Tag Archives: underride roundtable

Underride Roundtable Phase 2: Crafting Recommendations to Present to NHTSA For Final Rule

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

Excerpt from a previous post: Avoid an impasse: Follow-up Underride Roundtable with Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting

It is my hope that we can pursue a recommendation, made by a participant of the Underride Roundtable during the afternoon panel discussion, and organize a group of affected individuals and organizations/companies to meet together and develop a proposal to take to NHTSA in order to bring about a comprehensive negotiated rulemaking.

Yesterday, I sent out an email to participants of the Underride Roundtable–asking them to attend Phase 2 of the Underride Roundtable. I am getting some positive response and also some request for clarification of my goal for this meeting. So, the remainder of this post will serve to clarify what I am proposing.

Basically, the point is that NHTSA–now that the formal Public Comment period has ended for the Rear Underride NPRM–is in the process of reviewing those comments and crafting a final underride rule. Once that “final” rule is published, we will need to determine if it would be an adequate rule.

My thought is that now is the time to be hammering out an agreement–amongst ourselves (trucking industry, manufacturers, consumers, safety advocates, engineers, underride victims)–about what is an acceptable underride rule rather than wait until after NHTSA has already prepared a final rule. This agreement would include all aspects of underride protection.

We want to see it taken care of now and not wait for years to get any additional significant improvement/saved lives. Then, too, from the trucking industry perspective, such a strategy could avoid a situation of continuous changes down the road when solutions are known to be possible now.

Actually, this is what I had hoped would come out of the original Roundtable–a specific recommendation to NHTSA. Since that did not occur, my suggestion is that we go ahead now and hold a second meeting which would allow us to prepare a proposal to present to NHTSA as a petition for a new, comprehensive underride rule.

I am prepared to work to get this organized and underway as soon as possible. I have already had quite a few people get back to me to let me know that they would like to participate in this meeting, which would not strictly speaking be Negotiated Rulemaking but a Facilitated Crafting of Best Practice Recommendations for Underride Protection.

I’m sure that some will react with skepticism that this could ever work. But I am willing to put the effort into pursuing an impossible dream with hopes of realizing an actually-attainable outcome–making underride crashes be a thing of the past.

And if you wonder what makes me think that I (our family) has the authority to bring this about. . . the other day, I was reviewing the OMB Circular A-4. a document from the White House Office of Management & Budget to the heads of Executive Agencies with guidelines for the analysis of proposed regulatory actions.

Basically, a federal regulation should be issued when there has been a failure of the private market to protect the public (decades of underride fatalities and serious injuries). There should be an assessment of the significance of the problem (hundreds of deaths/year–decade after decade), and it should be shown that a government intervention is likely to do more good than harm (industry has complied with previous rules & research has shown that stronger underride protection/rules is/are possible to save more lives ):

Before recommending Federal regulatory action, an agency must demonstrate that the proposed action is necessary. . . Executive Order 12866 states that “Federal agencies should promulgate only such regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law, or are made necessary by compelling need, such as material failures of private markets to protect or improve the health and safety of the public, the environment, or the well being of the American people. . .”

Executive Order 12866 also states that “Each agency shall identify the problem that it intends to address (including, where applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new agency action) as well as assess the significance of that problem.”. . . If the regulation is designed to correct a significant market failure, you should describe the failure both qualitatively and (where feasible) quantitatively. You should show that a government intervention is likely to do more good than harm. For other interventions, you should also provide a demonstration of compelling social purpose and the likelihood of effective action. OMB Circular a-4.pdf

Well, then, because the private market has failed to protect us from deadly underride and, furthermore, the government has failed to adequately regulate this safety defect, then it behooves me, as a citizen of this country, to initiate action to rectify this tragic oversight.

Note: If anyone would like to host this meeting at their facility, please let me know as soon as possible so we can get this underway.

Notes on the Rulemaking Process:

  1.  Links on The Rulemaking Process:  https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf, excerpts below. . .
  2. How do public comments affect the final rule? 
  3. What is the role of the President in developing a final rule?

Negotiated Rulemaking

Avoid an impasse: Follow-up Underride Roundtable with Negotiated Rulemaking Meeting

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

It is my hope that we can pursue a recommendation, made by a participant of the Underride Roundtable during the afternoon panel discussion, and organize a group of affected individuals and organizations/companies to meet together and develop a proposal to take to NHTSA in order to bring about a comprehensive negotiated rulemaking.

I am willing to do the organizing necessary to bring this meeting about. First of all, we need a location for the meeting and therefore I am asking if anyone would like to step forward and host this Negotiated Rulemaking Underride Roundtable. Once that is arranged, then we can proceed with selecting a date, developing an agenda, and sending out the notice.

