Tag Archives: Vision Zero

Insightful & passionate comments on our #VisionZero Petition

January 5, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyVision Zero, Vision Zero PetitionMarianne

You can be a part of calling on President Obama to take decisive action to move our country Toward Zero Deaths in 2016. Sign & share our petition:

https://www.change.org/p/urge-obama-adopt-a-vision-zero-goal-and-sign-an-executive-order-to-save-lives-not-dollars

Read these comments on our Vision Zero Petition from survivors, bereaved families, lawyers, truck drivers, engineers, and safety advocates:

Vision zero in road safety is an imperative public health goal, and one that is now fully realistic to embark upon.

Neil Arason, Victoria, Canada

4 days ago

Delete

I’m signing because as a Texan, my state has shamefully averaged 3,500 annual road deaths in the past 20 years. Based on historical data, I seriously doubt the Texas state legislature or state DOT has the skill or the desire to improve in the area of fatality reduction on Texas roads. For the safety of all road-users, the USA needs the help of a national Vision Zero strategy.

Lance Hamm, Kingsville, TX

18 hours ago

Delete

I am signing this petition as a widow and now single mother of three children because a tired or distracted truck driver killed my husband while he was inspecting a bridge repair in his closed-off work zone. The pain of losing a loved one to these preventable crashes is beyond words. Losing a father at such a young age will leave emotional scars for decades, and our society doesn’t fully understand —or offer appropriate resources for coping.

Amy Fletcher, Perrysburg, OH

11 minutes ago

Delete

I am signing in honor of my late wife Tamara Mills-Hadley whom lost her life because a phoney underride guard law was passed that was not meant to save any lives, instead it just legalized the guards already on the road in order to save money and garner campaign donations. We also lost a family friend to unsafe trucks. No more!

Stephen Hadley, Washougal, WA

21 hours ago

Delete

I’m signing because no one should have to suffer a sudden, unexpected loss of a loved one due to a preventable crash.

Andrew Young, North Ridgeville, OH

2 days ago

Delete

WE NEED A VISION ZERO GOAL AND SIGNS…NOW TO SAVE LIVES!!!

DONNA LAGOMARSINO, Wilmington, MA

3 days ago

Delete

I’m signing because the loss of one human life in the pursuit of profit is wrong! Safety first!

Hershel Hartford, Fayetteville, AR

3 days ago

Delete

I’m signing because tragedies like this one can be avoided.

Aaron Kiefer, Morrisville, NC

3 days ago

Delete

I’m signing for Susan Slattery!

Camille Dobson, LUTHERVILLE, MD

4 days ago

Delete

Because business shoots for zero defects. Because my wife is dead and two sons seriously injured, one permanently, when an overworked trucker fell asleep at the wheel.

Ed Slattery, Lutherville-Timonium, MD

4 days ago

ALL COMMENTS posted can be found here: https://www.change.org/p/obama-adopt-a-vision-zero-goal-and-sign-an-executive-order-to-save-lives-not-dollars/c

Adopt a National Vision Zero Goal: Save lives not dollars!

January 2, 2016AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyDOT rulemaking, NHTSA rulemaking, Toward Zero Deaths, TZD, underride crash, underride guards, Vision ZeroMarianne

On January 1, 2016, we launched an online petition at Change.org–Adopt National Vision Zero Goal: Save lives not dollars!

Sign & share our new Vision Zero Petition: https://www.change.org/p/obama-adopt-a-vision-zero-goal-and-sign-an-executive-order-to-save-lives-not-dollars

During the fall of 2015, we collected over 15,000 signatures on a petition aimed at Secretary Foxx to apply Vision Zero principles to highway safety rulemaking. http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

But in order for DOT to act accordingly, they need to be empowered by a National Vision Zero mandate. That is why we are asking President Obama to set a national Vision Zero goal and to sign a Vision Zero Executive Order.

