There is no trucker who would want to be a part of a tragic under-ride crash and there is no just-lawmaker who would feel content with having the opportunity to do something and remain silent and out of the conversation.

That’s what I read in a recent blogpost. If only the trucking industry would recognize that fact, re-examine some of their wrong-headed thinking, and get behind the win/win STOP Underrides! Bill.

I’d like to take a stab at correcting some of the misunderstanding floating around out there about the STOP Underrides! Bill. I’m concerned that “words without facts,” if left unchallenged, is propaganda with power to confuse the uninformed.

(Note: I know that this post is lengthy and not the easiest to read format. I wanted to get it published before heading back to D.C. So I will try and edit it to correct errors in links and messy format as soon as possible.  Thank you for your patience.)

So what words have been said about the STOP Underrides! Bill?

`From the OOIDA Letter of  Opposition:

• OOIDA is the largest trade association representing the views and interests of small-business truckers and professional drivers. We have more than 160,000 members nationwide, all of which would be directly impacted by S. 665. This raises an interesting question. I have personally asked the management of OOIDA to provide me with information about how many owner-operators own their own trailer. He said that he did not have those numbers. Although numbers (1.2 trailer/owner-operator) are listed online, I have seen no documentation that this is the case. I’d love to have proof of this claim but, until then, it does not seem valid to make a blanket statement that all of the OOIDA members would be directly impacted without spelling out what that means.
• Over the last several decades, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has considered numerous options involving underride guards, but has consistently concluded federal mandates would be impractical and costly, thus outweighing any perceived safety benefits. The reintroduction of the Stop Underrides Act intentionally disregards this reality and ignores the safety, economic, and operational concerns we raised with you last Congress. Many Public Comments were submitted to the Federal Register, in response to NHTSA proposed underride rulemaking, which raised questions about the validity of the NHTSA cost/benefit analysis. Additionally, Senator Gillibrand responded to all of the concerns, which OOIDA raised in their January 2018 letter, in a letter which she sent to OOIDA on March 16, 2018. Read her reply here.
• To be clear, OOIDA supports efforts to improve highway safety. In fact, we agree the existing rear underride guard on trailers – commonly referred to as a “DOT Bumper” in the United States – could be enhanced to reduce the risk of rear underrides for personal automobiles. If the Canadian standard was applied in the U.S. on the manufacture of new trailers, we would not oppose it. Actually, many of the trailers on the road today in the U.S. already meet the Canadian standard because U.S. transport companies which cross the border need to comply with it. So the U.S. trailer manufacturers responded to that situation. However, those are the same guards which have been tested by the IIHS and found to be ineffective and too weak to withstand offset crashes — even at 35 mph. So simply upgrading the U.S. standard to meet the Canadian standard would not solve the problem — underride, with deadly Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI), would still be occurring.The eight major trailer manufacturers have exceeded the Canadian standard by stepping up to meet the new de facto standard of the IIHS ToughGuard award. It is that standard which we are requesting be mandated by the STOP Underrides legislation to ensure that it is installed on every new trailer manufactured. As of this date, some manufacturers are still selling the older, ineffective rear guard as Standard with the improved guard being offered as Optional.In addition, there are millions of existing trailers on the road today which still will allow deadly passenger compartment intrusion upon collision. Yet, there are Retrofit Kitsavailable for $500 (or less) which can be installed to upgrade the safety level of rear guards — compared to the $125 it would cost to replace rusted, cracked or bent horizontal tubes at the existing level of ineffective protection.
• Unfortunately, S. 665 goes too far. Regarding rear underride guards, it would mandate truckers install them on trailers that can’t physically accommodate them, such as low boys, household goods trailers, auto transporters, etc. The mandate would retroactively apply to all trailers, including those nearing the end of their service. This comment ignores a basic fact about federal standards. If a CMV is designed in a way that underride is not possible (i.e., there is no geometric mismatch because the truck body is low enough to engage with the passenger vehicle bumper), then, of course, the manufacturer or owner can apply for an exemption. Why would we demand installation of unnecessary equipment?
• 665 would also mandate the installation of side underride guards. While existing technologies may reduce passenger compartment intrusion in certain situations, the bill fails to recognize numerous other issues limiting the real world practicality of side underride guards. For example, installation of the equipment would unquestionably create challenges for truckers navigating grade crossings and high curbs, backing in to sloped loading docks, properly utilizing spread-axle trailer configurations, conducting DOT-required trailer inspections, and accessing vital equipment located under the trailer – such as brakes. We also want to reiterate S. 665 would mandate side underride guards on trailers that can’t physically accommodate them, such as intermodal, bulk, specialized, and flatbed trailers. This comment uses an interesting choice of words, e.g., claiming that side guards would “unquestionably” create challenges for truckers. As far as I can tell, these statements are all based on speculation rather than proven fact or documentation. See this post for a lengthy reply to these concerns.
• 665 also mandates a front underride guard on CMVs. Admittedly, we’re less familiar with these devices, because they aren’t currently commercially available in the U.S. However, similar to the rear and side underride guard provisions, this requirement would likely be extremely problematic for reasons we can discuss in more detail at a later time. I am confident that, if OOIDA genuinely delved into the front underride/override problem — as I did — they would find that there are practical solutions available to change the outcome of crashes which involve trucks rear-ending passenger vehicles or head-on collisions. In fact, U.S. truck manufacturers have patents for front underride protection devices and some are already selling them in countries which have a FUP mandate — including Europe, India, Japan, and Australia.
• We would also point out that the bill would require the creation of performance standards for underride devices. Meaning, if an underride guard fails to meet the standard while in operation, the vehicle would be placed out of service and unable to operate. We have no idea how a trucker would get a side underride guard, weighing approximately 1,000 pounds, delivered to the roadside. Admittedly, it is a challenge to get trucks safely off the road to a repair facility when they have underride protection in a condition which makes them unsafe to travel around. The Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance ( CVSA ) has addressed this concern in their consultation with the bill sponsors regarding the bill language. But do we just ignore the problem when it is challenging? Do we simply allow the truck driver to continue on with business as usual? Besides, ideally, the truck driver/transport company will do regular pre-trip inspections of the underride protection and address the problem with preventive maintenance or appropriate repair BEFORE the truck ever gets on the road.Furthermore, OOIDA does not appear to have done their research regarding the weight of side guards currently available. The AngelWing upon early production was weighing in at 800 pounds and has, since then, been reduced to about 500 pounds. Likewise, the Wabash Trailers side guard prototype was reported to weigh approximately 500 pounds.
• Nor do we have any idea how the equipment would be installed on the roadside. In sum, the bill mandates devices that aren’t practical, that don’t physically work, and that would create operational impossibilities. We should also note that the bill impacts millions of CMVs, trailers, straight trucks, and other vehicles. With an estimated price tag of tens of billions of dollars, S. 665 would implement the single most costly federal trucking mandate in history. It seems irresponsible to make a claim about an estimated price tag of tens of billions of dollars. DOT is reportedly a data-driven agency. Please provide specifics as to the equation for reaching conclusions about a safety countermeasure which could save countless lives. In fact, the previous cost/benefit analysis reported by NHTSA actually uses underride data which is well-known to be undercounted. As is also a widely-accepted fact, once the safety equipment is mandated, solutions and manufacturers are likely to rise up to meet the need. Costs will likely go down from their current amounts with competition in the marketplace and improvement of designs/products.Let’s do some of our own back of the envelope math. Just for the sake of discussion, let’s say that a tractor-trailer owner put $3,400 into underride protection equipment — and that’s for a retrofit. Divide that $3,400 into 15 years average trailer life and you have $227/year or $0.62/week. Don’t forget IRS Section 179 allows a tax deduction for business equipment.And on what information does OOIDA base their claim that “S. 665 would implement the single most costly federal trucking mandate in history”? From what I read, the Electronic Logging Device (ELD) mandate cost truck owners on average $495/truck/year. And read what that website says about the rumors spread about prohibitive costs of ELDs which would put trucking companies out of business (sound familiar?): Considering the overall operational costs of a trucking business, ELD investment doesn’t rank when compared to operating expenses, like fuel, liability insurance, tractor-trailer equipment, and permitting costs.Is it truly inappropriate to think that safety equipment, like underride protective devices, should be considered a normal, acceptable Cost Of Doing Business (CODB)?While we’re at it, please answer a question which I have had for several years now. . . even if you estimate the industry’s safety budget at $9.6 billion, as Chris Spear did in a conversation with me in March 2017, please tell me what percentage that is of the total operating budget — or revenue or profit or whatever figure you want to use — for the trucking industry.

