Tag Archives: truck safety

Australian engineers champion the cause of better truck underride protection

September 21, 2015AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyNHTSA, road safety, safer roads, truck safety, underride crash, underride research, Vision ZeroMarianne

I have spoken and corresponded with George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta from the Transport and Road Safety (TARS) Research Centre in Sydney. I have also written about their work on underride protection in Australia.

Yesterday, I received from them a copy of their submission to the Public Comments on the Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. It is worth a read to find out what is being said in other countries about this vital issue.

NHTSA-Docket-Submission-Grzebieta&Rechnitzer 20 Sept 2015

Here are some highlights:

Whilst there are force based design rules, e.g. in USA, Canada and Europe, it is apparent that these rules are inadequate. In our submission we strongly recommend crash test based performance requirements for under-run protection catering for both centred and off-set impact.
Around 10 people per year on average are killed in Australia in rear under-run crashes resulting in horrific injuries such as decapitation.13 Yet the Regulation Impact Statement (RIS)14 for Underrun Protection publish by the Vehicle Safety Standards Branch at the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in July 2009 recommended that only front under-run protection be applied to all rigid and articulated trucks. Their conclusion was that the cost-benefit ratio for frontal under-run barriers was greater than one whereas for side and rear under-run the benefit was negative, and hence such protection should not be mandated in an Australian Design Rule. Yet despite these numerous calls for changes over the past three decades, we continue to consistently kill people in such crashes, ignoring the fact that practical low cost effective under-run barriers can be fitted. That is the real unforgivable tragedy.
The Vison Zero and Safe System approach adopted by most of the world now and on which Towards Zero Deaths is anchored, boldly moves away from the economic- rationalist ‘cost-benefit’ models (cited in this Docket as still being used by NHTSA), to a humanistic more rational model. The important aspect of a ‘Vision Zero’ principle is that it introduces ‘ethical rules’ to guide the system designers. In other words:
• Life and health can never be exchanged for other benefits within the society
• Whenever someone is killed or seriously injured, necessary steps must be taken to avoid similar events.
The Authors of this submission would further point out to those at NHTSA considering how the Rear Impact Protection for Single Unit Trucks should be revised; they should consider placing themselves in the position of the gentleman being asked in the following Australian Government advertisement: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsyvrkEjoXI&feature=youtu.be. This advertisement was commissioned and paid for by the Victorian State Government in Australia. We would ask the NHTSA staff responsible for this NPRM which members of their family would they allocate to die that would be acceptable to them and would meet the NHTSA cost benefit ratios being considered?

To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016. The tests requirements are in part based on the US Manual for Assessing Road Hardware (MASH) and are presented below.
We would strongly recommend that NHTSA consider such dynamic performance tests when they deliberate their development of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard for under-ride barriers.
TUB’s are designed to prevent a vehicle impacting the rear of a stationary truck under-riding the back of the truck in a manner where the truck structure intrudes into the impacting vehicle’s occupant compartment. The TUB’s main function is to protect the occupants in the impacting vehicle.
If the car is designed to such ANCAP and IIHS test protocols with the maximum crashworthiness rating, it is likely that the occupants would not sustain serious injuries in a vehicle impacting such a TUB in the configurations shown in Figure 1.
The manufacturers of such TUBs and operators of heavy vehicles are encouraged to explore the application of energy absorbing systems for TUBs including rear air bags mounted on the rear of trucks.

This latter recommendation is relevant to our goal of seeking research money to provide to Dean Sicking whose proposal intends to do just that: explore the application of the SAFER Barrier — an energy absorbying system — to the prevention of truck underride tragedies.

Dean Sicking’s Research Proposal: Development of Trailer Underride Preventive Measures

As soon as their Public Comment is published, I will post a link so that you can read the entire document online for a better understanding of their detailed analysis and proposal for crash test based performance requirements for truck underride protection, for both centred and off-set impact, in contrast to the force based design rules in the current U. S. federal underride standards. The Australian recommendations are based on 30 years of research and experience. (Note: the document in its entirety can be accessed at the top of this post.)

The formal period for submission of Public Comments ends today, September 21, 2015. Upon the request of several groups, I made a request that the period be extended for a short time. That request is under consideration by the agency. All published Public Comments can be found at this site, which is updated as submissions are made: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta have, unfortunately, faced similar challenges in Australia in trying to persuade the powers that be to make rules which would prevent unnecessary and horrific deaths and injuries. However, they are encouraged by potential upcoming changes in their country:

To break the impasse between safety stakeholders and regulators, the Authors of this submission have proposed to incorporate into the revision of the ASNZS3845.2 Australian Road Safety Barrier Systems and Devices a crash test performance requirement for rear under-run barriers for heavy trucks, shortly to be released for public comment. In that standard test requirements for under-ride barriers, called Truck Under-run Barriers (TUBs), has been developed and now included. We hope that this standard will be approved by committee members (members include Australian State Government regulators) and hopefully will be published in early 2016.

