What is it like to compete for the attention of government leaders in order to get traction on the traffic safety problem which took your loved one’s life? Envision a press conference on a hot topic where a cacophony of reporters can be heard shouting out — vying for the opportunity to have their question be the one that gets answered.
Only it is much worse because it seems fundamentally disturbing that we should be pitted against each other in endless competition for action on issues which are all vital to saving lives. In this process, we are fragmented and quite possibly give more power to the opposing forces.
Something’s wrong with this picture. And what I think that we need to turn things around is an Office of National Traffic Safety Ombudsman. Let’s appoint an Advocate with authority to be a strong voice for all of us and a means to bring us together – someone who will strengthen our efforts rather than leave us struggling in some kind of tournament where it is always win or go home.
Congressional Offices are continuously overwhelmed by pleas from advocates representing a multitude of concerns. And, although the Department of Transportation may have many fine individuals working on our behalf, there are clearly too many factors which put a stranglehold on effective action. I have not found that I could count on tangible progress from the agencies which are supposed to represent Safety and traffic victims and which have publicly committed to Vision Zero:
“At FHWA, we believe that a single death is a tragedy; almost 90 deaths a day is unacceptable when we possess the tools and capability to help prevent them. Reaching zero deaths will be difficult, will take time and will require significant effort from all of us; but it is the only acceptable vision. We’re not at zero yet, but we know that by working together we will see a day when there are no fatalities on the Nation’s roadways, sidewalks and bicycle paths.” On TOWARD ZERO DEATHS
“Safety is the top priority of the US DOT. For FHWA, this means a road system that is designed to protect its users, through implementing life-saving programs and infrastructure safety solutions. FHWA’s goal is to reduce transportation related fatalities and serious injuries across the transportation system, and for this reason it fully supports the vision of zero deaths and serious injuries on the Nation’s roads. To support this vision, FHWA continues to work closely with our partners to advance safety culture and a safe system approach, encourage performance-driven transportation safety management practices, and advocate for the deployment of innovative safety countermeasures. Working together, we can strive toward zero, the only acceptable number. “Zero Deaths – Saving Lives through a Safety Culture and a Safe System
Words without meaningful action do me no good. What is going to bring about significant change? Can we even agree on the need for a united front, an appointed spokesperson, and a nationwide network of concerned citizens to more effectively address all traffic safety concerns?
If we do not, my daughters’ deaths become diminished – their lives apparently not worth saving, along with 40,000 other precious loved ones lost last year and the year before that and the year before that and some 40,000 this year and the next and the next. . .
When supporters of the STOP Underrides! Act of 2019 first hear the news about DOT’s new “rule on rules,” they might moan and sigh and scramble to figure out what next. On December 5, Transportation Secretary solidified the Trump administration’s approach to rulemaking:
Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao announced she has signed a “rule on rules” that will ensure the department’s regulations aren’t too complicated, out of date or contradictory.
When it comes to investigating suspected wrongdoing and enforcing its regulations, the new rules also require the department “where feasible, foster greater private-sector cooperation in enforcement.”
On the one hand, there are hints of good things there in calling for rules that are not out of date, cooperation from the private sector, and greater transparency. But those who have been around the block in safety advocacy are right to be skeptical and devoid of hope for future traffic safety rulemaking.
Yet I remain hopeful knowing that the STOP Underrides Act fits the bill by calling for a Committee On Underride Protection (COUP), whose role is to gather a diverse group of stakeholders to collaboratively keep DOT truly transparent and progressing in underride rulemaking. Will the COUP be included in the upcoming FAST Act language? I’m doing everything that I can to make it a reality.
Now, understandably, it could cause concern that, “The new Transportation Department action formalized a Trump administration requirement that for each regulatory step a department takes, it has to undertake two deregulatory moves.” However, I’m not worried because I know that it would be procedurally acceptable for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to remove the existing 1996 rear underride rules, (two of them — FMVSS 223 & 224), which would satisfy that requirement.
