The Underride Network is concerned with issues affecting crash compatibility between small and larger vehicles including all sizes of trucks and SUV's. We support improved underride guards for large trucks and trailers; on the front, side, and rear! World regulation of guards has not kept pace with technological advancements to save lives and prevent injuries. We believe truck safety and vehicle compatibility are human rights issues and governments must address these issues from this perspective to ensure the safety and well being of their citizens.
Safety begins when we acknowledge victims, without victims there can be no safety initiative, without victims there is no reason or need for safety. Governments and organizations that do not acknowledge victims provide zero motivation for safety efforts and do not promote a healthy safety culture.
Underride Network
Results from VC-COMPAT Project show underride deaths can be reduced!
The analysis revealed that about 11 % of the fatally and 30 % of the seriously injured car occupants could be saved if trucks were equipped with energy absorbing front underrun protection systems (e.a. FUPS) instead of rigid FUPS, and that approximately 57 % of the fatalities and 67 % of seriously injured could be prevented from their injures due to improved rear underrun protection systems (RUPS). The report closes up with the major conclusion that improving rear underrun protection systems show a comparable reduction potential as for improving front underrun protection systems.
"For future systems, increased ability for the front of the truck to absorb energy is needed to increase the critical closing speed, and thereby further reduce the number of fatalities in truck to car accidents."
Statement from FIA President Max Mosley:
"As yet there have been no fiscal incentives for safety related products. This is a serious omission that is unnecessarily delaying the introduction of vehicles that can save lives on our roads today. If consumers can have tax breaks for cleaner cars, why not safer cars too? After all, safety should really be considered as another aspect of a healthy and sustainable environment."
This report is useful in that it makes a strong case for financial incentives i.e. tax breaks etc. to overcome industry aversion to safety improvements ( The Underride Network has advocated this position for over a decade). The report falls short for the same reasons that most international efforts in the area of traffic safety fail, lack of victim involvement! Whenever, the cost of safety improvement is evaluated industry participation trumps proper weighting of the societal and moral costs that must be included in any overall evaluation. The effectiveness of passive systems tends to be undervalued in favor of cheaper and easier to implement active systems to avoid accidents. The aversion to design changes in trucks has been a stumbling block in safety improvement efforts for decades. Modern cars undergo massive design changes every 5 to 10 years while truck and trailer redesign has been on a 50 year timetable. There has been surprising engineering agreement from the truck and car companies on what constitutes a safer truck design in the past 15 to 20 years ( see the example concept truck on our front page). We are seeing the first trailer redesigns in decades due to the availability of lighter materials to improve fuel efficiency, wind resistance, and space utilization. Except for the outer frame designs, safety tends to be an afterthought at best. If we fail to incorporate the public interest through government involvement including regulation these new designs will become the status quo, hampering so-called expensive changes for another 50 years!
Passive Safety Network
For many, the high number of road fatalities is the most severe problem facing Europe today, the greatest threat to public safety, and one of the most dire catastrophes in history. In any other context, the loss of so many lives would constitute a major disaster, demanding immediate and drastic action. But getting the safety message across, largely a problem of communication is not as easy as it sounds. The PSN has been established to promote passive safety research and, equally importantly, to help in the dissemination of information and results, all with a view to reducing the number of casualties on European roads.
