> "In 2022, more than a decade after Brumbelow’s tests, NHTSA updated its rules. Even then, the agency acted only after the passage of a federal law directing it to do so."
Not going to defend NHTSA here, but it's a good idea to pass laws like this. NHTSA would likely have been sued if they passed the rule. Having a law really cuts down on the lawsuits.
After reading 5th Risk by Michael Lewis, I updated my thinking about government agencies. Government agencies are often quite limited by law and cannot advocate for effective policies. Lawmakers really should be updating rules much more often in consultation with agency scientists and specialists. I feel like we've gotten used to lawmakers not doing the jobs they are elected to.
I also believe that we should have a Greenhouse Gas Administration, and not rely on the EPA and Clean Air and Water Acts to cover CO2.
> The beefier, more robust rear guards would’ve cost an additional $127 each, according to industry estimates.
> They said there’s not enough research to support a government mandate, which would impose huge costs on businesses that operate on thin profit margins.
So thin that they can't afford $127 a truck; they are running a no profit charity out of the goodness of their heart and that pittance of an one-time amount per truck would push them over into red.
Make them liable and their insurer will tell them to upgrade their trucks. As soon as you make this about money, the problem goes away. Right now the issue is "oops I did it again" style accidents where everybody just shrugs "what can you do?!" and "that's just the way things work". As soon as people are on the spot for millions in damages, they'll start getting very pro-active about preventing that from happening. And in the business world that means insurers start paying attention because it's them that pay these damages.
That's also what has driven safety changes in passenger cars. Cars have all sorts of technology on board to keep drivers and other traffic participants safe. Liability insurance is not optional so insurers are on the spot when things go badly wrong. So, technology that saves lives saves them money. So, they apply pressure and incentives to make sure vehicle owners buy vehicles where they can get favorable insurance rates.
The reason that so far hasn't happened with trucks is because police and judges go easy on the truckers when bad stuff happens. So they aren't on the spot financially and their insurers aren't either. It's not their problem. Making it their problem is the fix.
If I were a truck driver, I would go out of my way to avoid becoming a killer. But we see it all the times, they fighting to avoid doing even the bare minimum. They kill people and blame the "blind zone", but refuse to spend a few bucks on upgraded sensors/alerts and camera monitors.
I hope my city bans these kind of vehicles in the city streets. I like London's Direct Vision Standard, only allowing trucks with lowered seating and wide/tall side windows. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i-P20wdrcAQ/maxresdefault.jpg
I would be immensely surprised if they ended up actually costing $127 in practice. I expect that's very much a best case scenario (lowest bidder estimate for unregulated side guards with no installation costs).
I think the article could have done a better job of portraying the side of the industry. The majority cost is probably fuel efficiency. At the end of the article, they describe a new technical solution which is more light weight, involving a polyester mesh and steel, instead of just steel.
When you think about it, that’s an argument FOR requiring these regulations early, like back in the 70s when the issue was on the table. Because when you DO put safety first, engineering now has a bounded problem that they can improve on quickly (which engineers are particularly good at). So, stupid all-around, and tens of thousands of people died for no good reason.
>An investigator with the local police department blamed the collision on the truck driver, who was initially charged with negligent homicide, though charges were eventually dropped
I wonder why.
Another issue is the size of trucks. The state where I lived:
* Truck size was limited, large trucks were only allowed on one Highway. Goods were transferred to smaller Trucks for transport to factories.
* Driving trucks on Sundays was not allowed.
* Large Trucks were not allowed on City Streets. Since this happened it is open season on bicycle riders.
Reagan de-regulated and Trucks can be any size, plus they can clog the roads on Sunday. The last item I do not know when it was enabled, but it happened after Reagan.
I now heard of trucks with 3 trailers but never saw one. I think it is about time we limit sizes to what existed on the 60s. If you need 3 trailers, time to go back to freight trains.
> Reagan de-regulated and Trucks can be any size, plus they can clog the roads on Sunday. The last item I do not know when it was enabled, but it happened after Reagan.
If you want federal highway money, then your highways need to conform to federal standards. These standards allow for trailers up to 53' in length and up to 80,000lbs to operate without any prior authorization as long as they otherwise conform to vehicle standards.
States are always free to turn down the money and enact whatever standards they like; however, the standards seem incredibly reasonable to me and not at all something you can simply blame on a single President passing laws sent to him by Congress. States also have the task of enforcing laws on the highway and can operate commercial vehicle checkpoints.