Then, NHTSA could issue a Supplemental Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SNPRM) as a revision of the December 2015 NPRM underride rulemaking, which was intended to update the 1996 rear underride guard rule. In fact, SNPRMs are a valid means of improving a NPRM — based on Public Comments and new information received subsequent to the initially issued proposed rule.
No one can argue that there has not been plenty of new information on underride which has come to the surface in the last seven years. In fact, the STOP Underrides! Act nicely packages straightforward rules, based on performance standards, to address every form of deadly underride and can easily lead to an Underride SNPRM — all with the help of the Committee On Underride Protection to mold it into the best possible underride protection.
So, in this season of expectant hope, let us eagerly continue a national conversation on the elimination of preventable underride tragedies. Let our goal be to change the face of the trucking industry by making truck crashes more survivable, thus promising a better chance that more people will be home for the holidays.
Members of Congress, Secretary Chao, trucking industry, eager engineers, and families of underride victims, let’s do this together.
(p.s. Let’s also appoint a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman so that motorists and vulnerable road users — victims of every form of traffic violence — can count on a strong voice to authoritatively advocate on their behalf.)
On September 3, 1969, according to the Congressional Record from that day, Congress discussed plans to fund and expand the National Traffic & Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966. Although we have made progress since that time, still today there are way too many people dying on our roads. We have not made it a national priority to address these deaths and serious injuries.
A National Traffic Safety Act of 2019 would provide a framework for a National Traffic Safety Ombudsman to oversee a Towards Zero Traffic Safety Task Force of diverse stakeholders to collaborate for Safer Vehicles, Safer Trucks, Safer Streets, and Safer Drivers to address the national public health and traffic safety crisis in order to make a significant reduction of the 36,560 annual traffic-related deaths in the United States (2018).
We are thankful to Cool Breeze Studio for creating this recently-released underride documentary — telling the stories of underride victims to shed light on this preventable problem.
That’s good news because corporations need to be held accountable for what they produce. If they aren’t held liable for safety defects in their products, then what reason do they have for being vigilant themselves to make sure that their actions are not resulting in death or serious injuries?
After writing that post, then I read an article which a friend had posted on facebook, called Slain in the Shadow of the Almighty , http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/slain-in-the-shadow-of-the-almighty . I might agree with some things in that article. But what I read in the Bible, and what I have seen to be the case in my life, is that while we are not in total control we can make an impact on what happens in this world:
Man makes plans, but the LORD directs his steps–by the power of the Spirit.
Jesus, being tempted in the wilderness by Satan for 40 days, did not simply jump from the roof of the temple and expect God/an angel to catch Him.
Joseph, with the wisdom given to Him by God, made a plan to be prepared for a famine and doled out food to meet people’s needs (including his own family who were not prepared).
Lord, I believe; help my unbelief.
I think that it is a matter of trust and I do trust Him. But I think that He wants us to take dominion over things in this world where we are capable of doing so–as in matters where we can take steps to prevent others from dying.
God’s love is the rule.
Faith without works is dead. We walk by faith and not by sight. By faith, this mountain can be moved.
A paradox of faith.
He works through our words and actions and plans. That includes advocating for measures which will lead to safer roads and prevent unnecessary deaths.
Until the race is finished and the work is done.
I sang this song at my daughters’ funeral and I still believe it to be true:
The balloons we released at the burial of AnnaLeah (17 purple) and Mary (13 orange) as we said farewell.
It really bothers me when people frequently suggest that someone came out of a horrible crash alive because of the grace of God. I have a hard time thinking that because the flip side would be to conclude that His grace did not bother to save my girls.
Instead, I choose to trust Romans 8:28 that He will make all things work together for good and that He will give me the grace to get through what happened. And He did allow it to happen, which has caused me a great deal of struggle with some Bible verses which talk about His angels having charge over us, etc. (For example, Psalm 91)
On the other hand, I don’t think that it is exactly what He had in mind for people to die in such tragic ways. I think that He has given us the wisdom to do our part and whenever possible to do what it takes to prevent people from unnecessarily dying from motor vehicle crashes. He doesn’t mean for us to live carelessly or irresponsibly and simply expect that our guardian angels will always take up the slack for us.