Help us send the message to Washington, DC, that we want to reduce the almost 33,000 crash deaths which occur each year. This is the petition letter which will be delivered to President Obama: Vision Zero Executive Order Petition Letter to President Obama

This is the executive order which I have drafted (which, of course, is merely my request/ recommendation): Executive Order Draft Application of Vision Zero Principles to Highway Safety Regulatory Review

Due to a shared interest in reducing preventable traffic fatalities and serious injuries, we are working with the following individuals & organizations to raise awareness and garner widespread support for this VISION ZERO effort (to be updated as more supporters get on board with us): Letter of Support for Vision Zero Executive Order Petition

Read more about Vision Zero: https://annaleahmary.com/tag/vision-zero/

An example of the application of VZ principles to rulemaking: Underride Guards–Apply Vision Zero principles by requiring crash test-based performance standards for truck underride guards rather than force-based design standards along with success at higher speeds—to include rear (both centered and offset) and side guards for both Single Unit Trucks and trailers. https://annaleahmary.com/2015/12/a-moms-knee-jerk-reaction-to-nhtsas-proposed-rule-to-improve-rear-underride-protection/

A New Year’s Plea to Focus on Working Together Toward Zero Crash Deaths Instead of Pointing the Finger of Blame

December 27, 2015AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyToward Zero, traffic safety, Vision ZeroMarianne

Here at the end of another calendar year–a year that AnnaLeah & Mary along with many other traffic fatalities did not get to enjoy–I want to say one more time: Let’s work together to solve the problem of Death by Motor Vehicle.

What if we truly worked together to reduce the number of deaths and very serious injuries from traffic crashes? In terms of why people die on the roads, there is no one reason. Pointing fingers at who is to blame and leaving it at that gets us where?

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/our-crash-was-not-an-accident/

The first thing that I noticed, when I started reading investigative articles about underride guards on trucks, was how some people took the focus off of the problem of weak underride protection systems and wanted to talk about how car drivers were to blame for the crash anyway* and how the answer was to develop crash avoidance technology.

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/12/the-passion-of-this-safety-advocate/

It seems to me that what wasn’t being understood here was the deaths which actually occur from Second Collisions rather than the first collision, which is often due to human error or road conditions or whatever might have been to blame for the crash to occur.

https://annaleahmary.com/2015/07/the-second-collision-does-not-have-to-be-so-prevalent-we-can-do-better-at-preventing-death-horrific-injuries/

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/06/setting-the-record-straight-too-rigid-underride-guards-is-a-myth/

Who said that it had to be an Either/Or solution? This is a perfect example of something which we can work together to solve–improving truck underride protection systems because it can be done. The result: less people dying from what could be a survivable crash.

https://annaleahmary.com/2015/10/underride-roundtable-save-the-date-may-5-2016/

At the same time, people can be busy working on trying to reduce the number of crashes to begin with through development of tested crash avoidance technology AND by raising awareness and motivating people to be Safer Drivers.

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/07/driver-fatigue-needs-to-be-recognized-as-a-public-health-problem/

That sounds like a Win/Win solution which might actually lead us Toward Zero Crashes & Serious Injuries. Vision Zero.

https://annaleahmary.com/2014/06/wake-up-america-lets-make-our-roads-safe-together/

https://annaleahmary.com/2015/07/lets-move-from-a-failure-of-compassion-tactics-of-conceal-%C2%AD%E2%80%90delay-%C2%AD%E2%80%90deny-while-fiery-crashes-occur-to-a-vision-of-zero-fatalities/

https://annaleahmary.com/2015/09/vision-zero-avoiding-collisions-and-second-collisions/

And that is why I am about ready to launch a Vision Zero Executive Order Petition. And I will be asking you to hop on board with me. Let’s do this because we can and because somebody is counting on us to help them make it through another year.

Establishing a White House Task Force to Protect Travelers From Truck Crashes (1)

* “‘The disproportion of passenger-vehicle driver errors in fatal crashes may be in a sense related to the fact that a fatality occurred, rather than that they are more culpable,” he says. “Rear-end collisions provide the clearest example, because a fatality is more likely to occur if a passenger vehicle strikes the rear of a truck, rather than the truck striking the rear of the passenger vehicle.’

“According to Blower, rear-end collisions caused by passenger-vehicle drivers may occur because of driver inattention, unsafe speed and truck conspicuity, while harder-to-explain head-on crashes may be due to alcohol use, night-time travel and weather.

