IIHS Announces Award for Not Decapitating Drivers With a Tractor Trailer

by Matt Posky

Published: March 2nd, 2017

iihs announces award for not decapitating drivers with a tractor trailer

The next time you’re driving behind a semitrailer take notice of that metal bumper hanging off the back. That’s the underride guard, and its job it to prevent your minuscule hatchback from hurdling beneath its hulking mass on the off chance that you have a collision.

Sadly, not all guards are created equal and some buckle during an accident — allowing the car’s passenger compartment to impact the rear of the trailer, frequently shearing off the part of the vehicle that your head occupies.

To further scare you out of tailgating trucks, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety released a 2011 report stating that the majority of those guards would fail and that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s minimum structural guidelines for underride bars was inadequate. While some manufacturers had begun installing stronger and safer guards, mainly to satisfy higher Canadian standards, the initial round of IIHS’ testing resulted in most underride guards failing in a 30-percent overlap test.

Since those earlier findings, IIHS recorded a significant annual increase in fatal accidents involving passenger vehicle rear-endings of large trucks through 2015. It has also reached out to the NHTSA to impose more stringent regulations on guard manufacturers.

However, many of those earlier-tested underride makers took matters into their own hands and made changes to guard designs, enhancing the feature’s overall safety before regulators turned it into policy. Impressed, the institute praised the companies for not waiting for mandatory NHTSA guidelines.

“IIHS isn’t a regulatory agency, and other than safety, there was no incentive for semitrailer manufacturers to make improvements,” IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer David Zuby said. “When we started testing, we weren’t sure how they would respond. These companies deserve a lot of recognition for their commitment to addressing the problem of underride crashes.”

The institute now has a new “Toughguard” award to bestow upon those companies producing guards specifically designed to prevent a range of underride-related fatalities — including the often-deadly overlap crash. Many even worked with IIHS, asking for retests, to evaluate how to improve safety.

Great Dane, Manac, Stoughton, Vanguard, and Wabash were the manufacturers issued the new award for making changes that exceeded the current rules in place in both the U.S. and Canada. Their updates also surpassed the proposed NHTSA requirements, which would essentially align U.S. underride regulations with the higher Canadian guidelines.

[Images: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety]

#Bumpers #IIHS #InsuranceInstituteForHighwaySafety #NationalHighwayTrafficSafetyAdministration #NHTSA #Safety #Trucks #Underride

Matt Posky

A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.

More by Matt Posky

Comments

Join the conversation

2 of 49 comments

SoCalMikester on Mar 02, 2017

i read somewhere that some companies are moving to "box in" the section of "mansfield bars" so they provide security along the sides as well. bars in the back are great, but if someone blows a stoplight and t-bones a trailer, then its not so great.

Like Reply
DC Bruce on Mar 03, 2017

Considering how slowly semis are able to brake, it takes a lot of work to rear-end one of them, especially with enough violence to do something like what is pictured here. Having spent 10 months driving all cross-country and all around the American west pulling a 28' travel trailer, I have some appreciation for the difficulty the drivers of these vehicles have (my "rig" was about 49' long, end-to-end), although with 420 hp at my disposal, I had a much more favorable power-to-weight ratio than they do. The worst behavior that I have observed by long-haul truckers is staying about 15 feet off a car's bumper, while exceeding the speed limit on a downgrade. I get what they're trying to do -- build momentum for the coming upgrade -- but if the car in front has a blow out, the result isn't going to be pretty. Pulling my trailer, with a self-imposed speed limit of 60 (dictated by the 65 mph limit on my trailer tires), I tried to avoid the Interstates, except in California, which has a posted limit of 55 for all towed vehicles, including semis. The great majority of problems I observed were created by the "4-wheelers") who just didn't appear to be thinking too much. For example, a semi (or me) trying to merge on an on-ramp needs both more space to fit in and accelerates at a fairly slow pace. Countless times, a car in the right lane doesn't move over to the left lane to accommodate me (or the semi), even though it is free. A very long time ago, when I had to get a California driver's license (because I was working there for a summer), one of the unusual things I learned is that merging traffic had the right-of-way over traffic on the freeway . . . and this seemed to be observed pretty religiously. I have now idea what the law is now, but whatever it is, the practice of allowing merging traffic to have the right-of-way in California seems pretty much dead. As far as dealing with trucks go, life is better if you understand their imperatives and accommodate them: (1) they're much longer than you, (2) they accelerate and stop in much greater distances than you, (3) they often have speed governors on their tractors, (4) they can't see directly behind their trailer and (5) they're on a schedule. My experience was that in the great majority of times when they wanted to pass me doing 60, they appreciated a lights flash from me when the rear of their trailer had cleared the front of my truck and they signaled for a change back to the right lane, especially when they had a train of cars behind them. A "Zen" approach to driving (fitting in with the other drivers by understanding and accommodating their needs) will usually get you there faster and more safely... and with less personal stress.