The fact of the matter is that we all have responsibility to do our part–whether it is to drive responsibly or to determine what needs to be done to make our roads safer. This can include so many things such as technology, equipment design, road design, traffic laws, safety regulations, enforcement, and criminal justice.
And so, I feel confident that He will hear my prayer when I ask for breakthroughs in safety issues and that He will lead me in the path of safety advocacy and by His Spirit move through people to bring about change. And when there is resistance and opposition, I will do all in my power to draw attention to it and shed light on the truth.
And when there is tragedy, then, as AnnaLeah’s craft project above says, “In my life, Lord, Thy will be done.”
When steps are taken to make roads safer, the impact can mean many lives saved globally.
Vision Zero is all about moving towards zero crash fatalities and serious injuries. If we would view road safety as a public health challenge, then we might begin to grasp the immensity of this problem.
When I attempted to find the source of his quote, I stumbled upon this article by another public health expert, Dr. Arshini Daytan. I did a mental double-take when I read her quote from David Jernigan (John Hopkins) on the strategies of large corporations who actively seek to make us unhealthy:
“Associate Professor David Jernigan from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health gave the Basil Hetzel Oration and highlighted the significant influence large multinational corporations had on shaping the environment in which people make health decisions and the need for public health to understand these organisations. He proceeded to explain how these organisations, for example alcohol companies, operate to influence the debates around their products and why we need to know this in terms of public health advocacy. He went through the 10 principles outlined in the book ‘Lethal but Legal – Corporations, Consumption, and Protecting Public Health’ by Nicholas Freudenberg.
1. Make disease promoting products ubiquitous
2. Encourage retailers to promote their products
3. Supersize products
4. Target marketing to vulnerable populations
5. Price unhealthy products to promote sale and use
6. Create monopolies that reduce bargaining power of consumers and government
7. Support candidates who oppose public health policies
8. Lobby against laws that protect public health
9. Threaten to take jobs out of communities that oppose their policies
As I took photos of Jerry raking pine needles in our backyard today it triggered memories of the good times we had with AnnaLeah and Mary our Last Fall Together–as well as all the other autumns of their short lives.
It brings good but bittersweet memories as I remember all-too-well how they cannot be here at this time in this place to enjoy these moments. They had come with us to tour this house in anticipation of purchasing it the following spring–walking through this backyard which they never got to enjoy as their own.
And then it reminds me why I have thrown myself into this huge endeavor called Safety Advocacy. For some other mom who–I hope–will never know this heartache.
My family knows all too well, the great loss which can come from a truck crash. We are doing everything in our power to keep your family from experiencing such life-changing tragedy.
For those of you who have the ability to impact the upcoming HR 3763, Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act, please consider these insights from the Truck Safety Coalition on potential riders or amendments and their likely impact on safety for travelers on the roads of our country:
ACTION NEEDED TO ENHANCE SAFETY TITLE IN HOUSE TRANSPORTATION BILL
October 28, 2015
BACKGROUND:
The surface transportation reauthorization legislation currently being considered by Congress will set transportation policy for the next six years. During that time, approximately 24,000 people will be killed in truck crashes and 600,000 more will be injured. This legislation is an opportunity to reverse the upward trend of the truck crash death and injury toll. If the safety title in the bill is not enhanced when the House and Senate meet in conference on the legislation, the American public will pay with their lives and their wallets.
On Thursday, October 22, The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure passed H.R. 3763, the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015. While a large number of amendments were offered, the majority of those amendments were withdrawn due to a bipartisan agreement between the Committee leadership to pass a bill through the Committee. The bill will now move to the House floor for a vote by the full House of Representatives. We expect that many of the same amendments that were withdrawn could be offered when the full House takes up the legislation.
It is expected that H.R. 3763 will be on the House floor next Tuesday and Wednesday, November 3-4.