“’It is clear that addressing the ‘truck safety problem’ must take into account more than just trucks and truck drivers,” he says. “The actions of other vehicles on the road contribute substantially to the toll. Even if all trucks were operated perfectly, only a minority of the fatal crashes would be eliminated.

“’Truck crashes do not occur in isolation, but as part of a larger system, involving the roadway and environment, vehicle condition and the other vehicles in the traffic system. If we want to reduce the toll of truck accidents, we need to broaden our understanding beyond just trucks and truck drivers.'” http://ur.umich.edu/9900/Nov08_99/18.htm

And besides, did you ever think about the terrible ongoing trauma of those who survive horrific crashes when others do not? Let’s keep them in mind as well.

To clarify, my point is not that no one is to blame, but that if we each spend our time pointing at someone else who has to resolve their problem, it is too easy to forget that there are fingers pointing back at ourselves–things we need to take care of, as well.

An Amazing Week in Truck Safety Progress

December 11, 2015AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyCare2, ELDs, FMCSA, FMCSA rulemaking, NHTSA, NHTSA rulemaking, underride guard, Vision ZeroMarianne

We had some really good news this week. Progress was made on 2 out of the 3 requests which we made to Secretary Foxx in our original AnnaLeah & Mary Stand Up For Truck Safety Petition (http://www.thepetitionsite.com/957/501/869/stand-up-for-truck-safety/):

On December 7, 2015, NHTSA announced the next step in the Underride Guard rulemaking: https://annaleahmary.com/2015/12/unexpected-events-progress-in-underride-protection/ & https://annaleahmary.com/2015/12/a-moms-knee-jerk-reaction-to-nhtsas-proposed-rule-to-improve-rear-underride-protection/ & http://www.wsbtv.com/videos/news/new-rules-help-keep-you-safer-behind-big-rigs/vDf9Rt/
On December 10, 2015, FMCSA announced that the Final Rule was being released for the Electronic Logging Devices to log trucker hours of service (to help combat driver fatigue): https://annaleahmary.com/2015/12/fmcsa-finally-releases-the-electronic-logging-devices-rule-to-track-trucker-hours/. http://americansleepandbreathingacademy.com/the-dots-war-on-drowsy-driving/

We want to thank everyone, who signed the ALMSUFTS petition. You helped to make this impact on highway safety. Please continue to support our efforts as we wage battle and move toward a goal of Zero Crash Deaths and Zero Serious Crash Injuries through our Vision Zero Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/ and Underride Research: https://www.fortrucksafety.com/

Thank you in memory of Mary & AnnaLeah and countless others,

Jerry and Marianne Karth

This Thanksgiving, I’m thankful for advances in car safety technology.

November 26, 2015Uncategorizedauto safety, safe roads, Vision ZeroMarianne

Safety technology is a matter of life and death. SAFE means: keeps people alive and free from life-altering injuries. It appears that at least some auto manufacturers are taking this seriously. This Thanks-giving, I’m thankful for that.

See what good things Honda is doing with their Honda Sensing: http://automobiles.honda.com/safety/?from=safety.honda.com & https://www.yahoo.com/autos/honda-s-best-new-feature-1307184767189046.html

And see this from the Los Angeles Auto Show, where I am hearing good news about the trickle down effect of safety features which are moving from being high-priced extras to becoming affordable:

“Many features now ubiquitous in vehicles, such as antilock brakes, backup cameras and keyless entry, started as high-priced extras in luxury cars and trickled down to mainstream vehicles over many years. As in the case of electronic stability control, which became mandatory in 2011 — 15 years after it first appeared in the BMW 7 series — government pressure often speeds the shift.

“Yet with the latest wave of technologies, that trickle seems to be accelerating.” http://ht.ly/V13tY

I want to see more–no ALL–safety technology become MANDATORY–not optional extras. I want to see manufacturers take the high road and do all in their power to make them AFFORDABLE for everyone. We all know that technology gets cheaper over time. But let’s not wait that long. If the auto companies have to dip into their profits to do so, so be it. It’s the right thing to do.

Anything less would border on getting away with murder.