Same Old, Same Old: Trucking Safety Debates Impact Spending Bill

May 1, 2015Truck Safetybigger trucks, highway safety, minimum insurance, truck safety, trucking industryMarianne

When the trucking industry uses the appropriations bill process to sway votes, what do you think is their primary motivation: Safety or Profit?

See what you think:

“Foxx said Republicans are conducting an end run around the normal legislative process by including the trucking provisions in his agency’s funding bill.

What’s happening is the appropriations process is now being used to create policy, which, when it comes to safety, that’s a real problem because it leaves us without a process with which we can articulate the concerns we have, he said. You can expect us to be very vocal about these issues, and my hope is that folks won’t only reconsider the merits of some of the issues, but also some of the processes that some of these issues are dealt with, because there’s a much better process available.

The trucking industry offered a starkly different perspective, saying the provisions that are included in the THUD bill have been on Congress’s agenda for a long time.

These issues have been debated for years, American Trucking Association spokesman Sean McNally told The Hill on Wednesday morning, noting that lawmakers will be holding a hearing on the appropriations bill in the afternoon.

They’re the same issues we’ve been talking about for years, and now we’re going to talk about them again, he said.

McNally added the appropriations bill is fair game for the trucking provisions because it is a piece of legislation that is moving through Congress.

We obviously take a different view of the safety ramifications of these provisions, he said, describing the changes as a number of things we believe will increase output and safety.” http://thehill.com/policy/transportation/240453-gop-spending-bill-reignites-trucking-debate

Sounds good, but just exactly how will their actions increase SAFETY? That is what I want to know.

Truck Crash Moment: A truck driver’s actions forever divided time into Before & After

December 13, 2014AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safetydriver fatigue, drowsy driving, hours of service, truck safetyMarianne

Mary & AnnaLeah Before

Truck Crash Moment

Annaleah & Mary After

Bloomberg News: In-Depth Reports on Trucking Safety Issues

October 17, 2014Truck Safetydriver fatigue, hours of service, truck driver training, truck safety, underride guardsMarianne

Check out these in-depth articles on issues related to safety on the road.

IIHS Reports on New Crash Testing for Improved Underride Guards

October 9, 2014AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyIIHS, NHTSA, trailer manufacturers, truck safety, underride guards, VanguardMarianne

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has just released a report on recent crash testing for one trailer manufacturer’s improved design for their rear underride guard. Vanguard has now passed the 50% overlap test–with testing still needed for the more narrow overlap test at the edges of the trailer’s guard.

Additional companies have plans to get their guards tested in the future.

Our story is featured in this fall’s edition of the organization’s Status Report. We are thankful for their efforts to research and report on this vital truck safety issue. Their previous reports helped us to better understand the weakness of the current federal regulations for underride guards.

Read the report here: IIHS Status Report October 2014

Also, the Truck Safety Coalition has issued a press release on this issue: http://trucksafety.org/press-release-industry-makes-improvements-while-rule-for-better-underride-languishes/

Link to IIHS Status Report Issues: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr

November 2015 IIHS Status Report with an update on Single Unit Truck Underride Rulemaking: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/sr/statusreport/article/50/9/2

Entry Level Truck Driver Training

October 8, 2014Truck SafetyCDL, entry level truck driver training, truck drivers, truck safetyMarianne

We have come to realize that it is way too easy for someone to obtain a CDL to drive a truck–whether or not they have been adequately trained to do so or even are proficient in the language needed to understand all of the regulations involved and to communicate while on the job.

So we are glad to see the recent action taken to call for Secretary Foxx to issue minimum entry level training requirements. Please read about it here:

http://trucksafety.org/the-new-york-times-on-issuing-a-long-overdue-rule-for-entry-level-truck-driver-training/

Truck Driver Training Requirements Long Overdue

September 19, 2014AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyCDL, driver training, FMCSA, safety advocacy, Teamsters, truck safetyMarianne

Would AnnaLeah & Mary be here now to enjoy another beautiful autumn day. . . if the truck driver had been required to go through more rigorous and complete driver training before he got his CDL?

Yesterday, a number of safety groups announced that they are suing the federal government in an attempt to increase the requirements for obtaining a CDL. Read about it here: http://trucksafety.org/safety-advocates-teamsters-sue-u-s-dot-failing-issue-long-overdue-truck-driver-training-requirements/

“Congress initially told the agency to finish a rulemaking process on driver training by 1993, but the agency still has not done so.