> I now heard of trucks with 3 trailers but never saw one. [...] time to go back to freight trains.
You're still limited by overall length. FedEx will often operate two short trailers in an articulated tandem. They do this for what I hope are obvious reasons that cannot be fulfilled by rail transport.
How is prohibiting truck transport on Sunday good for other road users? You'd be eliminating 14% of hours in the week, which means a corresponding higher density of trucks on non-Sunday days
> The truck edged out of a driveway and began, slowly, to turn left onto the road, blocking traffic in both directions. It was as if someone had erected a big steel wall.
I'm guessing that the charges were likely dropped because they couldn't prove that the truck suddenly entered a lane of traffic, having no right-of-way, and leaving the oncoming vehicle no time to stop.
I saw the PBS documentary yesterday. If I am not mistaken, one of the accidents mentioned involved a Chevy Silverado [1]. If so, then the lobbyists are full of it.
On the whole, I don't understand why the objection is there: are bars all that expensive? For comparison, here are Daimler trucks sold in India [2] - side protection is clearly visible. (Admittedly, they are high-end trucks as far as the Indian market is concerned.)
> Year after year, federal officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the country’s primary roadway safety agency, ignored credible scientific research and failed to take simple steps to limit the hazards of underride crashes.
NHTSA officials don't have time to do that of course, they are too busy denying right to repair in order to "protect" motorists https://youtube.com/watch?v=2nXVljRUnoc
As an external observer (I don't live in the USA) it seems to me that the NHTSA is captured by lobbyists, as a result it is currently only there to protect the interests of auto makers, instead of protecting traffic safety. Why is this illegal behaviour not investigated?
NHTSA definitely seems like one of the more dysfunctional agencies. The US headlight standard from 1967 has never been updated to allow modern adaptive headlight designs despite at least two decades of requests from car manufacturers.
Congress finally forced NHTSA to take action in 2021 with a timeline of two years, but they still aren't available because now the NHTSA is dragging their feet on testing. Meanwhile American car companies like Ford sell adaptive headlights overseas but we make do with 1960's technology in the US. I wonder how many lives have been lost in the meantime?
Have you seen US trucks? It's like being transported back 50 years. Not only is NHTSA captured by lobbyists, they have clearly carved out a well isolated competitive island where US truck manufacturers can forever rest on ancient designs.
50 years in Germany: A rear underride guard was made mandatory in Germany by a 1973 law for vehicles registered on or after 1 January 1975 with a carriage height of 55 cm or more above ground.
They're called Mansfield bars in the US, named after the actress Jane Mansfield who died after colliding with a trailer. They're not required federally and not particularly effective as they're generally not inspected or maintained.
The US has them, but I think it's only on the rear of the trailer. A quick image search shows guards on the sides of European trailers, which would have been helpful in the crash from the article.
Maybe it was just my perception, but I remember driving in Germany (long time ago) and noting how trucks seemed to be driving at a reasonable speed over in the right lane.
Very different from highways in the US where trucks typically drive as if they were just another sedan on the road.
I really thought this was missing in the article. I understand that it's about the situation in the US, but at the very least a comparative analysis could've been made how the US regulatory environment differs from others around the world.
There's something I don't understand about this crash in particular:
It sounds like Marcos' death is blamed on the actions of the truck driver, as well as the lack of an under-ride bumper.
But don't we normally consider drivers responsible for crashing into objects towards which they're travelling?
It doesn't sound like a situation where the truck jumped into traffic suddenly from a hidden driveway:
> The truck edged out of a driveway and began, slowly, to turn left onto the road, blocking traffic in both directions.
I.e., wouldn't death have also been avoided if Marcos had been traveling at a speed that allowed him to stop in time? I'd think that addressing that (if I'm right) would save a lot more than ~100 lives/year.
We don't have enough details from the article to determine fault in this particular collision. I'm not familiar with that particular highway, but there are a lot of US highways where (legal) prevailing speeds are 40 mph or higher and there are driveways from which unprotected left turns are permitted.