After our family was instrumental in getting underride rulemaking initiated in July 2014, I realized that, though we had made it over one hurdle, in reality  the battle had only begun. I became concerned that the cost/benefit analysis, which had so often compromised past underride rulemaking, was still a very real threat.

Earlier this week, I wrote a post explaining why I think that a negotiated rulemaking process could be important in overcoming compromise and a possible stalemate (“a situation in which further action or progress by opposing or competing parties seems impossible.”): Is Cost/Benefit Analysis Appropriate for Life & Death Matters? Were their lives worth saving?

The participants, of the May 5, 2016, Underride Roundtable at IIHS, would be qualified to help meet the mandate given to NHTSA to prepare a thorough Cost Effectiveness Analysis (CEA) of the underride issue: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) recently issued Circular A-4 guidance on regulatory analyses, requiring federal agencies to “prepare a CEA for all major rulemakings for which the primary benefits are improved public health and safety to the extent that a valid effectiveness measure can be developed to represent expected health and safety outcomes.”  Appendix G–Health Based Cost Effectiveness Analysis.pdf

A Negotiated Rulemaking Underride Roundtable could provide a format for development of a more effective and comprehensive underride rule, which would cover all the bases with existing and proposed technology to save as many lives as is humanly possible. It would also get the manufacturing companies out of limbo so that they can make long-term plans and move forward with designing and producing safer products. Win/Win. N’est-ce pas?

Now that the formal comment period is over for the NPRM on Rear Underride on Trailers, the next step is for NHTSA to review the comments and develop a final rule. Let’s strike while the iron is hot and present them with a unified recommendation to enhance their efforts. Before it’s too late.

Let’s send the message to NHTSA that we are all willing to do the work to bring about an acceptable, all-inclusive underride rule.

VA Tech guard installed
Virginia Tech underride guard installed by Senior Design Team, April 2016

See other posts related to the Underride Roundtable here: Tag Archives: Underride Roundtable

AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety is ready to roll. How about you?

8 Picture 657LOGO AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety

Other Research Which Should Not Be Ignored in Current Underride Rulemaking

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

NHTSA, in the Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation of the NPRM issued in December 2015 for Rear Underride on Trailers, requested information about underride guard crash tests at higher speeds (than the 35 mph currently being proposed). This is what they said,

We recognize, however, that benefits may accrue from underride crashes at speeds higher than 56 km/h (35 mph), if, e.g., a vehicle’s guard exceeded the minimum performance requirements of the FMVSS. NHTSA requests information that would assist the agency in quantifying the possible benefits of CMVSS No. 223 rear impact guards in crashes with speeds higher than 56 km/h (35 mph) . See: NPRM Rear Impact Guards, Rear Impact Protection December 2015 document; A Summary of Some of the Highlights

Here are some additional links to underride research around the world which should be taken into consideration when developing improved underride designs and standards.

  1. Evaluation of Energy Absorbing Pliers Underride Guards for Rear and Sides of Large Trucks
  2. DEVELOPMENT OF NEW UNDERRIDE GUARDS FOR ENHANCEMENT OF COMPATIBILITY BETWEEN TRUCKS AND CARS
  3. NHTSA NCAP #00248 Truck Underride Guard (Quinton Hazell Guard)

These links supplement the more lengthy list of underride research, which I posted previously here: Underride Roundtable To Consider Underride Research From Around the Globe.

Side note to Cost/Benefit Analysis Question: The fallacy behind the Australian fed. gov’t’s CBA.

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

Here’s a little side note on the cost/benefit analysis (CBA) debate from around the globe in Australia:

The fallacy behind the Australian Federal Government’s CBA is that the cost to the tax payer is minimal to introduce a new mandatory standard requiring crashworthy underrun barriers.

The cost is in effect born by the truck manufacturers which the industry accepts.

That’s the irony of the situation.

At most it might add a fraction of a cent to the cost of your Corn Flakes which I am sure if presented to consumers, they would gladly pay if it saved lives.

The disgusting truth to the Australian Federal Regulator’s CBA is that a ‘virtual’ cost has been added by them, i.e. cost to the industry.

That is being touted by the Federal Government as being more important than the well-being or life of a human being.

Raphael Grzebieta, Professor, Road Safety

Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 169

Truck Trailer Manufacturers Ass’n “Reminds” NHTSA: Side Guards Are “Not Cost-Effective” Says Who?

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , ,

Yesterday morning, I checked my email and saw that there was a new Public Comment posted on the Federal Register regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Underride Guards.

