From the Society of Automotive Engineers’ (SAE) facebook page:
“REAL WORLD ENGINEERING: Marianne Karth’s goal is to prevent more deaths from truck-related crashes like the one that claimed the lives of two of her daughters. She is seeking designs for improved heavy vehicle underride prevention structures.”
Designs sought for improved heavy vehicle underride prevention structures.
WARRENDALE, Pa., July 8, 2015
Current truck underride regulations too often do not prevent underride crashes—which led to 2401 fatalities in 2013. “In a detailed study of 115 rear truck crashes (not all fatal, and including all large truck types, not just tractor trailers), we found that 46 percent involved underride that extended beyond the bottom of the windshield (i.e., the truck intruded into the passenger compartment). When restricting to the 28 crashes that were fatalities, this rises to 82 percent.” (Matthew Brumbelow based on his research: Evaluation of US Rear Underride Guard Regulation for Large Trucks Using Real-World Crashes,http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topics/t/Large%20trucks/bibliography/bytag )
Engineering students and professionals will take on the challenge of creating an underride prevention system that will surpass the current U.S. and Canadian standards. Key design interests include offset impact, misaligned vehicle paths, and occupant survivability. Design is based upon a light passenger vehicle and dry van semitrailer interaction.
Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 223 and Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (CMVSS) No. 223 describe the energy absorbing and mechanical deflection required for semi-trailers rear underride structures. NHTSA has initiated rulemaking for FMVSS No. 224 and No. 223. In the interest of this rulemaking, noteworthy designs will be presented to the NHTSA Deputy Administrator.
The objective is to attain underride prevention up to 50 mph at any degree of offset. The designs must be demonstrated to be practical in the context of the trucking environment. The hoped-for outcome is saved lives.
Papers should be submitted no later than May 1, 2016 (but will be reviewed as soon as received for the maximum impact) and sent to: marianne@annaleahmary.com
Michael Lemov, in his book Car Safety Wars, sheds light on what has been responsible for so many deaths from vehicular crashes. The automotive industry has long claimed that “Safety doesn’t sell,” and consequently too-often did not include safety features in their vehicles. As a result, too many people have died from what has come to be known as the “second collision.”
Lemov describes it this way:
“During the first six decades of the twentieth century the American automobile industry seemed wedded to the idea that safe design was not its responsibility. There was no public demand, it was said, for safer automobile design. Nor did the industry seem to think it had much responsibility to inform the public about the risks of vehicle design and the omissions such as lap and shoulder belts.
“In the years before the enactment of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in 1966, better-designed motor vehicles might have saved millions of drivers and passengers from death and injury in what had by then become known as the ‘second collision.’ This is the collision of the driver and passengers with the interior of their own vehicle during a crash.
“The basic physics of the ‘second collision‘ were described by Hippocrates in the fourth century BC when he contrasted the greater severity of wounds inflicted by a sharp penetrating object with the less-serious wounds produced by a blunt weapon. This established that when force is distributed over a larger area (say by safety belts over the shoulders, chest, and pelvis) rather than a small area (the face or head of a driver or passenger) the force per unit of area is much less.
“Similarly, two centuries before the invention of the automobile, Sir Isaac Newton defined the relationship between velocity and deceleration of a moving object. Simply put, the greater the distance over which vehicle deceleration occurs the less injurious the force that is imparted to the occupant body, such as the head and neck. For example, the two-foot deformation, or crushing of the front end of a vehicle, is the stopping distance of an unrestrained passenger before striking the interior of the vehicle. In the same car, the stopping distance of the same passenger wearing a lap-shoulder belt, would be much greater, as the car decelerates over many feet, causing less injurious forces to the neck, skull, and body.5
“Detroit automotive engineers, of course, knew about these principles and problems of the physics of automobiles. Since at least the 1930s they had also known of some promising solutions.6 But their employers who called the shots were deterred either by cost, perceived engineering problems, or marketing considerations from doing anything much about applying them. Mostly the companies sold annual styling changes and more horsepower.7
“The reaction of the motor vehicle industry, dominated by General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler, to the increasing toll of death and injury (from about 33,000 deaths per year in 1950 to 53,000 in 1969)–was consistent. The manufacturers placed primary blame on the driver and on driver attitudes.” (Car Safety Wars; One Hundred Years of Technology, Politics & Death, by Michael R. Lemov, pp. 49-50)
Unfortunately, a similar attitude toward safety and truck underride guards has probably meant that underride prevention technology has been woefully inadequate and many people may well have unnecessarily died as a result.
