Tag Archives: underride guards

Mechanical Engineering Student Makes a Good Case for Preventing Underride Crash Fatalities

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , ,

Here is another good case for improvement in truck underride regulation and manufacture–this time from a mechanical engineering student:  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0078

It’s all good so be sure and read it, but here are some excerpts:

“Let us consider the future instead of the present for just a moment. A scary revelation is that passenger vehicles used by the commuting public are being designed to be smaller, lighter and built of lightweight composite materials. This engineering is done to improve fuel economy, handling, suspension, and improving the drivers experience. The key is to strive for an increase in safety at the same time. On the polar opposite side of the spectrum, the trucking industry has been trying to increase the size and maximum load of their CMVs to increase revenue for a number of years.

I believe the trucking industry should follow in the footsteps of Emilio Lopez, UPS’ Global Fleet Safety Manager, who was recently quoted in an article by Truckinginfo as saying, “It’s hard to put a ROI (return of investment) on saving someone’s life.” After reviewing recent studies on underride, researching previous studies, looking over police scene photographs and sketches, it can be noted that primarily, rear underride accidents occur at night where the driver of a small passenger vehicle cannot perceive a stopped vehicle.

My biggest issue with the NHTSA ANPRM Docket No.: NHTSA-2015-0070 is the following quote, “Among the 122 fatalities examined in this review, 49 (40 percent) were exceedingly severe crashes that were not survivable.” What if we stop believing traffic fatalities are inevitable and start believing that every traffic fatality is preventable? It may be a rather colossal way of thinking. Innovation can be accomplished by thinking big and starting small. Small steps are what eventually climbs the mountain. Introduce increased regulations on SUT in which the rear guard is stronger than FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, potentially CMVSS No. 223 compliant guards. Use these regulations to collect real-world data from the increased structural rigidity to determine if the problem lies in the fact that the FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 guards are not strong enough to begin with.”

Trip North May 2015 031We Rescue Jesus Saves 018

Sign & share Vision Zero Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

See how AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is raising money for underride research and planning an Underride Roundtable at IIHS on May 5, 2016:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/ and https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/underride-roundtable-save-the-date-may-5-2016/

 

Powerful & Informative Case Made for Underride Guard Improvement by Trucker/Attorney

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , , ,

Even if you think that you know all there is to know about truck underride, you’ll want to read the comments by this truck driver/truck crash attorney. He provides an in-depth understanding of how underride occurs and the horrific results.

With the extended Public Comment period coming to a close for Rear Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks, there are some additional comments just posted on The Federal Register at regulations.gov.  http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

Of particular note is a very informative and powerful comment recently posted by Andy Young, a husband, father, truck owner, Class A CDL driver, truck accident attorney and a trial attorney: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0075 . The remainder of this post contains his public comment on that website:

“I bring a unique and varied perspective to the very issue under consideration. Not only does my background and experience provide me with credibility to make the within comments, but I have also researched issues regarding rear underride guards, lateral protection devices, and front override prevention. My research has even taken me overseas to see how other countries are handling some of the very issues raised in the comments submitted by original equipment manufacturers and by those who are part of the commercial trucking industry. Due to both my practical experience and research, I comment as a proponent in favor of the advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM).

Underride Crashes = The Eight Figure Jury Verdict

“The automotive industry spends millions, if not billions, in research and development. This research and development is specific to improving a vehicle’s safety features (energy absorbing bumpers, crumple zones, air bags, seat belts, etc.) all designed to keep the vehicle occupants safe. The engineering behind these safety features can mean the difference between a minor injury and a tragic fatality. No matter how safe the car may actually be, the safety features are only effective if there is good structural interaction (crash compatibility) between collision partners. This means there is a geometrical match up of the crush structure of both the striking vehicle and the vehicle being struck.

“A two vehicle collision involving a single-unit, commercial motor vehicle (CMV) and a light passenger vehicle frequently results in a mismatch of structural components at the first point of impact. The crash incompatibility is in large part due to the height of the CMV. This often results in an “underride” collision. The lower profile passenger vehicle physically goes underneath the higher profile CMV. The first point of impact is beyond the hood and into the glass windshield. The second point of impact then literally becomes the heads, faces, and chest of the lower profile vehicle’s occupants.