I quickly went to the site and saw that the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association had posted a comment (see their comments in the PDFs below). Apparently our Underride Roundtable two weeks ago at IIHS has spurred them to spell out the steps which have been taken over the years to squash side guards from being mandated and manufactured to prevent smaller passenger vehicles from riding under trucks upon collision with the side of the larger vehicle.

TTMA_Side_Impact_Main_Comment_2016-05-13

TTMA_Side_impact_Exhibits_A-D_2016-05-13

Their rationale: Cost/Benefit Analysis shows that adding side guard to trucks is “not cost-effective”.

“In its 1991 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation of proposed guards for rear underride, NHTSA’s Plans and Policy Office of Regulatory Analysis stated: “Combination truck side underride counter-measures have been determined not to be cost-effective.” [Docket I-11; Notice 9; Comment 002, page 15 (emphasis added) {by TTMA}].”

Translate that:  Not enough people die from side underride crashes to justify the money it would take to add this safety feature. If this attitude and rulemaking policy is allowed to continue unabated, then innocent, unsuspecting travelers on our road will continue to experience preventable underride crashes and receive a Sentence of Death by Preventable Underride. And no one will be held responsible for that–not the trailer manufacturers, not the trucking companies, not the truck drivers (unless perhaps they were blamed for the collision itself), not the regulators, not the insurers; I repeat, no one!!! No one will be penalized for this despicable, unconscionable action–except, of course, the victims.

And, yes, TTMA is repeating the oft-heard industry argument that the solution is to concentrate on Crash Avoidance Technology instead–as if it were an either/or not a both/and question!

Mom Says $100 Truck Tweak Could Have Saved Her Daughters

Meanwhile, people will continue to needlessly die — like AnnaLeah and Mary — and people like me will undergo tremendously traumatic ongoing  grief multiplied exponentially by the anger and frustration of knowing that it might well have been prevented were it not for the endless opposition to implementing solutions which are readily available.

I helped roll up the side guard designed by Aaron Kiefer last month and it did not seem to weigh that much. I talked to Aaron yesterday and he estimates that his side guard, once in mass production, might weigh about 175 pounds. Currently, his  prototype, when combining the weight of it on both sides of the truck, weighs in at around 300 pounds. And what percentage of the total allowed 80,000 lbs. is that anyway? (.4%?)

And, by the way, look at this amazing crash test of Aaron’s side guard, which I witnessed in North Carolina less than a month ago (April 30, 2016):

Somebody, please get me an audience with President Obama. I need him to tell me to my face that it is not a matter of life & death for him to adopt a National Vision Zero Goal, to establish a White House Vision Zero Task Force, and to sign a Vision Zero Executive Order which will pave the way for Vision Zero Rulemaking at DOT.

Of course, what I would really like to have happen is to speak with the President, have him catch the vision and promise me that he will actually take those actions. Wouldn’t that be exciting!

However, if President Obama does nothing about the traffic safety travesty, TTMA has clearly shown us what to expect: Continued opposition and resistance to efforts to make trucks safer to drive around.

I truly hope that I am wrong and that the outcome of the Underride Roundtable will have made a huge difference in the future of underride protection. However, it appears that, if TTMA has anything to say about it, we should expect that any new underride rule issued will either be opposed or be unchanged and, therefore, weak and ineffective.  When it is Technologically Unnecessary for that to be so.

And then who will be ethically responsible for the continued carnage on the highways of this great country?! That’s what I want to know.

IMG_4465Vision Zero Petition screenshot 001

Underride Roundtable To Consider Underride Research From Around the Globe

Media Coverage of the first Truck Underride Roundtable held at IIHS on May 5, 2016

 

Somebody, please get me an audience with President Obama to respond to my Vision Zero Petition!

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, , , , , ,

As I was contemplating whether to go next week to Ralph Nader’s Breaking Through Power: A Historic Civic Mobilization, I checked my email and saw that there was a new Public Comment posted on the Federal Register regarding the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Underride Guards.

I quickly went to the site and saw that the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association had posted a comment (see their comments in the PDFs below). Apparently our Underride Roundtable two weeks ago at IIHS has spurred them to spell out the steps which have been taken over the years to squash side underride guards from being mandated and manufactured.

TTMA_Side_impact_Exhibits_A-D_2016-05-13

TTMA_Side_Impact_Main_Comment_2016-05-13

The rationale: Cost/Benefit Analysis shows that adding side guard protection from underride of trucks by passenger vehicles is not cost-effective.

“In its 1991 Preliminary Regulatory Evaluation of proposed guards for rear underride, NHTSA’s Plans and Policy Office of Regulatory Analysis stated: “Combination truck side underride counter-measures have been determined not to be cost-effective.” [Docket I-11; Notice 9; Comment 002, page 15 (emphasis added) {by TTMA}].”

