I couldn’t agree with you more, Secretary Foxx. I hope to see that statement take shape in the adoption of a Vision Zero Rulemaking Policy — as we have petitioned you to do:
Voluntary standards might be compared to encouraging your child to do what is right but providing no tangible guidelines to which they must adhere. What does that teach the child except that there are no consequences to doing whatever they choose? What motivation is there to think of how their actions will impact others? Can you really count on your child to always put others first? Would you want to do that when a life is hanging in the balance?
Deaths become meaningless when accountability is not assigned. And Vision Zero [moving toward zero crash deaths & serious injuries] is not really the priority when undue weight is given to industry influence upon decision-makers rather than identifying and implementing proven traffic safety measures which would SAVE LIVES.
As I sit and wait for Washington to respond to our Vision Zero Petition with its 20,000 signatures, I wish that the multitude of traffic safety advocates–both individuals and organizations–would truly come together with a united front to push for a National Vision Zero Goal, a White House Vision Zero Task Force, and a Vision Zero Executive Order to lay the ground rules for Vision Zero rulemaking.
Though there is perhaps the need to focus separately on overcoming specific problem areas — e.g., improving truck underride guards — our efforts are probably fragmented more than they should be to enable us to speak with one voice and clamor for fundamental change in traffic safety. Let us take a cue from Nehemiah when he rallied the the people of God to rebuild the wall:
And I said to the nobles, the officials, and the rest of the people. “The work is great and extensive, and we are separated on the wall far from one another. At whatever place you hear the sound of the trumpet, rally to us there. Our God will fight for us.” Nehemiah 4:19-20
And so I am sounding the trumpet and calling for us to rally together to become more effective and to make greater, swifter progress in moving Toward Zero crash deaths and serious injuries.
If President Obama will not act upon our petition, then let’s call upon Bernie Sanders to champion the cause for a National Vision Zero Goal. Contact him here and ask him to do so. I just did!Connect with Bernie Sanders
If you have not already signed the petition, it will remain open until a Vision Zero Rulemaking Policy is adopted. So sign here: Save Lives Not Dollars: Urge DOT to Adopt a Vision Zero Policy. Then share the petition with someone who has not yet heard about it.
Then, contact President Obama online and ask him to read the Vision Zero Petition Book, which was delivered to him at the White House yesterday.
(Note: When the Contact Form asks you for a Subject, click on Transportation.)
Jerry asked our family yesterday, “If money were no object, what could be done to get 1 million signatures on our petition?” Like me, he is frustrated with the lack of response our 20,000 signatures seems to have gotten from the powers-that-be.
Perhaps they are working furiously behind closed doors to prepare a response. Or, on the other hand, maybe they think that they are already doing everything they can (not true) to help us move Toward Zero traffic fatalities.
Vision Zero is a difficult concept to grasp–possibly because we have grown accustomed to accepting traffic deaths as “accidents” instead of understanding that there are many things which could be done to prevent them.
Yet, our Vision Zero Petition has outlined some very specific courses of action which our country’s leadership could take which would make a much bigger impact than is currently being made to reduce the number of crash deaths.
Our kids asked, “What’s the target group?” The consensus seemed to be that the people most likely to respond to our message would be those that fear having a child die before they do.
This morning, I listened to a brief bit of the girls’ funeral sermon. On that dreadful day, Pastor Pase talked to us about the challenge a parent has in keeping a fragile child safe and the pain that comes when they are unable to do so.
“‘Take me instead, Lord,’ frustrated parents can say.”
If you are a parent (or even if you are not, but our story moves your heart), please share our story with at least one another person. Maybe we can reach that 1 million people Jerry is hoping for. And just maybe the president’s heart will be like a stream of water in our Father’s hands. (Proverbs 21:1) Pray for it to be so.
I’m thankful for their site which has allowed us to raise awareness about traffic safety and Vision Zero. We have gained the support of many individuals through our Vision Zero Petition hosted there.
This week, I received a letter from Vice President Joe Biden in response to my December 9, 2015, letter to him asking that he champion our efforts to reduce the traffic safety tragedies in our country. I asked him to back our petition to President Obama requesting a Vision Zero Executive Order.
I truly appreciate his heartfelt letter expressing compassion for the loss of our daughters in a truck crash, and his promise to keep us in their prayers. He also mentioned that my commitment to the issue is inspiring.
Please pray that he is inspired to the extent of actively promoting our petition requests with the powers that be in Washington.
March has historically been a momentous, memorable month for truck underride safety advocacy. Not that other months are totally devoid of such activity, but I have observed a noticeable pattern:
The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) has studied and reported on the truck underride problem for many years. After our underride crash on May 4, 2013, we discovered that they had published a report on this issue just a few months earlier on March 14, 2013, as well as a prior report on March 1, 2011.
On the 37th anniversary of our marriage, our family launched the AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up for Truck Safety Petition on March 19, 2014, with one of the petition requests being to improve truck underride protection (rear, side, and front on tractor trailers, as well as for Single Unit Trucks).
Later that week, on March 23, 2014, I published a Youtube video to explain why we had launched the petition and what we were asking for–including an upgrade of the weak, ineffective federal underride standards.
