When Isaac and I were in Washington, DC, to talk with our senators and congressmen, as well as administrative officials at NHTSA and FMCSA (DOT), we were interviewed by Geoff Bennett, Washington Reporter for Time Warner Cable.
His report is airing October 30 – November 1. We appreciate the opportunity to share our story with a wider audience and invite them to support our underride research and join the thousands who have already signed our Vision Zero Petition.
I recently returned from a trip to DC where Jerry, Isaac, and I joined with other families who had experienced unexpected loss by way of devastating truck crashes. At the Truck Safety Coalition’s Sorrow to Strength Conference we shared our stories with one another, attended workshops to learn more about truck safety issues and how to advocate for change, as well as participated in meetings on The Hill.
One of the workshops was on the topic of grief and I had made the comment that what we all experienced in our horrific, tragic losses made the grief more complicated because of the anger and frustration we all too often feel when too little is done too late to save (other) lives. It is sometimes hard to move on fully with, as they say, “a new normal” when you witness the seemingly calloused and indifferent attitude toward what should be preventable deaths.
Supposedly its a risk you take when you choose to get on the road, you know. Or, changes would not be “cost effective.”
In any case, I wanted to share an article which I read last year. It helped me process my feelings of grief at the unexpected loss I have felt after discovering in 2010 that many of our family members face challenges we had never anticipated with a progressive hereditary peripheral neuropathy (Charcot Marie Tooth or CMT). What they tell us is that it is not life-threatening, but it is a life-changer.
I had searched online and found this interesting article about the grieving of parents with disabled children, which could be helpful for any grieving person–no matter what their loss, The Impact of Childhood Disability: The Parent’s Struggle, by Ken Moses, Ph.D.
I just now re-read it and noticed this statement by the author: After working with parents of the impaired for many years, I have come to believe that I was given bad advice. I have come to believe that pain is the solution, not the problem.
That reminded me of something my 5 year-old granddaughter said earlier this year:
One day, Vanessa asked me (out of the blue), “Does pain fix sadness?”
Me: “Well. . .?”
Vanessa: Runs off to play. . .
I don’t know. Will the pain which I am going through eventually “fix” my sadness? Is the pain a process–or at least a signal or indication that a process of healing is taking place? If I were not feeling the pain, would it be harder to complete that process? Will the pain ever lessen?
I have also known real peace in this season. It also comes and goes–seeming elusive. Comes mostly when I am focused on the promises of God–in word or song–like the song I sang at their funeral, In Christ Alone. I really believed it then and I believe it now. It just seems in stiff competition with the real pain.
I was glad to see that Jerry and Isaac had an opportunity to tell our story themselves for the preparation of videos which I just discovered are now posted on the Truck Safety Coalition’s website:
Just yesterday, I read a facebook post and comments by some of the TSC family members. They were commenting on how hard it was to get back into things after the conference in DC and how they struggled anew with the grief and sadness. It reminded me of how thankful I was for the comment made several times at the conference that we will not tell each other, “Get over it.” It is such a complicated grief; we will never fully get over it.
But, with hope, we will carry on because we know that someday we will see their face again:
After a great deal of thinking and talking and preliminary planning, we now have a host facility–the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s Vehicle Research Center–and a date, Thursday, May 5, 2016, for our Underride Roundtable.
We will be reaching out to engineers, manufacturers, trucking industry representatives, regulatory officials, safety advocates, and others–inviting them to join us in a collaborative effort to bring about the best possible underride protection.
Not sure how this is going to prevent people from driving into the rear of a truck… Maybe more money should be spent on educating drivers when they get their…”
Re: Conspicuity Rules. When the rules for class 8 vehicles were implemented, I operated a private fleet operating, primarily, east of the Mississippi river…”
As a long-time transportation industry professional, it is my opinion that CMVs should not be exempt from “bumper height” or any other safety regulations. The…”
I am not apposed to putting on reflective tape on the side rails or boxes of straight trucks, but as for the rear guard what is going to be the rule for…”
I survived a truck underride crash. My daughters did not. Why not? Because we were sent backward into the back of the truck and AnnaLeah and Mary were in the backseat. The weak and ineffective underride guard gave way and the back of the truck broke their bodies.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has shown through crash testing that the current federal standards for underride guards are not strong enough to withstand most crashes but that it is possible to make stronger ones. http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4907.pdf
We have also launched a Vision Zero Petition online because we believe that, unless rulemaking policy changes, when the rubber meets the road Saving Lives will not be the criteria used for making highway safety regulations as effective as humanly possible.Unnecessary compromise will occur and preventable deaths will be the result. Profit will win out over the best possible protection.