“Air bags do not deploy because the lower profile vehicle’s bumpers and air bag sensors are not triggered. Energy absorbing bumpers and crumple zones, all designed to keep the passenger compartment intact, become irrelevant. The load path from the crash results in energy that does not initially strike the intended engineered crush structure of the passenger vehicle. With no air bag and the vehicle traveling underneath the opposing vehicle, the occupant compartment is pierced resulting in a passenger compartment intrusion.

Thereafter, the seat belts restraining the occupants fail to prevent catastrophic injury or deadly consequences as the energy from the collision is absorbed directly by the human body. The car’s occupants then suffer the most horrific crash consequences: death by blunt trauma; decapitation; open skull fractures; traumatic brain injuries; degloving of the face; spinal cord injuries; paraplegia; or quadriplegia.

“The truck driver then suffers with a career-ending criminal vehicular homicide and/or criminal vehicular assault charges. At the very least, the truck driver suffers the psychological trauma associated with being an integral part of such a horrific crash. The truck company then likely encounters a civil lawsuit. The fatalities and catastrophic injuries associated with underride crashes typically produce seven figure to eight figure verdicts, all exceeding minimum insurance requirements. Smaller truck companies are saddled with paying the judgments in excess of insurance coverage. These companies then must sell assets and/or end up filing for bankruptcy.

“Everyone loses in an underride truck crash, the truck company and truck driver included. The typical argument that energy absorbing underride guards would increase weight and costs associated with that increase, simply do not equal the costs associated with the potential of a seven to eight figure jury verdict. My question to those in opposition to this measure is: if you are concerned about saving weight, then why not the same level of concern for saving lives?

Underride Lawsuit Example

“Underride crashes resulting in these devastating injuries and fatal results can even occur at lower speeds. A verdict was recently achieved in an underride collision involving a dump truck and a Honda sedan (Kiara E. Torres and Joshua Rojas vs. Concrete Designs, Inc., et al., Cuyahoga County, Case No. CV 12 795422 & 795474). The first point of impact was the windshield and “A Pillar” of the Honda’s front passenger side coming into contact with the back left corner of the dump truck’s cargo bed. The Honda’s front bumper and hood traveled underneath the dump truck’s steel cargo bed without damage. The geometrical mismatch of the collisions’ two partners caused the corner of the dump truck cargo bed to cut through the Honda’s windshield and into the skull of the right front seat passenger. This young man miraculously survived, but suffered an open skull fracture, a traumatic brain injury, and substantial physical limitations – all requiring a prohibitively expensive life care plan. Unfortunately, the Honda had three other passengers and this young man was not the only one exposed to the passenger compartment intrusion.

“The passenger compartment intrusion continued along the right side length of the Honda. The right backseat passenger succumbed to the load forces and also suffered a traumatic brain injury. Intriguingly and not atypical of collisions piercing into the passenger compartment, the two occupants on the left side of the Honda (the driver and the passenger behind the driver) walked away from the accident with minor injuries. The dump truck driver was also uninjured. Frequently, occupants not effected by the passenger compartment intrusion (particularly at lower speeds) can suffer no injury at all while those effected by the PCI can end up with injuries that result in substantial verdicts. The Jury returned a verdict in favor of the front seat passenger in the amount of $34,600,000.00 and the back seat right passenger in the amount of $7,800,000.00. 100% of the fault was apportioned against the dump truck driver. The total verdict for this underride crash was $42,400,000.00.

Over 62 Years Since Rear Underride Guard Requirement Update On SUTs

“The first standard for rear underride guards on CMVs was issued in 1953 by the Bureau of Motor Carriers. On June 29, 1967, national attention was brought to the issue of rear underride guard protection and vehicle crash compatibility when Jayne Mansfield, American actress, was killed as a front seat passenger in a 1966 Buick Electra. In spite of the 1953 rear guard requirement, this Buick hit the back of a tractor-trailer resulting in beyond the windshield passenger compartment intrusion. Three adults and three children were involved in the crash. The three adults seated in the front seat, Jayne Mansfield, her companion Attorney Sam Brody, and the car driver, Ronald B. Harrison were all killed. The actress’ three children (eight-year-old Mickey, six-year-old Zoltan, and three-year-old Marie) all survived and were claimed to have been in the back seat of the car. Early media reports wrongly believed Ms. Mansfield to have been decapitated.

