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
Last year at this time, our family was intensely involved in preparing to launch The AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition. After our truck crash and tragic loss of the Mary and AnnaLeah, we learned about many things that needed changing to prevent other families from facing similar grief.
When Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx promised that we would see tangible progress in a short time on truck safety issues, and 6 months later we had not, we decided to take our request to DOT on the first anniversary of our crash and invited other people to join us by signing our petition.
Last March, after brainstorming with our family, two of our sons were designing a website for the petition, but as time was getting short to launch the petition and we wanted to make sure that everything would go without a hitch, we changed course and applied all that hard work to an existing site, Care2 The Petition Site. And on March 19, we launched the petition.
We were amazed as the numbers started rising and quickly surpassed our hopes. By the time May rolled around, we had over 11,000 signatures on our petition. We printed each signature as an individual petition and stuffed it in an envelope and delivered these envelopes in person on May 5, 2014, in Washington, DC.
Here is a graph showing the number of signatures by state:
Eight members of our family, including our grandson and granddaughter traveled to Washington, DC and sat down with administrative officials from NHTSA and FMCSA. We were well received, presented our concerns, heard from them on their efforts, and had a productive discussion. And here are the “notes” which our 4 year-old granddaughter, Vanessa, took at that meeting:
We are proud of our family and thankful for the many people who stood with us to voice these vital concerns.
What came out of our petition and the meeting we had with DOT that day? Did it make a difference? Here are the three requests which we made in the petition and what has come about:
First Request: Raise minimum levels of insurance required for truck drivers–which has not been done for over 30 years.
The period for Public Comments ended on February 26. The 11,391 signatures from our petition were added to these Public Comments. This will be followed by a review of these comments and a decision about whether to actually proceed with a rulemaking process.
Second Request: Decrease driver fatigue and monitor their hours on the road with Electronic Logging Devices.
Result: The Petition’s 11,000+ signatures were also added to the Public Comments for the Electronic Logging Device Rule. The comment period ended May 27, 2014. “In a departure from a report issued in mid-February, the Department of Transportation has changed its expected publication date for a Final Rule mandating the use of electronic logging devices, according to a supplemental report issued by the DOT last week. It now expects the rule to be published Sept. 30.” http://www.overdriveonline.com/fmcsa-alters-course-on-e-log-mandate-shoots-for-sept-30-rule-publication/#
Third Request:Take needed steps to improve underride guards, which prevent vehicles from sliding under trucks–causing horrific injuries and tragic deaths.
The AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition is still open. People are still finding it and signing it (without our doing a thing to promote it). People care about this issue and we want you to know that we are being heard and that we are continuing to advocate for safer roads.
At some point, we hope to send out a final update to all of the petition signers (now at 11,530 plus the 150 people who sent a paper petition to us)–letting them know about the progress made and encouraging them to stay in contact.
When we were getting ready to go to DC last year, one of our sons asked what we would do after the petition was over–would we still do truck safety advocacy? I said I didn’t know. . . but here I still am–continuing to keep track of what is going on, writing, writing, writing, and speaking up for all of us who are vulnerable on the roads, calling for action in matters of life & death.
I sent an email out yesterday to the University of Michigan Injury Center–asking them to consider helping to design an underride guard which would provide the best possible protection.
This morning I decided to put out a wider call for assistance — both in expertise and financial backing — for this worthy lifesaving endeavor. Surely we could put our heads together and make this happen! I’d like to see this done to enhance the efforts of NHTSA to develop an improved rule on underride guards.
Let’s stop talking and take some action! Spread the word.
Marianne
HERE IS MY EMAIL WITH DETAILS OF OUR STORY & THE NEED FOR AN IMPROVED UNDERRIDE GUARD DESIGN:
“I would like to ask that you consider taking on the goal of developing an underride guard design which will prevent vehicles from riding under trucks in rear-impact collisions to a greater extent than the current federal standards provide protection–thereby preventing horrific injuries and unnecessary deaths.
I am a 1979 Health Behavior/Health Education graduate of the University of Michigan School of Public Health and received your recent email with information about the Research Centers, including the Injury Control Research Center. In addition, I am the mother of nine children and was driving the three youngest from North Carolina to Texas on May 4, 2013, to attend four college graduations and the wedding of their older siblings, when a truck hit us twice spinning us around and sending us backward under the tractor trailer in front of us.
AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13) were in the back seat. AnnaLeah died instantly from mechanical asphyxia and Mary died a few days later from injuries (including severe head trauma, carotid artery dissection, and LeFort fractures of her face) she sustained in the crash. I was in the hospital for almost a week but am totally healed physically, and my 15 year-old son in the front passenger seat had a mild concussion and was released that same day from the Emergency Room. The girls, in the back seat, experienced underride; we did not.
In the days, weeks, and months following that crash, our family discovered many things about truck safety.One of the things which we learned about were underride guards, steel bars on the back of a trailer mandated by federal regulations following the national attention gained by the death of actress Jayne Mansfield due to an underride crash in 1967.
Unfortunately, the specifications have been shown to be inadequate in many circumstances; many of the underride guards on the road today too often fail to prevent underride–whether it be due to the design, installation, or maintenance of the guards. This has been seen both by review of the Large Truck Crash Causation Study and through research done by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)–among others.
Following our crash, we initiated an online petition requesting DOT to make improvement in three truck safety areas, including underride guards. After delivering the 11,000+ petitions to DOT in Washington, DC, we met with top administrative officials from FMCSA and NHTSA on May 5, 2014–one year after the crash. We were able to meet for an hour–sharing our concerns and hearing what their plans were relative to our three requests.
After hearing that NHTSA was not able to let us know if they were going to initiate a new rulemaking process on underride guards, my husband Jerry asked several times when we might expect that they would decide whether to go ahead with such a process. Finally, David Friedman, deputy director of NHTSA, replied that we could expect a decision in two months. I then asked him to email me as soon as the decision was made. And he did so–emailing me on July 9, 2014 — almost exactly two months later — to let me know that they had issued a rulemaking to study this issue.
Unfortunately, this is a very lengthy process which is frequently subject to setbacks due to opposition from the trucking industry. In addition, there is controversy about whether the guards could be made “too rigid” and result in unintended consequences due to deceleration forces.
Yet, the 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.
We have also written letters to trailer manufacturing companies asking them to voluntarily improve their guards–as did Manac, Inc. IIHS has continued to communicate with manufacturers to let them know that they would be glad to test any new designs. They have gotten some response.
The bottom line is that NHTSA is hoping to issue a new rule mid-2015 and whatever they propose, if passed, will likely have an impact on road safety for years to come. It is my hope that there would be cooperative efforts taking place to come up with the best possible protection for travelers so that others will not have to go through what our family has had to and lives will not unnecessarily be abruptly brought to an end.
Please consider how you might be involved in this along with the School of Engineering and whatever other resources could be harnessed. Surely, by working together, we can make a difference.
