Truck Accidents: Could Your Vehicle Keep You Safe?

Recent media attention on the number of highway fatalities caused by semi-trucks has many people asking whether our roads are indeed ‘safe.’ A fully loaded truck, like the one that slammed into the back of another truck on California’s I-5 last month can do an intense amount of damage. In that particular accident, three people were killed and at least ten more injured when the truck entering the 550-foot underpass crashed into the truck in front, causing a massive pile-up and ultimately, an explosion.

This isn’t the first time the safety of sharing our roads with oversized semi-trailer trucks has been questioned. Trucking industry practices are continuously being reformed to address the number of fatalities these vehicles cause, including reducing the amount of time a truck driver is allowed to drive without a break, instituting new methods of driver payment that do not include “paid-by-the-mile” incentives, and adding more highway patrol officers designated to specifically crack down on truck drivers that don’t keep proper log books or break traffic laws. But is it enough?

Truck Accidents: Could Your Vehicle Keep You Safe?

In theory, the enhanced safety measures are beneficial, but the process has been slow and for many families, too slow. The year 2000 marked the inception of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), an organization dedicated to reduce the number of fatality accidents caused by large trucks. By 2005, not much had improved. Estimated numbers of annual fatalities caused by large trucks is still over 5,200. In other words, 100 families in the U.S. lose a loved one due to a large truck fatality every week.

So what can you do to protect yourself and your families? The trucking industry isn’t going anywhere any time soon, and while we can hope that some of these measures begin to drastically reduce the number of highway deaths, now is the time to make sure you’re driving the safest vehicles you possibly can.

Even the safest vehicles may not be able to stand up to a collision with a semi, but there are certain vehicles that tend to fare better than others. First, SUVs and pickup trucks generally keep their occupants safer than passenger cars when in collisions. While other factors obviously dictate how well passengers will be protected in a crash, such as the type of crash, the rate of speed the vehicles were moving, and the passive safety features installed on the vehicles, SUVs and pickups tend to be heavier and therefore sustain less damage.

Other key factors to examine are the active and passive safety features of your vehicle. For example, while most SUVS offer dual stage airbags (the type that protect occupants from rear-end and head-on collisions by preventing contact with the dash and steering column), the Isuzu Ascender 5-Passenger also sports head-curtain side-impact airbags that protect the body from injuries caused by rolling or side-impacts. Taking the time to compare the safety features of your vehicle to the available safety features in models offered by car companies that are known for safety (like Isuzu and Volvo) will give an indication of deficits in your vehicles safety system.

FMCSA Announces New Crash Fault Dispute Program

On August 1, 2017, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) will dispatch a demonstration program that that will empower engine bearers to debate the assurance of certain truck crashes as "preventable."

The program is intended to help engine transporters in enhancing Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) scores – if the office renames the reason for crashes that were already considered preventable.

FMCSA Announces New Crash Fault Dispute Program

On July 12, 2016, the organization recommended that it would acknowledge demands from transporters for information survey (RDRs) on mishap judgments through an exhibit program. The organization see discharged on July 27, 2017 declared the crash preventability showing program. Through the program, the FMCSA will acknowledge demands for information audit (RDRs) to assess the preventability of specific classifications of accidents. The notice depicts the crash sorts that will meet all requirements for the exhibition program, the procedure for submitting RDRs to assess the preventability of a crash, how choices on preventability will be shown in office frameworks, and the information to be gathered through this program for use in future choices about a more drawn out term crash preventability program.

The organization will utilize its national information amendment framework known as DataQs in the show program. For this program, the DataQs framework will acknowledge recordings 5 MB or littler in particular video holder positions, including MP4, MPG, MKV, AVI, MPEG, and WMV document sorts.