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety, Citizens for Reliable and Safe Highways (CRASH), and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters filed the suit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia against the DOT and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), the agency charged with issuing the rule. Public Citizen is representing the groups.”

Let’s stop dragging our feet. . . this is not rocket science (as Jerry likes to say)!

Fatigue in Transport…from an Australian source

August 22, 2014Truck Safetycommercial; public safety, driver fatigue, environmental, occupational health and safety, truck safetyMarianne

I read this recently from an Australian paper on fatigue in transport. . .

“Human fatigue is now recognised around the world as being the main cause of accidents in the transport industry. It is increasingly being recognised as a safety issue of the highest priority.

The issue of fatigue in the workplace in all modes of transportation and even beyond transportation is something that is exploding as a priority issue across the industrialised world. (Transcript of evidence, 10 September 1999, Melbourne, p.186 (Prof. David Dinges).

Fatigue is not just an industrial issue to be negotiated between employers and employees. It is also an occupational health and safety issue, a commercial issue, a public safety issue and, at times, an environmental issue. Individuals and organisations that fail to manage human fatigue sensibly, risk having or creating accidents with a broad range of damaging and enduring consequences.”

http://www.rsrt.gov.au/default/assetsFile/exhibits_draftRSRO/TWU31_2.pdf

Reckless Driving & Criminal Injustice: One More Grief For Victims to Bear

August 17, 2014Truck Safetydriver fatigue, injustice, reckless driving, truck safety, victimsMarianne

MOM (Mad Old Mother) has had it up to here!

I have been frustrated this week with the unveiling of new details which compound the lack of accountability and justice in our truck crash. Basically, once a truck driver is charged with homicide by vehicle, second degree–which is a misdemeanor–there is, too often, no chance that anyone will dig deeper and see if it would be more appropriately charged as first degree–a felony.

The result: a homicide for which no one is held responsible.

Then I read this morning about 7 family members killed in a truck crash on August 15, 2013. The surviving family just found out that, ” there are no charges being filed against this truck driver. The prosecutor’s office said tests showed there were no drugs or alcohol in the Michigan trucker’s system at the time of the fatal crash.” http://lakeshorepublicmedia.org/140938/

Law Enforcement is in the habit of charging truck drivers with Homicide by Vehicle, Second Degree: A Misdemeanor. Current Laws do not define their actions as Reckless.

End Result: There is no Accountability for their Actions.

Wake up, world! According to Georgia law (where our crash occurred), “reckless driving is defined as driving a vehicle in a manner that shows reckless disregard for the safety of person or property.”

Of course, truck drivers are not charged with reckless driving because they did not set out to intentionally harm someone.

I am not saying that every truck crash fatality is due to reckless driving. But Everybody needs to understand that truck drivers get on the road in a Death Machine.

Drivers need to be properly trained and educated to understand that their Every Action can mean the difference between life & death. Especially Driving While Fatigued! (DWF)

Trucking companies need to schedule and pay their drivers with the full knowledge that they bear a part of the blame if truck drivers are fatigued.
https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/driver-fatigue-needs-to-be-recognized-as-a-public-health-problem/

Law Enforcement needs to rethink their attitude. State departments of motor vehicle & public safety need to be more vigilant. Truck driver training schools need to train their drivers more thoroughly. County prosecutors need to become educated about the dangers of Driving While Fatigued. Laws need to be changed to reflect this deadly and overlooked reality. And the Trucking Industry needs to acknowledge that putting drivers on the road with Unsafe Equipment makes them Culpable in this Reckless behavior as well.

Injustice in truck crashes needs to stop! http://tinyurl.com/pbfburj and http://tinyurl.com/py6nmtw #trucksafety #nojustice #driverfatiguefelony

Law Enforcement: With Justice For All…Balancing Truth & Love

August 13, 2014AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safetycrash reconstruction, driver fatigue, justice, law enforcement, truck safetyMarianne

This could be one of the harder things which I have written—putting in a nutshell the depth of our frustration with the circumstances surrounding the investigation of two senseless deaths.

This morning I read once more about what Mary said to Jesus after her brother Lazarus had died, “Lord, if You had been here, my brother would not have died.” Later, we find out that, “Jesus wept.” And I was reading this in the context of verses about prayer: “And everything you ask in prayer, believing, you shall receive,” said Jesus.

The reality is that (until Jesus comes back again) we humans will all die a physical death. Robin Williams has died recently, as has Lauren Bacall. Due to a great variety of reasons, we will all die. And, despite nothing being impossible for God, most of us are not likely to be raised from the dead until The Last Day.

