ATSIP Homepage
Discussion Board Home Discussion Board HomeProject DiscussionANSI D16 Public Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 2.2 Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users
  Help Help  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Welcome to the ATSIP Discussion Board!  If you are an ATSIP member, you have already been registered!  Your username is your first initial and last name (IE: John Doe = jdoe), your password is the same that you use to log in to the membership site.
If you don't know your password you can reset it by clicking here.
After you log in for the first time, please take a minute and go to the member control panel to update your profile and set your preferences.
If you are not an ATSIP member, please register to join the discussion!
If you need help, go to the discussion board help forum.  You can download a detailed users manual or ask a question in the questions and comments topic.  You can also get help by clicking the help link in the menu at the top of the screen, sending a private message to an administrator, or by sending an email to manager@atsip.org.


2.2 Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users

 Post Reply Post Reply
Author
Message
jhall1213 View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member


Joined: Apr/14/2016
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jhall1213 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: 2.2 Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users
    Posted: Apr/18/2016 at 12:55pm
2.2 Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users
Back to Top
Miles Brookes View Drop Down
New User
New User


Joined: Jun/08/2016
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miles Brookes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/08/2016 at 7:17pm
The definition of trafficway (2.2.1) has contributed some debate in my state when working with crash reports and associated data.  Due to the rural nature of much our state and various methods of transport we are left with conflicting views on what a traffic way is based off the verbiage in 2.2.1 and accompanying Figure (1).  It would help us for a more narrow written definition of a trafficway which may better align with Figure 1.   All of the attributes in Figure 1’s example trafficway, in my view, demonstrate planned design and construction, however this caveat is not mentioned in the definition of a traffic way. I’m not sure if this was done intentionally or not.   

My state has many land ways which could be considered trafficways based off the current definition of 2.2.1, “any land way open to the public as a matter of right or custom for moving persons or property from one place to another”,  but come nowhere close to the examples provided in Figure 1.  Some of these “trafficways” as we know them have been transformed from simple footpath trails between villages to a way large enough to accommodate a large utility vehicle as defined in 2.2.11.  This transformation was not a planned/constructed improvement but has evolved over time (hundreds, possibly upwards of thousands of years) from foot traffic, to dog sleds, to snow mobiles/ATVs, and finally motor vehicles (including automobiles and pickups/SUV-some even registered for operation on the state’s road network).   These ways do not come close (visually) to Figure 1’s example of a roadway, but have and are being used to transport goods and people from place to place.  As such this has not only a bearing on my state's FARS data, but our crash data as a whole.   

I’d welcome any thoughts on this matter.



Edited by Miles Brookes - Jun/08/2016 at 7:20pm
Back to Top
Mark Pritchard View Drop Down
New User
New User

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Apr/26/2016
Status: Offline
Points: 16
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mark Pritchard Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/14/2016 at 3:27pm
2.2.7.3 commercial motor vehicle in D16 matches the definition in MMUCC. However it is not quite the same as the definition of a CMV in regulation 49 CFR 390.5 (see https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/390.5 ) which focuses on trucks, buses and HAZMAT. As FMCSA wants information about CMVs reported to them, should D16 use the definition from the federal regulations?  If there is a reason for them being different it may help to include the reason with the CMV definition.
Back to Top
sweissman View Drop Down
New User
New User

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Apr/27/2016
Location: Washington DC
Status: Offline
Points: 37
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote sweissman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/23/2016 at 10:45am
Originally posted by Miles Brookes Miles Brookes wrote:

The definition of trafficway (2.2.1) has contributed some debate in my state when working with crash reports and associated data.  Due to the rural nature of much our state and various methods of transport we are left with conflicting views on what a traffic way is based off the verbiage in 2.2.1 and accompanying Figure (1).  It would help us for a more narrow written definition of a trafficway which may better align with Figure 1.   All of the attributes in Figure 1’s example trafficway, in my view, demonstrate planned design and construction, however this caveat is not mentioned in the definition of a traffic way. I’m not sure if this was done intentionally or not.   

My state has many land ways which could be considered trafficways based off the current definition of 2.2.1, “any land way open to the public as a matter of right or custom for moving persons or property from one place to another”,  but come nowhere close to the examples provided in Figure 1.  Some of these “trafficways” as we know them have been transformed from simple footpath trails between villages to a way large enough to accommodate a large utility vehicle as defined in 2.2.11.  This transformation was not a planned/constructed improvement but has evolved over time (hundreds, possibly upwards of thousands of years) from foot traffic, to dog sleds, to snow mobiles/ATVs, and finally motor vehicles (including automobiles and pickups/SUV-some even registered for operation on the state’s road network).   These ways do not come close (visually) to Figure 1’s example of a roadway, but have and are being used to transport goods and people from place to place.  As such this has not only a bearing on my state's FARS data, but our crash data as a whole.   

I’d welcome any thoughts on this matter.


I would agree that the existing figure and terminology of "trafficway" only identifies a fraction of traffiways out in the US. During the course of the MMUCC updates, we proposed updating the figure and definition/terminology to include a more complex system - one including bicycle lanes and sidewalks.

Proposed solution:
In the interest of representing a larger percentage of trafficways, we should include 3 different traffiway figures with associated terminology representing the three major land uses - urban, suburban and rural.


Edited by sweissman - Jun/23/2016 at 10:50am
Back to Top
Miles Brookes View Drop Down
New User
New User


Joined: Jun/08/2016
Location: Juneau, Alaska
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Miles Brookes Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/23/2016 at 6:08pm

Amending/adding terminology for Rural land use trafficways would be of interest to Alaska.


Edited by Miles Brookes - Jun/23/2016 at 6:09pm
Back to Top
mmcdonald View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Apr/22/2016
Location: Wilmington DE
Status: Offline
Points: 21
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mmcdonald Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/08/2016 at 10:00pm
It isn't that I am opposed to the suggestion.  I always try to remember not to be narrowly focused only on my jurisdiction as we don't have many of the issues raised that exist in Alaska, but isn't the defining issue whether or not the trafficways in question are state or local government developed, maintained or supported?  If not, even though a crash report could be and may be completed, these types of incidents are not by definition reportable as trafficway crashes and considered private property aren't they?  I would be interested in hearing more about my interpretation.  Like I said though, I am not opposed to including or clarifying the definition if indeed they are truly trafficway crashes.
Michael McDonald
ANSI D16 Panel Member
Delaware State Police
Director, Information Technology
302-672-5444
Back to Top
jdolan View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Tennessee
Status: Offline
Points: 22
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jdolan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/19/2016 at 2:06pm
Since 49 CFR is intended for regulation of CMVs, not classification for data collection, it is not specifically applicable to crash data collection. For example, in 49 CFR 383, which governs regulation of CDLs, you'll find a slightly different definition of CMV. I do agree, however, that our definition should be as inclusive as possible of all the commercial motor vehicles that are defined in 49 CFR.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.04
Copyright ©2001-2015 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.