“’Opponents of white collar criminal prosecutions argue that corporate managers should not be charged criminally for regulatory violations because health, safety, and environmental rules are too complex to understand and violations of such arcane requirements do not cause real harm,’says Rena Steinzor, author of Why Not Jail? Industrial Catastrophes, Corporate Malfeasance, and Government Inaction.
“’Both arguments are revealed as hypocritical by the criminal prosecutions of three drivers who had fatal accidents as a result of a defect that the manufacturers’ executives covered up. All of these accidents caused fatalities and the drivers were charged with versions of vehicular manslaughter or reckless driving. Only after suffering through great hardship and, in one case, two years in prison, were they exonerated by belated disclosure of corporate malfeasance. The cases are just the latest example of the double standard that prevails between street and white collar crime.’”
My grief is complicated by the many things which I have learned about highway safety and the growing awareness that, way too often, nobody really takes responsibility for the countless and potentially-preventable deaths which occur on the roads of our country year after year.
Until that May, I had never heard of an underride crash–too often due to an underride guard that did not prevent a car from riding under a truck and resulting in horrific injuries and deaths. Recently I have read many reports of the problems with defective cars and the fatal crashes which have occurred as a result. Who takes responsibility for these deaths? And when will they come to an end?
For example, here is a report on recent activity with GM recalls:
“. . . the company took its taxpayer-funded bailout agreement and turned it around on millions of consumers unlucky enough to own compact cars with ignition switch defects who had accidents before July 10, 2009, the date when the agreement became effective. Invoking a liability shield negotiated by the Obama administration,GM won a ruling from a bankruptcy judge that is now on appeal, avoiding billions in damages for injuries, deaths, and the lost resale values of vehicles with the defect. The judge took the view that when the ‘old GM’ went bankrupt, the ‘new GM’ got a fresh start, even though all but 15 of the executives and managers involved in the ignition switch fiasco remain ensconced in the company’s iconic skyscraper in Detroit. GM won this counter-intuitive relief even though areport it commissioned from former U.S. Attorney Anton Valukas revealed that senior executives knew about the problem as early as 2005 but dragged their feet on notifying consumers until 2014. ‘Although everyone had responsibility to fix the problem, nobody took responsibility,’ he wrote.” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rena-steinzor/gm-and-its-no-good-very-bad_b_7191124.html
Earlier this month, I met with Congressman George Holding’s Constituent Services Representative, Doug Wegman, in Sharpsburg, North Carolina. I was the only one at the “Town Hall meeting” and was able to share the story of our truck crash and some of our concerns about truck safety. It seemed like a productive meeting.
I had emailed Congressman Holding’s office in June asking for an opportunity to meet with him while he was in recess in North Carolina. That never came about until I emailed my contact again early this week and repeated my request. I was then asked if I could meet with him in Raleigh on Friday, August 21, at 11:00 a.m.
Actually, that worked out very well (couldn’t have planned it better myself) because I was dropping our son off at the airport to go back to college in Texas that morning and then proceeded to the meeting with Holding. Doug Wegman was also there along with Holding’s District Director, Alice McCall.
I shared with Congressman Holding that I had grown up as a Republican and was quite surprised after our crash to find out that, in general, the Republican party line related to truck safety legislation consistently appeared to be pro-trucking industry and anti-safety. I am puzzled why there cannot be bipartisan solutions to these issues.
His response — a typical one — was that Republicans generally oppose government involvement and regulation. The problem I have with that is the reality which I have painfully discovered that “safety is not an accident” — it doesn’t just happen by itself. Without rules and regulations and enforcement and justice and requirements, chaos and injury and death are more likely to occur.
At least I have not seen a better alternative. Have you?
However, thankfully, I came away from the meeting feeling that it was productive — a thought echoed by another son who attended with me. We had the opportunity to raise several truck safety concerns, including driver fatigue (electronic logging devices and hours of service), underride guards, and the minimum liability insurance for truckers.
I had a binder put together to leave with Congressman Holding. It had numerous articles about the insurance issue, including what the opposition (the trucking industry) has been saying about premiums skyrocketing if the minimum liability is raised — from $5,000 to $20,000. I showed him what I had found out from a couple of insurance companies which indicates that it would be more likely to go up to maybe $9,000. A bit of a difference.
