It is not often that you get the opportunity to work with a great crew of people (Aaron Kiefer, Marcus Gainer, Quentin Beverly, Robert and James Gilmore, and Hyle Herwick) to accomplish something that is so meaningful, and life-saving. But I was truly blessed today to have that happen.
The Carolina Trucking Academy, owned by Charlie and Donna Gray, has been one of the biggest supporters of our efforts on this journey we have been on for years in helping prevent death by underride. Today we were able to place an AngelWing side guard on one of the Academy’s trailers.
It was, once again, an engineering challenge as the trailer was shorter than the normal 53-foot trailers we normally work with. But Aaron Kiefer — as always — came up with the modifications which were required.
Marcus went to work on the Academy trailer — cutting the holes required in the cross members for fitting the support beams in place. Meanwhile, the rest of us started the process of removing the AngelWing from the underride research/storage trailer and preparing it for its new home on the Academy trailer. Each section of the guard was carefully removed, with every bolt, nut, and washer lined up in readiness for the installation.
With dedicated teamwork, we were able to complete the installation of the AngelWing side guard on the Academy’s trailer. So now this life-saving device will be on the highways and byways in and around North Carolina –demonstrating not only great driver training but also the commitment of Charlie and Donna to have the safest equipment on the road.
The American people, whether they know it or not, have already waited too long for DOT to take decisive action to stop underride tragedies. That’s why it’s encouraging to see Congress putting DOT on notice to move forward with the Underride Mandate. Yesterday, they sent a letter to Secretary Buttigieg:
Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09) and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand led 25 of their colleagues in a letter urging Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Pete Buttigieg to swiftly execute the provisions from their Stop Underrides Act, which passed in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.press release
The letter encourages DOT to act swiftly to release the Final Rear Underride Guard rule with IIHS TOUGHGuard strength and issue an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) in order to allow the Public to comment on side guards, as well as urging them to, “expeditiously establish the Advisory Committee on Underride Protection and to complete the life-saving side guard research which we hope will lead to a proposed rule on side guards. Together these provisions will help save lives and aim to prevent passenger compartment intrusion from crashes with trucks.”
Senator Gillibrand summarized it well, “Every day we don’t act, we are losing an opportunity to save the lives of innocent Americans.”
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) conducted an important crash test on March 30, 2017. They crashed a car at 35 mph into the side of a trailer equipped with AngelWing side guards. This crash test was later repeated successfully at 40 mph at the Second Underride Roundtable on August 29, 2017. It was official. Deadly side underride tragedies could be prevented.
What seemed perhaps even more significant was the fact that the following day, March 31, 2017, the IIHS conducted a second crash test into the side of a trailer — only this time, there was no side guard. The stark contrast of the two crashes was captured on film for all to see. Who could argue the benefit of this feasible feat of engineering technology?
Apparently it has not been enough to convince everyone, as we are still struggling to bring this uphill battle to an end five years later. Pray that Pete Buttigieg, the Secretary of Transportation, who is tasked by Congress with making a determination this year, will conclude that saving lives is worth the cost to require trailer manufacturers to equip new trailers with side guards. Otherwise, the inaction of industry and government will allow the senseless, violent slaughter of unprotected road users to continue day after day, year after year — while engineering solutions sit on the shelf gathering dust.
If you had to guess how many people have died from truck underride, or more specifically from side underride, since DOT talked about side guards on March 19, 1969, what would you say? Well, nobody can say for sure, but I did some Back of the Envelope Math today — using the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) undercounted underride death data.
Why would we equip some trucks to prevent rear underride but not side or front? And why not equip ALL large trucks with available underride prevention technology?
It might not be exact, but it certainly is revealing.
Fifty-three years ago, the Department of Transportation published their intention to add underride protection to the sides of large vehicles after the completion of technical studies. That was on March 19, 1969. In less than a week, 19,358 days will have passed. Surely there’s been enough time to complete research on this long-overdue rulemaking.
So I’m thinking that it isn’t unreasonable to expect NHTSA to make the Underride Initiative a high priority — especially since President Biden signed a bill on November 15, 2021, which included a requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to complete side guard research within a year and then to make a determination as to whether a side guard regulation is warranted.
It might even be a good idea for NHTSA to issue a Request for Comments (RFC) right away — to give the Public a chance to comment on the costs and benefits of adding side underride protection to large trucks. Shouldn’t Secretary Buttigieg want access to as much information as possible when he makes his decision by November 15, 2022? It is, after all, a matter of life & death.
“In both tests, a midsize car struck the center of a 53-foot-long dry van trailer. In the AngelWing test, the underride guard bent but didn’t allow the car to go underneath the trailer, so the car’s airbags and safety belt could properly restrain the test dummy in the driver seat. In the test with no underride guard for protection, the car ran into the trailer and kept going. The impact sheared off part of the roof, and the sedan became wedged beneath the trailer. In a real-world crash like this, any occupants in the car would likely sustain fatal injuries.“March 2017 IIHS Side Crash Tests at 35 mph; 8/29/17 40 mph crash test
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:
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!
