Tag Archives: Vision Zero

Congress Using Zika To Weaken Truck Safety; Get Life & Death Matters out of political tug-of-war!

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety,

The newly inserted policy provisions represent a trend over the last three years of the trucking industry using must-pass spending bills to win regulatory concessions that are opposed by most safety advocates and likely could not pass as normal stand-alone bills. In this case, not only do the bills fund major parts of the government, they provide cash to fight Zika.

See more here: Congress Is Using Zika To Weaken Truck Safety

My comment on the article:

Marianne Waldron Karth ·

Truck driver fatigue, along with other deadly traffic safety problems, needs to be addressed in a more comprehensive manner. Traffic Safety is a public health problem and needs to be a National Priority. Contact President Obama here: https://annaleahmary.com/…/tell-obama-you-are-standing…/.

Tell President Obama that you want him to grant the AnnaLeah & Mary Karth Vision Zero Petition to SAVE LIVES. Take life & death matters out of the political tug-of-war arena!

Driving While Fatigued

“Safety Advocates Say Fatal Car Seat Failures Are ‘Public Health Crisis’” #VisionZero

Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, , , , ,

LOS ANGELES (CBSLA.com) — Safety advocates say automakers and regulators have acted with “criminal” negligence in failing to remedy a long-acknowledged auto safety flaw that watchdogs say has played a role in hundreds of deaths, creating a “public health crisis.”

At issue are car seats that malfunction and collapse backward when a car is rear-ended. The impact of the crash and collapsing seat can cripple or kill drivers, as well as passengers in the back seat, in many cases, children. . .

See the entire article and newscast here: Safety Advocates Say Fatal Car Seat Failures Are ‘Public Health Crisis’

In my opinion, a Vision Zero Executive Order, if signed by President Obama, could end the kind of Cost/Benefit Analysis which allows for the excuse that “not enough people die,” from an automotive defect, to justify taking action on deadly automotive defects. See why here:

Sign our Vision Zero Petition here: Save Lives Not Dollars: Urge DOT to Adopt a Vision Zero Policy

 

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

Will we set a National #Vision Zero Goal? Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2015 Prelim. Data

Safety Advocacy,

Let’s work together as communities to reduce all kinds of crash deaths–including pedestrian traffic fatalities. Let’s create a network of Vision Zero Community Action Groups across this nation. With shared vision and resources.

Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities by State 2015 Preliminary Data

I firmly believe that, in order to move as a nation Toward a Vision of Zero Crash Deaths, it will take 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.

Do it, President Obama, for We the People of this United States of America! #VisionZero

See what is being done in Bangladesh, through a community project, to reduce crash fatalities: Community project puts a dent in crash fatality numbers.

National Vision Zero Goal

 

Community project puts a dent in crash fatality numbers (Bangladesh)

Safety Advocacy,

Community involvement has helped to reduce crash deaths in Bangladesh. Could we learn something from their efforts?

Community project puts a dent in crash fatality numbers – See more at: http://www.dhakatribune.com/bangladesh/2016/may/15/community-project-puts-dent-crash-fatality-numbers

What will it take to make a significant reduction in the number of people who die on our roads?

I firmly believe that, in order to move as a nation Toward a Vision of Zero Crash Deaths, it will take 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!  https://annaleahmary.com/2016/03/do-it-president-obama-for-we-the-people-of-this-united-states-of-america-visionzero/

Vision Zero Goal

 

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

Appropriate testing for marijuana-impaired drivers

Safety Advocacy, ,

Methods for testing the level of a driver’s possible impairment from marijuana is more complex than a simple blood level of the substance. Some states in which marijuana is legal are apparently using tests which could produce flawed results. Other states are set to follow their example.

The foundation recommends replacing the laws with ones that rely on specially trained police officers to determine if a driver is impaired, backed up by a test for the presence of THC rather than a specific threshold. The officers are supposed to screen for dozens of indicators of drug use, from pupil dilation and tongue color to behavior. Study: No scientific basis for laws on marijuana and driving

Here is yet another example of a traffic safety problem which could be addressed more effectively through a White House Vision Zero Task Force. Then, once such a Task Force were to recommend an appropriate law and testing technique, all states could be required to follow suit–without having to reinvent the wheel 50 time over.

Why on earth don’t we establish National Traffic Safety Standards & require them to be adopted by States?

Vision Zero Goal

 

Mary & AnnaLeah will never come back. Act now to reduce crash deaths.

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety

As I think about the fact that now three years have gone by since a truck driver hit our car and sent us into the back of another truck where the underride guard failed, I know that those few seconds have changed my life forever. What happened in an instant, ended what could have been a long, full life for Mary and AnnaLeah. And the rest of my life stretches out before me — without them.

Never forgotten

UPDATE August 19, 2018: For current WAYS TO HELP: https://annaleahmary.com/how-you-can-help/

Write to Obama and let him know that you think that crash deaths need to addressed as a National Public Health Problem. Go here to contact him: white house.gov/contact form

Ask President Obama to read our Vision Zero Petition Book, which was delivered to him at the White House in March.

(Note: When the Contact Form asks you for a Subject, click on Transportation.)

Letter to President Obama from the Karth Family

Vision Zero Book by Marianne Karth for President Obama

Thank you for your support!

Tell Obama you are standing with us in this: “Family Continues Fight for Trucking Safety”

May Day: Remembering Our Butterfly Girls–Full of Life, Frozen in Time

AnnaLeah and Mary, Safety Advocacy, Truck Safety, ,

Last year, I saw this statue of two young girls excited about a butterfly in a jar. It reminded me so much of AnnaLeah and Mary. We decided to get it this year to help us as we remember the 3rd anniversary of our truck crash, on May 4, 2013, which took Mary and AnnaLeah from us.

Butterfly girls and birds 025

They were a bit older (though not much), than these girls seem to be, when their lives were frozen in time–with no warning, rhyme or reason. Those of us whom they left behind will continue on with our lives–getting older, making new memories–forced to do so without them joining in.

We will be different than we might have otherwise been if they had not been snatched from us. And they have been robbed of all that might have been. Our two fun-loving, creative and adventurous girls.

Imagine how that unnatural disturbance is taking place all over our country and globe as many lives are unexpectedly and tragically changed forever. 33,000/year traffic crash deaths in the U.S. on average. Year after year.

We will remember you, precious ones.

AnnaLeah & Mary: Our Butterfly Girls