U.S. News

2244 readers

65 users here now

News about and pertaining to the United States and its people.

Please read what's functionally the mission statement before posting for the first time. We have a narrower definition of news than you might be accustomed to.

Guidelines for submissions:

Post the original source of information as the link.
If there is any Nazi imagery in the linked story, mark your post NSFW.
If there is a paywall, provide an archive link in the body.
Post using the original headline; edits for clarity (as in providing crucial info a clickbait hed omits) are fine.
Social media is not a news source.

For World News, see the News community.

This community's icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

alyaza@beehaw.org

rs5th@beehaw.org

Powderhorn@beehaw.org

DOT Researchers Suggested a Way to Make Big Trucks Safer. After Meeting With Lobbyists, Agency Officials Rejected the Idea. (www.propublica.org)

submitted 1 year ago by Dee_Imaginarium@beehaw.org to c/usnews@beehaw.org

5 comments fedilink hide all child comments

When the researchers drafted their report, they included a key suggestion: The DOT should craft federal regulations requiring side guards.

But that recommendation generated intense resistance, both internally, from department officials who challenged their findings, and externally, from trucking industry lobbyists.

... the department supervisor overseeing the project had a very direct message for the researchers. “PLEASE delete any mention of a recommendation to develop … any regulation,” he wrote in an email. “An industry standard is acceptable, but no mention of ‘regulation.’”

The industry objections resulted in a remarkable concession from the department: It allowed trucking company lobbyists to review the researchers’ preliminary report and provide comments on it.

By the time of its release in 2020, the report had been dramatically rewritten, stripped of its key conclusions — including the need to federally mandate side guards — and cut down by nearly 70 pages.

top 5 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] SenorBolsa@beehaw.org 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

That's shit. The ATA is garbage and only fights for the megacarriers.

As a former truck driver who has had the misfortune to be involved in TWO underride collisions I would happily spend the $3000 or so out of my own pocket just to never see what I saw again. (I won't go into details as I do not want to relive those memories)

Obviously there's limits on what's practical to do, but seeing as this all worked out fine in Europe I'd call it a no brainer.

[–] Powderhorn@beehaw.org 2 points 1 year ago

I love the smell of regulatory capture in the morning.

[–] withersailor@aussie.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Industry saving money at the expense of lives.

[–] nzodd@beehaw.org 1 points 1 year ago

Or trying to make as much money as they can by killing as many Americans as their board and shareholders demand, to put it another way.

[–] eltimablo@kbin.social 0 points 1 year ago

From looking at your own quote, even the DOT wasn't unanimous on the decision.