> 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.
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.
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.
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.)
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
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.
The reason they care about breaks and not this is because this doesn't protect them specifically and so they don't give a shit, because they're raging narcissists.... As I have a feeling someone "in this room" is as well...
[a] https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/ODFL/old-dominion-...
Fortunately the IIHS has been pushing trailer manufacturers to make the change, so newer trailers would not need a retrofit.
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.