Translate that: If this attitude and rulemaking policy is allowed to continue unabated, then innocent, unsuspecting travelers on our road will continue to experience preventable underride crashes and receive a Sentence of Death by Preventable Underride. And no one will be held responsible for that!!!

And, yes, TTMA is repeating the oft-heard industry argument that the solution is to concentrate on Crash Avoidance Technology instead–as if it were an either/or not a both/and question!

Meanwhile, people will continue to needlessly die — like AnnaLeah and Mary — and people like me will undergo tremendously traumatic  grief multiplied exponentially by the anger and frustration of knowing that it might well have been prevented were it not for the endless opposition to implementing solutions which are readily available.

And, no, I cannot imagine that it would have to weigh the 750 pounds which they claim it will (which the NHTSA cost/benefit analysis is based upon, by the way). I helped roll up the side guard designed by Aaron Kiefer last month and it did not weigh that much. I just talked to Aaron and he estimates that his side guard, once in mass production, might weigh about 175 pounds. Currently, his  prototype, when combining the weight of it on both sides of the truck, weighs in at 204 pounds.

And, by the way, look at this crash test of Aaron’s side guard, which I witnessed in North Carolina less than a month ago:

Somebody, please get me an audience with President Obama next week (now I have to go to that conference). I need him to tell me to my face that it is not a matter of life & death for him to adopt a National Vision Zero Goal, to establish a White House Vision Zero Task Force, and to sign a Vision Zero Executive Order which will pave the way for Vision Zero Rulemaking at DOT.

Of course, what I would really like to have happen is to speak with him, have him catch the vision and promise me that he will actually take those actions. Wouldn’t that be exciting!

However, if President Obama does not do so, TTMA has clearly shown us that nothing will be any different and any new underride rule issued will likely continue to be weak and ineffective.  When it is Technologically Unnecessary for that to be so. And then who will be ethically responsible for the continued carnage on the highways of this great country?!

That’s what I want to know.

IMG_4465Vision Zero Petition screenshot 001

Underride Roundtable To Consider Underride Research From Around the Globe

Underride roundtable generates awareness (Rocky Mount Telegram)

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety,

Ever since I received a phone call in May 2013 from Brie Handgraaf, a reporter with The Rocky Mount Telegram, she has been covering our story and caring about our family and our journey of safety advocacy.

Here Brie covers the Underride Roundtable: Underride roundtable generates awareness

Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 024 Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 032 Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 080Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 034

Additional media coverage of the Underride Roundtable:  Media Coverage of the first Truck Underride Roundtable held at IIHS on May 5, 2016

VA Tech Student Engineers Shine in Underride Roundtable Presentation

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

Almost a year ago, I was developing a couple of ideas: 1) an Underride Roundtable and a Student Underride Design Project. I was looking in my email archives tonight and found a June 24, 2015, email addressing those two projects. I realized then how much was accomplished in less than a year with the organizing of the Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016, and the presentation by the Virginia Tech Senior Underride Design Team at that event.

I have pasted that June 24, 2015, email at the end of this post.

See here how the Underride Roundtable idea became a reality:  https://annaleahmary.com/tag/underride-roundtable/

View the entire Underride Roundtable here in two archived webcast sessions, https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1100569, including:

See here how the Virginia Tech Student Underride Design Project became a reality: 
VA Tech guard installed VA Tech Team with installed guard on rig VA Tech Underride Sine BeamUnderride Roundtable May 5, 2016 093 Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 092 Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 089Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 105 Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 103Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 153Virginia Tech Student Underride Design Project Presentation
And now I would like to publicly thank the Virginia Tech Senior Underride Design Dream Team. . .
Dear Wayne Carter, Daniel Carrasco, Andrew Pitt, Sean Gardner, Kristine Adriano. and Brian Smith,
     You did a fine thing by taking on the Underride Guard problem for your Senior Design Project. And then you did a fantastic job of working as a team to address the underride problem and come up with a really cool, outside-the-box design solution.
     I think that we were all impressed by your presentation at the Underride Roundtable. I hope that someone will make good use of your design work and use your ideas to create a safer guard. And I hope that what you have experienced this last year will continue to impact your ability to creatively engineer meaningful change.
    I know that AnnaLeah, who would have been about your age now (she would have turned 21 on May 15), would have been impressed. And Mary would have definitely thought it cool and awesome–what you all have done to make a difference!
     I was so glad to meet you at the Underride Roundtable at IIHS. I hope that you will keep track of the underride issue as you each go your separate ways upon graduation. And I hope to hear from you.
     I know that your Virginia Tech advisors, Jared Bryson and Robin Ott, are very proud of you. And I am thankful for their work in supporting you.
I will be forever grateful,
Marianne Karth
Picture 667Picture 275
Here’s the email which I mentioned from June 24, 2015, which got the ball rolling:

     I wanted to update you all on some things which have developed following our phone conversation.

