4 ms·
It sounds like the trailer didn't have underrun guards, which I think are mandatory in Europe, but presumably not in the US. http://www.transportsfriend.org/ro
by efaref 10y ago
It sounds like the trailer didn't have underrun guards, which I think are mandatory in Europe, but presumably not in the US.
http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/guards.html http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/guards.html
I expect those would have helped in this situation, as the car would have impacted the guards (and thus it would be a normal collision), rather than having its top sliced off.
- Rafert 10y agoThe description of the accident surprised me as well, but your comment makes sense. Vehicles getting under trailers is something I've only seen in (US) movies.
- madaxe_again 10y agoCorrect. The EU requires underrun guards on all vehicles except tipper trucks, which cause a disproportionate number of fatalities still. There was an attempt to introduce legislation in the US in the 90's, I believe, but it was killed.
- PinguTS 10y agoThere is also an exemption for historic trucks as well as for trucks, which are mainly used in terrain. That applies to all the Expedition trucks, which are used by world travelers.
- kozak 10y agoWhat's interesting, I didn't know what exactly a tipper truck is, and I did a Google image search for that query. All of the trucks shown to me had highly visible underrun guards on their sides.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- tombrossman 10y agoUnderrun guards are a good idea but not yet practical for trailers in the US. The reason is that loading dock approaches have far too much variance in ground height, and the empty space under the trailer is essential to have. If guards were in place, they would come into regular contact with the ground and either damage the trailer or the truck would be 'high centered' and stuck, resting on the guards. I suppose the guards could be made to fold up out of the way but this would add weight and complexity, and probably affect strength. Trucking companies in the US do things like use 'super single' tires that are extra wide to span the width of dual tires. This saves the weight of two unneeded sidewalls and save a few pounds weight. Because truck design is so influenced by large fleet purchases, even very tiny changes to weight are avoided. Lighter > safer.
- welanes 10y agoI don't know if this excuse holds water. If 28 disparate states with different freight profiles can pull it off, surely the US can too. It's all about will.
- tombrossman 10y agoI don't think it's a question of willpower. The contiguous US is 48 states, each with the autonomy to calculate and set max axle weight / distance rules and many do. Sliding tandem axles under a 53-foot trailer are not something you just re-architect overnight. The span under the trailer behind the rear drive axle(s) and the forward trailer axle is much longer than you find on European trucks. That means you need a much longer underride guard. You also have to convince trucking company execs that all that extra weight is a good thing even though they know it's cheaper to pay the occasional settlement after a gruesome accident. Also, putting the trailer axles further forward to shorten the gap is not possible until Indiana changes their minimum axle length regulation (40 feet trailer kingpin to rear axle centerline) because I believe that while they are the only state to have such a rule, you can't do much interstate commerce with a fleet of trucks and avoid travelling through that state with its central location. Trucking in the US is massively regulated and bureaucratic and you are going to need a lot more than will to get it to change. I'd love to see safer trucks too but I am not optimistic about seeing underride guards in the US anytime soon.
- gambiting 10y agoThe guards are mostly just thin aluminium panels on steel supports, so if the car impacted them front first, going at highway speed(lets assume 50-60mph?) they would have made no difference whatsoever.