This kind of potentially inaccurate and misleading information has been publicly disseminated and has influenced many truckers (most vociferously by representatives of OOIDA, Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, which by the way happens to sell insurance to truckers, http://www.ooidatruckinsurance.com/) and legislators. In fact, I showed him the House Roll Call in which he had voted to freeze the funding for FMCSA to study this issue — even though Congress had previously authorized them to do so.
I was gratified that Holding took the time to look over the roll call and examine the 10 Republicans who had supported the need to allow FMCSA to proceed with rulemaking on this issue. He indicated that he intends to make some contacts for us, asked Doug to write down some of the names and the people both in the Senate and House with whom he is willing to connect us so that we can continue to shed light on this concern and ensure that the truth of the matter is uncovered.
I was also appreciative of the District Director’s input. When we discussed our pursuit of underride research to support the improvement of underride guards, Alice McCall mentioned that they could help with some contacts at universities, among other things.
In addition, she asked me how to pronounce AnnaLeah’s name (An-na-Le-ah) and said that it was beautiful. I told her that AnnaLeah loved her name and its uniqueness–although she had planned on publishing any written works under a pen name. I had showed them Mary’s braids and said that I was thankful that the nurse saved them and gave them to us. I had also brought along a shoulder bag which AnnaLeah had knit from a pattern in her head.
It reminded me of the many triggers which daily life brings of the loss we bear; as we drove to Raleigh I had seen a car on the side of the road. There was something sitting on top of the trunk of the car and for some reason that reminded me of our car after the crash — demolished with broken bodies inside. And it took my breath away once more to think of AnnaLeah’s life instantly snatched away. And the joy and creativity that were abruptly cut short.
Alice also mentioned that she has several daughters. And, I had noted that Congressman Holding has 3 young daughters and a son himself. It is helpful to know that people understand that this is not just a matter of corporate profit but a life and death matter which could happen to anyone at any time.
Interesting articles, letters, and documents on the minimum insurance topic:
All in all, we felt that we were heard and are hopeful that Congressman Holding is likely to make decisions and take actions in the future to positively affect road safety as a result of the time which we spent with him.
Comment by Louis V. Lombardo, Bethesda, MD6 hours ago
“Among the great things President Carter did was to appoint Joan Claybrook to head the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). As a result several hundred thousand lives have been saved in the U.S.A. by vehicle safety technologies and policies.
This was accomplished despite the facts that President Reagan 1, appointed a coal industry lobbyist to replace Claybrook, 2, rescinded the airbag regulations, and 3, cut NHTSA by 33% i.e., 300 safety workers.
The pdf to which Lombardo provided a link, Lives Saved by Vehicle Safety Technologies and Associated Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards, 1960 to 2012 Passenger Cars and LTVs (January 2015), is a lengthy analysis of the Lives Saved by various safety standards and technologies over the years. (FMVSS = Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards).
Along with 24 other safety standards–reviewed for their effectiveness in reducing fatalities, injuries, and crashes for passenger cars and LTVs–on p. 214-216, there is a discussion of Underride Guards, although there is no reference to research which shows that stronger guards can be manufactured–giving the potential for increasing the number of Lives Saved by improving FMVSS 223 & 224 (Rear Impact Guards/Protection on Heavy Trailers):
“FMVSS No. 223, ‘Rear impact guards for heavy trailers’ FMVSS No. 224, ‘Rear impact protection for heavy trailers’
These two standards regulate one safety technology for heavy trailers with GVWR over 10,000 pounds that has been partially evaluated by NHTSA and that is primarily designed to protect the occupants of cars and LTVs that collide with the rear of the trailers:
• Underride guards for heavy trailers
The bodies of heavy trailers usually ride fairly high above the ground. The front ends of LTVs and especially passenger cars are relatively low. When the front of a car or LTV hits the rear of a trailer, there is a risk that the car’s hood will underride the trailer, with little structural engagement. The trailer can intrude into the passenger compartment of the car or LTV, with great danger to the occupants. The underride guard is attached to the rear of the trailer and extends below the body of the trailer. It is designed to engage the hood of the car or LTV and prevent underride. Ideally, the underride guard should extend low enough to engage even small cars, be wide enough to catch impacts near the corners of the trailer, and be strong enough to not fold or break out of the way upon impact.