“In 1969 and 1977, the NHTSA proposed an advance notice of rule making. Both regulatory attempts failed. Forty-five years after the 1953 rule requiring rear underride guards, the NHTSA promulgated an updated rear underride guard standard that became effective in 1998. The new mandate was for combination tractor-trailers only. They did not include single unit trucks (SUTs). The new rule required the following: rear guard ground clearance to be no more than 22 inches; rear wheel setbacks of no more than 12 inches from the cargo bed; and strength testing requirements. To date, the NHTSA has not updated rear underride guard requirements for SUTs. It is hoped that this ANPRM will succeed to regulatory mandate.

“In a letter dated April 3, 2014, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) urged the NHTSA to take action regarding underride guards. The NTSB letter asked for a number of items regarding rear and side underride protections systems all “designed to prevent accidents and save lives” (Hersman, Deborah A.P., Chair, National Transportation Safety Board, Safety Recommendations, H-14-001 through -007, letter to The Honorable David J. Friedman, Acting Administrator, National Highway Transportation Safety Administration, page 14). On July 10, 2014, the NHTSA granted a petition for rule making submitted by Ms. Marianne Karth and the Truck Safety Coalition requesting the agency improve the safety of rear underride guards on trailers and SUTs (DOT, NHTSA, “Grant of Petition for Rulemaking; 49 CFR Part 571 FMVSS, Rear Impact Guards; Rear Impact Protection”). The Petitioners also made a request to improve side underride guards and front override protection.

Comments Against Need To Be Met With Skepticism

“Industry equipment manufacturers state that rear guards cannot be placed on various construction related vehicles. These statements need to be met with skepticism. Many European CMVs already have rear-underride guard protection on trucks, like dump trucks or box trucks with lift gates. Please see the following photographs I took while I attended the Commercial Vehicle Show in Birmingham, England this past April, 2014.

Note: The Public Comment can be accessed here to see the indicated photos.  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0075

“As evidenced by the photographs above, the U.S. lags behind other developed nations in providing meaningful rear impact protection. The photos above are just two examples of numerous applications allowing for rear impact protection and a lift gate or dump application. The argument that many SUTs need to have “good off-road mobility at construction sites” or “hitch connections” and therefore cannot have rear impact protection is likewise out-of-date thinking. Below, please see photographs from one vendor at the Commercial Motor Vehicle Show in Birmingham, England.

“While it is not readily apparent by these photographs, the vendor demonstrated how the rear impact protection guard can be adjusted up and down, as needed. Technology exists that debunk the argument that the rear impact guard would interfere with the work that the truck must perform.

Conclusion

“In this magnificent country of ours it is difficult to accept the fact that as a nation we are decades behind protecting our motorists from underride and/or override crash scenarios. The NHTSA has been slow to meaningfully regulate underride guard protection. As such, local governments, such as the City of Boston are passing ordinances requiring lateral protection devices on SUTs. Even the University of Washington announced that it is installing side guards on its campus fleet of SUTs. I implore the NHTSA to seriously consider meaningful passage of the pending proposal. We need to make sure that our citizens have the same protection as those in other nations. Sixty-two years is too long to wait to pass regulatory requirements that afford rear impact protection and other safety devices on single unit trucks.

“If you have any questions, I can be reached at 216-789-4832. My email is andytatransport@gmail.com. My Twitter account is @SafeDriveHome”

Note: Additional information can be gained by an article on underride by the same author: http://www.nphm.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/Piercing-The-Passenger-Compartment1.pdf?fd9d09 .

See my Public Comment as a firsthand example of the horrific, fatal injuries which too often occur in underride crashes: Marianne Karth – Comment  http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0018

Underride Research Meme

Learn how AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is raising $ for Underride Research–a timely and life-saving effort:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Our Vision Zero Petition seeks to bring about practical solutions to the problem of motor vehicle crash fatalities & injuries: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Complaint about proposed underride guard regulation: Not Cost Effective

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

As soon as I read the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks, I could smell trouble.