I know that. I accept that. But, what is excruciatingly hard for me to understand and accept is the fact that there are so many factors that are involved in the potentially-preventable deaths of AnnaLeah and Mary—so many, in fact, that it is all too easy for no one to bear the responsibility.

I have written a post entitled, “Our Crash Was Not An Accident,” in which I spell out many of those factors: https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/our-crash-was-not-an-accident/

In addition to the many “truck safety” issues which I have written about before—including underride guards, driver fatigue, and minimum liability insurance (which, of course, is not about safety but about adequately providing for the needs of crash victims after the fact)—I want to address two other issues.

They are law enforcement and CDLs. Both of them are huge topics, so I will concentrate on law enforcement now and leave CDLs for another time.

Not being sure that enforcement was the best choice of words, I looked up the definition and found that it indeed provides an apt description of that activity about which I wish to speak:

“Law enforcement broadly refers to any system by which some members of society act in an organized manner to enforce the law by discovering, deterring, rehabilitating persons who violate the rules and norms governing that society. Although the term may encompass entities such as courts and prisons, it is most frequently applied to those who directly engage in patrols or surveillance to dissuade and discover criminal activity, and those who investigate crimes and apprehend offenders.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement

Basically, on top of the loss of Mary and AnnaLeah, we have had our pain amplified by what has seemed to be a superficial handling of the circumstances of their deaths by law enforcement officials—in effect, making too light of it. Sure, we could have a distorted perception which might appear bitter; I admit that my anger might sometimes sway my analysis. But our reaction has been confirmed by others who have viewed it from a more objective position.

Let me try to summarize it here—a very difficult task:

The Crash Reconstruction Report, which we received seven months after the crash, was, according to our attorney, very disappointing and inadequate. Questions About Justice in the State of Georgia
Although the case is still pending, from what we have been told, the truck driver is likely to get by with a relatively light sentence based upon two counts of Homicide by Vehicle, Second Degree (a misdemeanor). Re-examine the Definition of Reckless Driving 2 According to the DA’s office, he is not likely to get jail time.
Despite any improvement in trucking regulations such as Hours of Service (to combat the problem of driver fatigue) and Medical Cards, these regulations are worthless if the investigating officers do not get to the bottom of these issues in a particular crash. Questions About Justice in the State of Georgia
Not all truck crashes are primarily caused by the truck driver (although what testimony do we hear from the dead car driver?), but when they are, and the investigation does not thoroughly uncover what led to the crash, what kind of a deterrent will a light sentence provide to that driver or other drivers?
Particularly in the case of driver fatigue. . . Re-examine the Definition of Reckless Driving 2
Calling it an Accident removes Accountability.

So who is taking responsibility for this crash and its investigation (and thousands more like it every year)? How will this ever be addressed adequately to end this senseless slaughter of innocent victims in potentially preventable crashes?

When will everyone stop looking the other way–“doing the GM nod” of inertia and incompetence–letting someone else (i.e., nobody) shoulder the blame?

And this is only one “small” part of a huge mess of truck safety issues. When will we figure out that the widespread problem of truck safety (i.e., deaths and horrific injuries caused in crashes with trucks) is multifaceted and that a fragmented attack/approach to solving this disaster is never going to be very effective when everyone involved can point the finger of blame at someone else. . .and, sometimes, the scapegoat of a truck driver will get a slap on their wrist?

Over the course of the year following the crash, we have made many phone calls and sent many emails and letters. We have gotten very little in the way of answers to satisfy our need to understand what happened and to convince us that justice will be carried out.

And what is justice—morally right and fair—in this case? Does it mean looking the other way because he “didn’t mean to do it”? Does it mean showing him mercy and forgetting about it to the extent of meting out little or no consequences? Does it mean giving him a slap on the wrist because “there but for the grace of God go I”? These are hard questions.

We want to know the truth. Love for our daughters and for all travelers on the road—and for the truck drivers as well—drives our quest. The truth is said to set us free. Will the truth enable us, as a country, to free ourselves from injustice and from foolishly ignoring the problems? Unless we face the truth, we will continue to allow senseless, potentially-preventable crashes to rob us of loved ones.

With a potential trial date coming up the week of September 8, I again attempted to get some answers and, earlier this week, wrote to the new Commanding Officer of the Georgia State Patrol. This was my closing plea:

“If this crash had killed your two children, Taylor and Logan, I wonder whether you would be satisfied with an investigation like the one which we have experienced with our crash.”

Please pray that our relentless demand for answers will ultimately lead to meaningful and enduring change.