In fact, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has told us in person that, “It is safer to run into a brick wall than into the back of a truck.” This is due to the fact that if you run into a brick wall with a vehicle equipped with a crush zone, that crush zone is able to go into effect and protect the occupants. However, if a vehicle hits the back of a truck and the underride guard fails, the vehicle goes under the truck so that the passenger compartment is intruded upon and the crush zone (air bags and seat belts) is not allowed to operate as designed.
George Rechnitzer, a professor and researcher from Australia who has done research with Transport and Road Safety Research (TARS) believes that the underride problem can be solved. In 2003, he authored this dissertation: The Improvement of Heavy Vehicle Design To Reduce Injury Risk In Crashes With Other Road Users. https://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx? (2003)v=8b6a69875e67767ca2a4
In the introduction, Rechnitzer says that,
“The thesis concludes with presenting the important concept that crash protection for
occupants is a function of the nature of the interface between the impacting vehicles
and /or the person. This hypothesis provides an alternate perspective on what is feasible
in occupant protection in severe impact scenarios. It clearly shows that contrary to a
common view in road safety, vehicle mass per se is not the major determinate of injury
outcomes. Indeed this thesis demonstrates that injury protection is feasible against high mass vehicles be they trucks, trams or trains, by appropriate design of the interface between impacting objects.”
I am able to be an advocate — a vocal spokesperson on behalf of truck underride victims — only because our car was hit by a truck which spun us and then hit us again and thereby pushed us backwards into the rear of another truck.
The underride guard on the back of the truck did not withstand the crash (which is, in fact, the norm because current federal standards are ineffective) and neither did my two daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13), who were in the back seat of the car which went underneath the truck. AnnaLeah died at the scene and Mary survived with horrific injuries–dying a few days later.
After finding out that it has already been proven that these underride guards are weak and ineffective, I have been thrust into the role of speaking up for improving the standards to provide stronger more effective underride protection to those who share the road with large trucks.
After we were joined, in the Spring of 2014, by over 11,000 people to petition Secretary Foxx to — among other things — improve the rule for underride guards, our petition was granted and a notice of rule making was issued for tractor-trailers:
We are waiting for this rule making to move forward to the next stage when we will be able to make Public Comments. This will be an important step and we will put out a call for support for this life-saving measure.
Recently, on June 12, 2015, the groundwork for a separate rule making on single unit trucks (currently not required to have underride guards, but responsible for countless crash fatalities) was sent to the Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (Office of Management & Budget) for review:
Many advocates have worked hard before us to bring it to this point and together we need to continue forward until we have reached the goal of The Best Possible Protection.
Last evening, Jerry and I had a Skype phone call with Dr. George Rechnitzer from Melbourne, Australia. We had been corresponding with him via email for a few days, and he finally decided that we needed to have an actual conversation.
We had discovered the day before that George had done research twenty years ago to prove that more effective underride guards could be designed, built, and crash tested on actual trucks–at 75 km/h or 46 m/h.
George, a professor and researcher from Australia who has done research with Transport and Road Safety Research (TARS) authored this 315-page dissertation in 2003: The Improvement of Heavy Vehicle Design To Reduce Injury Risk In Crashes With Other Road Usershttps://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx?v=8b6a69875e67767ca2a4
(photo of our amazingly expressive Mary letting the world know her displeasure)
For far too long, the focus has disproportionately been on crash prevention solutions –at the expense of seriously examining the potential for innovative underride prevention solutions to prevent death when a truck crash actually does occur.
I just became aware of a research paper published in 1996 which clearly showed the potential for more effective underride protection: DEVELOPMENT AND TESTING OF ENERGY ABSORBING REAR UNDERRUN BARRIERS FOR HEAVY VEHICLES by George Rechnitzer http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=477219 (presented at the 1996 International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles in Melbourne, Australia, which is sponsored by NHTSA).