  Well, if they don’t want to tell me, I’ll have to estimate it myself. This article quotes ATA as saying that in 2017 the trucking industry revenue was $700.3 billion. That would mean that the safety budget (which included drug tests for drivers) was 1.4%. What is included in that?

  These investments include technologies on the truck such as collision avoidance systems, electronic logging devices for driver hours of service compliance and video event recorders. They also include driver safety training, driver safety incentive pay, and compliance with safety regulations (e.g., pre-employment and random drug tests and motor vehicle record checks). The largest investment category is in driver safety training, equaling 36% of all investment. Driver safety training was followed by expenditures in compliance with safety rules (26%), on-board safety technologies (25%) and driver safety incentive pay (13%).https://www.trucking.org/ATA%20Docs/News%20and%20Information/Reports%20Trends%20and%20Statistics/06%2028%2016%20-%20Trucking%20Industry%20Invests%20%249%205%20Billion%20in%20Safety%20Annually.pdf

  OOIDA hasn’t shared with us their back of the envelope math equation. But here is mine:

  Let’s say that there are approximately 2 million existing trailers and 300,000 new trailers/year. Make that 2,500,000 or even 3,000,000 x $3,000/tractor-trailer = $9,000,000,000 or $9 billion. That would be 1.3% of the revenue amount. Is that an unreasonable cost of doing business?