Like Reply

Recent Comments

FreedMike Not surprisingly, I have some ideas. What Cadillac needs, I think, is a statement. They don’t really have an identity. They’re trying a statement car with the Celestiq, and while that’s the right idea, it has the wrong styling and a really wrong price tag. So, here’s a first step: instead of a sedan, do a huge, fast, capable and ridiculously smooth and quiet electric touring coupe. If you want an example of what I’m thinking of, check out the magnificent Rolls-Royce Spectre. But this Cadillac coupe would be uniquely American, it’d be named “Eldorado,” and it’d be a lot cheaper than the $450,000 Spectre – call it a buck twenty-five, with a range of bespoke options for prospective buyers that would make each one somewhat unique. Make it 220 inches long, on the same platform as the Celestiq, give it retro ‘60s styling (or you could do a ‘50s or ‘70s throwback, I suppose), and at least 700 horsepower, standard. Why electric? It’s the ultimate throwback to ‘60s powertrains: effortlessly fast, smooth, and quiet, but with a ton more horsepower. It’s the perfect drivetrain for a dignified touring coupe. In fact, I’d skip any mention of environmental responsibility in this car’s marketing – sell it on how it drives, period.  How many would they sell? Not many. But the point of the exercise is to do something that will turn heads and show people what this brand can do.  Second step: give the lineup a mix of electric and gas models, and make Cadillac gas engines bespoke to the brand. If they need to use generic GM engine designs, fine – take those engines and massage them thoroughly into something special to Cadillac, with specific tuning and output. No Cadillac should leave the factory with an engine straight out of a Malibu or a four-banger Silverado. Third step: a complete line-wide interior redo. Stop the cheapness that’s all over the current sedans and crossovers. Just stop it. Use the Lyriq as a blueprint – it’s a big improvement over the current crop and a good first step. I’d also say Cadillac has a good blend of screen-controlled and switch-controlled user interfaces; don’t give into the haptic-touch and wall-to-wall screen thing. (On the subject of Caddy interiors – as much as I bag on the Celestiq, check out the interior on that thing. Wow.)Fourth step: Blackwing All The Things – some gas, others electric. And keep the electric/gas mix so buyers have a choice.Fifth step: be patient. That’s not easy, but if they’re doing a brand reset, it’ll take time. 
NJRide So if GM was serious about selling this why no updates for so long? Or make something truly unique instead of something that looked like a downmarket Altima?
Kmars2009 I rented one last fall while visiting Ohio. Not a bad car...but not a great car either. I think it needs a new version. But CUVs are King... unfortunately!
Ajla Remember when Cadillac introduced an entirely new V8 and proceeded to install it in only 800 cars before cancelling everything?
Bouzouki Cadillac (aka GM!!) made so many mistakes over the past 40 years, right up to today, one could make a MBA course of it. Others have alluded to them, there is not enough room for me to recite them in a flowing, cohesive manner.Cadillac today is literally a tarted-up Chevrolet. They are nice cars, and the "aura" of the Cadillac name still works on several (mostly female) consumers who are not car enthusiasts.The CT4 and CT5 offer superlative ride and handling, and even performance--but, it is wrapped in sheet metal that (at least I think) looks awful, with (still) sub-par interiors. They are niche cars. They are the last gasp of the Alpha platform--which I have been told by people close to it, was meant to be a Pontiac "BMW 3-series". The bankruptcy killed Pontiac, but the Alpha had been mostly engineered, so it was "Cadillac-ized" with the new "edgy" CTS styling.Most Cadillacs sold are crossovers. The most profitable "Cadillac" is the Escalade (note that GM never jack up the name on THAT!).The question posed here is rather irrelevant. NO ONE has "a blank check", because GM (any company or corporation) does not have bottomless resources.Better styling, and superlative "performance" (by that, I mean being among the best in noise, harshness, handling, performance, reliablity, quality) would cost a lot of money.Post-bankruptcy GM actually tried. No one here mentioned GM's effort to do just that: the "Omega" platform, aka CT6.The (horribly misnamed) CT6 was actually a credible Mercedes/Lexus competitor. I'm sure it cost GM a fortune to develop (the platform was unique, not shared with any other car. The top-of-the-line ORIGINAL Blackwing V8 was also unique, expensive, and ultimately...very few were sold. All of this is a LOT of money).I used to know the sales numbers, and my sense was the CT6 sold about HALF the units GM projected. More importantly, it sold about half to two thirds the volume of the S-Class (which cost a lot more in 201x)Many of your fixed cost are predicated on volume. One way to improve your business case (if the right people want to get the Green Light) is to inflate your projected volumes. This lowers the unit cost for seats, mufflers, control arms, etc, and makes the vehicle more profitable--on paper.Suppliers tool up to make the number of parts the carmaker projects. However, if the volume is less than expected, the automaker has to make up the difference.So, unfortunately, not only was the CT6 an expensive car to build, but Cadillac's weak "brand equity" limited how much GM could charge (and these were still pricey cars in 2016-18, a "base" car was ).Other than the name, the "Omega" could have marked the starting point for Cadillac to once again be the standard of the world. Other than the awful name (Fleetwood, Elegante, Paramount, even ParAMOUR would be better), and offering the basest car with a FOUR cylinder turbo on the base car (incredibly moronic!), it was very good car and a CREDIBLE Mercedes S-Class/Lexus LS400 alternative. While I cannot know if the novel aluminum body was worth the cost (very expensive and complex to build), the bragging rights were legit--a LARGE car that was lighter, but had good body rigidity. No surprise, the interior was not the best, but the gap with the big boys was as close as GM has done in the luxury sphere.Mary Barra decided that profits today and tomorrow were more important than gambling on profits in 2025 and later. Having sunk a TON of money, and even done a mid-cycle enhancement, complete with the new Blackwing engine (which copied BMW with the twin turbos nestled in the "V"!), in fall 2018 GM announced it was discontinuing the car, and closing the assembly plant it was built in. (And so you know, building different platforms on the same line is very challenging and considerably less efficient in terms of capital and labor costs than the same platform, or better yet, the same model).So now, GM is anticipating that, as the car market "goes electric" (if you can call it that--more like the Federal Government and EU and even China PUSHING electric cars), they can make electric Cadillacs that are "prestige". The Cadillac Celestique is the opening salvo--$340,000. We will see how it works out.