Aaron Kiefer is making plans to do a preliminary crash test of his innovative side/rear underride protection system – before taking it to the Underride Roundtable at the IIHS on May 5, 2016.
He has asked us to be on the lookout for two things which he needs for the crash test:
a used 53′ box trailer with its rear underride guard and its landing gear intact (not bent or rusted) and
an older model Chevy Malibu–from the year 2000 or younger.
If you have either one of those which you could donate (or sell for almost nothing) to make this important crash happen, please email me atmarianne@annaleahmary.com.
Here is more information about Aaron’s hard work to make trucks safer to be around:
Aaron plans on using the crash test results to refine his design and make it as effective as possible. Please spread the word about this need. Thank you.
From a 2009 research article, “The effect of state regulations on truck-crash fatalities.“:
“Truck-length limitations reduced fatalities in crashes involving large trucks. Our model estimates suggested that if all states had adopted a speed limit of 55 miles per hour for all vehicles in 2005, an additional 561 fatalities would have been averted.”
Could someone please explain to me why it is that we can invent amazing technology to allow “face time” — among countless other inventions which are unfolding at an unbelievable pace — but we are slow as a snail to solve safety problems.
Why are we not devoting top priority resources (time, money, and the creativity of the human mind — enhanced by the availability of information and technology) to reducing the 33,000 on average annual traffic crash fatalities in the U.S. and 1.24 million crash deaths on the world’s roads in 2010? http://www.who.int/gho/road_safety/mortality/en/
And why is it that getting safety measures passed — whether it be at the legislative level (in getting laws passed) or the administrative level (in getting regulations issued) is a continual battle?
Let me tell you what I think might be some of the reasons:
The industry lobby opposing safety measures has a deep pocket. Need I say more? Well, I will. In less than 3 years since our crash, I have spent countless hours as a volunteer safety advocate (motivated by my daughters’ needless deaths) sending emails and making phone calls and meeting in person with legislators to inform them and attempt to persuade them to support safety measures. All too often, I am back at it again in another six months or so to fight the same battle all over again. https://dawnkinster.wordpress.com/2013/10/02/reflections-on-truck-safety/ & https://dawnkinster.wordpress.com/2014/04/05/for-annaleah-and-mary/
Industry is more often than not reluctant to move ahead with safety measures voluntarily — either because they don’t want to have to re-do it when government regulations finally come out or because cost is a factor (enough said). This, of course, does not mean that all companies do nothing on their own to improve safety.
Now, back to my original question, why is it that we can invent amazing technology to allow “face time” — among countless other inventions which are unfolding at an unbelievable pace — but we are slow as a snail to solve safety problems?
My grandpa was a rural mailman and used a sleigh and horses to deliver mail in the snow. My dad grew up with a wood-burning stove and an icebox for refrigeration. I grew up with the introduction of color television, seat belts, and not until I started raising children did I use things like VCRs or modem dial-up internet access. I went to Europe for a summer in college and had no cell phone to keep in contact with my parents back in the U.S.
Don’t get me wrong, I am thankful for the safety advances made after those famous crashes. But I am appalled that we can’t seem to get it until such tragedies cause us to sit up and take notice. Meanwhile, countless unnoticed-by-the-public tragedies happen daily on roads across the globe. Year after year.
That is why I am devoting myself to raising awareness and calling for change. Come on people, let’s set a National Vision Zero Goal and use our vast resources and brilliant minds to slay this giant. Let’s not keep on putting our heads in the sand, putting bandaids on the problems, and losing these battles at the price of our loved ones. We can do it!
Secretary Anthony Foxx & Marianne Karth discuss truck safety, September 12, 2013
p.s. By the way, the inventor of the NASCAR SAFER Barrier which is now saving lives, thinks that he can invent a much safer truck underride protection system. We just need the money to prove it: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/
When I google the words “money” and “funding” and “underride guards” and “crash tests,” I mostly come up with links to things which I have written. Try it. If you find someone willing to hand out money for these things, please let me know right away!