History: NHTSA issued FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 in January 1996. FMVSS No. 223 specifies the height, width, length, and strength requirements for rear impact guards for trailers and semitrailers; FMVSS No. 224 establishes requirements for the installation of rear-impact guards on trailers and semi-trailers with GVWR of 10,000 pounds or more manufactured on or after January 24, 1998. FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 do not apply to pole trailers, pulpwood trailers, lowchassis vehicles, special purpose vehicles, “wheels back” vehicles, or temporary living quarters – generally because these vehicles ride closer to the ground than van-type trailers or because the “wheels back” feature prevents underride from occurring, since striking vehicles contact those wheels and do not underride the back of the vehicle.513
However, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) had already issued a voluntary Recommended Practice RP 92-94 in April 1994 that included all the essential elements of the subsequent NHTSA standards except for the energy absorption requirement. Subsequently, Transport Canada issued CMVSS No. 223, “Rear impact guards,” effective in 2005, which not only encompasses FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 but also sets somewhat higher strength requirements than those FMVSS.514 Before 1998, trailers and semi-trailers were Federally regulated by Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSR) that incorporated specifications for rear impact guards developed by the Interstate Commerce Commission in 1952.515 The ICC guards were substantially narrower and smaller than those required by the current NHTSA standard and the TTMA recommended practice. The ICC guards were not required to meet strength tests.
In other words, there are five generations of underride guards: (1) The original state of no guards at all, which had ended by 1952; (2) The narrow ICC/FMCSR guard from 1952 to approximately 1994; (3) A transition circa 1994 to the TTMA guard which has the dimensions of current guards but not necessarily their strength; (4) Certification to the strength requirements of FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224 in 1998, although some earlier guards might have met those requirements; and (5) Certification to even greater strength requirements of CMVSS No. 223 in 2005; although not mandatory in the United States, current trailers are designed to the Canadian requirements to allow operation throughout North America.
Expected benefits: Passenger compartment intrusion increases fatality and injury risk in frontal impacts. Successful underride guards would reduce the likelihood of intrusion when cars or LTVs impact the rear of heavy trailers, without otherwise changing the distribution of delta v in those crashes. That should result in fewer deaths and serious injuries. The underride guards would have little or no effect in crashes where the car or LTV contacts the sides of the trailer or the truck that is pulling the trailer.
Fatality and serious-injury reduction: NHTSA’s evaluation, published in 2010, compares occupant fatalities in cars and LTVs when these vehicles impact the rear of heavy trailers to fatalities in a control group of crashes where the cars impact some other part of the trailer or impact the tractor.516 Two almost insuperable impediments to evaluation precluded statistically meaningful results: (1) FARS and most other databases available to NHTSA do not record the MY or VIN of trailers, leaving no clue as to the design of their underride guards; (2) The gradual evolution of standards for underride guards does not allow a simple before-after or all-versus-nothing comparison. As of 2010, Florida was the only State crash file available to NHTSA that recorded the trailers’ MY and VIN. The analysis is based on Florida data from CY 1989 to 2006; of course, the number of fatality cases in a single State is limited. The two categories of trailers considered are MY 1998 and later, which would include guards certified to FMVSS and/or CMVSS Nos. 223 and 224; and MY 1980 to 1993, before the TTMA voluntary standard, which would probably be mostly the narrow ICC/FMCSR guards. The technique is a multidimensional contingency-table analysis of car/LTV occupants’ odds of survival in rear impacts versus other impacts, in crashes with MY 1998+ versus MY 1980-to-1993 trailers – using a SAS procedure called CATMOD to estimate if the newer guards have reduced risk in rear impacts relative to the other crashes and also to control for the CY of the crash (because crash distributions in Florida have changed over time). The analysis estimates a 27-percent reduction in rear-impact fatalities with the newer trailers, but the estimate falls short of statistical significance, due to the limited data (chi-square = 0.88, where 3.84 is needed for significance at the two-sided .05 level). A corresponding analysis of the risk of fatalities and serious injuries (categories K and A in the Florida data) shows 6.5 percent lower risk with the newer guards, likewise not statistically significant.
