Much more research and data collection is needed, before the U.S. government considers a rule requiring side under-guards on heavy trucks.<\/p>\n
As the first round of written comments closed July 20 on an\u00a0Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking<\/a>, it\u2019s clear most industry stakeholders believe the\u00a0National Highway Transportation Safety Administration\u00a0must conduct more research, data collection and real-world testing to convince industry that a\u00a0regulatory side underride mandate<\/a>\u00a0is a good idea, or if the costs are worth the benefits.<\/p>\n According to Transport Topics, about 2,000 parties filed comments on the proposal, ranging from trucking, trailer and owner-operator trade groups to safety nonprofits.<\/p>\n The\u00a0American Trucking Associations, which does not support the proposal, commented that efforts to decrease and eliminate side underride crashes should be focused on preventing the crash from occurring in the first place.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n \u201cATA policy is that equipment requirements should be based on sound engineering and economic principles that enhance safety, take into account real-world operations and weigh potential unintended consequences,\u201d the trade organization wrote. \u201cSide underride guards are approximately 40 feet long [rear guards are only about 8 feet long] and would be subjected to a wide variety of crash scenarios, but only have limited testing data on one specific scenario. ATA believes that efforts to decrease and eliminate side underride crashes should be focused on preventing the crash from occurring in the first place.\u201d<\/p>\n The\u00a0American Truck Dealers\u00a0<\/a>division of the\u00a0National Automobile Dealers Association<\/a>\u00a0wrote, \u201cNHTSA made appropriate use of, and drew reasonable conclusions from, the limited available data and research. However, proceeding with a side underride mandate based on this incomplete information and testing that does not replicate realistic highway conditions is premature and untenable.\u201d<\/p>\n The\u00a0Truckload Carriers Association<\/a>\u00a0said it was \u201cdisappointed that NHTSA has proceeded with this notice when the market has such limited options available to an industry that is far and away the leading mode of freight delivery in this nation.\u201d<\/p>\n TCA added, \u201cAny rulemaking, bestowed upon this industry, must be based on sound engineering principles, and include rigorous testing and research, things that have not yet been done. TCA questions the lack of testing and research committed to a device with one manufacturer and limited trials.\u201d<\/p>\n