I think including details specific collisions is probably a distraction. Regardless of fault, this type of collision happens; and does the estimate of 200 lives / year justify the cost of adding underguards on trailers? (and rightful grumping about poor quality of statistics)
That's separate from a policy to eliminate driveways on highways above a certain speed, or provide separation of directions to eliminate left turns, or a nationwide 25 mph speed limit, or a separate road network only for large trucks, or whatever proposal you have to reduce the speed of collision here.
Again, we don't know where the collision took place, this is just where I happened to look on the highway where it's roughly paralleling the Rio Grande. A speed limit of 60 mph on a well paved, two lane highway through a rural area is consistent with my expectations.
> But don't we normally consider drivers responsible for crashing into objects towards which they're travelling?
No. If you are traveling a highway at posted speed and have a green light, and someone makes a left turn across your path, you’re not responsible if you can’t stop in time. The turning vehicle must yield to all oncoming vehicles close enough to be a hazard.
Similarly no, you are not responsible if you hit a truck that simply pulls straight out onto a street with no regard for the oncoming vehicles, which have the right of way.
As a sibling noted, we don't have enough information about the crash to know. Marcos might have believed the truck driver saw him and would stop and wait until he'd passed. He was driving on a highway; many highways in the US -- even those that are not divided and seem pretty smallish -- have speed limits of 50mph and higher. Sure, it's possible that Marcos could have done something to avoid the crash, but that doesn't mean it's his fault.
But I think it really just doesn't matter whose fault it was. Regardless of whether or not the crash itself was preventable, the death was preventable, if these trucking companies would spend a measly $127 per trailer to help protect drivers of normal-sized vehicles. People are fallible. We know this. The entire point of vehicle safety is to acknowledge that people will screw up, and to minimize the injury and loss of life when it happens.
(And I don't find it remotely persuasive that $127 per trailer is a huge burden on their "razor thin" margins. If they're not making more than $127 in profit _per haul_, the entire trucking industry would be unsustainably pointless.)
It happened to me previously to be surprised by a stopped vehicle on the road. All you need is a large SUV driving in front of you blocking your vision of anything ahead. Then the SUV changes lane suddenly to avoid the stopped vehicle. Good luck reacting in time especially if you don't keep a multi-second separation between you and the car in front.
I might see the truck edging out of a driveway and trust that they're going to properly yield right of way and not make themselves an obstacle. By the time I realize "my" mistake, I might not have enough distance to stop.
As the article mentions, there is collaborative documentary that was produced with this story. You can watch it, and I think most FRONTLINE documentaries free on youtube:
I watched this last night, and it's always interesting to people in business talk about the cost of saving lives.
There was one point where the reporter was interviewing a guy from the ATA (American Trucking Associations) where the ATA person says that one lost life is too many. And this is very common across so many industries, safety first as they always say.
But then as soon as you put a cost associated with saving a life, the whole idea of safety first goes out the window. In this case, underrides are clearly avoidable and really don't cost that much to prevent. Retrofitted truck solutions are available, cheap, and easy to install.
It just irks me that so many industries preach about safety, but as soon as it has even the most minor impact on the bottom line, it becomes a hot topic. They should really be saying, "Safety first (but only after profits, shareholders, revenue, etc)"
I get that businesses need to make money to stay afloat, but with a profit margin of 14% [0], surely there is room to save some lives.
Interesting. Isn't this the case everywhere? In European countries there are rules for where and when large trucks and trailers can go; inside cities, plenty of roads have size/weight limits, and outside, many roads allow trailer truck traffic only at night or during weekends.
I remember reading a claim that logistics companies will often tell their drivers to break traffic laws (ostensibly "only when it's not dangerous") and they consider any citations to be a cost of doing business.
While I can't really verify that's true, it tracks with behavior I see of truck drivers in tight quarters; it's been trending towards this "I'm turning and I barely care if you're able to stop in time" kind of behavior.
“During discovery they obtained a seven-page document signed by executives from Utility and 10 other semitrailer companies. The document, drafted in 2004, was a pact struck by the biggest companies in the business, a pledge to work cooperatively — and secretly — to thwart any lawsuits stemming from side and rear underride crashes. The arrangement had been orchestrated by Glen Darbyshire, an attorney for the TTMA, the trade group.
As part of the agreement, the firms would keep crucial safety information confidential. That material — including ‘documents, factual material, mental impressions, interview reports, expert reports, and other information’ — wasn’t to be shared with anyone outside of the circle.”
This…sounds like someone took notes on their criminal conspiracy.