     A year ago (June 2014), I became convinced that, if only engineers around the globe put their mind to it, better underride protection could be developed:
     Then, NHTSA issued the rulemaking:
     I continued to write on the topic and contact people about these ideas:
     Ted Scott, with ATA, responded positively to the idea of an Underride Roundtable, Jeff Plungis did an extensive article on underride: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-16/dead-girls-mom-says-100-truck-fix-may-have-saved-them.html.
     I began communicating with Mark Rosekind about the topic and John Lannen and I periodically discussed the possibilities.
     After we began the planning for an Underride Roundtable, I heard about Dean Sicking’s success in making NASCAR raceways safer with his SAFER BARRIER: http://www.uab.edu/sicking/dean-sicking . I contacted him and asked if he would be interested in participating in the Roundtable. He responded positively and, in fact, began describing how he thought that he could apply some things which he has learned and design a more effective underride prevention system. I continued corresponding with him and asked him to prepare a project proposal, including a budget.
     I have attached his proposal for your review. He cannot guarantee that it will work but is quite confident. It would take about $138,040 for his research team at UA-Birmingham to do the complete project including crash testing, with design & simulation about $61,048, and with design, simulation and building of the prototype about $88,000. IIHS has told me that if they thought the prototype showed promise, they could crash test it “on our dime.”  And Dean thinks that he could have the project completed in time to report on it at the Roundtable.
     Our family has just filed articles of incorporation to set up a non-profit, AnnaLeah & Mary for Truck Safety, in order to be able to receive tax-deductible contributions for this project. We are making plans to raise funds–including letters to about 60 trucking companies and social media “crowd funding.”
     In addition, last week, I received an email from David Zuby at IIHS. He said that he had been thinking about the email which I sent out last winter about the idea of a college student competition for underride design. He had thought that it was a good idea at the time and had been talking with Bob Sechler at SAE (Society for Automotive Engineers). He said that Bob didn’t really think that it fit in with their usual projects but was willing to listen to the idea. I emailed Bob last week–who was out of town–and heard back from him yesterday afternoon. He is willing to have SAE (after approved by his committee) promote the idea of senior design project to the faculty and students in their contact list. He said that if they were to do a competition, then a reward would be appropriate and might take longer to get underway.
      Prior to speaking with him, on Monday morning, I had googled some terms when naming our non-profit and ran across Virginia Tech’s truck research activities. So I emailed Rich Hanowski there and he referred me to Jared Bryson, Senior Researcher Mechanical Systems Group Leader. I emailed Jared and he immediately had lots of ideas about it and said that if he contacted his department now and we could have a general plan by August 24, then he could pitch it as a topic for a student to select for the 2015/16 school year at Virginia Tech as a Senior Design Project. He said that April would be better as a time for the Roundtable if we wanted to be able to have the student present their paper at the Roundtable.
     Bob Sechler said that if we want him to promote the student design project (across the country) then we need to get him a proposal with background information and requirements. Jared had wondered if we want to do rear and side. I said rear this year because of the current rulemaking. There is always next year. He also wondered about whether to have them look at the side of the trailer behind the back axle.
     I had also emailed Ted Scott at ATA last week to let him know that we are working on the Roundtable and about the student competition idea. He suggested that I contact Brenda Lantz at the Upper Great Plains Transportation Research Institute. I spoke with her and she was going to be talking with her Transportation Board, Apparently, if they decided to do something like that, then they could widely advertise it. I still have not heard back from her on that.
This is what I need to know about how to proceed:
  1. I need help developing a proposal for the student design project–especially what we are asking them to build, project requirements.
  2. Would we like them to present their papers at the Roundtable?
  3. Can any money be provided to help them attend the Roundtable?
  4. Or would we put out a request for papers and select  1 or more for presentation (and pay for them to attend)?
  5. Is it crazy to have multiple organizations promoting the idea to students?
  6. Who should be the ones to judge the papers if we go that way?
  7. Could we somehow fund one or more to be developed into a prototype?
  8. Could we have someone like IIHS then crash test any prototypes?
  9. What are your thoughts on all of these possibilities?
      In addition, in my conversation with David Friedman, I came away with the impression that any research presented to NHTSA in the coming year would be seriously reviewed and could have impact on strengthening the rules if there is data and evidence to justify it–particularly if there is any kind of peer review and/or verification of the results, e.g., through crash testing by someone else like IIHS.
     Please get back to me as soon as possible on all of this. As Bob Sechler mentioned, we need to move quickly on this in order to catch the interest of engineering seniors. He suggested that we appeal to them by inviting them to work on a project which would be interesting, challenging, and valuable: they could make a difference.
Marianne

A grieving dad got the attention of the trucking industry & made a difference.