We know that rear-ending a truck should be a survivable crash and we are devoting our lives to making it a reality.
In the aftermath of our crash, we have found ourselves walking a path we had not anticipated–safety advocacy. We have discovered the importance of raising awareness and gaining support in order to bring about life-saving changes.
After all, we had no idea about what truck underride guards were before May 4, 2013. How could we expect anyone else to know about them and understand what we were talking about unless we found every way imaginable to inform and motivate them to care about this issue–thankfully, never as much as we do.
So what I would like to talk about here is what you can do about it once you (the reader) better understand the ideas and importance behind our quest for Vision Zero, underride guards, and crash avoidance technology.
Specifically, what you can do is:
Become informed about what we are talking about so incessantly.
Sign our Vision Zero Petition. (Never doubt the power of 1.)
Share our Vision Zero Petition through talking to people about it, emailing, using whatever social media with which you are comfortable. (There are Sharing icons on The Petition Site.)
Read our new website, AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety, which is dedicated to informing about underride guards and raising money for underride research and an Underride Roundtable to bring about the best underride protection by bringing together engineers, industry representatives, government officials, safety advocates, insurance companies, victims & their families, and the media. https://www.fortrucksafety.com/ and https://annaleahmary.com/underride-guards/
Donate to the research. (Every $1 counts.)
Share the website with others.
Share both of these projects with your local media.
When possible, look up your local media and make direct contact with them through a phone call, email, or through an online Contact Form.
This site has a lot of tools for reaching local media, including a map of the U.S. which allows you to click on your state and then your city and find local media. http://sparkaction.org/act/media
Be sure to let them know how important this is to you and your community as well.
Consider making a follow-up phone call.
For whatever you are able to do, thank you! And I’d love to hear about it.
We have made numerous contacts with the media as our story has been shared. But we cannot be in your community. Next week there will be an article in our local Rocky Mount newspaper. I will share the link for that with you and you can pass that along to your local media as well. We are asking you to be an extension of our national plea for the best possible protection.
This is not just some freak problem that will never affect you or someone you love. In fact, a Vision Zero policy in DOT rulemaking could make a big impact in not just truck safety but auto safety as well. Decisions about safety should not be led by profit. Cost/benefit analysis can never adequately measure the value of human life and health.
And, once we establish that our Vision is to reduce crash deaths one life at a time, then we can better hold corporate and government officials accountable. No longer will they be able to sweep unpleasant information about the results of defects and flaws under the rug. No longer can they justify decisions and actions which lead to unnecessary tragedy and/or deny that human life was the cost that was paid.
The Public Comments period has closed for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks. But there were 21 last-minute comments which have now been added to the Federal Register today.
The Public Comment Period is Closed now for the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks. I appreciate those who took the time to comment and I look forward to in-depth dialogue among these people and organizations at our Spring 2016 Underride Roundtable. You can find their published comments here: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070
These include comments from:
Marianne Karthhttp://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0018 It felt good to get my two cents worth in. I think that I was able to provide a different perspective from the other commenters–having been a survivor of the crash with 2 daughters who died due to underride and having become a passionate advocate who asks hard questions.
With funds which we raise for underride research, we are hoping to cover the costs of the crash test for the innovative combined side & rear guard designed by this engineer, Aaron J. Kiefer MSME, PE . See his Comment: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0013
Contrast their comments to the conclusion of the NTEA: “Based on the published data and expected benefits, there is no justification for requiring rear underride guards on single unit trucks.” Maybe they ought to watch this video from Australia.
Someone in Australia was asked this question: “So last year, 249 people died on our roads. What do you think would be a more acceptable number?”
See what he answered:
Cover of IIHS Status Report on guards; photos of our car before/after
Support Underride Research to Prevent Unnecessary Deaths & Injuries.
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.
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.
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.
We look forward to working with George and Raphael at the Underride Roundtable in the Spring of 2016 and know that our country can greatly benefit from their expertise.
After hearing that several groups were hoping that they could have more time (beyond the current deadline of September 21) to prepare a Public Comment on the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) on Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks, I contacted NHTSA and filed a request to extend the Public Comment period.
The agency replied that they are considering my request. It usually takes at least 10 calendar days for such a process. I hope that this helps with providing useful information but does not lead to unnecessary delay of the needed rulemaking.
Photo by me of a Single Unit Truck I saw on the expressway a few months ago.