During the almost three years which have passed since that terribly tragic day in May, we continue to uncover new (to us) information which surely should have led to improved underride protection long before now. For example, about a month ago, I became aware of a March 16, 1977 (when I was 21–just a few days from my wedding) Senate Investigative hearing, which was reported on in the March 29, 1977 IIHS Status Report.
This is how that report began: The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety has released the results of a crash test program focused on the deadly problem of car-into-truck underride crashes. Appearing as lead-off witness at a March 16 Senate Investigative hearing, the Institute’s president, William Haddon, Jr., M.D., presented crash test films and analyses showing that: The 25 year-old federal “rear end protection” standard for devices on the backs of tractor-trailers and trucks is “a sham.”
Further, Haddon warned Senators, “Blood has been shed, heads literally have rolled and countless thousands of Americans have been injured because these agencies did not act. Further inaction would be inexcusable.”
On March 5, 2016, we delivered our second petition to Washington, DC, when we took our Vision Zero Petition Book with 20,000 signatures to the Department of Transportation and President Obama. We asked for a Vision Zero Executive Order to pave the way for Vision Zero Rulemaking policies so that a truly effective and comprehensive underride standard can be issued.
On March 10, 2016, the Vision Zero Petition Book and 20,000 signatures were posted as a Public Comment on the current rear underride rulemaking.
On March 12, 2016, Jerry and I were privileged to participate in a successful side guard crash test in Hillsborough, North Carolina. This innovative side/rear combination can be retrofit to existing trucks on the road. Imagine the potential for saving lives!
On March 2, 2016, just three days prior to our recent delivery of the Vision Zero Petition, I discovered a March 19, 1969, Federal Highway Administration underride rulemaking document on the Federal Register which indicated that their intent was to extend underride protection to the sides of large vehicles! Eight years before my wedding day, when I was 13 years-old, DOT was intending to call for stronger underride protection. And yet, 44 years later, when my daughter Mary was 13 and AnnaLeah was 17, we still had not gotten it right! That’s just wrong!
It is my fervent hope that, when March2017 rolls around, we will be celebrating a vastly improved federal standard–enthusiastically and immediately adopted by the trucking industry–for all-around-the-truck underride protection at higher speeds, including now-exempt single unit trucks as well as retrofitted to existing trucks and trailers.
If this seems like a costly venture, try comparing it to the price paid by thousands upon thousands of individuals and families during the past decades of ineffective underride protection–added to the countless precious people who will be saved in the years to come from tragic, preventable death by underride.
I firmly believe that, in order to move as a nation Toward a Vision of Zero Crash Deaths, it will take a commitment to a National Vision Zero Goal and a coordinated endeavor of government, private industry, workers of every skill imaginable, and informed citizens. Anything short of this will be disjointed and less effective, which translates into — not simply unmet project goals but — people dying. It is not an impossible dream but it will require sacrifice and will be well worth the effort.
Among other things, I also believe that it will take listening to the hundreds of thousands of families who have lost loved ones due to traffic crashes and apologizing, as a society, for letting them down–for not addressing it as the priority it should be.
Bring a deeper measure of healing and hope by acknowledging their frustration and anger and grief. Let them know that they are being heard and that their petitions for change are being taken seriously.
Set a National Vision Zero Goal and then give these motivated people a voice. Launch a nation-wide network of Vision Zero Traffic Safety Community Action Groups which can channel their zealous energy in positive ways. In concert with a White House Vision Zero Task Force and a Cabinet which is authorized to conduct Vision Zero rulemaking, these groups could work at the local level as a powerful tool for changing the future and moving us more surely Toward Zero Crash Deaths, Serious Injuries, and Fear of Traffic.
Do it, President Obama, for We the People of this United States of America!
We have been following the progress of Aaron Kiefer’s development of an innovative side/rear underride guard, which he has designed on his own time when not working as a crash reconstructionist or spending time with his family. So we eagerly welcomed his invitation to help out in his MacGyver-style crash test this past Saturday. (By the way, I am a big fan of MacGyver–watched every episode on DVD with Mary & AnnaLeah.)
Aaron wanted to take this opportunity to test his design and find out what changes might be needed to make it a marketable and affordable option for trailer owners to install as a retrofit safety improvement. We joined a crew of his family, friends, and fellow crash reconstructionists at a junkyard in the Triangle area.
The morning was for set-up. Then we took a break for some brats and chips before devoting the afternoon to three crash tests. I had been unsure before arriving as to how a pick-up could tow a car and make it crash into a trailer. It became clear to me when I saw Aaron’s pulley contraption.
Test 1 was a side crash. The collision of the car into the side guard caused the innovative side guard to pop off its brace. But, as Aaron and Jerry said, the test was successful because the side guard stopped the car from going under the trailer beyond the windshield; it prevented Passenger Compartment Intrusion (PCI). People in the car could have walked away alive.
Test 2 was a second side guard crash with the same car. Again, the car did not go under past the windshield and there was no PCI. The guard would have protected the people in the car from death and/or severe injuries. This time the added aluminum brace at the rear sheared off. Aaron thinks that he will have to go back to the drawing board and make a stronger brace.