Meanwhile, I will keep asking anyone and everyone to help us out:
Cars will continue to collide with larger trucks and ride under them when the too-weak underride guard buckles (or because there is no underride protection on the side of the truck)– with deadly consequences.
NHTSA will propose truck underride rules which are weaker than could be possible.
The trucking industry, for the most part, will wait to find out what new standards might be required of them for underride protection systems in 3 years or more.
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) will sponsor an Underride Roundtable at their Vehicle Research Center in Ruckersville, Virginia, on May 5, 2016.
What we hope will happen is that:
Cars will, in the near future, be better protected from deadly underride when they unfortunately & inevitably collide with larger trucks due to human error and road conditions because. . .
NHTSA will propose stronger underride rules which provide the best possible protection for travelers on the road because clear evidence will be available (from underride research & crash tests) for all to see that collisions with trucks should be more survivable than previously thought.
The trucking industry will take responsibility and voluntarily work to provide better underride protection for collisions with smaller passenger vehicles–without even waiting for improved federal requirements to go into effect.
The Underride Roundtable at IIHS, on May 5, 2016, will bring together experts in many fields who will propose solutions, which will contribute greatly toward realizing a vision of Zero Deaths and Zero Serious Injuries from truck underride crashes.
Be a part of this vision. Contribute to support underride research and crash tests.
Update, April 22, 2016: At this point, any donations given will not be for the crash test taking place at the Roundtable on May 5, but would be used for future research/testing.
For too long, this problem has been recognized but swept under a rug. It has not been considered a priority and money has not been earmarked to resolve the problem. If we don’t do something about it, who will?!
Watch the informative video below which I discovered yesterday from a 2012 investigative report on underride crashes:
The coordinator, Jared Bryson, for the Virginia Tech Senior Underride Design Team sent their end of semester report on the underride project to me yesterday.
I have not had time to read it fully yet (rather busy this weekend). But I did look it over quickly and am intrigued by their emphasis on a Wrap Around Bumper concept.
They are off for Christmas break. But rumor has it that NHTSA’s proposed underride rule for trailers is assigned reading before they come back after the holidays so that they can submit a Public Comment as a team.
“The student’s final fall presentation is tonight. I will forward the NPRM tomorrow, for reading over the break. We will discuss in length in January, and formulate a group or individual submissions.”
Good work, team. Looking forward to more good news. . .
First of all, let me say that I am grateful for the work which NHTSA has done on this problem and their willingness to address it at this time. Then, I have to admit that I am not an engineer. So it’s a good thing that we don’t have to depend on me to be the one to provide a thorough analysis of the recently released proposed rule for the improvement of tractor trailer rear impact protection standards and all of its technical pros and cons.
But I can provide a summary of the highlights included in the NPRM, along with some of my knee-jerk reactions as a mom of two girls, who perished due to a truck underride crash, and as an advocate for better underride protection.
These are my general reactions. . .
While this proposed rear underride rule is definitely a much-needed improvement to the existing standards, it does not appear to embrace a Vision Zero policy approach which would seek to reduce crash deaths and injuries whenever and however possible.
Many of the trailer manufacturers are already meeting Canadian standards, but IIHS research has shown that this is still not adequate to prevent underride in many crash scenarios–particularly offset crashes. http://www.iihs.org/ externaldata/srdata/docs/ sr4907.pdf
Also, when I look at what NHTSA is predicting in terms of lives saved by this proposed rule–1 out of the 125 annual reported PCI underride crash fatalities–I have to ask, “What about the other 124?!” And our daughters, AnnaLeah and Mary, were not even counted in the 2013 FARS crash data for PCI crash fatalities because our crash was listed as “Passenger Compartment Intrusion Unknown“!!!