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

Rather than wait for a stronger underride rule to be proposed, Jerry Karth, in early 2014, determined to challenge the truck industry to voluntarily step up and strengthen underride protection on trucks.

He wrote letters, first of all, to the major trailer manufacturers — some of whom had been tested earlier by IIHS. He told them about our crash story — how AnnaLeah (17) and Mary (13) through no fault of their own were killed by truck underride which might have been prevented if the truck they collided with had had better underride guards.

Then, soon after those letters were out the door, Jerry had several more lists of trucking companies, who either purchased or leased trailers. He proceeded to write letters to those companies — again telling them our crash story and making sure that they understood the inadequacy of guards designed to satisfy the current U.S. underride standard, or even the Canadian one for that matter.

Jerry asked them to look into the matter — even providing them with copies of the IIHS Status Reports which had articles on the underride issue. He asked them to make sure that they were getting their trailers from manufacturers which provided the best protection possible. He received letters, emails, and phone calls indicating that the companies were appreciative of the information provided to them.

Then, several months ago, Jerry got a call from Greer Woodruff, VP of Safety, Security, & Driver Personnel at J.B. Hunt a transport company. Greer was calling to tell Jerry that JB Hunt had purchased 4,000 new trailers in January 2016 from Wabash who had recently manufactured safer underride guards–having passed the IIHS 30% overlap crash test.

Underride Roundtable TimelineUnderride Roundtable May 5, 2016 141Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 169Underride Roundtable May 5, 2016 007

See my posts with exciting developments on this front:

And later, during the afternoon panel discussion at the Underride Roundtable at IIHS on May 5, Jerry asked Mark Roush from Vanguard (a trailer manufacturer) what had motivated them to produce their recently-strengthened underride guards. This was what he found out:

“We had no idea if there would be a safety marketplace for large trucks when we began our crash tests,” Matthew Brumbelow, an IIHS senior research engineer who has extensively studied truck underride crashes, shared with the audience. “We at the Institute have been really encouraged by the response from trailer manufacturers.”

Mark Roush, vice president of engineering with Vanguard, participated in the afternoon panel discussion. Vanguard is one of the trailer manufacturers that voluntarily improved their underride guards. Roush credited IIHS research and the Karth family’s advocacy for raising awareness of the underride problem and ways to address it.

“As far as we knew we were producing trailers to what we thought was the highest regulatory standard, and then the IIHS test came in and made us aware of what was happening,” Roush said. “Three of our largest customers forwarded letters from you [Karth] asking us to do more.” The Karths personally wrote the largest trailer makers seeking their help in building better rear guards.

David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer, wrapped up the day with a call for continued cooperation and research.

“The one thing I hope everyone takes away from this is that there has been a lot of progress in recent years on underride crashes, and there will be more ahead. We heard from Virginia Tech students who are about to graduate and are already thinking about how to make underride guards better. And you heard from Matt Brumbelow about how guards are being designed to prevent types of underride crashes that weren’t addressed before. We are optimistic that we can solve this problem working together.” See more at: IIHS: Truck underride roundtable addresses problem of deadly crashes

It needs to be said, as I have stated before, that the positive progress made by the trailer manufacturers voluntarily — though it should be appreciated — should, nevertheless, not be allowed to stand as the end of the line. Unless they pass crash tests at higher speeds, the manufacturers need to get back to the drawing board and find ways to make their trucks safer all around (including on the sides and at the front) and at higher speeds.

And, unless trucks currently on the road are retrofitted and Single Unit Trucks become included in underride standards, way too many people will continue to die on our roads from preventable underride.

Nurenberg, Paris, Heller & McCarthy ALMFTS facebook banner

I think that it would make Mary & AnnaLeah smile to think that their lives were the impetus for saving others from an untimely end and untold heartache.

Never forgotten

To read additional posts which I wrote as a follow-up to the Underride Roundtable, go here:  Underride Roundtable Follow-up Posts

Urgent Underride Discussion of Deceleration Forces/High Speeds. Don’t Dawdle.

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , ,

While I was indeed encouraged by the incredible interaction and communication at the Underride Roundtable, I am well aware of just how much still needs to happen in order to make trucks safe to drive around.

View the entire event here: https://event.webcasts.com/starthere.jsp?ei=1100569

Media Coverage of the first Truck Underride Roundtable held at IIHS on May 5, 2016

I summarized some of my initial reactions here: 4 out of 8 Major Trailer Manufacturers Have Passed All IIHS Tests; Where do we go from here?