  If 1000 lives were saved (plus untold catastrophic, debilitating injuries prevented), that would be $9,000,000/life saved. The DOT sets the Value of a Saved Life (VSL) at $9.6 million.

  Obviously, that amount includes retrofitting existing trailers which would not have to be repeated every year. But, even with this rough math calculations, I’m having a hard time seeing what is causing a panic.

  Furthermore, is OOIDA helping their membership to look at the broad picture of how comprehensive underride protection can actually benefit the trucking industry? That includes the greatly decreased insurance risk when truck crashes lead to fewer fatalities.

• We would encourage you to learn more about the trucking industry, including its incredible diversity, before continuing to promote S. 665. One-size-fits-all solutions simply don’t work. I would encourage OOIDA, and others in the trucking industry, to thoroughly do their due diligence on the underride problem and solutions. Take it on as collaborative challenge to reach a mutually-beneficial goal: safer trucking. Take advantage of the upcoming opportunity to witness an underride crash and two successful side underride protective devices firsthand at the D.C. Underride Crash Test on March 26.As a bonus, here are my responses to concerns expressed by the American Trucking Associations (ATA) about the STOP Underrides! Bill:Question for the ATA: Is it necessary to choose EITHER crash avoidance OR occupant protection — not BOTH?My knee-jerk reaction to the ATA Letter of Opposition to the STOP Underrides! Bill

Actually, let’s address the March 14, 2019 letter of opposition from ATA directly:

• . . . safety anchors the very foundation of the trucking industry, shaping our core values and decision-making. If that were true, then why have they been opposing underride initiatives for years and not taken an active role in making sure that the underride problem was solved?
• This legislation, while a well-intended heartfelt response to family tragedy, seeks to address a certain type of truck involved accident through a highly prescriptive industry-wide mandate. Oh, my goodness! First of all, as one of the co-authors of the STOP Underrides! Bill, I declare that a ridiculous statement! Thousands of people lost their lives to underride long before our truck crash took place on May 4, 2013. The underride problem did not start with my family’s tragedy. Underride is a factor of the geometric mismatch between bumpers of cars and trucks which started way back when they started to share the road. (1915 side guard patent)
• Regrettably, the bill is not based on science, data or safety benefit. Upon what is that statement based? What do they call the crash testing done on side guards and rear guards and front underride/override protection? How do they define science and data? In fact, what kind of data and science or they even looking for? Give me some clarification here. Are they calling into question the testing capability of crash testing facilities and universities and engineers around the country? And, jeepers creepers, what on earth do they even mean by safety benefit?!?!?!!?
• Moreover, it ignores potential technical issues a mandate of this nature raises,  Please see my comments to similar concerns raised by OOIDA. Furthermore, let me say here that the bill did not come out of thin air or the imaginations of two grieving moms. It is entirely based upon consultation with qualified engineers beginning with a working group which gathered at the Washington, D.C., offices of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety in June 2016 after the First Underride Roundtable which took place at the IIHS Ruckersville, Virginia, testing facility on May 5, 2016. This group included representatives from Virginia Tech, IIHS, safety organizations, side guard designers, crash reconstructionists, the ATA, the Truck Trailer Manufacturing Association (TTMA), and a trailer manufacturer. Following this meeting, there was collaboration on a consensus document submitted to the Department of Transportation in September 2016. This document formed the basis of the original draft of the STOP Underrides! Bill. It was later refined with the help of legislative counsel before being introduced on December 12, 2017, and again on March 5, 2019.
• . . . as well as the other technologies that exist for addressing these and other crashes, such as automatic emergency braking, camera monitoring systems, and adaptive turning assist. Those who want to end all preventable traffic fatalities take a safe system approach which recognizes that there is not just one cause of crashes and not just one way to reduce traffic fatalities. To put all your eggs in the basket of CRASH AVOIDANCE TECHNOLOGIES would be foolish and ineffective — especially when underride protection does not depend on driver behavior to work. Besides which, I have it on good authority that, at present, AEB in cars does not reliably detect large trucks. And, of course, as we all know, it will take some time before effective crash avoidance technologies are in the fleet 100%. Meanwhile, thousands of people could be saved through the use of comprehensive underride protection.
• Finally, the bill ignores the diversity of our industry. In trucking, we know that one size does not fit all, and that investments in certain technologies that one company makes may not make sense for another. I have no idea who started that rumor. In fact, the bill does not prescribe a one size fits all solution. Rather, the bill calls a performance standard — meaning that the manufacturers/engineers would create design solutions which would be proven through crash testing to prevent underride and Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI). We have already seen two engineers design completely different solutions to the side underride problem — both of them effective. In this country (well, this planet), we have an amazing pool of engineering minds and resources. I say, give them the green light to tackle the problem of underride!
• Standards for new and in-service truck equipment should be based on sound economic and engineering principles that enhance safety, take into account real-world operations, and weigh possible unintended consequences. Again, where have they been? Have they not seen the research that has been done on front, side, and rear underride protection? What are they talking about? They certainly don’t specify. What do they mean, “enhance safety? And clearly they have never closely investigated the details of underride crashes. What unintended consequences are they referring to (they don’t elaborate a great deal) and what could be worse than having a truck enter your part of the car and crush or shatter your body?
• As an example of an unintended consequence, in comments filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in May 2016, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association (TTMA) noted a European trailer manufacturer’s experience of trailer failures due to the increased rigidity in the trailer structure from
  added frame supports for side underride guards. The trailers were less flexible when operated over uneven road surfaces or on surfaces that produced twisting forces, which led to the trailers becoming disabled during highway use, presenting safety risks to other motorists. Okay, so they give a specific example here. This is talking about the problem in Europe with the Krone company’s side guards. First of all, if such a problem occurs, surely this should be detected through regular inspection and preventive maintenance. Secondly, an installed AngelWing side guard has had multiple miles on the road without incidence. And, third, if the industry were only willing to put resources into R&D of underride protection, any glitches or weaknesses in the equipment could be addressed. Engineers love to solve problems. If we gave up before even trying on every kind of technology, I would not even be typing these words on my computer or searching for valuable information on the internet or myriad other activities. Get my drift?
• High-centering incidents already occur when operators of low frame trailers misjudge clearance heights at railroad crossings, which can result in tractor-trailers becoming stranded on railroad tracks. If all commercial vehicles were to have substantial side underride guards, as this bill requires, high-centering incidents would likely become more frequent. I addressed this question in the OOIDA letter. But I want to add that I recently looked up this issue and it really isn’t unique to side guards but a broader problem with infrastructure and routes. This is certainly something which could be discussed as a part of the Committee On Underride Protection.