(Note: See our FARS crash report in my Public Comment on the Single Unit Truck rear impact protection ANPRM and a discussion of the problem of underride crash fatality UNDERREPORTING and how it might impact the count of potential saved lives. . . http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0018)
In addition, there are many engineers around the globe who have come up with improved designs for underride protection, and there are many who are even now working on solutions that are stronger than the Canadian standards. They just have not yet been widely implemented or required.
It is, undoubtedly, an enormously significant step for NHTSA to acknowledge the need for stronger guards and to propose an improved guard. However, we do not want them to base the final rule merely on what will provide a “cost-effective” solution if, in fact, technology could be utilized which would save additional lives and prevent additional injuries.
One of our big concerns has been the apparently more vulnerable crash scenario when the smaller passenger vehicle hits the rear of the truck at the outer edges of the rear of the trailer. When Jerry and I visited Great Dane’s Research & Design Center in Savannah in June 2014, they pointed out that the company, Manac, which passed the 30% offset crash test had proven to be more vulnerable (although it still withstood the crash) at the 100% overlap test.
I reported on that in a previous blogpost in June 2014: “Great Dane, one of the major trailer manufacturers, observed that they passed all but one of the quasi-static crash tests—the narrow overlap. Great Dane also noted that their guard appeared to perform better on the full overlap test than Manac’s (which was the only company to pass all three tests in 2013). So Great Dane does not want to make a change which will strengthen one section of their guard but weaken another section. That’s understandable.” https://annaleahmary.com/2014/06/underride-guards-can-we-sit-down-at-the-table-together-and-work-this-out/
NHTSA’s comments in the NPRM indicate that they do not want to compromise safety in the more common crash scenario and so have proposed to concentrate on making that area of the trailer safer and do nothing, at least at this stage in the game, about the other weaker area where crashes are reportedly less common. (See p. 44, ” NHTSA is not convinced that improved protection in the less frequent 30 percent overlap crashes should come at the cost of adequate protection in the more common 50 and 100 percent overlap crashes.”)
I just have to ask, Is it really an Either/Or situation? Are we sure that we cannot reasonably address both problems?
We are hoping and working toward the possibility that the Public Comments which will be submitted, the underride research both underway and proposed, and the Underride Roundtable which will be taking place at the IIHS Vehicle Research Center on May 5, 2016, will help to refine this rule so that it results in the best possible protection.
As I reviewed the NPRM document for rear impact protection on tractor-trailers, I created my own 9-page document by copying and pasting some of the highlights of the proposed rule (page numbers are indicated in case you want to go to the original document for further details). You can read my summary of the proposed rule here: Highlights of the NPRM Rear Impact Guards, Rear Impact Protection December 2015 document
When we were headed from North Carolina to Texas, on May 4, 2013, and hit by a truck, not only did we lose our two youngest daughters, AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13), but we lost the joy of celebrating fully with four of our children as they became college graduates in Texas during that month of May.
So, this past weekend, we were looking forward to a more uneventful trip to celebrate one of our sons’ graduation on December 5, 2015, from Concordia University in Austin, Texas. Unexpectedly, it really became a whole lot more.
In fact, we thoroughly enjoyed Levi’s graduation ceremony as he walked across the stage summa cum laude, along with the party afterwards at a Peruvian restaurant where we were able to spend an enjoyable afternoon with his friends.
On our way back home to North Carolina, we stopped in Arlington to visit with our oldest daughter, Rebekah, and her husband, John. Instead of taking them out to dinner, they took us out to a holiday party hosted by her Tae Kwon Do instructor. There we had the pleasure of meeting with her friends and being there in person as she was presented with an unexpected award for her Indomitable Spirit.
The next day, as we started back toward North Carolina, I found myself going again through many emotions as I realized anew that this trip was the one we were supposed to be taking back home in May 2013 after a week of family celebrations–with AnnaLeah & Mary a part of our festivities and part of the crew returning home. I must admit that the trip was hard–with many memories triggered as we passed by landmarks.