Furthermore, George Rechnitzer, a professor and researcher from Australia who has done research with Transport and Road Safety Research (TARS) authored this dissertation in 2003: The Improvement of Heavy Vehicle Design To Reduce Injury Risk In Crashes With Other Road Usershttps://www.filesanywhere.com/fs/v.aspx? (2003)v=8b6a69875e67767ca2a4
Please take note of the insight into truck crash fatalities which he describes in the Introduction (pp. 9-10):
“The conspicuous slow progress in reducing well-known and solvable hazards, is well illustrated by crashes involving heavy vehicles. Problems with heavy vehicle design
have been documented for decades, as illustrated by this 1928 Times newspaper report
(Times, 1928):
“‘Dr F.J Waldo, the senior Coroner for London, stated yesterday that
during the past year he had held 63 inquiries into deaths due to road
accidents. Deaths were caused in 20 cases by lorries or commercial vans –
without side life guards which are compulsory on motor omnibuses. Nine
deaths were caused by private motor vehicles and eight by motor
omnibuses. Pedal cycles caused eight largely on account of skidding and
the fixture of a wheel in the grove of the tramlines. There were also six
deaths by horse vehicles, five by taxicabs, four by steam lorries two by
charabancs and one by fire engine. One sixth of the number occurred
among children and young people in the city.’
“Since that time, heavy vehicle design has not improved significantly in regard to
reducing their harm potential in crashes with other road users. In Australia, heavy
vehicle crashes contributed around 18% of road deaths overall, representing in the 10
years 1983 to 1993 around 4000 fatalities and 17000 seriously injured. Most at risk are
the “other road users” making up 80% of these fatalities.
“This thesis’ findings, based on the author’s extensive in-depth crash investigations and
literature review, identify that the lack of compatibility, and aggressiveness of heavy vehicle design is a major causal factor leading to the over-representation of heavy vehicles in serious injury and fatal crashes. These findings counter the commonly held
notions maintaining that the main problem is the mass of the heavy vehicle – a factor
that is not readily amenable to change. Importantly, the study clearly identified that design changes to heavy vehicles can be effective in reducing the injury risk to other road users.
“This body of the thesis presents the author’s work on the development of applied
countermeasures involving the design, and crash testing of effective rear underrun
barriers, both rigid and energy absorbing. The energy absorbing system developed is
innovative as it uses a fibreglass tube as the crushable medium contained with two
concertinaing steel tubes. The Research provides the basis for the development of new performance criteria for effective rear underrun barriers catering for centred and offset impacts. At the time this work on the new system was being developed, it was the first of its type (to the author’s knowledge) in the world.
“The thesis concludes with presenting the important concept that crash protection for
occupants is a function of the nature of the interface between the impacting vehicles
and /or the person. This hypothesis provides an alternate perspective on what is feasible
in occupant protection in severe impact scenarios. It clearly shows that contrary to a
common view in road safety, vehicle mass per se is not the major determinate of injury
outcomes. Indeed this thesis demonstrates that injury protection is feasible against high mass vehicles be they trucks, trams or trains, by appropriate design of the interface between impacting objects.”
Here’s a photo of AnnaLeah in 1996 — when much of this research was available but apparently largely ignored — and Mary was a twinkle in her daddy’s eye.
So many lives could have been saved. If only. . . And why has this unconscionable* situation been allowed to go on for so long?! Enough is enough!
* excessive, unreasonable, unwarranted, uncalled for, unfair, inordinate, immoderate, undue, inexcusable, unforgivable, unnecessary, needless; informal over the top http://tinyurl.com/qgdhadv
You might be enlightened by the history of federal rulemaking on underride guards (found in the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s testimony in May 2009, in which they call for tougher underride guard standards) http://tinyurl.com/phlaqon (pasted below):
The history of Federal rulemaking on truck underride guards:
1953 Interstate Commerce Commission adopts rule requiring rear underride guards on trucks and trailers but sets no strength requirements.
1967 National Highway Safety Bureau (NHSB), predecessor to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), indicates it will develop a standard for truck underride guards.
1969 NHSB indicates it will conduct research on heavy vehicle underride guard configurations to provide data for the preparation of a standard. In the same year the Federal Highway Administration publishes a proposal to require trailers and trucks to have strong rear-end structures extending to within 18 inches of the road surface.
