The above is "an emotional, illogical argument". The logical argument is that a burden paid by all is sometimes necessary when there are significant risks. This article goes to many lengths to visualize the risks in examples with and without guards. Admittedly, it doesn't have many counter-examples, nor examples from vehicles other than sedans and older cars. And it cites costs from the 1980s rather than today's costs. But when sedans on the road outnumber trucks, the risk starts to seem equivalent to a flight safety issue where we've known for years that the planes caused fatal injuries but we never addressed it.
If there's a blindness in this article, it's not so much the trucking industry response as it is the question of whether or not this has been implemented anywhere else in the world? https://www.reifflawfirm.com/canadian-and-european-truck-und... suggests that, "in Europe since 1994, front underride guards and side underride guards have been required on large trucks," and that these were strengthened in 2007.
That same page suggests front and side (of truck) collisions with a passenger vehicle are more likely than rear collisions, and that existing US and Canadian protections aren't strong enough.
If there's a blindness in this article, it's not so much the trucking industry response as it is the question of whether or not this has been implemented anywhere else in the world? https://www.reifflawfirm.com/canadian-and-european-truck-und... suggests that, "in Europe since 1994, front underride guards and side underride guards have been required on large trucks," and that these were strengthened in 2007.
That same page suggests front and side (of truck) collisions with a passenger vehicle are more likely than rear collisions, and that existing US and Canadian protections aren't strong enough.