When the future gets here, I’m okay with fancier features still being optional–like this ultra-comfortable “driver’s” seat in a driverless car: http://europe.autonews.com/article/20151126/BLOG15/311279982/volvo-concept-26-imagines-the-interior-of-fully-autonomous-cars

But thoroughly-tested technology that prevents tragedy? That should be a no-brainer. Come on, America, we can do this! This should not be another battle in our country’s unbelievable history of unnecessary “Car Safety Wars.”

(Cover of book by Michael R. Lemov, http://tinyurl.com/ptqt3fq )

The potential casualties of such a war are scattered among us–our friends and members of our families. Ourselves. No one is untouched.

Particularly poignant photos of 3 young girls who lost their lives 6 short years later

November 12, 2015AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safetybittersweet memories, enduring grief, grief, motor vehicle crash fatalities, Vision ZeroMarianne

Last night, as I often do, I was looking for some photos or video to create a Youtube and soothe the ache of missing AnnaLeah and Mary. I found a particularly poignant photo of AnnaLeah and another young girl, Bethany, in Michigan on July 30, 2007.

Along with our other kids, they were having some simple water balloon fun. What made it heart-wrenching was that, within 6 short years, they–along with Mary–would lose their lives in crashes.

I put together continuously-snapped photos into a fast-moving slideshow. Laughing & weeping at the result.

Short Version (27 seconds):

Longer Version (6 minutes):

Bethany’s Untimely End February 23, 2012: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/article/20120224/NEWS/302249856 & http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/02/hamilton_teen_hit_killed_in_cr.html

AnnaLeah’s & Mary’s Untimely End in May 2013: http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/obituaries_today_annaleah_and.html & http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2013/05/in_mourning_former_grand_rapid.html & https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?id=174784632666076&story_fbid=258980320913173

Because we want to do everything we can to prevent others from such heartache, we launched our Vision Zero Petition online: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/

Highway Safety Rulemaking: Maybe we need to call for a statute which “requires another regulatory approach. ” Just sayin’ . . .

November 9, 2015AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyDOT rulemaking, trucking regulations, Vision ZeroMarianne

If I bring up the topic of making decisions on safety measures based on a Vision Zero policy vs a traditional cost/benefit analysis, I imagine that I might see the rolling of eyes or frowns or skeptical looks. After all, how could I expect the question of profit to be tossed aside when requiring a corporation to make a costly change in order to bring about “public health and safety”?

It’s the law after all. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/EO_Redirect.jsp

” . . . in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, agencies should select those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity), unless a statute requires another regulatory approach. ”

What I would like to point out is that, by allowing the cost/benefit analysis requirements of the federal rulemaking process to stand as is, what we are saying is:

If the cost to society of a proven means to prevent the loss of human life is higher than the monetary Value of a Statistical Life ($9.4 million as of 6/17/2015), then we cannot justify requiring its implementation by law.

Can the loss of human life be thus weighed against economic loss? Is it really comparable? Human life is reduced to a dollar amount which can be compared to/weighed against corporate profit–dollar for dollar? Equivalent. Apples to apples.

AnnaLeah & Mary losing their lives to preserve trucking industry corporate profit? I don’t think so!

Maybe we need to call for a statute which “requires another regulatory approach. ” Just sayin’ . . .

Do we really have to beg our legislators to vote for safety instead of profitability? Give me a break!

November 3, 2015Truck SafetyDOT, highway safety bill, safety is not a priority, Vision ZeroMarianne

Right now, the House of Representatives is getting ready to vote on a multi-year highway bill. It is my understanding that lobbyists have asked legislators to propose amendments to the bill which could make the roads less safe.

It seems to me that this is a prime example of the need for a shift to a Vision Zero policy in our government. If we have to beg our senators and representatives to vote for safety instead of profitability {saving human lives over decreasing the profits of corporations}, then that indicates to me that, unless we make our voice heard and call for lasting, far-reaching, bottomline change, we will continue to fight this battle year after year–and the trucking and automotive industries will continue to have the upper hand. Ad nauseam.

Throughout my life, I have heard many people make the statement that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting to get different results.