1970 NHSB says it would be “impracticable” for manufacturers to engineer improved underride protectors into new vehicles before 1972. The agency considers an effective date of January 1, 1974 for requiring underride guards with energy-absorbing features as opposed to rigid barriers.
1971 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recommends that NHTSA require energy-absorbing underride and override barriers on trucks, buses, and trailers. Later in the same year NHTSA abandons its underride rulemaking, saying it has “no control over the vehicles after they are sold” and “it can only be assumed that certain operators will remove the underride guard.” The Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety (BMCS), predecessor to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, considers a regulatory change that would prohibit alteration of manufacturer-installed equipment. This would nullify the major reason NHTSA cited for abandoning the proposed underride standard.
1972 NTSB urges NHTSA to renew the abandoned underride proposal.
1974 US Secretary of Transportation says deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial.**
1977 IIHS testifies before the Consumer Subcommittee of the US Senate Commerce Committee, noting that devices to stop underride have been technologically available for years. IIHS tests demonstrate that a crash at less than 30 mph of a subcompact car into a guard meeting current requirements results in severe underride. IIHS also demonstrates the feasibility of effective underride guards that do not add significant weight to trucks. IIHS petitions NHTSA to initiate rulemaking to establish a rear underride standard. The agency agrees to reassess the need for such a standard and later in the year announces plans to require more effective rear underride protection. BMCS publishes a new but weak proposal regarding underride protection.
1981 NHTSA issues a proposal to require upgraded underride protection.
1986 IIHS study reveals that rear guards designed to prevent cars from underriding trucks appear to be working well on British rigs.
1987 European underride standard is shown to reduce deaths caused by underride crashes.
1996 NHTSA finally issues a new standard, effective 1998.
IIHS, 2009
** And how many deaths due to underride crashes are underreported? For example, ours was listed on FARS (NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System) as “Passenger Compartment Intrusion Unknown.”
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has been relentlessly drawing attention to this issue for some time now, including this video:
IIHS Status Reports with articles on underride guards:
We are excited to let you know that we are hopeful about possible improvements in underride prevention. We are also continuing to be involved in other truck safety issues with the goal of safer roads.
Toward that end, we are in the process of setting up a non-profit organization in memory of AnnaLeah & Mary Karth and, in light of their untimely death due to a truck crash on May 4, 2013, this corporation will seek to carry out the following purposes related to highway safety: charitable, educational, scientific, and testing for public safety.
Now, this is where you come in right now. We need to pick a name for our organization. This is what we have come up with so far:
AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety
A &M for Safe Roads
AnnaLeah & Mary for Safe Roads
Mary & AnnaLeah for Safe Roads
Stand Up For Truck Safety.
The first one is probably too long. And I think that I want to keep it connected to them to help us remember that it is about real people and real lives. But I am open to new ideas.
Please let us know what you think. We are eager to get this process underway to help us be more effective in our efforts.
My parents grew up in a relatively small town. After they married, they moved to a bigger city. But my dad’s brother married my mom’s sister, and then my aunt and uncle took over a dairy farm which was in the family. For years, my family drove an hour north on many Sundays of the year to have a big family meal with two sets of grandparents, aunts, uncles, and lots of cousins.
I often spent vacations there, including a few weeks in the summer when I helped with the haying, feeding the chickens, gathering eggs, playing in the hayloft, cutting the big country lawn, chasing the cows out of the cornfield, repairing the fences, and picking strawberries from the patch.
Now it is no more. For one thing, the government bought them out to put an expressway through the old farm. They moved into a new house which they built nearby next to the family sugarbush. These days, it seems odd to shop at a major grocery store where I used to pick apples, explore old family outbuildings, bale hay, and hide in the tall, waving grass.
Two of their sons–my double cousins–bought some property a few miles away and managed a dairy farm of their own. They took out some loans to build a new barn and get new milking equipment. It got to a point where it was no longer affordable to run the small family dairy farm and make a living wage.* They sold the cows. And now they have sold the farm. An era is over.
I thought about all of this, on a recent trip “back home”, as I reflected on the plight of small trucking companies and independent owner-operator truck drivers. Are the costs of owning a company and the pressure to drive many miles creating a situation where they won’t be able to stay in business?