I’d like to address the urgent need for progress to be made promptly to improve underride protection, specifically to design and crash test for higher speeds than 35 mph. I asked about it at least two times during the Roundtable. And, at one point, someone from the trucking industry raised the concern about deceleration forces causing injury at higher speeds.

This is an issue which pushes my button — especially because I have heard over and over that prevention of underride is possible at higher speeds — and I have written about it in the past:

The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association Reaction to IIHS Report: What is the Truth?

Setting the Record Straight: “Too Rigid” Underride Guards is a Myth

It was bothering me after the Underride Roundtable because of the simple fact that misunderstanding of this issue could be a major obstacle to NHTSA requiring and the industry voluntarily producing stronger underride guards.

So, I emailed some people about my concern over this issue. (No, not me!) This is what I wrote to them:

I would like cleared up, once and for all, the misconception — if it is one — that deceleration forces would cause unintended injuries if the guards were made too strong. It pushes my button when I hear someone authoritatively say it — when I’m not sure that they are basing it on anything other than hearsay. I appreciated what Aaron Kiefer said in response to the comment made at the Roundtable about this and I would like it addressed so that it does not remain as one of the obstacles to more effective protection.

I had asked several people in the public health/injury prevention fields to attend but mostly they thought that underride was not their area of expertise. I, on the other hand, am convinced that we need the public health/medical people providing input. 

As I have said many times, what people in the industry are saying does not make sense to me on many levels, including the fact that I survived a horrific truck crash and did so, as far as I am concerned, because I did not experience PCI/underride myself. I had many months of limping and leg cramps at night and painful neck and back tension probably due to whiplash and traumatic muscle memory. But that is all gone now and physically I am in great shape.

 

Here are some emails which I received in reply to my search for the truth of this matter:

From Raphael Grzebieta, Australia, who has worked to upgrade the Australian/New Zealand underride standards:

George and I heard that BS statement from car manufacturers (in particular, from a prominent engineer who was head of Australia’s Commodore vehicle design team) more than two decades ago when we were highlighting the appalling crashworthiness of the Australian family sedan vehicle the Holden, mainly  because of strength deficiencies and weaknesses (poor spot welding, etc.) of the structure surrounding the occupants. This GM-Holdens engineer’s argument was back then: make them too strong and you wind up killing people inside because of the large inertia forces. He claimed structural components have got to be weaker to crush and crumple to absorb energy and make the vehicle decelerate at a lower rate – it’s an old defence tactic used by manufacturers to obfuscate crashworthiness design flaws. The trouble with his position was that they made them so weak it killed people because of massive intrusion into the occupant space.

Well, the more ethically responsible companies such as Mercedes and Volvo along with the NCAPS around the world and IIHS has proven, with all of their excellent work and testing, that this is a completely false assumption. It also violates the crashworthiness principles set down by De Haven almost half a century ago.

De Haven’s principles are:

  1. The package should not open up and spill its content and should not collapse under expected conditions of force and thereby expose objects inside to damage,
  1. Packaging structures which shield the inner container must not be made of brittle or frail materials; they should resist force by yielding and absorbing energy applied to the outer container so as to cushion and distribute the impact forces and thereby protect the inner container,
  1. Articles contained in the package should be held and immobilised inside the outer structure, and
  2. Wadding, blocks or means for holding an object inside a shipping container must transmit the forces applied to the container to the strongest parts of the contained objects.

(see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254791228_Rollover_Crash_safety_Characteristics_and_issues, where we discuss De Haven’s principles concerning Rollover Crashworthiness – another ‘wicked problem’ in crashworthiness not unlike the under-ride problem in terms of poor regulations and manufacturer’s resistance to change)

The principles of our Australian AS3845–Part 2 standard relating to underrun barriers are:

  1. Ensure there is a good crashworthiness interface (flat surface that is not far off the ground – see ‘Interface Compatibility’: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242129393_Crashworthy_systems-_a_paradigm_shift_in_road_safety_design and ‘Incompatible Vehicle Systems’ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237219017_Crashworthy_systems_-_a_paradigm_shift_in_road_design_part_II ) between the vehicle crashing into the back of the truck and the truck’s rear end (no spears or guillotines) that is capable of sustaining the crash forces generated (25 to 35 tons depending on speed).
  1. Use the car (the package) with crumple zones, restraints and seat belts (wadding, blocks and means for holding the object {human}) as the device that dissipates the kinetic energy of the vehicle crashing into the back of the truck. IIHS and NCAP tests have already ensured the occupant compartment (the cocoon) does not fail structurally so long as there are no line loading (guillotine effect) from the rear tray above the front sill level ( no lateral loads applied to the green house portion of the roof structure). Crumple zones outside the cocoon protecting the occupants, along with the restraints and airbags within the cocoon, provide the required deceleration ride down for the occupants to survive the crash. However, if the under ride barrier is not strong enough to withhold the crash loads, and the interface collapses, we get serious intrusion into the occupant cocoon survival space.  