Test 3 was a rear crash test. This time the side guard got rolled up and set aside. The trailer was turned around and the test car set up to aim at the rear of the trailer. The original rear underride guard on the trailer had actually been damaged at some point in the past and only had four of its original eight bolts. (That was the condition the underride guard was in when Aaron purchased the trailer, which had sustained damage from collision with an overpass. The guard had clearly not been properly maintained.)
In this crash, the underride guard failed and the car rode under the trailer. There was PCI and, if there had been people in the car, they would not have escaped unharmed. The added brace on the outer edge did not hold up. In fact, it was still fastened on (come to think of it, as it took a lot of work to unfasten it from the trailer afterward), but the original underride guard popped entirely off and flew to the side — doing nothing to stop the car from going under the truck.
Aaron had actually aimed the car to hit the left outer edge of the trailer, which he had reinforced with some aluminum braces. (Note: The current federal standard, as well as the proposed improved rule, does not require this area of the trailer to be protected against underride.) Instead, the car hit the vertical bar of the guard; the entire original guard then popped off and the car went under the truck.
It’s back to the drawing board for Aaron to find a way to improve his design. It was definitely a great success in that it prevented deadly side underride. On top of that, the trailer was not damaged by the collision (except for a few little nicks). But the bracing needs to be made stronger.
From what I could see, the day’s events only served to strengthen Aaron’s resolve to put a stop to senseless deaths, which he sees all-too-often in his work. I for one am truly thankful for the wonderful work he is doing, along with the group of people who willingly set aside a Saturday to support his effort.
The day gave me a deeper appreciation for all who take the time to solve the problem of preventable traffic fatalities. This includes the Virginia Tech Senior Design Team and Wabash and Manac and many researchers for decades, such as George Rechnitzer and Raphael Grzebieta in Australia and Luís Otto Faber Schmutzler in Brazil, and countless other un-named individuals.
It was also personally very intense. As one participant commented, “That was violent!”
Indeed, it was very violent. All three crashes gave me a jolt. But after the third crash, which resulted in deadly underride, I found myself standing still in the aftermath. Others were busy finding tasks to measure the results and get the clean-up started–including getting the car unstuck from under the trailer. But all I could do was stand there and stare.
Not until the next day really did it all begin to sink in: how I had witnessed from observing from afar what I and my children had gone through ourselves (although with a different crash scenario). I had watched, as an onlooker, the instantaneous destruction of a vehicle and how it was that AnnaLeah’s life had been inconceivably snuffed out in the twinkling of an eye and how, in a matter of mere seconds, Mary’s body had been broken beyond repair by just such a tragically-unresolved traffic safety problem.
It seemed like my own body experienced whiplash as it tensed up and relived, through traumatic muscle memory, what I had gone through. Meanwhile my heart continues to break with the grief that knows no end even as I process this experience.
It is beyond my comprehension how we, in this country, can allow such things to occur year after year without moving heaven and earth to learn how to prevent these tragedies. I can only ask forgiveness, and apologize to the countless families who have lost loved ones through violent death by motor vehicle, for letting them down–for not addressing it as the priority it should be. As a society, we have dropped the ball.
Jerry said several times, “It’s not every day you get to see a dream become a reality–kind of a humbling experience actually.” May there be many more such days.
Civil lawsuits have too often contained provisions which barred NHTSA from gaining access to vital auto safety defect information = End result being more deaths needlessly lost to same auto defects.
Those who support a Vision Zero strategy to reduce every crash death possible should take note of this information on NHTSA’s recommendations for those who are engaged in private litigation which might be relevant to this situation. The following is a recent email bulletin from Lou Lombardo to the Care for Crash Victims Community:
Dear Care For Crash Victims Community Members:
NHTSA Notice of Guidelines Summary states:
“NHTSA’s ability to identify and define safety-related motor vehicle defects relies in large part on manufacturers’ self-reporting. However, although federal regulations may require them to report certain information to NHTSA, manufacturers do not always do so, or do not do so in a timely manner. Additionally, the information a manufacturer is required to report varies greatly depending on the product and company size and purpose. Given these constraints, safety-related information developed or discovered in private litigation is an important resource for NHTSA.
This Enforcement Guidance Bulletin sets forth NHTSA’s recommended guiding principles and best practices to be utilized in the context of private litigation. To the extent protective orders, settlement agreements, or other confidentiality provisions prohibit information obtained in private litigation from being transmitted to NHTSA, such limitations are contrary to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, its state corollaries, and sound principles of public policy. Although such restrictions are generally prohibited by applicable rules and law, the Agency recommends that litigants include a specific provision in any protective order or settlement agreement that provides for disclosure of relevant motor vehicle safety information to NHTSA, regardless of any other restrictions on the disclosure or dissemination of such information.”
Please also see [attached] comment to NHTSA by Investigator Steve Gray that notes the past legal practices that permitted deaths and injuries to occur for decades. Steve_Gray_-_Comment
Now we still have to make sure that legal information transmitted to NHTSA is made public and acted upon in the public interest.
Lou
