Talk:Trinity Industries

Guardrail controversy section
In March 2012, Joshua Harman, co-owner of guardrail manufacturing and installation companies SPIG Industry and Selco Construction Services, filed a federal False Claims Act (FCA) suit against Trinity Highway Products, LLC. Trinity manufactures under license the ET Plus System -- a guardrail end terminal system designed by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI). Mr. Harman alleged that Trinity did not properly notify the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in 2005 when Trinity changed the ET Plus guide channel from five inches to four. Trinity made the modification upon the recommendation of TTI which had successfully crash tested the product. Prior to May 18, 2015, FHWA did not expect product submitters to notify FHWA of “non-significant” modifications if the modification was though to have no effect on how the device would slow, stop or redirect the vehicle. Harman further alleged that these were cost-cutting changes that resulted in unsafe products being deployed on U.S. highways. Automobile accidents involving the ET Plus System have involved guardrails penetrating vehicles and causing injury to the driver. Lawsuits regarding the guardrails causing injury to motorists were pending in U.S. courts in 2014.[5]

In October, 2014, the federal lawsuit resulted in a fraud jury verdict of $175 million which under FCA was tripled to $525 million.[6] In June 2015, the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Texas certified the verdict and assessed the final penalty at $663 million. Trinity has appealed the case to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In January 2014, Nevada suspended the use of the guardrails due to Trinity's lack of disclosure.[7] By October 2014, 14 states had suspended new installations of the end terminal[6] A report by the University of Alabama at Birmingham which examined data from almost a decade of crash reports concluded the ET Plus guardrail end terminal to be nearly three times more likely to result in fatality than the previous version of the end terminal. In January 2015, the FHWA commissioned a peer review of the University of Alabama at Birmingham report. All four reviewers raised concerns about limitations or flaws in the study’s methodology, which led all of the reviewers to question the validity of the study’s findings and conclusions. In October 2014, the FHWA issued a memorandum requesting information from state transportation departments regarding the ET Plus performance.[7] In addition, the FHWA requested the guardrail be retested. Trinity voluntarily stopped shipping the ET Plus until the additional crash testing requested by the FHWA could be completed.[8] Up to that point, 42 states had stopped installation of new ET Plus guardrails pending further testing.[10]

The company conducted a series of eight crash tests at 27-inch and 31-inch heights to conform to the prevailing standard for guardrails of this type: NCHRP Report 350. After a review by the FHWA and an independent expert, in March 2015 the FHWA announced that the ET Plus® ET Plus passed all eight crash tests, and that the product remained eligible for federal reimbursement. In March 2015, the Virginia Department of Transportation announced plans to replace ET Plus guardrails.[9]

In September 2015, The FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published a joint task force report titled, “Safety Analysis of Extruding W-Beam Guardrail End Terminal Crashes.” The report concluded that there are no unique performance limitations that can be attributed to the ET Plus, that there are real-world conditions that exceed the performance expectation of all end terminal systems, and that additional crash testing of all existing Report 350-compliant end terminals would be irrelevant and uninformative. The report also cited installation, maintenance and repair as factors affecting product performance.

On October 23, 2105, Trinity Highway Products announced that it would resume shipping the ET Plus to fill orders as they are approved and accepted.

a: http://wpri.com/target-12-guardrail-dangers/guardrail-dangers-real-life-cases/ b: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/roadway_dept/policy_guide/road_hardware/elig_ltr_faq.cfm c: Aaron M. Kessler; Danielle Ivory (June 9, 2015). ”$663 Million Penalties for Maker of Guardrail”. New York Times. d: http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/a-case-to-watch-highway-contractor-75362/ e: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/guardrailsafety/peerreview.cfm f: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/guardrailsafety/et27crashtestingsummary.pdf g: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1518.cfm h: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/guardrailsafety/safety analysis/ i: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/pressroom/fhwa1561.cfm j: http://www.bigstory.ap.org/article/3c9ceee2b0f741cfa7d9aba2d6a7e448/texas-company-resume-shipping-guardrails

--Robphilips (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The suggested information is not sourced well - it lacks lots of citations to support important claims made in the text, and as such, cannot be implemented into the article. Regards, VB00 (talk) 06:09, 31 December 2016 (UTC)