Although the observed estimates are positive, the limited data and lack of statistical significance do not permit a conclusion that the newer guards have reduced fatalities or serious injuries. The model to compute lives saved in Part 2 of this report will not attribute any fatality reduction for car or LTV occupants to improved underride guards for heavy trailers. In a 2009 NHTSA analysis of 122 NASS-CDS fatality cases in frontal impacts, despite seat belt use and air bags, of cars and LTVs of MY 2000 or later, 12 of the 122 fatalities involve rear underride of a heavy trailer (although this data does not describe the type of underride guard on the trailer, which may have been built before FMVSS Nos. 223 and 224, or how the guard performed in the crash). 517
513 49 CFR, Parts 571.223 and 571.224; Federal Register 61 (January 24, 1996): 2004.
516 Allen, K. (2010, October). The effectiveness of underride guards for heavy trailers. (Report No. DOT HS 811 375, pp. 16-22). Washington, DC: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Available at wwwnrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811375.pdf.
517 Bean et al. (2009, September), pp. 33-39″
See numerous other posts and articles on the issue of underride guards:
DOT is studying whether or not they should require “single unit (or straight)” trucks to be safer, i.e., be built so that–when a vehicle rear-ends them–the smaller vehicle does not slide underneath the larger truck. And they are asking people to let them know what they think about this.
What might you say about the proposed rulemaking for underride protection on these trucks? (Examples of SUTs are dump trucks, garbage haulers, concrete mixers, tank trucks, trash trucks, and local delivery trucks.)
What I would suggest is that you point out the fact that people die every year when their vehicle hits the back of single unit trucks so that the truck actually enters the passenger vehicle in the area where people are sitting. And, if manufacturing companies were required to provide adequate underride protection on these trucks, many of those deaths could be prevented.
Sure, it will cost some money to provide that protection. And that cost will have to be passed on to someone–whether it be the manufacturing company, the company which purchases the truck, the consumer of the trucking industry services, etc. Are we willing to bear that cost as a society, or would we rather keep our costs as low as possible–at the price of human life?
Good news: The 11,000+ AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety Petition signers have been added to the Public Comments for the ANPRM Underride Protection for Single Unit Trucks.
At that site, click on Karth Family/Care 2 Petition. Then click on Supporting Documents. There is a PDF and an XLS spreadsheet. The PDF can be read better by magnifying the chart.
You are allowed to add your own comments to the ANPRM–even if you signed the Petition. You can do so by clicking the COMMENT NOW button on that website. Please take the time to express your thoughts on this vital issue.
I am grateful for the countless people across the earth who care about these life and death matters and are willing to stand up and ask for safer roads.
Please note: Public Comments Period ends September 21, 2015.
So, as of 2:45 p.m. today, I no longer have any children under 18. Well, the ones that are alive, that is. That doesn’t count AnnaLeah, who would have been 20 now (but is forever 17), or Mary, who would have turned 16 in two days (but is forever 13).
Mary’s 8 siblings meet her for the first time 16 years ago.
Sixteen years ago, I was very pregnant for Mary and stopped at Kentucky Fried Chicken to get birthday supper for her 2 year-old brother. I always figured he was fortunate that she waited two days so that I wasn’t in the hospital on his birthday.
They often had joint birthday parties — usually on the day-between — when their grandpa would come over. They each got to pick part of the menu and what they wanted for dessert. When they got old enough to leave alone, they would always watch Condor Man at home while the rest of us went birthday shopping for them.
This was the year that AnnaLeah picked out Gertie (the stuffed toy St. Bernard in memory of our dog) for her sister Mary’s birthday present:
They weren’t twins, but, especially because they were part of a large family, they spent a lot of time together.
I might as well talk about it here–because it has been so much on my mind as of late. I am still struggling with that whole question of protection and keeping us free from harm.
From the very beginning — the day before their funeral — I have struggled with what Psalm 91 really means. . .
1 He who dwells in the shelter of the Most High Will abide in the shadow of the Almighty. 2 I will say to the Lord, “My refuge and my fortress, My God, in whom I trust!” 11 For He will give His angels charge concerning you, To guard you in all your ways. 12 They will bear you up in their hands, That you do not strike your foot against a stone. 15 “He will call upon Me, and I will answer him; I will be with him in [e]trouble; I will rescue him and honor him. 16 “With [f]a long life I will satisfy him And [g]let him see My salvation.”
I am very tired now and rambling, but I want to get this written down as I get closer to facing Mary’s would-have-been 16th birthday.
Yesterday, I took our son’s cat to the vet. Oscar had been in a long car ride in April from his home in Texas to North Carolina. So, as soon as I put him in the cat carrier and began driving the car, Oscar meowed pitifully. All the way to the vet.