TAKE ACTION NOW:
Please take the time to contact your Representative either by phone or email, and urge him/her to oppose anti-truck safety provisions and amendments.
There is no data that analyzes whether it is safe to allow teenagers to operate commercial motor vehicles in interstate traffic. In fact, research has demonstrated that truck drivers younger than age 21 have higher crash rates than drivers who are 21 years of age and older.
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) previously declined to lower the minimum age for an unrestricted CDL to 18 as part of a pilot program because the agency could not conclude that the “safety performance of these younger drivers is sufficiently close to that of older drivers of CMVs[.]” The public overwhelmingly opposed the idea with 96 percent of individuals who responded opposing the proposal along with 88 percent of the truck drivers and 86 percent of the motor carriers who responded.
Changing Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) Data (Secs. 5221, 5223, 5224)
Hiding critical safety information in the FMCSA’s CSA program will deprive consumers from learning about the comparative safety of motor carriers and bus companies when hiring a motor carrier company to transport goods or people.
Letting the public know the government safety scores promotes public accountability and improves safety. CSA is working as intended and includes a process so that it can continue to be fine-tuned and improved.
Delaying Rulemaking on Minimum Financial Responsibility (Sec. 5501)
Minimum insurance levels have not been increased once in over 35 years.
During this time medical care costs have increased significantly and the current minimum requirement of $750,000 is inadequate to cover the cost of one fatality or serious injury, let alone crashes in which there are multiple victims.
Limiting Shipper and Broker Liability (Sec. 5224)
Shields brokers and shippers from responsibility based on low standards related to hiring decisions. Reducing standards effectively removes safety from the carrier selection process.
Expected Amendments to Oppose to H.R.3763:
The Safe, Flexible and Efficient Trucking Act (H.R. 3488) increases the current federal 80,000 lbs. limit to 91,000 lbs. This bill, which is expected to be offered as an amendment by Rep. Reid Ribble (WI), contains a provision that would violate the federal bridge formula.Additionally, the U.S. DOT determined that introducing a 91,000 lb. weight limit would result in $1.1 billion immediate one-time bridge strengthening or replacement costs for non-interstate bridges on the National Highway System (NHS) as well as create bridge posting issues for nearly 5,000 bridges on the Interstate and NHS.
Mandate increasing the size of double tractor trailers from 28 feet per trailer to 33 feet per trailer, resulting in trucks that are at least 84 feet long. Double 33s will be more dangerous to motorists and truck drivers, and more destructive to our nation’s already compromised roadways and bridges. This length increase will overturn the laws in a majority of states that currently prohibit Double 33s.
The recent U.S. Department of Transportation Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (DOT Study) concluded there is a “profound” lack of data from which to quantify the safety impact of larger or heavier trucks and consequently recommends that no changes in the relevant truck size and weight laws and regulations be considered until data limitations are overcome.
By overwhelming margins in numerous public opinion polls over the last 20 years, the American public consistently and convincingly rejects sharing the road with bigger, heavier and longer trucks. The most recent poll in January 2015 by Harper Polling revealed that 76 percent of respondents oppose longer and heavier trucks on the highways and 79 percent are very or somewhat convinced that heavier and longer trucks will lead to more braking problems and longer stopping distances, causing an increase in the number of crashes involving trucks.
Special interest truck size and weight exemptions are essentially “earmarks” for states and “unfunded mandates” imposed on all American taxpayers who bear the cost of federally-financed infrastructure damage and repairs. We expect that there could be several amendments seeking size and weight exemptions.
The compounding effect of these anti-safety provisions will allow trucks, the size of an eight-story building, higher risk interstate truck drivers, and insufficient insurance for large trucks. A national surface transportation authorization bill should not be a legislative vehicle to pass special interest provisions that would never be supported by the public. Yet, this bill is rife with truck safety rollbacks that throw the safety agenda into reverse and further endanger everyone on the roads.
Put the Brakes on these Anti-Safety Provisions. Save Lives, Taxpayer Costs and our Crumbling Infrastructure.
“Towards Zero – There’s no one someone won’t miss.”