Publications, reports, and workshop proceedings
We are approaching a major change in the mix of road transport vehicles in use around the world. We have the option to plan for major change or sit back and suffer the consequences of inaction. We watched thousands die in rollover accidents for decades and did nothing to mediate the easily solved calamity through stronger roof crush standards. We all pay higher car and health insurance premiums as a result of our inaction. If we do not begin to deal with the crash compatibility issue now the consequences will be grave. We all have a responsibility to pressure the media and politicians to take immediate action as lives and the quality of the future world we live in will be decided by the decisions we make now. World oil production is forecast to increasingly fail to keep up with increasing demand and shortages with spikes in prices will likely result. We have an increase in the pace of global warming and stronger storms and possible famines are also forecast. What wars will be fought over the under-supply of oil? We have a choice? We can continue driving fuel inefficient vehicles and this dirty and dangerous future will be ours and our childrens, or we can begin to plan on changes that will bring about a far better outcome. We have to start with the vehicle crash compatibility issue as the public will not switch to smaller fuel efficient vehicles if they continue to fear crashes with large vehicles. We know this, the car companies remind us in every advertisement. If we want cleaner, cheaper, and safer transportation it begins with crash compatibility and that means underride guards on all large vehicles including softened front-ends and rear-ends to mitigate the consequences of crashes. If the auto companies introduced a plugin hybrid tomorrow it would not do any good if mass numbers of people still feared to drive it, it's that simple! The future is almost here, we must decide now!
The weight of smaller cars in America has increased by a half to a full ton in recent years to better survive crashes with super heavy and powerful SUVs and pickups. Taxpayers still subsidize the purchase of these heavy vehicles with the "Hummer Loophole tax credit". Everyone pays higher fuel prices and insurance costs to subsidize these stiff framed beasts of the road. Small cars have ceased to exist in America although this trend may change with increasing imports. The safety performance of smaller cars is not at issue anymore, continuing to build stiff framed, super heavy and over-powered pickups and SUVs is the current issue. The automakers seem to be winning the fight to water down the proposed fuel efficiency standards for America and if they are successful in their efforts, they and we, will both lose. Removal of references to vehicle agressivity in the proposed fuel standards will allow the continued building of stiff framed vehicles which increase the liklihood of death to drivers of smaller vehicles and increase fear of driving lighter, more fuel efficient vehicles in the future. This action along with introducing cost-benefit analysis to the fuel efficiency equation will slow the adoption of more fuel efficient transportation in America contrary to current media claims about the proposed legislation. The auto industry alliance states in their current press release:
"Automakers support improving national fuel economy standards. We commend the contributions of Senators Pryor, Bond, Levin, Voinovich, Stabenow and McCaskill who worked to eliminate provisions of concern in the energy bill."
"This is a long process, and we are continuing to work constructively to develop reasonable fuel economy standards that are affordable and preserve the cars and light trucks that farmers, tradesmen, business owners, outdoor enthusiasts and families need every day."
Their contention that farmers, tradesmen, business owners, outdoor enthusiasts and families want more aggressive and deadly vehicles seems absurd and insulting at best! Shame on the mentioned Senators for selling out the American people!
Why don't our government safety regulators institute safety measures that they know would cut traffic fatalities by half or more. We are accustomed to watching race car drivers walk away from crashes at 200 m.p.h. or involving multiple rollovers and happily wave to the crowd as if nothing serious had happened. We know that stronger passenger compartments including stronger roofs would save many thousands of lives.The answer seems to involve protecting car manufacturers from massive lawsuits for past poor safety design choices. How do our fellow humans allow the killing of tens of thousands of people, it is so hard to comprehend! We can begin to understand the problem by examining the history of roof crush safety efforts and the lack of action by government regulators.
In a move in keeping with it's historical track record of regulating safety improvements after they have been implemented by the auto industry the U.S. aims to require Electronic Stability Control on all new vehicles. Using grandiose claims of saving nearly all of the 10,000 deaths attributed to rollover crashes this announcement smells of a political broadside to efforts for a stronger roof crush standard and adoption of modern roof crush crash tests.
A culture of corruption and ultimately a culture of death! Undue industry influence within the U.S. Transportation Dept. is outlined within an article by the NY Times. The U.S. has sadly become a roadblock to world safety efforts and the growing desire by the public for a safer transportation system. http://www.trucksafety.org/docs/rules.pdf
Road traffic crashes kill 1.2 million people a year or an average of 3242 people every day. Road traffic crashes injure or disable between 20 million and 50 million people a year. Road traffic crashes rank as the 11th leading cause of death and account for 2.1% of all deaths globally. Most of the victims are young and classified as vulnerable road users (pedestrians, cyclists, and bicyclists). Current projections indicate fatalities will rise to 2 million per year by 2020. We are in the midst of a world crisis and vehicles designed to be crash compatible with vulnerable road users will be a critical part of the solution.
