In the course of working with DC Congressional staff on the underride issue, I was introduced to another safety advocate. Steve Eimers is a dad who lost his daughter, Hannah, due to another safety issue — unsafe guardrails.
You might want to educate yourself on this roadway danger. But Steve can tell his story much better than I:
On November 1, 2016, my daughter, Hannah Eimers was driving to school with a friend in Tennessee.
Why Would We STOP Installing Unsafe Guardrails But Neglect To Replace Those Already On Our Roadways?! And, by the way, who should pay for this — besides too many precious ones gone too soon?
Strick Trailer 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 trucks can increase the chances of injury during a crash, thereby violating Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 223, “Rear Impact Guards.”
In March 2014, Strick discovered that the gussets may not have been verified using prescribed test procedures, according to the NHTSA document. Tests conducted in April 2014 confirmed that the gussets violated FMVSS 223.
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 will begin on June 17.
Okay, I am glad that this is being taken care of, but I only hope that it will be done thoroughly and completely and without delay. And, by the way, if the problem was discovered in March 2014, why is the recall only beginning on June 17, 2016? What took so long?
We have been following the progress of Aaron Kiefer’s development of an innovative side/rear underride guard, which he has designed on his own time when not working as a crash reconstructionist or spending time with his family. So we eagerly welcomed his invitation to help out in his MacGyver-style crash test this past Saturday. (By the way, I am a big fan of MacGyver–watched every episode on DVD with Mary & AnnaLeah.)
Aaron wanted to take this opportunity to test his design and find out what changes might be needed to make it a marketable and affordable option for trailer owners to install as a retrofit safety improvement. We joined a crew of his family, friends, and fellow crash reconstructionists at a junkyard in the Triangle area.
The morning was for set-up. Then we took a break for some brats and chips before devoting the afternoon to three crash tests. I had been unsure before arriving as to how a pick-up could tow a car and make it crash into a trailer. It became clear to me when I saw Aaron’s pulley contraption.
Test 1 was a side crash. The collision of the car into the side guard caused the innovative side guard to pop off its brace. But, as Aaron and Jerry said, the test was successful because the side guard stopped the car from going under the trailer beyond the windshield; it prevented Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI). People in the car could have walked away alive.
Test 2 was a second side guard crash with the same car. Again, the car did not go under past the windshield and there was no PCI. The guard would have protected the people in the car from death and/or severe injuries. This time the added aluminum brace at the rear sheared off. Aaron thinks that he will have to go back to the drawing board and make a stronger brace.
Test 3 was a rear crash test. This time the side guard got rolled up and set aside. The trailer was turned around and the test car set up to aim at the rear of the trailer. The original rear underride guard on the trailer had actually been damaged at some point in the past and only had four of its original eight bolts. (That was the condition the underride guard was in when Aaron purchased the trailer, which had sustained damage from collision with an overpass. The guard had clearly not been properly maintained.)
In this crash, the underride guard failed and the car rode under the trailer. There was PCI and, if there had been people in the car, they would not have escaped unharmed. The added brace on the outer edge did not hold up. In fact, it was still fastened on (come to think of it, as it took a lot of work to unfasten it from the trailer afterward), but the original underride guard popped entirely off and flew to the side — doing nothing to stop the car from going under the truck.
Aaron had actually aimed the car to hit the left outer edge of the trailer, which he had reinforced with some aluminum braces. (Note: The current federal standard, as well as the proposed improved rule, does not require this area of the trailer to be protected against underride.) Instead, the car hit the vertical bar of the guard; the entire original guard then popped off and the car went under the truck.
It’s back to the drawing board for Aaron to find a way to improve his design. It was definitely a great success in that it prevented deadly side underride. On top of that, the trailer was not damaged by the collision (except for a few little nicks). But the bracing needs to be made stronger.
From what I could see, the day’s events only served to strengthen Aaron’s resolve to put a stop to senseless deaths, which he sees all-too-often in his work. I for one am truly thankful for the wonderful work he is doing, along with the group of people who willingly set aside a Saturday to support his effort.
The day gave me a deeper appreciation for all who take the time to solve the problem of preventable traffic fatalities. This includes the Virginia Tech Senior Design Team and Wabash and Manac and many researchers for decades, such as George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta in Australia and Luís Otto Faber Schmutzler in Brazil, and countless other un-named individuals.