  The Federal Railway Administration keeps a list of all railroad crossings with low ground clearance and posted signage like this: 

  So, do truck drivers plan their routes and search  this data base and look for crossings to avoid — with or without side guards?!?!!?!?!?!
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCyb85kZm-w Charter bus got hung up on railroad tracks.
  Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook – 2 Components of a Highway-Rail Grade Crossing
  
  Is there a physical fix? Not always. That leaves it up to the driver’s judgment.
  Up to city and county officials to work on crossings.
   
  Here is a study on this issue: Low-Clearance Vehicles at Rail-Highway Grade Crossings: An Overview of the Problem and Potential Solutions
• We need to be smart in directing safety-related resources, leveraging industry investments to result in the greatest potential benefit to highway safety, which is the only way we can hope to achieve the goal of accident and fatality-free highways. Clearly they do not have a Vision Zero or Toward Zero Deaths attitude — though supposedly NHTSA does, as does the House Highways & Transit Subcommittee — Every Life Counts.
• The STOP Underrides Act would divert a significant amount of NHTSA and industry resources away from important crash avoidance technologies with wide-ranging benefits in all types of crashes to focus on a narrow type of crash and specific countermeasure unproven in real-world applications. Unproven? What kind of proof are they looking for? And NHTSA has had a lot of the work done for them already in the Bill and by engineers.
• The Stop Underrides Act also fails to consider numerous complicating factors such as engineering tradeoffs involving weight, strength, and effectiveness of side guards. Currently, the only testing that has been accomplished involves a closed course staged dry van 53’ trailer with a dummy car speeding perfectly perpendicular at its side underride guard well below highway speed limits. Furthermore, the bill raises
  significant operational issues related to ground clearance, moveable trailer axles, and the diversity of truck and trailer designs. For example, the ridged specified design of side underrides would not work well with tank and bulk trailers that are cylindrical in size and require underbelly accessibility; flatbed trailers, which unloaded, are naturally curved to suppress weight; and intermodal trailers that are shipped and locked onto specific designed chassis for hauling. Simply put, these glaring operational concerns do not signify real world applicability, nor justify an industry-wide mandate.  Come on, people! A lot of these questions will be answered in the R&D process once the ball gets rolling. Have they no business sense? The people who have been working on solutions have been doing it out of their own pocket. Investors don’t want to invest until they know there is a market. It is a chicken & egg dilemma, a Catch 22. And until the industry recognizes the benefit to them and/or the government finally sees the light and issues a mandate, it will be in limbo and guess who will continue to pay the price!