In an effort to calm him down, I began singing the lullaby (tune: Rock-a-bye Baby) which I had sung to my nine children:
Snuggle now, baby, in Jesus’ arms. When the storm comes, He’ll keep you from harm. When the winds blow, and when the winds cease, you know that with Jesus, you can have peace.
I don’t think that it calmed Oscar. And it made me cry–thinking of how He had not kept AnnaLeah and Mary from harm (how Mary had called out, “Mommy, where are we?” and AnnaLeah had been silent). Had I lied to my children all of those years?
I read these verses this morning:
Psalm 91:10No evil will befall you, nor will any plague come near your tent.
Proverbs 12:21No harm befalls the righteous, but the wicked are filled with trouble.
Proverbs 1:33 “But he who listens to me shall live securely, and shall be at ease from the dread of evil.”
Psalm 121: 3He will not allow your foot to slip, He who keeps you will not slumber.
5 The LORD is your keeper; the LORD is your shade on your right hand.
7 The LORD will protect [keep] you from all evil, He will keep your soul.
8 The LORD will guard your going out and your coming in from this time forth and forever.
I texted our pastor in Texas as I was on the way to their funeral there and said that I was struggling with Psalm 91. He said that he would be speaking to that in his sermon, “They are where they belong.”
I know that they are in a better place than if they were still here. But still. . . I mean, really, don’t you ever ask questions like these? Don’t you ever ask Him what He really means when He says He will protect us?
And, of course, I have come face to face with the realities of the many possible factors in crash fatalities (i.e., deaths due to supposed accidents which quite possibly could have been prevented if this and that thing had or had not been done). These are things — quite clearly — in which God does not intervene and supernaturally block in order to save lives. No, these are problems which require human action to solve them.
At the same time, I am convinced that it would be His will that the roads be safer–that we humans take dominion over this part of His created world. And I believe that He is even now guiding us to seek and bring about needed change.
Some people talk about Vision Zero–about being proactive and working toward ending deaths on our roads. It doesn’t just happen. And it certainly doesn’t happen by burying our heads in the sand and pretending that the problems don’t exist.
Don’t you get it?! I mean, maybe I have been naive and expected that I and my loved ones would get through life without tragedy. Now, when I see tragedy “strike,” I am more ready to ask, “Did that really have to happen? Could it have been avoided?”
I am more prone to ask, “What can we do to provide The Best Possible Protection?” Before it is too late.
Just today, someone told me about yet another missed opportunity to improve underride guards in 1998: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1998-05-14/html/98-12753.htm , http://trid.trb.org/view.aspxid=214652 & http://www.safetyresearch.net/blog/articles/are-rear-underride-guards-overrated: “Or, maybe it’s a case of standard failure. In 1996, the agency went the don’t-ruffle-industry’s-feathers route, passing a final rule {the current one} that offered only a slight improvement over the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association’s voluntary recommended practice.” “In 1998, a former NHTSA safety standards engineer underscored the inadequacy of the U.S. rules in a series of crash tests involving rear underride guards built to reflect the then-newly minted rear impact protection standard. . . Tomassoni also noted that the underride guard designed to meet the minimum static load requirements “will not provide adequate protection in offset impacts.””
And that was many years before my girls were even a twinkle in their daddy’s eye. But it was never done–the known problem was never resolved–and so AnnaLeah and Mary were left more vulnerable and un-protected than they should have been. And it breaks my heart.
AnnaLeah made this craft when she was little, “In my life, Lord, Thy will be done.” and that is my comfort: they had the gift of faith in Jesus as their Savior and Lord. And so I know that they are truly safe in His arms–though they are far from mine.
A reporter from Rocky Mount has been following our story since we got back to North Carolina in May 2013 after the crash. She published an article in today’s Rocky Mount Telegram following the recent Advance Notice of Public Rulemaking for rear underride protection on Single Unit Trucks–encouraging readers to write a Public Comment and make a difference.
AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition
Petition Request
Current Rulemaking Stage
Electronic Logging Devices (ELDs)
The Petition’s 11,000+ signatures were added to the Public Comments for the Electronic Logging Device Rule. The comment period ended May 27, 2014.
Final Rule is scheduled to be published by 9/30/15.
Companies would then have 2 years from that date to comply.