Just certain crash sorts will be qualified for the showing program. FMCSA will survey RDRs for crashes submitted through DataQs:

• when the commercial motor vehicle (CMV) was struck by a driver driving impaired (or related offense) 
• when the CMV was struck by a driver driving the wrong heading 
• when the CMV was struck in the back 
• when the CMV was struck while it was legitimately halted or stopped, including when the vehicle was unattended 
• when the CMV struck an individual submitting or endeavoring to confer suicide by venturing or driving before the CMV 
• when the CMV maintained debilitating harm subsequent to striking a creature in the roadway 
• when the crash was the consequence of a foundation disappointment, falling trees, rocks, or different flotsam and jetsam 
• when the CMV was struck via freight or gear from another vehicle 

The begin date for submitting RDRs on crashes is August 1, 2017. As of August 1, 2017, engine bearers may start submitting RDRs on crashes that happened on or after June 1, 2017. The FMCSA states that the weight is on the submitter to demonstrate that the crash was not preventable.

The FMCSA's FAQs for the exhibition program are accessible here

FMCSA Withdraws Rulemaking for Increase Minimum Insurance Requirements

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) has pulled back its November 28, 2014 Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making (ANPRM) expanding money related duty regarding engine bearers, cargo forwarders, and specialists. FMCSA is approved to build up least levels of budgetary duty regarding engine bearers at or over the base levels set by Congress.

The 2014 ANPRM emerged from an investigation requested by Congress because of the expanding expenses of truck-related accidents. In April of 2014, FMCSA answered to Congress that current money related duty essentials for the business engine vehicle industry were lacking to meet the expenses of a few accidents. Congress considered raising the protection least for general cargo from $750,000 to $1 million, however chose to have FMCSA set up an examination that could turn into the reason for changes in the standard. The last least modification was in 1985, which set the present standard of $750,000 for general cargo, $5 million for the most unsafe hazardous materials cargo and $1 million for other hazardous materials cargo.

FMCSA Withdraws Rulemaking for Increase Minimum
Insurance Requirements

In the 2014 ANPRM, the office reported that it was thinking about a rulemaking that would expand least levels of engine bearer budgetary duty regarding substantial damage or property harm and looked for data regarding that potential rulemaking. What's more, the office made a few inquiries identified with intermediary/cargo forwarder monetary obligation as it keeps on executing Section 32918 of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act. At long last, the organization solicited an arrangement from inquiries in the ANPRM relating to (1) trip protection for Mexican bearers, (2) the optional burden of money related obligation necessities for engine traveler transporter representatives compliant with 49 U.S.C. 13904(f), and (3) its self-protection program for engine bearers.

In the ANPRM, FMCSA looked for open remark on whether to practice its caution to build the base levels of money related obligation, and, provided that this is true, to what levels. In the wake of inspecting every open remark to the ANPRM, FMCSA discovered that it has inadequate information or data to help pushing ahead with a rulemaking proposition.

An aggregate of 2,181 open remarks were gotten by engine bearers, insurance agencies, merchant/cargo forwarders, wellbeing advocates, lawyers, drivers, and others. In any case, FMCSA expressed that analysts "did not give responsive data important to enable the office to continue to a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking." One hindrance to propelling the ANPRM is that sure information on truck accidents must be provided by protection bearers. What's more, the office can't force them to give that restrictive data.

In pulling back the ANPRM, FMCSA expressed that in light of the data gave, FMCSA can't decide (1) potential increments in protection premiums related with expanded money related duty cutoff points, or (2) or the effect of an expansion in least budgetary obligation necessities on insurance agency capital prerequisites set by protection controllers to guarantee there are adequate stores to limit the danger of bankruptcy and ensure shoppers. Also, FMCSA can't figure monetary advantages from having more budgetary assets accessible to help crash casualties related with expanded least money related duty limits.

Unfortunately, these are not at all subtle reasons that mirror the present organization's "benefits over individuals" arrangements, which will deny honest casualties of truck crashes from accepting a full measure of equity. It is similarly disturbing that the citizens, and not the trucking organizations that appreciate the benefit of working on our roadways and making huge benefits, will be compelled to pay for the costs from genuine accidents where the base protection necessities are inadequate to cover the harms.