It was also personally very intense. As one participant commented, “That was violent!”
Indeed, it was very violent. All three crashes gave me a jolt. But after the third crash, which resulted in deadly underride, I found myself standing still in the aftermath. Others were busy finding tasks to measure the results and get the clean-up started–including getting the car unstuck from under the trailer. But all I could do was stand there and stare.
Not until the next day really did it all begin to sink in: how I had witnessed from observing from afar what I and my children had gone through ourselves (although with a different crash scenario). I had watched, as an onlooker, the instantaneous destruction of a vehicle and how it was that AnnaLeah’s life had been inconceivably snuffed out in the twinkling of an eye and how, in a matter of mere seconds, Mary’s body had been broken beyond repair by just such a tragically-unresolved traffic safety problem.
It seemed like my own body experienced whiplash as it tensed up and relived, through traumatic muscle memory, what I had gone through. Meanwhile my heart continues to break with the grief that knows no end even as I process this experience.
It is beyond my comprehension how we, in this country, can allow such things to occur year after year without moving heaven and earth to learn how to prevent these tragedies. I can only ask forgiveness, and apologize to the countless families who have lost loved ones through violent death by motor vehicle, for letting them down–for not addressing it as the priority it should be. As a society, we have dropped the ball.
Jerry said several times, “It’s not every day you get to see a dream become a reality–kind of a humbling experience actually.” May there be many more such days.
So, as of 2:45 p.m. today, I no longer have any children under 18. Well, the ones that are alive, that is. That doesn’t count AnnaLeah, who would have been 20 now (but is forever 17), or Mary, who would have turned 16 in two days (but is forever 13).
Mary’s 8 siblings meet her for the first time 16 years ago.
Sixteen years ago, I was very pregnant for Mary and stopped at Kentucky Fried Chicken to get birthday supper for her 2 year-old brother. I always figured he was fortunate that she waited two days so that I wasn’t in the hospital on his birthday.
They often had joint birthday parties — usually on the day-between — when their grandpa would come over. They each got to pick part of the menu and what they wanted for dessert. When they got old enough to leave alone, they would always watch Condor Man at home while the rest of us went birthday shopping for them.
This was the year that AnnaLeah picked out Gertie (the stuffed toy St. Bernard in memory of our dog) for her sister Mary’s birthday present:
They weren’t twins, but, especially because they were part of a large family, they spent a lot of time together.
I might as well talk about it here–because it has been so much on my mind as of late. I am still struggling with that whole question of protection and keeping us free from harm.
From the very beginning — the day before their funeral — I have struggled with what Psalm 91 really means. . .
1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. 2 I will say to the Lord, “My refuge and my fortress, My God, in whom I trust!” 11 For He will give His angels charge concerning you, To guard you in all your ways. 12 They will bear you up in their hands, That you do not strike your foot against a stone. 15 “He will call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in [e]trouble; I will rescue him and honor him. 16 “With [f]a long life I will satisfy him And [g]let him see My salvation.”
I am very tired now and rambling, but I want to get this written down as I get closer to facing Mary’s would-have-been 16th birthday.
Yesterday, I took our son’s cat to the vet. Oscar had been in a long car ride in April from his home in Texas to North Carolina. So, as soon as I put him in the cat carrier and began driving the car, Oscar meowed pitifully. All the way to the vet.
In an effort to calm him down, I began singing the lullaby (tune: Rock-a-bye Baby) which I had sung to my nine children:
Snuggle now, baby, in Jesus’ arms. When the storm comes, He’ll keep you from harm. When the winds blow, and when the winds cease, you know that with Jesus, you can have peace.
I don’t think that it calmed Oscar. And it made me cry–thinking of how He had not kept AnnaLeah and Mary from harm (how Mary had called out, “Mommy, where are we?” and AnnaLeah had been silent). Had I lied to my children all of those years?
I read these verses this morning:
Psalm 91:10No evil will befall you, nor will any plague come near your tent.
Proverbs 12:21No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked are filled with trouble.
Proverbs 1:33 “But he who listens to me shall live securely, and shall be at ease from the dread of evil.”