I see several comments focusing on the ridiculous figure of $127. Please don't make arguments based on that. It's off by at least an order of magnitude:
And certainly we can have all the same arguments about the cost of a human life vs. corporate greed, etc. etc. at a more realistic price.
But what this really speaks to is the level of honesty and accuracy of this article. It's a hit piece and is extremely one-sided propaganda, regardless of what anyone thinks is the right thing to do about better bumpers.
>>It was a little after 7 p.m. and Ricardo Marcos was rolling through the darkness in his gray Hyundai Elantra. Marcos had spent a long day toiling as a mechanic at a trucking company in McAllen, Texas, a sunbaked city nestled right on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Reading the opening story, it sounds like he fell asleep or wasn't paying attention. We will never know, but it's very sad no matter. It's also true, assuming he fell asleep, he could have killed others, as happened to Rod Bramblett and his wife, radio announcer for the Auburn Tigers, who was killed at a stoplight when rear ended by a driver who fell asleep while driving at a high rate of speed. Another sad story.
Hitting an 80,000lb mass in any configuration at high speed is going to be nasty no matter what. One option is to ask truckers to provide heavy bumpers and crumple zones and airbags around their trucks. The other option is to operate your vehicle safely, reducing speed if visibility is limited, etc.
I dont doubt that rear bumpers being stronger would be a good start, but by the same token, the starting assumption of a car rear ending a very large object at 60mph head-on does not seem like a scenario to weigh too heavily in the grand scheme.
However, maybe there is a compromise of better rear guards and 20% additional side coverage by guards? i.e. dont make perfect the enemy of good.
The purpose of the NHTSA and vehicle safety regulations broadly is not to litigate who is at fault in an accident and sentence them to death, it is to make traveling on the road by motor vehicle or bicycle or foot as safe as is feasible given costs and available technology and data about the nature of injuries in collisions. Most people most of the time are in control of their vehicles and are paying attention to the road. But every single person that drives a car will make a mistake, become distracted, suffer a mechanical failure, or become unavoidably implicated in the mistake of another road user.
Slamming into the back or coming through the side of a semi-trailer is not something that just happens to "dangerous drivers". It is something that can happen to anyone placed in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That said, the position of the regulators and trucking industry at present make sense, underride crash data indicates that the costs of proposed safety measures could be better spent improving other known road-safety issues with known or projected solutions. And the point that TFA is making is that NHTSA data is severely underreporting underride crash incidents in the sample that they investigated, making underride crash safety regulations worthwhile.
And the mass of the vehicle is really not the issue in this sort of collision. This type of collision would occur in the same exact way if the trailers weighed 1,000 lbs, the bottom of the trailer would shred through the windshield and decapitate the occupants. A better underride guard would turn an unknown number of fatal accidents into scary crashes that people walk away from unharmed.
Fortunately, if you avoided listening to environmentalists, transit advocates, and people with children and bought a high ride-height vehicle like a Dodge Ram 1500, your vehicle will be tall enough to actually contact the truck or trailer without a decapitation!
Pickups and SUVs are way safer, guys. Up to you what you do with the information.
The dumb thing is that making semis aerodynamic likely will encompass something that would make them safer for other vehicles. You need to fill in the space under the tractor. A fairing would save money and lives.
Hundreds! AKA >1 in a million odds each year. Can't spare brain cycles on this. It sounds like someone else is already thinking about it. I believe in them.
> "The Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, a lobbying outfit representing semitrailer builders, had little desire to make safer rear guards. In correspondence with the department, the TTMA said it would be 'far more practical' to force Volkswagen and other companies making compact cars to produce larger vehicles that were less likely to slip beneath a truck."
[+] [-] csours|2 years ago|reply
Not going to defend NHTSA here, but it's a good idea to pass laws like this. NHTSA would likely have been sued if they passed the rule. Having a law really cuts down on the lawsuits.
After reading 5th Risk by Michael Lewis, I updated my thinking about government agencies. Government agencies are often quite limited by law and cannot advocate for effective policies. Lawmakers really should be updating rules much more often in consultation with agency scientists and specialists. I feel like we've gotten used to lawmakers not doing the jobs they are elected to.
I also believe that we should have a Greenhouse Gas Administration, and not rely on the EPA and Clean Air and Water Acts to cover CO2.