During the 1990's even NHTSA's own engineers were sounding the alarm bells! A new guard regulation was being promulgated for the first time in the U.S. since 1953, the reach of this regulation was limited to certain trailers only, excluding the majority single-unit trucks. Crash tests were performed only at 30 m.p.h. (48 km/h) perhaps showing the lack of confidence in their own proposal or to hide lack of performance at higher more common crash speeds. Trailer heights were not standard, real world tests were limited, and only eight tests were performed for a standard to protect tens of thousands of lives. Testimony against this standard was almost completely unanimous from politicians, safety groups, victims, and the non-industry engineering community. Crash tests had clearly shown stronger guards would be needed for real world crashes. NHTSA knew minimally compliant guards under their proposal would only be reasonably completely effective at around 25 m.p.h. (40 kp/h). Curiously, many industry guards on the roadway since the early 90's would already meet this standard? We saw the beginnings of so-called public private partnerships during this period within government agencies (See the article above for more on this topic!) The current administration has delayed studies that preclude new regulation efforts to the end of their administration. People continue dying! See the article below for an analysis of the current standards during the late 90's.
NHTSA in 1991 stated "Rear impacts involving underride, which are virtually all PCI, have the highest severe injury rate, from 25-28 percent of all injuries sustained in rear end crashes. Without doubt, the great majority of these serious injuries occur above 30 mph, especially when one acknowledges the fact that two-thirds of all rear impact closing speeds are judged to exceed 30 mph. It is not surprising that severe injury production would be inordinately high in rear impacts by passenger cars given the statistical anomaly that over 50% of combination truck rear underride crashes by passenger vehicles occurred with big rigs that were stopped on the shoulders of high speed highways." The current U.S. guard standards were acknowledged to be effective to 30 mph, a 40 mph standard was acknowledged to be feasible, but was overuled as not cost-effective due to a 40% higher cost for the stronger guards. Modern cars can withstand a 40 mph impact into a stiff wall but an impact with current U.S. underride guards above 25 mph can often be fatal.
2007: a year of controversy and questioning past decisions?
The U.S. government is now telling us that bigger cars are safer and our future will entail families purchasing heavier vehicles even if it endangers other families. They claim they are bowing to consumer choice ignoring tax credits of up to $100,000 U.S. dollars that may have had an impact on purchase decisions. What role did big oil play in these decisions, are they influencing or controlling current and past transportation policy? A new movie " Who killed the electric car?" has stirred debate on our current choices of the best fuel for current and future vehicles. Will hydrogen possibly very expensive at the pump be our best choice? Would not plug-in electric hybrids buildable using current technology and much cheaper to operate be a better choice? Why not fully electric vehicles, no more pump costs required? You could recharge at night using the solar panels installed on the roof of your home. Do the oil companies control the battery patents, will they buy the car companies off? Hard questions are being asked; national security, economic prosperity, global warming and future global oil conflicts are all deep concerns. We need to understand the vehicles of the future to choose the safety systems that will best protect them in all types of crashes.
We know how to reduce 50% of truck related fatalities. There oughta be a law!
In the U.S. the most effective means to reduce fatalities and injuries by the largest numbers is not even discussed let alone allocated research dollars.