Psalm 121: 3He will not allow your foot to slip, He who keeps you will not slumber.
5 The LORD is your keeper; the LORD is your shade on your right hand.
7 The LORD will protect [keep] you from all evil, He will keep your soul.
8 The LORD will guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forever.
I texted our pastor in Texas as I was on the way to their funeral there and said that I was struggling with Psalm 91. He said that he would be speaking to that in his sermon, “They are where they belong.”
I know that they are in a better place than if they were still here. But still. . . I mean, really, don’t you ever ask questions like these? Don’t you ever ask Him what He really means when He says He will protect us?
And, of course, I have come face to face with the realities of the many possible factors in crash fatalities (i.e., deaths due to supposed accidents which quite possibly could have been prevented if this and that thing had or had not been done). These are things — quite clearly — in which God does not intervene and supernaturally block in order to save lives. No, these are problems which require human action to solve them.
At the same time, I am convinced that it would be His will that the roads be safer–that we humans take dominion over this part of His created world. And I believe that He is even now guiding us to seek and bring about needed change.
Some people talk about Vision Zero–about being proactive and working toward ending deaths on our roads. It doesn’t just happen. And it certainly doesn’t happen by burying our heads in the sand and pretending that the problems don’t exist.
Don’t you get it?! I mean, maybe I have been naive and expected that I and my loved ones would get through life without tragedy. Now, when I see tragedy “strike,” I am more ready to ask, “Did that really have to happen? Could it have been avoided?”
I am more prone to ask, “What can we do to provide The Best Possible Protection?” Before it is too late.
Just today, someone told me about yet another missed opportunity to improve underride guards in 1998: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-05-14/html/98-12753.htm , http://trid.trb.org/view.aspxid=214652 & http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/are-rear-underride-guards-overrated: “Or, maybe it’s a case of standard failure. In 1996, the agency went the don’t-ruffle-industry’s-feathers route, passing a final rule {the current one} that offered only a slight improvement over the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association’s voluntary recommended practice.” “In 1998, a former NHTSA safety standards engineer underscored the inadequacy of the U.S. rules in a series of crash tests involving rear underride guards built to reflect the then-newly minted rear impact protection standard. . . Tomassoni also noted that the underride guard designed to meet the minimum static load requirements “will not provide adequate protection in offset impacts.””
And that was many years before my girls were even a twinkle in their daddy’s eye. But it was never done–the known problem was never resolved–and so AnnaLeah and Mary were left more vulnerable and un-protected than they should have been. And it breaks my heart.
AnnaLeah made this craft when she was little, “In my life, Lord, Thy will be done.” and that is my comfort: they had the gift of faith in Jesus as their Savior and Lord. And so I know that they are truly safe in His arms–though they are far from mine.
Should there be criminal penalties for cases in which persons are killed as a result of known safety defects in vehicles?
What is a “safety defect” anyway?
http://resources.lawinfo.com/personal-injury/products-liability/toyota-recall/what-is-a-safety-related-motor-vehicle-defect.html “The United States Code for Motor Vehicle Safety (Title 49, Chapter 301) defines motor vehicle safety as “the performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident, and includes nonoperational safety of a motor vehicle.” A defect includes “any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment.” As reported by the Office of Defects Investigation ( www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov) a “safety defect” is defined as a problem that exists in a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment that:
poses a risk to motor vehicle safety, and
may exist in a group of vehicles of the same design or manufacture, or items of equipment of the same type and manufacture.”
If there is a known safety defect and no attempt is made to correct the problem and someone dies or is seriously injured as a result, who should be held responsible for this and what price should they have to pay?