So, in summary, what [the industry] is saying is simply plain wrong and tell him so from us, the world experts down under!

TTMA are still stuck back in the dark ages pre start-up of NCAP and IIHS crash testing facilities and rating days, spreading unfounded mythology like other manufacturers did in those olden days. It will cost them dearly if they try that argument on in a defect law suit.

They should simply suck it up and start redesigning the truck under run barriers to be crashworthy. One can design an energy absorbing underride barrier but that takes a lot of design effort. It also must restrict the stroke to a certain limit so that the rear tray does not intrude into the occupant cocoon survival space. Probably a lot of effort for little gain. 

Dynamic crash testing along the lines of what IIHS have done and what we are proposing is essential.

Raph

And here is a response to my question from Jared Bryson, advisor to the Virginia Tech engineering students who took on underride for their senior research project:

Marianne,

I found that comments at the end of the round table did not sit particularly well with me.  Allow me voice my thoughts, in two directions.

G loading:

1)      In a deceleration (single axis , eyes-out) a typical individual can sustain an incredible g load over short durations.  Military and Aviation have a wealth of information in this respect (Einband and Wikipedia images shown below). 

2)      Typical impacts are sub-one second.  As a more cited example, the IIHS Belair v. Malibu appears to be in the neighborhood of 150 ms duration. 

3)      In a linear model, stopping from 50mph in 3 ft (less than 1/10 second) should generate 28 G.  30 G is survivable in this timeframe.  Bear in mind reality is not linear, but a model below injury threshold is a good starting point.   

Survivable speeds:

1)    Extrapolating from Matt’s presentation: The old Vangaurd passed 100% @35 mph.  In the buck test, Wabash can withstand 33% more force and absorb more energy.  The Wabash should be able to withstand a 38 mph impact.  Not much of a design stretch for 40 mph.

2)   Robert Mazurowski’s presentation showed a mean of 44 mph in rear underride for trailers and SUTs (Slide 12).

3)    IIHS’s 50th anniversary showed the wonderful advance in light vehicle safety systems between 1959 and 2009, at 40 mph.   

Jared

Jared Bryson chart 2 chart from Jared Bryson

When I asked Jared to summarize his thoughts, this is what he shared with me:

Marianne,

Manac, Wabash, Vanguard, and Stoughton each offer a partial overlap capable design that is well received by industry. 

This industry shift in underride design combines improved structure with features facilitating safety systems in modern passenger vehicles. 

There is evidence these new designs are not only viable at higher speeds, but survivable

Please feel free to disseminate any of our conversations.

Last night, I was mulling over some other comments from the roundtable.

Stopping with the engine block:

1)      For decades, automobile design has intended for the engine block to eject below the passenger cabin in a severe frontal impact.  This is to prevent engine PCI.

2)      Limiting underride is imperative, as underride can limit this engine ejection vector.

3)      Not impacting the bumper structure bypasses the active safety systems found in modern vehicles (airbags, pre-tensioners, energy absorbing crumple zones).  This translates to more severe loading for occupants.

Stopping a car with the A-pillars:

1)      The short deceleration distance would create a fatal g load.

2)      Structure to sustain this type of loading would require a radical new approach to automotive design.

3)      Again, not impacting the bumper structure bypasses the active safety systems found in modern vehicles…

Jared.

I raised my hand countless times to ask a question at the Roundtable. Push, push, push. . . challenge, question. Surely there are some who think that I am a thorn in their side.

But when it comes right down to it, most of those tasked with the responsibility of doing something about the underride problem (thankfully) do not have that inner voice reminding them that every ounce of patience with the status quo, every moment of pausing to be thankful for that bit of progress which has been made, is torture because it feels like a compromise is being made to stop forward momentum–thus giving up on the Best Possible Protection and sacrificing the life of yet one more underride victim as the Crash Death Clock continues to tick. Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.

Yes, a lot of work needs to be done by many parties involved in this process. But if we were all to wait another year for another Roundtable (or for a new rule to be issued) before moving ahead with working diligently on this problem, that would be hundreds of more people sacrificed for no good reason. And we’ve had enough of that for too many years.

Just ask those who have already lost a loved one because of misconceptions or outright resistance. I’m sure they might tell you, “Please don’t dawdle. Preventing underride is an urgent matter!”

Responsibility