Exit 128 was where the crash took place 2 hours before ours and 2 miles ahead of our crash at Exit 130. That caused the traffic backup which the truck driver did not notice in time and consequently hit our car pushing us into another truck.
This is where our crash took place–about where that truck is is where we ended up after being dragged under the truck ahead of us.
That night, as we decided to call it a day and stop for the night in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, I saw a sign for the University of Alabama and I knew that Birmingham was just down the road apiece. I thought, hey, that’s where Dean Sicking is! We had only talked with Dean on the phone and corresponded with him via email about his proposed Underride Research Project.
So, the next morning, before eating breakfast, I emailed Dean and his Research Assistant, Kevin Schrum, and said we were going to be driving through Birmingham and to give me a call if we could meet. A bit later, first Dean called to say he was going to be in a meeting that morning but he thought Kevin would be available. Then Kevin called and said that he would love to meet with us. We then had a very good meeting with Kevin and even recorded a few minutes of him talking about his passion for research and his confidence that much improvement could be made.
Kevin shared how he–like his mentor Dean Sicking–believes that the underride problem is not insurmountable and is hopeful that, with adequate backing, they could develop a step-by-step solution which could be adopted by the industry to ultimately reduce underride deaths to zero.
We were also able to talk about some ways in which they might be able to help us seek additional funding to back the research.
After such an eventful trip, I did not have much memory or battery left on my camera, but I was able to capture some of Kevin’s passion and ideas on this video:
As if all of this were not enough, shortly after we got back on the road, I discovered that I had missed a call from Mark Rosekind, the Administrator of NHTSA, who wanted to give me a heads up that they were releasing a NPRM (Notice of Proposed Rule Making) proposing that the requirements for rear underride guards on tractor trailers be improved!
We have been awaiting this news ever since the initial Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) was announced in July 2014 following our delivery of over 11,000 petition signatures requesting this on May 5, 2014. So this was unexpected excitement to add to our trip.
Not being at my computer hampered the following hours as I attempted to find out as much as I could. A summary of the proposed rule is that it will upgrade the requirements to match the Canadian standards (requiring them to withstand a crash at 35 mph rather than 30 mph), which many U.S. companies are already doing.
However, after a very cursory review of the 108 pages, as far as I can tell it does not address the problem with current standards failing in offset crashes (when the smaller vehicle does not hit dead center at the back of the truck). And the NPRM anticipates 1 saved life out of the 125 reported PCI underride crash fatalities on average annually. (Our crash is not reported as a PCI crash fatality but rather is listed in the federal crash data as “Passenger Compartment Intrusion Unknown“!) What about the other 124?
Take a moment to read Administrator Mark Rosekind’s thoughts on this important development in truck safety:
“Although the responsibility for both of these measures [this NPRM along with the ANPRM on Single Unit Trucks] lands on truck owners, that’s a function of vehicle design more than crash causality. We’ve also taken a number of steps over the years to prevent crashes resulting from driver behaviors, such as drunk driving, speeding, and distracted driving. And, we’re accelerating the spread of crash avoidance technologies such as automatic emergency braking and lane departure warning for passenger vehicles sold in the US.
“But, when we have a cost-effective solution that can reduce the risk of death or injury to passenger vehicle occupants in the event of a crash into the rear of a trailer or semitrailer, our commitment to safety obligates us to propose it. Which is why today we’re proposing this enhancement of current rear impact guard standards.” https://www.transportation.gov/fastlane/nhtsa-proposes-new-rear-impact-guard-standards
All in all, it was quite an eventful–albeit SAFE–trip!
I woke up this morning thankful that we live one day at a time and wondering how much different our world would be if each person knew the hope and peace and joy and love which was given to us with the birth of Heaven’s Perfect Lamb–and all that followed that momentous event.
Sharing lots of good news today: along with a grandbaby on the way, we can share that we just received the IRS Tax Exempt Status Approval Letter for AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety!