When I read the above article this morning, it reminded me of things said by Michael Lemov–in his book, Car Safety Wars; 100 Years of Technology, Politics, and Death, which chronicles interesting quotes and facts concerning the history of vehicle safety defects and their impact on matters of life and death:
“Enforcement should be strengthened to include criminal penalties, because drivers, Nader said, already face criminal penalties for reckless driving and similar offenses.”
p. 92, “…the miniscule amount that senator Robert Kennedy (New York) established the industry spent for automotive safety, in comparison to its billions in annual profits (less than one percent it turned out). Or the large number of ‘dealer recalls’ for defects (478 in 1965), many of which the manufacturers had not told car owners anything about.”
p. 92, “…the Johnson administration’s ensuing decision to ask Congress for the passage of the first federal motor vehicle safety law in history.”
p. 92, “President Johnson had included a statement on the motor vehicle safety issue in his 1966 State of the Union message to Congress–and to the millions of Americans listening that January evening. Johnson spoke mostly about the two overriding issues of the day–the administration’s ‘War on Poverty’ and the quagmire of the bloody, seemingly endless Vietnam War. In his ten-page State of the Union address the President devoted just two sentences to highway safety. He called for the nation to ‘arrest the destruction of life and property on our highways.’ And he said he would propose a Highway Safety Act to ‘end this mounting tragedy.”
p. 92-93, “The President’s transportation message released in early March 1966 further spelled out the administration’s traffic-safety plan. It forcefully stated the need for legislation on vehicle design-safety, placing it squarely in the forefront of the public’s consciousness: Last year, the highway death toll set a new record. The prediction for this year is more than 50,000 persons will die on our streets and highways–more than 50,000 useful and promising lives will be lost, and as many families stung by grief. The toll of Americans killed in this way since the introduction of the automobile is truly unbelievable. It is 1.5 million–more than all the combat deaths suffered in all our wars. . . No other necessity of modern life has brought more convenience to the “American people–or more tragedy–than the automobile. . . the carnage on the highways must be arrested. . . we must replace suicide with sanity and anarchy with safety.
p. 95, “Despite all the rhetoric, the main issue was relatively simple. How extensive should the new federal authority be to set enforceable national motor vehicle safety standards? That power was central to the proposed law. It was delegated in the administration’s bill to the inexperienced, business-friendly Department of Commerce. Ultimately it was to be transferred to the as yet nonexistent Department of Transportation. . . In handing off the issue to his senior colleague Magnuson, Senator Ribicoff was specific in his recommendations. Ribicoff repeated the gruesome statistics of rising deaths and injuries. He asked: Could it be that we have reached the point where we simply accept the highway toll as an ordinary fact of life? Is this one of the prices we must pay for the privilege for living in a modern, technological society? I hope not. We must concern ourselves with more than the causes of accidents.
p. 95, “Ribicoff endorsed the decades-old position of doctors, accident investigators, and university researchers, which had long been ignored by the manufacturers and the safety establishment: ‘We must look beyond the accident to the cause of the injury that results. I am speaking, of course, about the so-called second collision, the often lethal battering which the occupants of a vehicle incur as the result of even a minor crash.’
p. 95, “And Ribicoff challenged one of the key arguments of the manufacturers: ‘The automobile industry seems inclined to believe that the American public will not buy a safe car. In fact, some spokesmen for the industry have stated that safety doesn’t sell, and that they have no choice if they want to stay in business but to give the public what the public wants.'”
p. 95, “But Ribicoff argued that the public and the press were now ‘aroused’ and had finally grasped the ‘significance of the second collision’–and presumably the need for federal vehicle standards as a means of preventing the deaths and injuries ‘that inevitably result from accidents.'”
p. 95, “. . .Ribicoff said: ‘We believe the president’s highway safety bill can be and should be strengthened and improved.'”
p. 97, “Nader followed with a laundry list of defects in the proposed administration bill:
“It should ensure that motor vehicle safety standards applied to pedestrian safety.
“The federal standards should include their technical or engineering basis, so they could be evaluated by independent experts and the public[these technical specifications might be deemed trade secrets by the carmakers].
“The bill should make government issuance of the standards within one year, mandatory [not discretionary as provided in the administration’s bill].
“Court review should be broadened to include a right to sue for ‘affected parties’ and a right of review by ‘consumers and insurers.’
“The production of prototype ‘safe cars’ should be mandated.
“Vehicle manufacturers should be required to submit annual performance [crash] data, showing how well their cars were performing in actual use.
“All car-maker communications with their dealers regarding safety should be submitted to the government and be made public.
“Enforcement should be strengthened to include criminal penalties, because drivers, Nader said, already face criminal penalties for reckless driving and similar offenses.”