To begin with, I have questions about NHTSA’s  figures, especially undercounting deaths from underride and the overlooking of possible saved lives from requiring improved underride standards on trailers.  https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=underreporting%20of%20underride%20deaths

Then, this is what I read in NHTSA’s explanation as they spelled out their cost/benefit analysis:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0001

“b. NHTSA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis (Overview)

As part of its evaluation of whether an underride guard requirement should apply to SUTs, NHTSA conducted a cost-benefit analysis of equipping SUTs with rear impacts guards. The analysis is set forth in Appendix A of this preamble, and an overview is provided below. We are requesting comments on the analysis. . . 

Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (35) identifies $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

Actually, the VSL, as of June 17, 2015, is now $9.4 million. No matter because it still would not be anywhere near the supposed cost of requiring rear impact guards on SUTS (with, of course, certain exempt ones which are already able to prevent underride with their current equipment).

The logical outcome is that the industry will lobby against this rulemaking. I am concerned that cost may too likely win out over preventing countless persons from surviving a truck crash.   https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/rear-ending-a-truck-should-be-a-survivable-crash-why-isnt-it/

As an example of this, see the two most recent Public Comments on this ANPRM — posted November 2, 2015:

  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0066 “An agency rule may be arbitrary and capricious if the agency, ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Without considering the costs to the roads and bridges, any factual determination of the costs and benefits of requiring single unit trucks to include read guards may be unreasonable and could demonstrate that the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.”
  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0065“7. By your own estimates in the ANPRM the rear impact guards are not cost effective and there are still additional costs with the proposal you have not included in the ANPRM.
    Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation \35\ identifies
    $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for
    Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of
    preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL
    in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary
    estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per
    equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will
    not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).As in the analysis for Class 3-8 SUTs shown in Table 2, the
    preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on Class 4-8 SUTs (minimum
    of $55.2 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that
    these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

VSL Guidance-2013-2 DOT value of life

DOT VSL Guidance, as of June 17, 2015:  https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf

Rebekah photo of crash

GR Crocodile_Tears for Heavy Vehicle Safety 2004

p.s. This battle has a history:

“1974 US Secretary of Transportation says deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial.” 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=1974+US+Secretary+of+Transportation+says+deaths+in+cars+that+underride+trucks+would+have+to+quadruple+before+underride+protection+would+be+considered+cost+beneficial.

 

Virginia Tech Senior Design Project is Addressing the Need for Stronger Underride Guards; Mid-Semester Progress Report

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , , , ,

I received a wonderful email this morning with the Mid-Semester Progress Report from the 6-student team of engineering students at Virginia Tech who took on the creation of a better rear underride guard design as their senior capstone project.

In their words, “our team must strive to achieve the perfect design with respect to each specification, ensuring the absolute best final product.” (Sweet words to this mother’s heart!)

We look forward to seeing them in person at the IIHS Vehicle Research Center on May 5, 2016, as they share the results of their dedicated and innovative efforts at the Underride Roundtable.

Here is their 30-page progress report:  Virginia Tech Semi-Trailer Bumper Design Mid Semester Progress Report .

 

1 gertie 2782

I will be praying for the team everyday, including Wayne Carter (Team Facilitator), Daniel Carrasco, Kristine Adriano, Sean Gardner, Andrew Pitt, and Brian Smith–along with Jared Bryson (their Sponsor) and Robin Ott (their Project Advisor).

Save the Date Underride Roundtable

AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is raising money to support Underride Research efforts:  https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

I remember our trip back from visiting a research & design center in June 2014 and thinking that surely a group of engineers could get together and design better underride protection. It is amazing to watch this unfold.

Join thousands of other people in calling for a move towards zero crash deaths. Sign our Vision Zero Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Underride Roundtable: Save the Date, May 5, 2016

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

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.

IIHS Vehicle Research Center http://www.iihs.org/iihs/about-us/vrc

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.

Excited. Encouraged.

