Flawed CBA or Cost-Benefit Analysis of Rear Guard SUTs by NHTSA

NHTSA has used the flawed Canadian regulation CMVSS NO.223 and incorrectly attributed an effectiveness of 35 mph in crashes to this rule discounting that at 35 mph in offset crashes this regulation would fail to protect the public. They have admitted that the American rule was an 30 mph rule while NHTSA knew in 1992 that virtually all fatal crashes were in excess of 30 mph. We contend the Canadian regulation is also a 30 mph rule that fails in expected minimum application that almost all U.S. trucks already on the road meet today. NHTSA uses the 35 mph as the maximum expected effective speed of underride guards in it’s biased CBA discounting thousands of lives saved by higher speed guards. NHTSA knew and tested in the early 1990’s that honeycombed guards shaped or designed to swivel in high speed head on impacts could deflect away crashing cars mitigating injuries and death at extreme speeds. NHTSA knew from research by truck manufacturers 20 to 30 years ago that crash cushion guards extended beyond the truck could absorb the energy in high speed frontal crashes. These facts have been largely hidden from the public. CBA based on low speed guards is propaganda designed to end the rulemaking before it even begins. MUARC researchers designed and tested high speed guards that worked decades ago and pretending they do not exist and failing to work to make industry make them exist are failures of NHTSA in it’s role to encourage and increase safety. Discounting and giving up on thousands of victims lost to high speed crashes or claiming guards to save them cannot exist is false and is not truth. NHTSA CBA is false!