[+] [-] noisy_boy|2 years ago|reply
> They said there’s not enough research to support a government mandate, which would impose huge costs on businesses that operate on thin profit margins.
So thin that they can't afford $127 a truck; they are running a no profit charity out of the goodness of their heart and that pittance of an one-time amount per truck would push them over into red.
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|2 years ago|reply
That's also what has driven safety changes in passenger cars. Cars have all sorts of technology on board to keep drivers and other traffic participants safe. Liability insurance is not optional so insurers are on the spot when things go badly wrong. So, technology that saves lives saves them money. So, they apply pressure and incentives to make sure vehicle owners buy vehicles where they can get favorable insurance rates.
The reason that so far hasn't happened with trucks is because police and judges go easy on the truckers when bad stuff happens. So they aren't on the spot financially and their insurers aren't either. It's not their problem. Making it their problem is the fix.
[+] [-] matsemann|2 years ago|reply
I hope my city bans these kind of vehicles in the city streets. I like London's Direct Vision Standard, only allowing trucks with lowered seating and wide/tall side windows. https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i-P20wdrcAQ/maxresdefault.jpg
[+] [-] kelnos|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] diydsp|2 years ago|reply
[a] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ODFL/old-dominion-...
[+] [-] olyjohn|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] concordDance|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klabb3|2 years ago|reply
When you think about it, that’s an argument FOR requiring these regulations early, like back in the 70s when the issue was on the table. Because when you DO put safety first, engineering now has a bounded problem that they can improve on quickly (which engineers are particularly good at). So, stupid all-around, and tens of thousands of people died for no good reason.
[+] [-] jmclnx|2 years ago|reply
I wonder why.
Another issue is the size of trucks. The state where I lived:
* Truck size was limited, large trucks were only allowed on one Highway. Goods were transferred to smaller Trucks for transport to factories.
* Driving trucks on Sundays was not allowed.
* Large Trucks were not allowed on City Streets. Since this happened it is open season on bicycle riders.
Reagan de-regulated and Trucks can be any size, plus they can clog the roads on Sunday. The last item I do not know when it was enabled, but it happened after Reagan.
I now heard of trucks with 3 trailers but never saw one. I think it is about time we limit sizes to what existed on the 60s. If you need 3 trailers, time to go back to freight trains.
[+] [-] akira2501|2 years ago|reply
If you want federal highway money, then your highways need to conform to federal standards. These standards allow for trailers up to 53' in length and up to 80,000lbs to operate without any prior authorization as long as they otherwise conform to vehicle standards.
States are always free to turn down the money and enact whatever standards they like; however, the standards seem incredibly reasonable to me and not at all something you can simply blame on a single President passing laws sent to him by Congress. States also have the task of enforcing laws on the highway and can operate commercial vehicle checkpoints.
> I now heard of trucks with 3 trailers but never saw one. [...] time to go back to freight trains.
You're still limited by overall length. FedEx will often operate two short trailers in an articulated tandem. They do this for what I hope are obvious reasons that cannot be fulfilled by rail transport.
[+] [-] jffry|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kazinator|2 years ago|reply
I'm guessing that the charges were likely dropped because they couldn't prove that the truck suddenly entered a lane of traffic, having no right-of-way, and leaving the oncoming vehicle no time to stop.
[+] [-] JimtheCoder|2 years ago|reply
Trains can only run on train tracks.
The tracks/train stations don't always go close to where the freight needs to go.
It is bordering on impossible to build new rail infrastructure to get freight where it needs to go.
It takes a lot longer to ship something on a train than on a truck.
Add on the fact that transport in general is getting more expensive, and I don't think more regulations on trucking is the right answer.
Just install the guards on the side of trailers and be done with it...
[+] [-] sn41|2 years ago|reply
On the whole, I don't understand why the objection is there: are bars all that expensive? For comparison, here are Daimler trucks sold in India [2] - side protection is clearly visible. (Admittedly, they are high-end trucks as far as the Indian market is concerned.)
[1] https://youtu.be/1LyaWzOesXk?t=1374
[2] https://trucks.cardekho.com/en/trucks/bharat-benz/2623r
[+] [-] mastazi|2 years ago|reply
NHTSA officials don't have time to do that of course, they are too busy denying right to repair in order to "protect" motorists https://youtube.com/watch?v=2nXVljRUnoc
As an external observer (I don't live in the USA) it seems to me that the NHTSA is captured by lobbyists, as a result it is currently only there to protect the interests of auto makers, instead of protecting traffic safety. Why is this illegal behaviour not investigated?