Minimum Liability Insurance
ANPRM was issued on 11/28/14 meaning: FMCSA announced that it is considering a rulemaking that would increase the minimum levels of financial responsibility for motor carriers.
Trucking industry has attempted to get an amendment passed this summer on the THUD Appropriations Bill which would take away funding from FMCSA for continuing the rulemaking process.
Underride Guards
“Based on the petition, available information, and the agency’s analysis in progress, NHTSA has decided that the Petitioners’ request related to rear impact guards merits further consideration. Therefore, the agency grants the Petitioners’ request to initiate rulemaking on rear impact guards. NHTSA is planning on issuing two separate notices—an advanced notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to rear impact guards and other safety strategies for single unit trucks, and a notice of proposed rulemaking focusing on rear impact guards on trailers and semitrailers. NHTSA is still evaluating the Petitioners’ request to improve side guards and front override guards and will issue a separate decision on those aspects of the petition at a later date.“
Proposed Rulemaking was issued for rear impact guards on tractor-trailers on July 10, 2014. This is the rulemaking stage in which an agency proposes to add to or change its existing regulations and solicits public comment on this proposal. Recommendations for revision of existing regulations are expected to be issued for Public Comments before the end of 2015.
The Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) for Single Unit Truckswas issued on 7/23/15, with the Public Comments Period closing on September 21, 2015. This will be followed by an analysis of the Comments and a determination about whether or not, or how best, to initiate a rulemaking.
This means that the Electronic Logging Devices rule could be going into effect by September 30 and the industry would have to comply with it within two years.
“Still seemingly on target for its projected Sept. 30 publication, a Final Rule to mandate the use of electronic logging devices has been sent from the DOT to the White House’s Office of Management and Budget for final approval before being published.
The DOT’s Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration sent the e-log rule to the OMB July 30, along with a Final Rule that will implement stiffer penalties for carriers, shippers, brokers and others who coerce or pressure drivers to not abide by federal safety standards like hours-of-service limits.
The OMB legally has 90 days to approve the rules or send them back to FMCSA to be changed, which is unlikely.
The rule, which will take effect two years following its publication in the Federal Register, will require all truck drivers who are required to keep records of duty status to use an electronic logging device, formerly known as electronic onboard recorders.”
“In responding to the report, the DOT noted the GAO had recognized achievements associated with the hours rule: A decrease in the frequency of long work schedules, lower risk of driver fatigue generally, and reduced fatal truck crashes. It agreed with the GAO recommendation to adopt guidance outlining research standards for future analyses and promised a detailed response to the entire effort within the next 60 days.”
Good news: The 11,000+ AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety Petition signers have been added to the Public Comments for the ANPRM Underride Protection for Single Unit Trucks.
To see all of the signatures/comments from the Petition, go to this link:
At that site, click on Karth Family/Care 2 Petition. Then Click on Supporting Documents. There is a PDF and an XLS spreadsheet. The PDF can be read better by magnifying.the chart.
You are allowed to add your own comments to the ANPRM–even if you signed the Petition. You can do so on the Comments Now button on that website.
I am grateful for the countless people across the earth who care about these life and death matters and are willing to stand up and ask for safer roads.
I read this article by a journalist in the trucking world not too long after I became a reluctant safety advocate after my daughters died in a truck crash. It was worth a read.
This is what Tom Berg observed many years ago:
“. . . in 1998 came a requirement for ‘rear-impact guards’ that absorb some of the collision forces. Each trailer maker designed its own, which complicated repair costs because instead of replacing a damaged member by welding on a piece of channel iron, specific parts had to be found and bolted into place.
“Managers’ fears of greater expense were borne out, in repairs as well as initial added cost to trailers. Two or three hundred bucks is not a lot to add to the price of a $10,000 or $15,000 trailer, unless you run 500 or 1,000 or 5,000 trailers, especially at a time when everything in trucking was going up in price. Managers have a point.
“About 25 years ago, when I first started hearing about bumpers in those meetings, I noticed a hard-heartedness among fleet managers: If a motorist is stupid or drunk or drugged enough to rear-end my trailer, should I have to worry about what happens to him?
“A lot of people say yes, for several reasons. . . Know what? I agree with those safety people. Because in 1973 I heard about a guy who was killed when he underrode a semi. . .
“. . . many fleet managers now seem enlightened and see public safety as a responsibility.”
Marianne Karth 
IIHS
