version of his Rear Reinforcement Attachment to a 53 foot trailer. Over the last five years, Aaron has been developing a design for two aluminum triangles, which are fastened to both sides of the trailer and then attached to both ends of the existing rear underride guard.

The latest version installed on September 15, 2019.

This reinforces the strength of the rear guard — improving its capability to stop a car and prevent underride. But it, also, serves as the point of attachment for Aaron’s side guard invention, the SafetySkirt — polyester webbing which can be combined with a side skirt to both save fuel and save lives.

A previous version of the Rear Reinforcement Attachment and SafetySkirt system.

You can see the SafetySkirt being tested at the D.C. Underride Crash Test Event on March 26, 2019:

We are looking forward to the day when Aaron’s SafetySkirt System can be tested at IIHS to prove its usefulness as an affordable, lightweight solution, which could theoretically be available as an option to retrofit any truck on the road with effective side and rear underride protection.

Aaron, like Perry Ponder who invented the AngelWing side guard, and countless other engineers, who should be given a green light to solve the underride problem, are amazing members of my Underride Hero Hall of Fame — along with my husband Jerry who has contributed a wealth of ideas in this underride advocacy journey.

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.

CVSA Responds to Senators’ Request to Add Rear Underride Guards to Vehicle Inspection Checklist

Truck Safety, , , , , , , ,

Do you want to share the road with trucks which have bent, rusty, or cracked rear underride guards — making an already-weak protective device even weaker when not properly maintained?

That is the current reality on our roads. So we are encouraged by CVSA’s response to our request that they add underride guards to their commercial vehicle inspections:

“There are currently 15 items on the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance (CVSA) out-of-service criteria that render a commercial motor vehicle operator unqualified to drive if their trucks do not meet CVSA standards,” the [Senator Gillibrand & Senator Rubio letter to CVSA] said. “This list includes lighting devices, windshield, wipers and frame of the vehicle.”

But not underride guards!

The Stop Underrides Act (S. 2219) has been referred to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation.

In the meantime, the two lawmakers also have asked CVSA to consider upgrading the standard for rear guards with cracks, rust or corrosion to be placed out-of-service.

“We’ve been requested to look at them to see whether or not they belong in the out-of-service criteria,” Kerri Wirachowsky, director of CVSA’s roadside inspection program, told Transport Topics. “Maybe, maybe not. But before we go that far we need to see what is out there and what the condition of them are.”

Although there are federal requirements on size, placement and condition of the rear underguards, CVSA does not have a handle on how vigorously inspectors are checking the underguards or issuing violations when they’re “beat up, bent or have lost bolts,” Wirachowsky said.  CVSA Responds to Senators Deciding to Spend a Day Inspecting Underride Guards, August 15, 2018, Transport Topics

On February 13, 2019, WUSA9 reported on the results of that August 27-31, 2018, CVSA underride inspection project. Big changes coming to big rig risks, WUSA9, February 13, 2019

. . . our investigation uncovered many of those rear guards don’t measure up, and worse, hold up in accidents.

Now we’ve discovered the inspectors responsible for red-flagging dangerous rear guards, have very little power to do much about it.

As a result [of the underride inspection project], CVSA is now making major changes. 

  • It’s retraining road-side inspectors to check rear guards.
  • Asking the federal government to tighten the rules on rear guard inspections.
  • Effective immediately: the CVSA is increasing training on how to inspect rear guards. 
  • Adding it to the agency’s critical inspection item list.
  • Prohibiting inspectors from giving CVSA approved decal to any vehicle that doesn’t meet rear guard requirements.

The decals allow trailers, who have passed inspection, to roll through these stations without getting looked at again.

Meanwhile, other proposed changes will require federal approval, including adding faulty rear guards to list of things that can result in a trailer being pulled off the road, and adding rear guards to the check list trucks must meet to pass annual inspections. {* See footnote.}

The Stop Underrides Act would go even farther than the safety improvements the CVSA is now recommending. Major changes to stop underride accidents could be coming to US highways, WUSA9, February 13, 2019

We are also thankful to CVSA for their work with FMCSA on the recently published training video on the vehicle inspection process. This process now includes inspection of the rear end protection device (although I hope that they update the video with more details of what to look for, along with photos with examples of guards which don’t pass inspection).

VIDEO: A step-by-step review of a North American Standard (NAS) Level 1 inspection – narrated from the perspective of the commercial driver

* Hint, hint, hint, FMCSA. On November 1, 2018, we submitted a petition to FMCSA Administrator Martinez, asking that you add underride protection to Out-Of-Service items in Appendix G. We are still waiting for a decision.

Letter from FMCSA in response to our petition