[+] [-] pnw|2 years ago|reply
Congress finally forced NHTSA to take action in 2021 with a timeline of two years, but they still aren't available because now the NHTSA is dragging their feet on testing. Meanwhile American car companies like Ford sell adaptive headlights overseas but we make do with 1960's technology in the US. I wonder how many lives have been lost in the meantime?
[+] [-] stefan_|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Schnitz|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Archelaos|2 years ago|reply
Source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unterfahrschutz_(Nutzfahrzeug)... (in German)
[+] [-] KennyBlanken|2 years ago|reply
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2004/11/05/04-2473...
...and then updated two years later.
Still watered down to the point of near uselessness in order to placate the trucking industry lobbyists.
[+] [-] inferiorhuman|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RandallBrown|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] berniedurfee|2 years ago|reply
Maybe it was just my perception, but I remember driving in Germany (long time ago) and noting how trucks seemed to be driving at a reasonable speed over in the right lane.
Very different from highways in the US where trucks typically drive as if they were just another sedan on the road.
[+] [-] detuur|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JimtheCoder|2 years ago|reply
They look to be more aerodynamic, they can hold more stuff, and they would prevent the problems presented in the article.
Maybe does it have to do with the fact that loading docks are already high, and this would make the loading process more cumbersome? I am not sure...
[+] [-] CoastalCoder|2 years ago|reply
It sounds like Marcos' death is blamed on the actions of the truck driver, as well as the lack of an under-ride bumper.
But don't we normally consider drivers responsible for crashing into objects towards which they're travelling?
It doesn't sound like a situation where the truck jumped into traffic suddenly from a hidden driveway:
> The truck edged out of a driveway and began, slowly, to turn left onto the road, blocking traffic in both directions.
I.e., wouldn't death have also been avoided if Marcos had been traveling at a speed that allowed him to stop in time? I'd think that addressing that (if I'm right) would save a lot more than ~100 lives/year.
[+] [-] toast0|2 years ago|reply
I think including details specific collisions is probably a distraction. Regardless of fault, this type of collision happens; and does the estimate of 200 lives / year justify the cost of adding underguards on trailers? (and rightful grumping about poor quality of statistics)
That's separate from a policy to eliminate driveways on highways above a certain speed, or provide separation of directions to eliminate left turns, or a nationwide 25 mph speed limit, or a separate road network only for large trucks, or whatever proposal you have to reduce the speed of collision here.
FWIW: Here's a street view of US-281 where it enters Hidalgo County, and the posted limit is 60 mph: https://www.google.com.mx/maps/@26.0843029,-97.8616537,3a,75...
Again, we don't know where the collision took place, this is just where I happened to look on the highway where it's roughly paralleling the Rio Grande. A speed limit of 60 mph on a well paved, two lane highway through a rural area is consistent with my expectations.
Closer to McAllen, TX, where the article says the deceased works, it's two lanes in each direction with a center turn lane, and a speed limit 55 mph. https://www.google.com/maps/@26.1518933,-98.1911449,3a,75y,2...
[+] [-] massysett|2 years ago|reply
No. If you are traveling a highway at posted speed and have a green light, and someone makes a left turn across your path, you’re not responsible if you can’t stop in time. The turning vehicle must yield to all oncoming vehicles close enough to be a hazard.
Similarly no, you are not responsible if you hit a truck that simply pulls straight out onto a street with no regard for the oncoming vehicles, which have the right of way.
[+] [-] kelnos|2 years ago|reply
But I think it really just doesn't matter whose fault it was. Regardless of whether or not the crash itself was preventable, the death was preventable, if these trucking companies would spend a measly $127 per trailer to help protect drivers of normal-sized vehicles. People are fallible. We know this. The entire point of vehicle safety is to acknowledge that people will screw up, and to minimize the injury and loss of life when it happens.
(And I don't find it remotely persuasive that $127 per trailer is a huge burden on their "razor thin" margins. If they're not making more than $127 in profit _per haul_, the entire trucking industry would be unsustainably pointless.)
[+] [-] robnado|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lcnPylGDnU4H9OF|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rnga1dco|2 years ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1LyaWzOesXk
[+] [-] milkytron|2 years ago|reply
There was one point where the reporter was interviewing a guy from the ATA (American Trucking Associations) where the ATA person says that one lost life is too many. And this is very common across so many industries, safety first as they always say.