Picture - HINO Motors Concept Truck
800 mm front crash cushion
rounded corners to divert vehicles in crashes
soft front protects pedestrians and cyclists
improved visibility
outerframe side protection
flat side with no sharp angles to spread energy
covered side improves airflow and mileage
corners protected for offset crashes
rear energy absorbing guard
fatalities of all types of road users vastly reduced
Krone Safeliner with outer frame side underride protection
Stronger guard due to full frame design
Protects rear corners
Softens crashes into tires
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) found that newer SUVs with bumpers lowered by only a half inch reduced the fatality rate in side impacts with cars by 50%. They found similar results with front underride guards on SUVs. Regulating the heights of bumpers and requiring guards on large pickups, vans, and SUVs will save many lives. Governments are long overdue to address the vehicle crash compatibility issue in at least this minimal way. Right now cars may absorb 90% of the crash energy in crashes with heavier vehicles to the detriment of their passengers. When a heavy vehicle is manufactured there is a moral obligation to have it absorb it's fair share of the excess crash energy that it's heavier weight creates!
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) issued a status report on fatal large truck-car underride crashes in the U.S. in 1997. What progress has been made in the last decade? Virtually none!
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) FIRST RESULTS OF NEW CRASH TESTS: MOST CAR BUMPERS DON’T WORK IN LOW-SPEED CRASHES; 3 CARS SUSTAIN $4,500 DAMAGE IN 6 MPH TEST WHILE OLD FORD ESCORT SUSTAINS LITTLE DAMAGE
IIHS Press Release
Guillotine Guard
In 2008, the U.S. still allows deadly guillotine guards on the backs of all single-unit trucks and many specialty trailers, including all trailers built prior to 1998. Is this 1952 safety regulation the best the U.S. government can achieve after 55 years, and why are car companies building trucks with 56 year old technology? These guards have no strength standard whatsoever, they can be 30 inches from the ground, 18 inches from the sides of the truck, and 24 inches in from the back side of the truck or trailer. The regulation states "The rear impact guard(s) must be substantially constructed and attached by means of bolts, welding, or other comparable means." Thin aluminum will do! These false guards do not prevent underride even at low speeds and cannot be considered state-of-the-art in civil litigation. They constitute false truck safety and should be removed and replaced from all vehicles before they kill thousands of additional victims.
It is clear to achieve substantial reductions in the number of severe injury and fatal crashes a FUP standard will be required in the U.S. The U.S. DOT should immediately harmonize a new U.S. FUP standard for new trucks to the current ECE Regulation No. 93 and allow length exemptions for extended underride devices. Work then must begin on a strong energy-absorbing guard standard meeting current state-of-the-art research standards.
The current stiff rear underride guard standards are a safety compromise that do not protect all sizes and weights of current vehicles. They ultimately are too stiff for small vehicles or are too weak for large vehicles. Only energy-absorbing guards provide protection for most sizes and weights of current vehicles and modern designs are cheap and simple to implement. Any new rear underride guard standard should be an energy-absorbing guard standard to reflect state-of-the-art research and interact properly with modern vehicle designs.
The U.S. must regulate the use of bull bars or cow catchers on the front of cars and trucks. These stiff mostly cosmetic vehicle protection devices increase the aggressivity of vehicles in a crash and pose a severe risk to pedestrians and cyclists. Europe regulates the aggressivity of these devices with Directive 2005/66/EC .
The crash compatibility of all vehicles is a human right!
Copyright of articles or documents belong to the author or source unless otherwise noted, articles are for personal information only and for-profit use is prohibited, please contact the author for other uses. U.S. Government information is in the public domain.
The Underride Network respects privacy rights and does not share or sell personal information with other parties without expressed prior permission. We do not endorse private companies or products.
The Underride Network does not lobby, give gifts, or make donations to politicians or political organizations. Lobbying only leads to political corruption. We believe an educated public is the best lobby.
The Underride Network strives to insure the accuracy of data and statistical information, these pages are for personal educational use, for research or professional use please insure accuracy at the source.
Truck Safety is a Human Rights issue.
Governments will be judged on the value they place on the lives of their citizens.
Web Site sponsored by R.R. Crawford Engineering