That is why I am asking for change through our Vision Zero Petition: http://www.thepetitionsite.com/417/742/234/save-lives-not-dollars-urge-dot-to-adopt-vision-zero-policy/ and this, I believe, should be directed to the White House asking for an Executive Order or Presidential Memorandum requiring a major shift.

People, this affects you and me–our friends and families.

Here is what we have been asked to tell our legislators:

“. . . Congressman Ribble’s amendment (Amendment #29) would increase the federal weight limit for large trucks from 80,000-lbs. to 91,000-lbs. Based on a letter he sent to Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Foxx detailing his eagerness to see the results of the Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits Study (Study), it is surprising that Rep. Ribble ignored the results. The DOT concluded that there should be no increase to truck size and weight due to a lack of data.

There was so little national data regarding six-axle 91,000-lbs. trucks that the DOT could only use one state, Washington, to study this configuration. In that state, these heavier trucks experienced a 47 percent increase in crash rate. Moreover, the Technical Report of the Study found that truck configurations operating over 80,000-lbs. had 18 percent more brake violations and a higher number of brake violations per inspection.

. . . other special weight exemptions for either states or specific industries including:

Amendment #3 | Nolan (MN), Crawford (AR) – Permits “covered logging vehicles”- that have a gross vehicle weight of no more than 99,000 pounds and has no less than six-axles to operate on I-35 in Minnesota.

Amendment #7 | Rooney (FL) – Provides that a state may allow, by special permit, the operation of vehicles with a gross vehicle weight of up to 95,000 pounds for the hauling of livestock.

Amendment #9 | Duffy (WI), Ribble (WI) – Increases weight limit restrictions for logging vehicles on a 13-mile stretch of I-39 to match Wisconsin state law.

Amendment #60 | Crawford (AR), Nolan (MN) – Permits specific vehicles to use a designated three-miles on U.S. 63 in Arkansas during daylight hours.

Amendment #76 | Farenthold (TX), Babin (TX), Green (TX) – Allows for only certain trucks with current weight exemptions to be allowed to continue riding at those higher weight exemptions once certain segments of Texas State Highways are converted into Interstate 69.

Amendment #154 | Mica (FL) – Requires that a state may not prohibit the operation of an automobile transporter with a gross weight of 84,000 pounds or less on any segment of the Interstate System or qualified Federal aid primary highways designated by the Secretary.

Congress has the chance to make our roads safer for motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, as well as truck drivers. They should be using this multi-year highway bill to enhance safety in the trucking industry, not rolling it back. Bearing in mind that big rigs carrying loads close to the current Federal limit are already twice as likely to be involved in a fatal crash as trucks carrying less than 50,000 lbs., the solution should not be to introduce heavier trucks that will continue wearing our bridges and, per basic physics, do far more damage upon impact.

. . . please do not pass a bill that will only help the interests of the few (companies) at the expense of the safety of the many (motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, and truck drivers).

. . . PASS A BILL DRIVEN BY SAFETY, NOT ONE THAT MAKES IT TAKE A BACK SEAT TO PROFITABILITY.”

“The Rules Committee. . . is responsible for determining which amendments can be brought to the floor while a bill is being considered. It is important we tell these Members to oppose any amendments that increase trucks weights.”

TSC, November 3, 2015

I would say that the facts are clear that Safety Is most definitely Not A Priority:

Complaint about proposed underride guard regulation: Not Cost Effective

November 3, 2015AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck SafetyDOT, NHTSA, underride guards, underride rulemaking, Value of a Statistical Life, Vision Zero, VSLMarianne

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

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.

Mother of Underride Crash Victims Demanding Tougher Truck Safety Rules

October 31, 2015AnnaLeah and Mary, Truck Safetyunderride crash, underride research, Vision ZeroMarianne

When Isaac and I were in Washington, DC, to talk with our senators and congressmen, as well as administrative officials at NHTSA and FMCSA (DOT), we were interviewed by Geoff Bennett, Washington Reporter for Time Warner Cable.

His report is airing October 30 – November 1. We appreciate the opportunity to share our story with a wider audience and invite them to support our underride research and join the thousands who have already signed our Vision Zero Petition.

Read the article here: http://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2015/10/30/us-dot-reconsiders-standards-for-rear-impact-safety-guards-on-tractor-trailers.html