Tag Archives: underride rulemaking

Good news from Australia: A Stronger Rear Underride Guard Rule Has Been Proposed!

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

Yesterday, I received good news on underride rulemaking from the Australian front. George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta were able to impact Standards Australia to issue a proposed rear underride rule which will be much stronger than their current rule (and than U.S. underride rules) and which will require a crash test.

Comments will be accepted through June 22, 2016 on the proposed standard: STANDARDS AUSTRALIA Rear Underride Proposed Rule

Minolta DSC
Mary would likely get excited!

The following is the letter which I received from Raphael Grzebieta, as well as the letter which he received from Standards Australia:

Hi Marianne,

Great news! Our Australian/New Zealand National Standard is now out for public comment before it is ratified as a standard for regulators (DOTs) and others in Australia and New Zealand.

We will be the first kids on the planet releasing such a standard that demands a crash test for an underrun barrier fixed to the rear of a heavy truck.

It has taken more than a quarter of a century (and many horrific deaths) but George and I have finally done it at last. We got it into the Standard.

There was some resistance by one of the DOTs but after some strong persuasion (by me and other DOTs, particularly NZ) at a couple of key Standards Committee meetings, all DOTs are on board with it now.

See attached – Section 7 and Appendix G.

Any one of you (and others – please email it out) are of course most welcome to submit a comment to Standards Australia. Good comments I hope.

All the best.

Kind Regards

Raphael

Raphael Grzebieta PhD (Professor, Road Safety)

Australian Naturalistic Driver Study, Lead Chief Investigator

www.ands.unsw.edu.au
The letter to Raphael from Standards Australia:

Dear Raphael Grzebieta,

Please note that the following draft is open for public comment:

Draft Number:

AS/NZS 3845.2

Title:

Roadside safety systems and devices – Temporary work sites, bollards, light poles and sign supports

Project Committee:

CE-033 Road Safety Barrier Systems

Public Comment Closing Date:

22/06/2016 23:59

You can view the draft and any incoming comments here after entering your Standards Hub login details.

All comments are to be submitted on the Standards Hub. Follow the link above, login and select the “New Comment” button.

If you have any queries regarding the submission of comments, please contact us on the details given below or contact the relevant Project Manager.

Kind Regards
Standards Australia

Level 10, 20 Bridge Street, Sydney NSW 2000, GPO Box 476 Sydney NSW 2001
P +61 2 9237 6171    FreeCall 1800 035 822  F +61 2 9237 6010  mail@standards.org.au
www.standards.org.au

Standards Australia is an independent, not-for-profit organisation, recognised
by the Australian Government as the peak non-government Standards body in Australia. Standards Australia develops internationally aligned Australian Standards® that deliver Net Benefit to Australia and is the Australian member of ISO and IEC,
Standards Australia is the Principal Sponsor of the Australian International Design Awards www.designawards.com.au

Regulators, manufacturers, & advocates need to read this engineer’s comment on truck underride.

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

Take note of a recent public comment on NHTSA’s truck underride rulemaking:

Comment_from_Seven_Hills_Engineering,_LLC

Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 1Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 2Perry Ponder Public Comment Underride Rulemaking April 2016 3

Perry Ponder from Seven Hills Engineering makes some timely observations. Anyone concerned about preventing deadly underride crashes will want to make sure that regulators and manufacturers are listening.

Here is the 1969 DOT document to which Perry refers–in which they indicate their intent to extend underride protection to the sides of large vehicles: 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2 1969 NPRM, Docket No. 1-11; Notice 2 p.2

Looking forward to a lively Underride Roundtable on May 5, 2016.

2

What kind of underride protection would be the result of a Vision Zero Rulemaking Policy?

 

Complaint about proposed underride guard regulation: Not Cost Effective

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

As soon as I read the Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Underride Protection on Single Unit Trucks, I could smell trouble.

To begin with, I have questions about NHTSA’s  figures, especially undercounting deaths from underride and the overlooking of possible saved lives from requiring improved underride standards on trailers.  https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=underreporting%20of%20underride%20deaths

Then, this is what I read in NHTSA’s explanation as they spelled out their cost/benefit analysis:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0001

“b. NHTSA’s Cost-Benefit Analysis (Overview)

As part of its evaluation of whether an underride guard requirement should apply to SUTs, NHTSA conducted a cost-benefit analysis of equipping SUTs with rear impacts guards. The analysis is set forth in Appendix A of this preamble, and an overview is provided below. We are requesting comments on the analysis. . . 

Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation (35) identifies $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

Actually, the VSL, as of June 17, 2015, is now $9.4 million. No matter because it still would not be anywhere near the supposed cost of requiring rear impact guards on SUTS (with, of course, certain exempt ones which are already able to prevent underride with their current equipment).

The logical outcome is that the industry will lobby against this rulemaking. I am concerned that cost may too likely win out over preventing countless persons from surviving a truck crash.   https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/rear-ending-a-truck-should-be-a-survivable-crash-why-isnt-it/

As an example of this, see the two most recent Public Comments on this ANPRM — posted November 2, 2015:

  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0066 “An agency rule may be arbitrary and capricious if the agency, ‘entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem’. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983). Without considering the costs to the roads and bridges, any factual determination of the costs and benefits of requiring single unit trucks to include read guards may be unreasonable and could demonstrate that the agency failed to consider an important aspect of the problem.”
  • http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=NHTSA-2015-0070-0065“7. By your own estimates in the ANPRM the rear impact guards are not cost effective and there are still additional costs with the proposal you have not included in the ANPRM.
    Guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation \35\ identifies
    $9.1 million as the value of a statistical life (VSL) to be used for
    Department of Transportation analyses assessing the benefits of
    preventing fatalities for the base year of 2012. Per this guidance, VSL
    in 2014 is $9.2 million. While not directly comparable, the preliminary
    estimates for rear impact guards on SUTs (minimum of $106.7 million per
    equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that these systems will
    not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).As in the analysis for Class 3-8 SUTs shown in Table 2, the
    preliminary estimates for rear impact guards on Class 4-8 SUTs (minimum
    of $55.2 million per equivalent lives saved) is a strong indicator that
    these systems will not be cost effective (current VSL $9.2 million).”

VSL Guidance-2013-2 DOT value of life

DOT VSL Guidance, as of June 17, 2015:  https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/VSL2015_0.pdf

Rebekah photo of crash

GR Crocodile_Tears for Heavy Vehicle Safety 2004

p.s. This battle has a history:

“1974 US Secretary of Transportation says deaths in cars that underride trucks would have to quadruple before underride protection would be considered cost beneficial.” 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=1974+US+Secretary+of+Transportation+says+deaths+in+cars+that+underride+trucks+would+have+to+quadruple+before+underride+protection+would+be+considered+cost+beneficial.