In 2020, I became aware of further proof that underride regulatory analysis was both flawed and non-transparent. For some reason, in 2017, the FMCSA contracted with the Volpe National Transportation Systems Center to carry out a Study of Truck Side Guards to Reduce Pedestrian Fatalities. Originally the study goals were listed on the website like this:
Five key tasks are included in this project: (1) study interaction of a potential side guard with other truck parts and accessories (e.g., fuel tanks, fire extinguisher, exhaust system) and the implications for a new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation; (2) investigate applicable international side guard standards; (3) perform a preliminary cost-benefit analysis of truck side guard deployment; (4) propose recommendations; and (5) propose means for voluntary adoption.“
When I found out that there were no plans to publish the completed study results, I made multiple inquiries at DOT and Congress. Some months later, after Departmental multimodal review, the results were whittled down to a literature review and finally published here:
When I realized that the majority of the report was missing, I submitted a FOIA Request asking for a copy of the entire report but was denied due to Exemption 5:
Exemption 5 protects the integrity of the deliberative or policy-making processes within the agency by exempting from mandatory disclosure opinion, conclusions, and recommendations included within inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters. Exemption 5 also exempts from disclosure draft documents and recommendations or other documents that reflect the personal opinion of the author rather than official agency position. Finally, Exemption 5 exempts from disclosure deliberative records that may cause public confusion where the information were not the basis for an agency’s action or final report .
Any reasonable person could look at the conclusions from the published study and compare the data to the literature referenced and realize that there were problems. Here’s a fact sheet outlining the apparent flaws in the report published by FMCSA in May 2020:
A flawed conclusion and inconsistent crash analysis cut the apparent Vulnerable Road User safety benefit of side guards by approximately half.
This is bad. This is wrong. In the first place, the error leads to a flawed cost benefit analysis for underride rulemaking. In the second place, even the undercounted underride deaths for Vulnerable Road Users (pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists) – to the best of my knowledge – have not been included with data on underride deaths in prior NHTSA underride regulatory analysis. Really flawed cost benefit analysis.
Logic says that a flawed cost benefit analysis will lead to a faulty conclusion. The conclusion from multiple underride rulemaking efforts in the past has been that a regulation is not cost effective. In other words, those lives which could have been saved by underride regulations were not deemed worth the cost.
And, by the way, what exactly was the rationale behind leaving out information from the original study? What was DOT concerned about revealing? Would it have actually justified a side guard regulation, which would, of course, have not been looked on very favorably by many in the trucking industry? Would the study have provided a broader look at additional advantages of side guards, including their ability to increase aerodynamic fuel savings, spray reduction, wind stability, GHG reduction, or other accompanying side guard benefits?
As far as I can tell, NHTSA’s faulty analysis has resulted in “guidance” to the industry which effectively turned a blind eye to the fact that trucks with a dangerous design indisputably allow cars and Vulnerable Road Users to go under trucks and sentence thousands of road users to Death By Underride.
To compound the problem, at least in recent years, underride rulemaking has been assigned to the Crashworthiness Standards division of NHTSA in the USDOT. In my opinion, that is not a good fit. The majority of rulemaking done by NHTSA has to do with the auto industry, whereas FMCSA is the agency charged with motor carrier safety.
Furthermore, underride protection doesn’t fit the definition of crashworthiness, namely, “the ability of a car or other vehicle to withstand a collision or crash with minimal bodily injury to its occupants.“ Underride protection is installed on trucks but does not protect truck occupants. So the trucking industry gets away with claiming they’re not responsible to take care of the problem. And it isn’t a feature of the car whose occupants need to be protected, so the automakers don’t have any responsibility. Consequently, underride protection doesn’t truly fit into the current NHTSA division of responsibilities as far as I can tell. The result: on top of industry opposition, underride rulemaking seems doomed because, organizationally, it falls between the cracks.
It appears to me that this complex issue would be better suited as a multimodal collaborative project under the coordination of the Office of the Secretary rather than buried at NHTSA without suitable input from other agencies and the yet-to-be-established Advisory Committee On Underride Protection. Maybe then the Underride Initiative would get the priority status it requires and All Road Users would finally be protected from Death By Underride.
Oh, look, DOT just published their priority Innovation Principles, including this one:
The Department should identify opportunities for interoperability among innovations and foster cross-modal integration. In addition, DOT’s posture must remain nimble, with a commitment to support technologies that further our policy goals.
Will the U.S. DOT let the flawed analysis stand? Or will the coming year see significant progress in underride rulemaking? Secretary Pete, the final determination will be in your hands. Will you decide that comprehensive underride protection is warranted?
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.
“(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:
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.“
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:
Of particular significance is this statement in the AAJ letter to Secretary Buttigieg:
Van-type and box semitrailers 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 NHTSA Office of Defects Investigation that they are taking this petition into serious consideration. And now we wait to find out exactly what that will mean.
Here is our letter to Secretary Buttigieg on September 14, 2021, which accompanied our petition for a safety recall due to the lack of side underride guards:
Dear Secretary Buttigieg:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30162 and 49 C.F.R § 552.1, please find our petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to promptly initiate a safety defect investigation into van-type or box semitrailers because of a known safety hazard and defect from collisions with passenger vehicles and other vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorcyclists) resulting in death and significant injuries due to a lack of side underride guards. This investigation will clearly demonstrate that NHTSA should issue a recall order pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118(b), 30119, and 30120 for all van-type and box semitrailers that lack side underride guards.
Respectfully,
Eric Hein, Jerry and Marianne Karth, and Lois Durso
On September 14, 2021, a petition was submitted to NHTSA to investigate and recall semitrailers due to the lack of side underride guards which would prevent catastrophic injuries and deaths.
Dear Secretary Buttigieg:
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 30162 and 49 C.F.R § 552.1, please find our petition to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) to promptly initiate a safety defect investigation into van-type or box semitrailers because of a known safety hazard and defect from collisions with passenger vehicles and other vulnerable road users (pedestrians, bicyclists, or motorcyclists) resulting in death and significant injuries due to a lack of side underride guards. This investigation will clearly demonstrate that NHTSA should issue a recall order pursuant to 49 U.S.C. §§ 30118(b), 30119, and 30120 for all van-type and box semitrailers that lack side underride guards.
Respectfully,
Eric Hein, Jerry and Marianne Karth, and Lois Durso
We welcome letters of support to reinforce the importance of this vital recall.
