As manufacturers of truck side guards at Dur-A-Guard, we’ve watched with growing concern as the debate over mandatory side guards continues to stall in the United States. While our European counterparts have long since resolved this issue, the U.S. continues to wrestle with a decision that could save hundreds of lives each year. The question isn’t whether side guards save lives – we know they do. The real question is: why does the U.S. continue to resist this proven safety measure?

Let’s be frank: the reluctance to mandate side guards largely boils down to industry influence and politics. When we look at the numbers, we see that the trucking industry contributed nearly $6 million to political campaigns in 2018 alone. This financial leverage has effectively stalled progress on side guard legislation, prioritizing industry profits over public safety.

The Cost Argument: A Closer Look

The resistance to mandatory side guards in the U.S. frequently circles back to one primary concern: cost. The trucking industry estimates that nationwide implementation would require an investment between $970 million and $1.2 billion. At first glance, these numbers seem staggering, but let’s break down what they really mean.

For individual trucking companies, installing side guards represents an upfront cost of approximately $2,000-3,000 per vehicle. While significant, this investment needs to be weighed against both tangible and intangible costs. The tangible costs include potential legal liabilities from underride accidents, increased insurance premiums, and the financial impact of accident-related delays and vehicle damage. The intangible costs – the loss of human life – are immeasurable.

What’s often overlooked in this financial discussion is the potential for cost offsets. European studies have shown that side guards can actually improve a truck’s aerodynamic efficiency, leading to fuel savings over time. When properly designed and installed, these devices can reduce fuel consumption by up to 5% – a significant figure for an industry where fuel represents one of the largest operating expenses.

Moreover, the cost argument ignores the economic burden of underride accidents on society. Each fatal accident carries substantial costs: emergency response resources, healthcare expenses, lost productivity, and the devastating impact on families and communities. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety estimates that side guards could prevent approximately 75% of fatalities in side underride crashes. When viewed through this lens, the initial investment in side guards becomes more of an insurance policy than a burden.

The industry’s cost concerns deserve consideration, but they shouldn’t overshadow the broader economic and social implications. If we can implement mandatory rear guards – as we have since the 1960s – surely we can find a way to make side guards financially feasible. Perhaps the solution lies in phased implementation, tax incentives, or government subsidies to help offset the initial investment. The real question isn’t whether we can afford to implement side guards, but rather: can we afford not to?

Learning from Our European Counterparts

While the U.S. debates, Europe acts. The United Kingdom’s mandatory side guard requirements have significantly reduced fatal underride accidents. Even more telling, European studies have shown that side guards can improve a truck’s aerodynamic efficiency, potentially offsetting their cost through fuel savings. This evidence directly contradicts the industry’s cost-benefit arguments against implementation.

The Industry’s Resistance: Myth vs. Reality

We’ve heard all the arguments:

• “Side guards will weaken trailers”
• “They’ll reduce fuel efficiency”
• “They’ll complicate loading procedures”

As manufacturers of these safety devices, we can attest that modern engineering has largely resolved these concerns. Yet the trucking lobby, led by organizations like the American Trucking Associations and the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association, continues to push back against mandatory implementation.

Perhaps most troubling is the recent revelation that the U.S. Department of Transportation‘s inspector general has been accused of suppressing research on side underride guards – research that could have led to safer regulations. This suggests that the resistance to mandatory side guards goes beyond mere economic concerns.

A Path Forward

At Dur-A-Guard, we believe the solution lies in a balanced approach. While nationwide implementation might face obstacles, we could start with targeted mandates in urban areas, where trucks frequently interact with cyclists and pedestrians. This phased approach would allow the industry to adapt while beginning to save lives immediately.

The debate over mandatory side guards perfectly illustrates how industry influence can override public safety concerns in our regulatory process. While the trucking industry cites costs and practical challenges, we at Dur-A-Guard see these as solvable problems rather than insurmountable obstacles. After all, if European trucking companies can successfully implement these safety measures, why can’t we?

Time for Action

As we continue to manufacture and advocate for side guards, we call on lawmakers to prioritize public safety over industry pressure. The technology exists. The benefits are clear. The only missing element is the political will to act.

We invite concerned citizens, safety advocates, and forward-thinking fleet operators to join us in pushing for mandatory side guard regulations. Until then, we’ll continue doing our part by providing innovative side guard solutions to those who choose to prioritize safety over the status quo.

The longer we wait, the more lives we put at risk. The question isn’t whether side guards should be mandatory – it’s why they aren’t already.