Save the date. May 5, 2016

Save the Date Underride Roundtable

Underride Research: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

The latest Public Comments on the ANPRM for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks

Truck Safety, , , , ,

Here are new comments posted on the Federal Register for

ANPRM for Underride Protection of Single Unit Trucks

See attached file(s)” 
View Comment

Submitter Name: Lackore, Roger
Posted: 10/20/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0062
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…”
View Comment

Submitter Name: Anonymous
Posted: 10/08/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0061
Re: Conspicuity Rules. When the rules for class 8 vehicles were implemented, I operated a private fleet operating, primarily, east of the Mississippi river…”
View Comment

Submitter Name: Schafer, Robert
Posted: 10/08/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0058
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…”
View Comment

Submitter Name: Gislason, John
Posted: 10/08/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0060
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…”
View Comment

Submitter Name: Johnson, Paul
Posted: 10/08/2015
ID: NHTSA-2015-0070-0059

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+N+O+SR;rpp=10;po=0;D=NHTSA-2015-0070

Rear-ending a truck should be a survivable crash. Why isn’t it?

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

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 are promoting underride research https://www.fortrucksafety.com/ and organizing a national Underride Roundtable ALMFTS Underride Guard Research Brochure.

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.

Sign & share our Vision Zero Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Read more here: https://annaleahmary.com/tag/vision-zero/ and https://annaleahmary.com/underride-guards/

Underride Research Meme

Why are we devoting our lives to pushing for a DOT Vision Zero policy?

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, ,

Why are we pushing so hard to get people to sign a Vision Zero petition? What difference would it make anyway? The reason we are devoting our lives to pounding on this door and asking for change is that our daughters may have lost their lives due to the lack of a Vision Zero policy.

A decision which concluded that recommended changes would not be cost effective — in other words, that it would supposedly cost more to implement safety measures than the lives saved would be worth — may have led to lax* underride guard standards. If the best possible protection had been pursued when the regulations were last updated (1996), the trucks on the road today (including the one on the road May 4, 2013) might be much safer to be driving around.

Mary and AnnaLeah might even still be around.

gertie 881AnnaLeah writing

Now what would you want for you and your family and your friends? That’s what I would like to know.

Rebekah photo of crash

*lax = not sufficiently strict, severe, or careful.  synonyms: slack, slipshod, negligent, remiss, careless, heedless, unmindul, slapdash, offhand, casual  http://tinyurl.com/qbodwjc

Sign & Share our Vision Zero Petitions:

  1. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/
  2. https://www.change.org/p/urge-obama-adopt-a-vision-zero-goal-and-sign-an-executive-order-to-save-lives-not-dollars

About This Petition

Motor vehicle crashes are a leading cause of death—about 40,000 people die in crashes each year. The Department of Transportation makes highway safety rules based upon how much safety measures will cost. We are hoping to change that and move toward a Vision Zero safety strategy model with goals of: Zero Deaths, Zero Serious Injuries, Zero Fear of Traffic.

“Towards Zero – There’s no one someone won’t miss.” https://youtu.be/bsyvrkEjoXI

Read more about Vision Zero: https://annaleahmary.com/tag/vision-zero/

Learn more about Underride Research: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Establishing a White House Task Force to Achieve a Vision Zero Goal of Crash Death Reduction

“Advocates Garnering Signatures” . . . almost 11,000 in 11 days!

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, , , ,

“The latest efforts by a Rocky Mount family to improve trucking safety have garnered more than 9,000 signatures from around the world in just 10 days.

“’We want to get as many signatures as we can,’ said Marianne Karth, whose daughters AnnaLeah and Mary were killed in 2013 when the car Marianne Karth was driving was pushed underneath a tractor trailer. ‘We’d like to see it surpass the 11,000 signatures we got on our first petition and I think that is possible because this has a broader focus than just truck safety. It can positively impact all motor vehicle regulations.’”

Read about it here: https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/advocates-garnering-signatures-3009111

Scan of RMT article October 11 2015

 

“Advocates Garnering Signatures” front page story in Rocky Mount Telegram. Almost 11,000 signatures!

AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safety, ,

The Rocky Mount Telegram published an article on our Vision Zero Petition & Underride Research efforts. We are just short of 11,000 signatures (we got 11,545 on our first petition)!  https://www.rockymounttelegram.com/news/advocates-garnering-signatures-3009111

Please share this story with your local media. I have given you everything you need here to do so.  https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/tools-for-getting-your-local-media-on-board-with-vision-zero-underride-research/

Please note: The article is on today’s front page. However, there was difficulty with non-subscriber access to the online article, so I am printing it here as well:

Advocates garnering signatures

By Brie Handgraaf

Staff Writer

Saturday, October 10, 2015

The latest efforts by a Rocky Mount family to improve trucking safety has garnered more than 9,000 signatures from around the world in just 10 days.

“We want to get as many signatures as we can,” said Marianne Karth, whose daughters AnnaLeah and Mary were killed in 2013 when the car she was driving was pushed underneath a tractor trailer. “We’d like to see it surpass the 11,000 signatures we got on our first petition and I think that is possible because this has a broader focus than just truck safety. It can positively impact all motor vehicle regulations.”

The online petition through The Petition Site has three points: to change U.S. Department of Transportation regulations from being decided by cost-based analysis and factor in the cost of human lives as well as apply that Vision Zero safety strategy model by requiring underride guards based on crash test performance rather than force-based designs and initiate rulemaking to require collision avoidance and mitigation braking systems on all new large trucks and buses.

“We’re advocating for a paradigm shift,” said Jerry Karth, the father of AnnaLeah and Mary. “When Kennedy gave us the vision of going to the moon, he challenged a change as a nation and we met that challenge. This is the same in that it is challenging the status quo because we never want anyone to become a statistic yet that is what our present system does.”

According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the U.S. secretary of transportation said in 1974 that deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial. The Karths said that is unacceptable and in addition to gathering petition signatures to submit to the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, they also have launched a new Website at https://www.fortrucksafety.com/ that is full of information about trucking safety and enables people to donate to the nonprofit organization, AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety, they started to help fund underride research.

“If everyone would just give $1 or $5 and shared it with others, we could support research into underride prevention systems and improved underride guards,” Marianne Karth said.

In addition to a group of engineering students at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, they are working with University of Alabama-Birmingham Engineer Dean Sicking, who created a system that helps save lives in Nascar and is developing similar barriers to prevent underride collisions. The funds raised also will help crash test the improved underride guards and submit those results to regulators and trucking companies for implementation.

“The problem is these accidents are costing lives and they are preventable,” Jerry Karth said. “This is a solvable problem and it will cost money, but the loss of human lives also has a cost.”

The Karths also are in contact with the Transport Accident Commission in Australia and their campaign, Towards Zero. In a one-minute video posted on YouTube, the TAC eloquently shows that no traffic deaths are acceptable and every effort should be made toward preventing all traffic fatalities.

“On average, 40,000 people die each year in crashes on our roads,” according to the petition to Foxx. “Our families cannot continue to sustain this unacceptably high number of losses and injuries. We urge you to take immediate action so that more lives will not be lost and to assure us that safety is your number one priority.”

Since the tragic deaths of the Karth sisters, the family has joined with other truck safety advocates to push through improved regulations. The Karths also are organizing an Underride Roundtable in the spring with engineers, government officials and other safety advocates to discuss ways to further truck safety.

“We knew this was going to be a long journey and each effort we pursue is one step in a long process,” Jerry Karth said. “We know what our goals are that we want to achieve, though, and until we get there, we’ll continue fighting for change.”

Marianne Karth said she balances her advocacy efforts with bittersweet memories of her beloved daughters through the Website: https://annaleahmary.com/. The couple’s other children also share in the fight for change, never forgetting the quiet and creative girls full of potential.

“It always gets back to those girls we lost that’ll never come back to us,” she said. “That loss is why we can pour ourselves into it and keep fighting for change, even when the going gets rough.

“With the petition, we can get others to be a part of making changes that will ultimately save people’s lives.”

Sign & Share our Vision Zero Petition:  http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Support Underride Research: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

“Towards Zero – There’s no one someone won’t miss.” https://youtu.be/bsyvrkEjoXI

Picture 667