The idea of being "clothes-lined" by a huge, metal truck bed is pretty disturbing. Go guardrails!

You do realize that mandated safety equipment on trucks is going to result in higher costs, that will be passed along to the consumer, right? It would be VERY expensive to retrofit all existing semi-trailers with such equipment, which is going to end up costing YOU, in the form of higher prices you pay for just about everything you buy.This is not a bad idea- in fact, it's a very good idea, I just want to point out that it's not going to be done for free by someone else- it's going to cost YOU as well as everyone else.

I'd vote that all new trailers would require it. Retro-fitting does sound expensive, but I not sure how expensive. I think we should require all vehicles to have something that keeps them from driving over other cars. I had a friend that was in a compact car and got totally flattened (killed, tragically) by a jacked-up truck. If we had all cars at the same level, then people wouldn't die like that.

I have to point out that "guard rails" under trailers would help prevent cars fron driving under the trailers, it wouldn't prevent trucks driving over cars.

***Be forewarned, what follows may be upsetting to some readers. ***

Concerning this issue, I believe it to be a worthy topic. Your supporting examples, however, have little substance to support your desired result. Most of the entries are of what people assume their friend were ‘thinking’ and ‘feeling’ at the time of the accidents’ or incidents’, which is of little use here. Facts support and perpetuate ideas. Assumptions, especially of someone else’s mindset, only distort an issue and weakens one’s stance.

With this having been said, let’s dissect the second ‘Accident’ entry. Considering it is the only one that contained more facts than assumptions. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the police report state that Ms. Austin began the incident, which resulted in three deaths. “The pileup apparently started when Ms. Austin's car rear-ended an 18-wheeler, said Detective Juan Carranza of the Dallas County Sheriff's Department. Investigators say speed or a close following distance may have contributed to the crash.” Which means, she was following too closely to maintain safe control of her vehicle? Which in turn created a chain of accidents that resulted in, not only her and her son’s death but, her risky driving habits took another person’s life as well. The ‘18-Wheeler Guardrail’ would not have changed the outcome of this incident because as your information states, “… Ms. Austin's car rear-ended an 18-wheeler….Ms. Austin's car and the 18-wheeler burst into flames.”

Cause of Accident:1) “Ms. Austin's car rear-ended an 18-wheeler…” a) Following too close to maintain safe control of her vehicle. i) She was behind a vehicle, the 18-Wheeler, with a profile of ten feet wide and thirteen feet six inches high. This would preclude her from seeing the brake lights of the any other vehicle, except the truck to her front, greatly increasing the risk of such an incident. 2) “Ms. Austin's car rear-ended…” a) Which means she had to have hit the ‘ICC bumper’; as they are required, by law, on all commercial vehicles. i) An ‘ICC Bumper’ is designed to do exactly what you desire---prevent low-profile vehicles from going under high-profile vehicles.

Other Facts to consider:1) “…Ms. Austin's car… burst into flames.” a) It is possible that if not for the fire she and her son might have survived the incident.

2) “Motorists in the rush-hour traffic had to react quickly.” a) Meaning, numerous vehicles crowding into each other’s safety zones, exponentially increasing the chance of a chain-reaction accident. b) In these situations commercial vehicles are at the mercy of the vehicles around them. If they back too far off from the vehicle to their front everyone and their uncle jump in front of them. Causing them to slow down even more which creates an ‘accordion-effect’ with the traffic behind them. This then in turn, causes the vehicles behind them to come around and invade their safety zone once again. The only recourse for the commercial vehicle is for them to try to maintain as much of their safety zone while being forced to---run with the pack.

3) “…white pickup truck …may have slowed down or stopped, and that's when a dump truck rear-ended that vehicle” a) The bumper in the front is just as low as the trailer’s ICC bumper. b) Due to physics of objects colliding and the engineered “Crumple Factor” of the pickup truck the outcome of this impact would be no different. i) When two objects, with greatly dissimilar mass and greatly dissimilar velocity, collide---the object with the greatest mass usually wins. ii) Modern vehicles, including 18-wheelers, are designed to absorb and defuse ‘impact energy’, in layman term’s this is called “The Crumple Factor”. In fact, this is partly the reason most modern vehicles, including 18-wheelers, are designed with plastic bumpers. So that impact energy can be dispersed over a wider area and more readily defused, as opposed to, when two ridged objects collide the energy/momentum gets passed along nearly proportional. (example: Two oranges colliding, as opposed to, two pool ball’s)NOTE: Please understand that there are numerous elements of physics involved, which I did not bring up, but none which reinforce your desires. Summery: Based on the physics involved by the situation, which Ms Austin initiated, and the desired effects of ‘impact energy dispersion’ a lowered bumper, or a “Guardrail”, would have had a marginal effect on the outcome. It would not have had your desired effect, “This way, you would just bounce off of the truck versus going underneath it.”

At this point three summations can be made---based on the information given, of course:1) Owing to Ms Austin’s risky driving habits, in the given environment, this can not be classified an ‘Accident’, but instead, it would be considered an ‘Incident’. [An accident arises from ‘unexpected events’ leading to ‘undesired results.’ An incident arises from ‘controllable actions’ leading to ‘predictable results.’] 2) Regardless of it having been ‘Rush Hour’, if safe following distances and safe speeds would have been observed everyone would have made it home safely that day. Negating the need for…”truckers of America to add the equivalent of a guard rail on the side of their trucks. This way, you would just bounce off of the truck versus going underneath it and possibly having in excess of 50,000 pounds of whatever passing over your vehicle.” 3) Despite how safe any vehicle can be designed, when high speeds and foolish driving habits are combined, they will never go ‘…bouncing off…’ each other.

One final note, to lift one element from the Swedish Transportation System and say it will solve the ‘stated issue’ is about as pointless as making assumptions of someone else’s mindset. It’s the equivalent of saying, ‘In Sweden, they say the number 3 better then we do. So, let’s speak Swedish.’ If you’ve ever driven in Sweden, or most of Western Europe for that matter, you would understand my point. Of course the issue can be solved but I don’t think the taxpayers are willing to pay the price. Because it won’t be “…the truckers of America to add the equivalent of a guard rail on the side of their trucks.” Every time you spend a buck a percentage of it will be going to pay for those guardrails for the trucks; and, new interstates, new US Highways, new state roads, new county roads, new city streets, new off-ramps and on-ramps, new railway crossings, new bridges, new customer driveways and docks, new etc…

When really most of the issue would be solved with better driving habits and common courtesy.

Thanks for you time, D-

p.s. But please don’t reply with, ‘But every life is precious and worth the expense.’ Because, I’ll retort with an equally vague statement, such as, “If this is true then why do we abort so many of our unwanted innocent and ship-off our elderly to nursing homes to waste away their final years.”

p.s.s. More time should be spent on discussing what the real issue is; before making an assumption as to its cure.

Basically, what you are saying is that safety is not worth the price. I flatly disagree.

"Sand", go back and read my statement and you'll see what I'm "Basically saying".PS: Regaurdless of how you 'feel' about reality, it is what it is. This is a cost prohibitive idea.

Reality sucks, d-

Trucks in the UK have had such rails on them for years now. I still don't see why it is so difficult to get this to happen in the US. Perhaps the change could be brought in gradually, by a law requiring that new trucks have these rails. Therefore the old ones would be gradually phased out.

There was a TV documentary about ten (??) years ago on a subset of this problem. Not siderails, but the cheaper and more cost-effective rear rail. although apparently these have been mandated for trailer trucks for awhile and reduced injuries, smaller trucks are still not being made with them, and manufacturers and lawmakers are or were dragging their feet.