Frequently, I hear that changes of one kind or another in the trucking industry–in order to improve safety (i.e., reduce crashes, injuries and deaths)–will result in increased costs for the trucking companies. I hear that it will put them out of business.
Is this true? According to whom and based on what information? If it is true, then does something need to change in the trucking industry itself in order to allow for the beneficial work, which trucking provides, to continue but to also allow for truckers to make a decent living wage–without jeopardizing their health and the safety of travelers on the roads?
Will this someday be an era that is over, or can we fix the problems for the benefit of all? Who pays for Safety? And can we figure out how to fairly and logically spread the increased costs around? The alternative seems to be unacceptable: Forget safety and let the cost be spilled blood.
(* I might not have gotten all of the details of the family farm history exactly correct, but I hope you can see the picture that I am trying to paint.)
Cost of Electronic Logging Devices: http://www.vdoroadlog.com/products/electronic-logging-devices-eld/roadlog-eld/ “As you probably know, the fees for other manufacturers’ electronic log systems can add up to thousands of dollars in just a few years time, and that’s a real roadblock for many Owner Operators. RoadLog is available with no fees and no monthly contract.”
OOIDA contends that an increase in insurance would be a death nail for the small businesses that comprise over 90 percent of the trucking industry.
In response to OOIDA’s comment about “fewer than one percent,” our son Peter made this observation prior to our meeting with FMCSA on May 5, 2014,
The 1% issue is at best a red herring. Refusing to raise a limit because such a small percentage reach the limit only indicates that the increase in cost should be minimal. It can’t be both ways, either this increase should raise the cost of doing business or the effect should be minimal.
This isn’t life insurance where all the money is always paid out. Nor is this homeowner’s insurance in which you have a set amount of house that can be destroyed. This is liability insurance in which the amount paid out is based on the amount of damage being done. If such a small percentage of claims reaches the limit, then greedy lawyers, increased costs, and mythical “windfall” payments are all proven absurd or irrelevant.
We are a 23 truck fleet and carry 25 million in liability insurance. We carry that much to protect not only us but our customers. The argument that only 1 % of the claims exceed the current threshold for insurance makes no sense. You carry insurance to cover you no matter what happens. 1 % exposure is too much. The fact that it seldom happens makes the coverage cheap. The actuaries price according to probability. I don’t believe that this coverage will be cost prohibitive unless the carrier has a dismal safety rating in which case they shouldn’t be in business. When carriers don’t carry enough coverage the expose responsible carriers, shippers and the general public. We need responsible carriers, pricing their services correctly to cover all costs and excepting responsibility for the liability created by their business. Skirting this liability and charging for services is deceptive to shippers and puts the public or state at financial risk in the form of a claim that is part of a service they get no remuneration for. When you provide a service, charge fees and profit you must also be responsible financially which means carrying adequate insurance.
“. . . many of the truck drivers/companies which I see making comments complain about how the premiums will skyrocket. But on what are they basing that opinion?
John Lannen, executive director of the Truck Safety Coalition, has shared background information with us which he has gathered from numerous sources, presentations, and conversations regarding the economics of additional insurance coverage for motor carriers. It turns out that the first million dollars’ worth of trucking insurance is the most expensive and each incremental amount is cheaper. . . . ” (For more details, go here: https://annaleahmary.com/2015/06/trucking-minimum-liability-insurance-trucker-wages-a-facebook-conversation/ )
The Cartwright Amendment, which would allow FMCSA to continue the process of updating trucking minimum liability insurance–to protect both trucking company and crash victims–was defeated in the House today:
An underride guard–adequately designed, installed, and maintained–can mean the difference between life and death.
This JJ Keller Annual Vehicle Inspection Form does NOT list underride guards as an item for inspection. But, truck drivers, please make sure that your underride guard is in good condition!
Jerry and I recently went on a road trip and I could not resist photographing a few of the underride guards we saw en route!
This single unit truck is not currently required by DOT to have an underride guard. But look at what it does have at the back: a piece of metal that is highly unlikely to prevent a car from riding under it upon impact.
We have petitioned Secretary Foxx to require this kind of truck to have a rear impact guard.
