5 ms·

> 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 suppo

> 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.

olyjohn 3y ago
You can't even buy the steel to build these for $127. That figure is trash just like this whole scare article.
kelnos 3y ago
Seriously. If they aren't even making $127 of profit on a single haul of an individual truck, this business is just kinda pointlessly unsustainable?
- midasuni 3y ago
  Wouod someone reply not buy a truck if it was $127 more?
klabb3 3y ago
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.
- Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
  Closed sideguards actually improve fuel economy due to reduced air drag.
  - klabb3 3y ago
    Yeah but the article claims they just have a flap without any support, so no improved safety. Having actual sideguards adds weight independent of the aerodynamic issue.
    - maratbn 3y ago
      Maybe 1,000 lbs of weight, so instead of 40,000 lbs cargo trailer would be limited to 39,000 lbs, but lots of people would not get decapitated. There is also no reason why states could not allow extra 1,000 lbs of total vehicle weight when trailer is equipped with side-guards.
      - klabb3 3y ago
        Absolutely! I pointed this out only to address the arguments from the industry side, as far as I understand them. I’ve seen many debates getting hijacked by “smart” contrarians who are accusing people of misrepresenting the issue.
      - Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
        Side underride guards weigh as little as 150 lbs, and have been successfully tested at 40mph speeds.
- andbberger 3y ago
  redundant pitot tubes also reduce fuel efficiency.
concordDance 3y ago
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).
- llampx 3y ago
  And your support for this assertion is...?
  - concordDance 3y ago
    Experience reading articles that try and push a point. They always use the most favourable estimates.
- miguelazo 3y ago
  And even if it were double? Or triple? Still seems negligible given the impact and even the margin of profit per load.
  - concordDance 3y ago
    It's only worth doing if it actually saves enough lives per $ to be better than the other things we could do with that money. For context, NICE currently only pays for treatments that give over 1 QALY per £30k because that's all the NHS budget can support. If those bars cost $500 and needed to be installed on five million trucks and only saved 20 lives on average across the country then that would be an extremely poor return on investment and the money should be put towards cancer screening or paying off the national debt or improved road signage or something.
    - miguelazo 3y ago
      $500 is well more than triple the estimated cost per truck, and we already know that at least 400 people are being killed per year in the US. Likely far more, not to mention the grievously injured. Cost per unit would likely come down over time anyway as production practices improve, like with most goods. I understand the logic behind cost/benefit, but the math is pretty damn obvious here.
jillesvangurp 3y ago
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.
- mschuster91 3y ago
  > That's also what has driven safety changes in passenger cars. No, it's not - at least not in Europe. As long as a vehicle complies to the standards in force when it was built and the type license issued to the manufacturer then, you're not required to retrofit anything to old(er) vehicles. You're still allowed to drive a 70s era car with no seatbelts and only a driver side mirror if you want to do so. Change got always enforced by lawmakers - for example, people didn't flock to ABS equipped cars for decades, until the car industry agreed to only sell cars with ABS back in 2004. Hell it took until 2006 for an EU mandate for seat belts for rear passengers.
  - throwawaymobule 3y ago
    wouldn't that mostly be covered under various member state's laws? Iirc, you'd still get charged here if you weren't wearing a seatbelt even if the car was missing them. (based on my limited experience riding in the back of vans with no rear seats.)
matsemann 3y ago
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 https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i-P20wdrcAQ/maxresdefault.jpg
- hef19898 3y ago
  The drivers have actually nothing to do with any of what you said.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    That is not entirely true: owner-operators might be responsible for the front underride guard. However the March 2019 GAO report notes that 1. There are no front guards available on the market for retrofitting conventional cabs. 2. There are arguments about their necessity, as conventional cabs tend to have lower frame and bumpers, thus partially fulfilling that role 3. Though it would have to be checked on a case-by-case basis and against clear standards, as bumper heights vary (hence a 2010 NTSB recommendation that the NHTSA develop performance standards, amongst various other recommendations around underride.
  - matsemann 3y ago
    A driver is responsible for the condition of the vehicle they drive. You would refuse to drive a vehicle with faulty breaks. In the same vein, I think they should collectively refuse to trucks without proper security measures.
    - hef19898 3y ago
      Brakes are mandatory, rails preventing people from ending up under the truck not it seems (in the US, in Europe they are). So, it is up to regulators to make the mandatory. And it is lobbyists preventing that, and those lobbyists are not working on behalf of truck drivers.
diydsp 3y ago
Just did a quick check. Profit margin for Old Dominion Freight Line is 22% [a] [a] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ODFL/old-dominion-freight-line/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ODFL/old-dominion-...

olyjohn 3y ago

You can't even buy the steel to build these for $127. That figure is trash just like this whole scare article.

kelnos 3y ago

Seriously. If they aren't even making $127 of profit on a single haul of an individual truck, this business is just kinda pointlessly unsustainable?

midasuni 3y ago
Wouod someone reply not buy a truck if it was $127 more?

klabb3 3y ago

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.

Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
Closed sideguards actually improve fuel economy due to reduced air drag.
- klabb3 3y ago
  Yeah but the article claims they just have a flap without any support, so no improved safety. Having actual sideguards adds weight independent of the aerodynamic issue.
  - maratbn 3y ago
    Maybe 1,000 lbs of weight, so instead of 40,000 lbs cargo trailer would be limited to 39,000 lbs, but lots of people would not get decapitated. There is also no reason why states could not allow extra 1,000 lbs of total vehicle weight when trailer is equipped with side-guards.
    - klabb3 3y ago
      Absolutely! I pointed this out only to address the arguments from the industry side, as far as I understand them. I’ve seen many debates getting hijacked by “smart” contrarians who are accusing people of misrepresenting the issue.
    - Drunk_Engineer 3y ago
      Side underride guards weigh as little as 150 lbs, and have been successfully tested at 40mph speeds.
andbberger 3y ago
redundant pitot tubes also reduce fuel efficiency.

concordDance 3y ago

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).

llampx 3y ago
And your support for this assertion is...?
- concordDance 3y ago
  Experience reading articles that try and push a point. They always use the most favourable estimates.
miguelazo 3y ago
And even if it were double? Or triple? Still seems negligible given the impact and even the margin of profit per load.
- concordDance 3y ago
  It's only worth doing if it actually saves enough lives per $ to be better than the other things we could do with that money. For context, NICE currently only pays for treatments that give over 1 QALY per £30k because that's all the NHS budget can support. If those bars cost $500 and needed to be installed on five million trucks and only saved 20 lives on average across the country then that would be an extremely poor return on investment and the money should be put towards cancer screening or paying off the national debt or improved road signage or something.
  - miguelazo 3y ago
    $500 is well more than triple the estimated cost per truck, and we already know that at least 400 people are being killed per year in the US. Likely far more, not to mention the grievously injured. Cost per unit would likely come down over time anyway as production practices improve, like with most goods. I understand the logic behind cost/benefit, but the math is pretty damn obvious here.

jillesvangurp 3y ago

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.

mschuster91 3y ago
> That's also what has driven safety changes in passenger cars. No, it's not - at least not in Europe. As long as a vehicle complies to the standards in force when it was built and the type license issued to the manufacturer then, you're not required to retrofit anything to old(er) vehicles. You're still allowed to drive a 70s era car with no seatbelts and only a driver side mirror if you want to do so. Change got always enforced by lawmakers - for example, people didn't flock to ABS equipped cars for decades, until the car industry agreed to only sell cars with ABS back in 2004. Hell it took until 2006 for an EU mandate for seat belts for rear passengers.
- throwawaymobule 3y ago
  wouldn't that mostly be covered under various member state's laws? Iirc, you'd still get charged here if you weren't wearing a seatbelt even if the car was missing them. (based on my limited experience riding in the back of vans with no rear seats.)

matsemann 3y ago

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 https://i.ytimg.com/vi/i-P20wdrcAQ/maxresdefault.jpg

hef19898 3y ago
The drivers have actually nothing to do with any of what you said.
- masklinn 3y ago
  That is not entirely true: owner-operators might be responsible for the front underride guard. However the March 2019 GAO report notes that 1. There are no front guards available on the market for retrofitting conventional cabs. 2. There are arguments about their necessity, as conventional cabs tend to have lower frame and bumpers, thus partially fulfilling that role 3. Though it would have to be checked on a case-by-case basis and against clear standards, as bumper heights vary (hence a 2010 NTSB recommendation that the NHTSA develop performance standards, amongst various other recommendations around underride.
- matsemann 3y ago
  A driver is responsible for the condition of the vehicle they drive. You would refuse to drive a vehicle with faulty breaks. In the same vein, I think they should collectively refuse to trucks without proper security measures.
  - hef19898 3y ago
    Brakes are mandatory, rails preventing people from ending up under the truck not it seems (in the US, in Europe they are). So, it is up to regulators to make the mandatory. And it is lobbyists preventing that, and those lobbyists are not working on behalf of truck drivers.

diydsp 3y ago

Just did a quick check. Profit margin for Old Dominion Freight Line is 22% [a] [a] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ODFL/old-dominion-freight-line/profit-margins https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ODFL/old-dominion-...