But then as soon as you put a cost associated with saving a life, the whole idea of safety first goes out the window. In this case, underrides are clearly avoidable and really don't cost that much to prevent. Retrofitted truck solutions are available, cheap, and easy to install.
It just irks me that so many industries preach about safety, but as soon as it has even the most minor impact on the bottom line, it becomes a hot topic. They should really be saying, "Safety first (but only after profits, shareholders, revenue, etc)"
I get that businesses need to make money to stay afloat, but with a profit margin of 14% [0], surely there is room to save some lives.
[0] https://www.projectionhub.com/post/10-trucking-industry-fina...
[+] [-] fooker|2 years ago|reply
Ban large trucks from city roads (including highway sections) during daytime.
The large US cities are getting dense enough to start enacting rules from third world countries.
No amount of safety regulations will make these issues go away.
[+] [-] TeMPOraL|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lcnPylGDnU4H9OF|2 years ago|reply
While I can't really verify that's true, it tracks with behavior I see of truck drivers in tight quarters; it's been trending towards this "I'm turning and I barely care if you're able to stop in time" kind of behavior.
[+] [-] JimtheCoder|2 years ago|reply
I don't think most drivers are waiting for permission from their superiors to break traffic laws...
[+] [-] praptak|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JumpCrisscross|2 years ago|reply
As part of the agreement, the firms would keep crucial safety information confidential. That material — including ‘documents, factual material, mental impressions, interview reports, expert reports, and other information’ — wasn’t to be shared with anyone outside of the circle.”
This…sounds like someone took notes on their criminal conspiracy.
Has any prosecutor said they’re looking at this?
[+] [-] fargle|2 years ago|reply
https://ustrailerparts.com/icc-bumper-assy-no-s-tubes/
And certainly we can have all the same arguments about the cost of a human life vs. corporate greed, etc. etc. at a more realistic price.
But what this really speaks to is the level of honesty and accuracy of this article. It's a hit piece and is extremely one-sided propaganda, regardless of what anyone thinks is the right thing to do about better bumpers.
[+] [-] stuaxo|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] abainbridge|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ethagknight|2 years ago|reply
Reading the opening story, it sounds like he fell asleep or wasn't paying attention. We will never know, but it's very sad no matter. It's also true, assuming he fell asleep, he could have killed others, as happened to Rod Bramblett and his wife, radio announcer for the Auburn Tigers, who was killed at a stoplight when rear ended by a driver who fell asleep while driving at a high rate of speed. Another sad story.
Hitting an 80,000lb mass in any configuration at high speed is going to be nasty no matter what. One option is to ask truckers to provide heavy bumpers and crumple zones and airbags around their trucks. The other option is to operate your vehicle safely, reducing speed if visibility is limited, etc.
I dont doubt that rear bumpers being stronger would be a good start, but by the same token, the starting assumption of a car rear ending a very large object at 60mph head-on does not seem like a scenario to weigh too heavily in the grand scheme.
However, maybe there is a compromise of better rear guards and 20% additional side coverage by guards? i.e. dont make perfect the enemy of good.
[+] [-] mistercheph|2 years ago|reply
Slamming into the back or coming through the side of a semi-trailer is not something that just happens to "dangerous drivers". It is something that can happen to anyone placed in the wrong place at the wrong time.
That said, the position of the regulators and trucking industry at present make sense, underride crash data indicates that the costs of proposed safety measures could be better spent improving other known road-safety issues with known or projected solutions. And the point that TFA is making is that NHTSA data is severely underreporting underride crash incidents in the sample that they investigated, making underride crash safety regulations worthwhile.
And the mass of the vehicle is really not the issue in this sort of collision. This type of collision would occur in the same exact way if the trailers weighed 1,000 lbs, the bottom of the trailer would shred through the windshield and decapitate the occupants. A better underride guard would turn an unknown number of fatal accidents into scary crashes that people walk away from unharmed.
[+] [-] renewiltord|2 years ago|reply
Pickups and SUVs are way safer, guys. Up to you what you do with the information.
[+] [-] AtlasBarfed|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhb|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rapzid|2 years ago|reply
[+] [-] elihu|2 years ago|reply
Of course.