Shortly after we delivered the 11,000+ AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petitions to Washington, DC, we were invited to tour the research & design center of a tractor-trailer manufacturer. After doing so, my immediate reaction was to wonder what would ever bring about a major improvement in underride guard strength. And I wished that I could just sit down with the trailer manufacturers and hammer out a solution.
An underride (or rear impact) guard is required by federal law for some large trucks to prevent a vehicle from sliding underneath a truck in the event of a collision. Too often, these guards–as in our crash–even if they meet specifications, are properly installed, and are maintained, do not withstand the crash and the smaller vehicle slides under the truck. As a result, life-saving technologies are not put into effect and there is intrusion into the passenger compartment.
In other words, the back of the truck comes into contact with people in the smaller vehicle who then experience horrific injuries and–too often–death.
I emailed many people–hoping to drum up some interest in addressing this issue jointly. When I found out that there was going to be a new administrator, Mark Rosekind, at NHTSA, I wrote to him and asked that NHTSA host an underride roundtable discussion.
After exchanging a few emails, I was contacted by his scheduling assistant, who said that we would have a phone call in mid-February. As it turns out, that conversation never took place. Instead, Mark Rosekind arranged for me to speak on the phone with David Friedman, Deputy Administrator at NHTSA, on March 27, 2015.
When we met with DOT on May 5, 2014, David Friedman was the one who told me that he would let me know when a rulemaking was announced for underride guards. And he did so on July 9, 2014 (after promising that they would make a decision in two months, he was very close!): https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/nhtsa-has-initiated-a-rulemaking-process-to-evaluate-options-for-improving-underride-guards/ . So, it was fitting that he would be the one to let me know about any progress on meeting our petition requests.
We discussed my hopes for an underride roundtable–to bring together those who could do something about improving underride guards. David told me that–while NHTSA would like to host such events–a discussion of underride would likely not occur until 2016. And, even then, it would probably be only one part of a broader truck safety conference.
That would definitely be a good thing but, in my mind, not give adequate attention to the underride issue. In fact, as we talked, it became clear that if an underride roundtable were going to occur, we would have to spearhead the effort.
So, after thanking him for the update, I scheduled a quarterly phone call for June–at which time he promised to provide me with information on the progress of the truck safety issues in our petition. Then I began brainstorming ways in which we could actually work to organize an underride roundtable–with NHTSA as potential participants.
Earlier, I had spoken about that possibility with John Lannen, Director of the Truck Safety Coalition. So, after speaking with David Friedman, I resumed that conversation. John and I came up with some initial steps to get the process underway. I made a few contacts, and so did he. As a result, we have had some interesting developments and hope to unveil the details soon.
Perhaps we are closer to seeing improvements in underride protection. Perhaps our loss can serve as a catalyst to encourage the development of The Best Possible Protection for preventing future losses from truck underride crashes.
We appreciate all of the people who signed the AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition. Together with over 11,000 people, we helped to send a strong message to the Department of Transportation: Changes are needed in truck safety issues in order to stop the senseless, preventable deaths which occur year after year on the roads of our country.
Please act now to be a part of our team to continue our push for change. The most important thing which you can do is to stay connected with us bysigning up to be on our Mailing List (get our newsletter and other important updates). As we continue to make inroads in truck safety issues, your participation is vital. We would like to be able to let you know when there is a way for you to help make a difference. You can multiply our safety advocacy efforts.
Newscast from our trip to DC to deliver the petitions to DOT:
2. Sign up for email notification of new posts on our website. You only need to provide your email address. You can be confident that we will use it only to send you notification of our posts. Click on the SUBSCRIBE button on the bottom right column of our website.
3. When you read our posts, take advantage of the opportunity to share it by clicking on the social media icons at the bottom of each post.
For those of you who have lost a loved one yourself in a truck crash, please consider sharing a photo and story with us on our Truck Crash Victim Photo Memorial Page. Not only will this allow us to help you preserve your loved one’s memory, but it will also serve as a reminder of the countless lives which have been touched by preventable truck crashes. Send your information to us here: photos@annaleahmary.com .
On behalf of the family of AnnaLeah & Mary Lydia Karth, whose loss we feel so deeply, Jerry and Marianne Karth
