ATSIP Homepage
Discussion Board Home Discussion Board HomeProject DiscussionANSI D16 Public Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 2.2 Definitions 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.


Forum Locked2.2 Definitions Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Message
jhall1213 View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member


Joined: Apr/14/2016
Status: Offline
Points: 34
Direct Link To This Post Topic: 2.2 Definitions Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users
    Posted: May/10/2016 at 1:06pm
2.2 Definitions Land Ways, Land Vehicles and Users
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
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/06/2016 at 4:19pm
2.2.41 Definition - Non-Motorist
Issue:  The existing ANSI D16 and MMUCC 4th Edition of non-motorist include occupants of motor vehicles not in transport, alongside pedestrians/pedalcyclists/etc. FARS does not combine occupants of motor vehicles not in transport with non-motorists; instead, FARS separates persons into the following two categories (according to the draft 2016 coding manual):
  • Person (Motor Vehicle Occupant) Level
  • Person (Not a Motor Vehicle Occupant) Level
And...

The FARS 2016 coding manual entry for "P3.  Vehicle Number - Person Level (MV Occupant)" includes this remark:
"001-999 is used for motor vehicle occupants (In-Transport, Parked/Stopped Off Roadway/Working Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicles in Motion Outside the Trafficway)"

Additionally, including occupants of MVs not-in-transport distorts non-motorist data since the essence of a non-motorist is not having protection during a crash (i.e. vehicle). Non-motorists and motorists of MVs not-in-transport require different countermeasures and safety programs. They should NOT be combined.

Proposed solution:  Move inclusion item "Occupants of transport vehicles not in-transport" from 2.2.41 (non-motorist) to 2.2.35 (occupant). 

Note:  For those individuals worried this might muddy the data waters for occupants of MVs not-in-transport, please consider that MMUCC 4th Edition alone includes 5 elements where "parked MV" or similar may be coded. This group will not be lost.
Back to Top
DFLEMONS View Drop Down
New User
New User
Avatar

Joined: Jun/07/2016
Location: wASHINGTON, DC
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jun/07/2016 at 6:27pm

 

I am afraid this suggestion is rooted in a misunderstanding.  FARS does, indeed have two separate Person Levels; one for Motor Vehicle Occupants and one for Not a Motor Vehicle Occupant.  However FARS also DOES group or classify Occupants of Motor Vehicles NOT in Transport as Non-Motorists.  This is also consistent with D16.1 definitions

 

2.2.35 occupant: An occupant is any person who is part of a transport vehicle.

2.2.39 pedalcyclist: A pedalcyclist is any occupant of a pedalcycle in-transport

2.2.40 motorist: A motorist is any occupant of a motor vehicle in-transport

2.2.41 non-motorist: A non-motorist is any person other than a motorist.

It is important to understand them all and something of their implications.

The following chart progression for FARS might be helpful:

People In Motor Vehicles

DRIVER of M.V. in T.

PASSENGER of M.V. in T.

 

UNKNOWN OCC. TYPE in M.V. in T.

 

OCC. of M.V. NOT in T.

People Not In Motor Vehicles

OCC. of Non-M.V. T. DEVICE

 

PEDESTRIAN

 

BICYCLIST

 

OTHER CYCLIST

 

 PERSONS on PERSONAL CONVEYANCE

 

PERSONS IN/ON BUILDINGS

 

UNK. NON MOTORIST

People In Motor Vehicles

MOTORIST

NON-MOTORIST

DRIVER of M.V. in T.

 

PASSENGER of M.V. in T.

 

UNKNOWN OCC. TYPE in M.V. in T.

 

 

OCC. of M.V. NOT in T.

People Not In Motor Vehicles

 

OCC. of Non-M.V. T. DEVICE

 

PEDESTRIAN

 

BICYCLIST

 

OTHER CYCLIST

 

 PERSONS on PERSONAL CONVEYANCE

 

PERSONS IN/ON BUILDINGS

 

UNK. NON MOTORIST

MOTORIST

NON-MOTORIST

DRIVER of M.V. in T.

 

PASSENGER of M.V. in T.

 

UNKNOWN OCC. TYPE in M.V. in T.

OCC. of M.V. NOT in T.

 

OCC. of Non-M.V. T. DEVICE

 

PEDESTRIAN

 

BICYCLIST

 

OTHER CYCLIST

 

 PERSONS on PERSONAL CONVEYANCE

 

PERSONS IN/ON BUILDINGS

 

UNK. NON MOTORIST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FARS only divided its Person Levels in 2010 so that data entry could become more streamlined and automated to some degree.  (For examples, Restrain Coding could be automatically bypassed for people not in Motor Vehicles; Non-Motorist Actions could be bypassed for people in Motor Vehicles; etc.)

 

The reference to the remark on the FARS element P3 in the FARS 2016 coding manual is merely a note that Motor Vehicles Not in Transport are not numbered separately from Motor Vehicles In Transport so an Occupant of  a Motor Vehicle (In Transport or Not) gets assigned to the vehicle number she/he was in.

A similar misunderstanding (or the same one) has led to a proposed change in MMUCC.  Clarification will be needed there too.  Currently, FARS, MMUCC and ANSI D16.1 all agree with respect to Person Type definitions and classification

Rather than the “Proposed solution:  Move inclusion item "Occupants of transport vehicles not in-transport" from 2.2.41 (non-motorist) to 2.2.35 (occupant). 

I offer the

 Alternative Proposed solution:  ADD inclusion item "Occupants of transport vehicles not in-transport" from 2.2.41 (non-motorist) to 2.2.35 (occupant).

Rationale:

1.      An Occupants of a Transport Vehicle Not in-Transport is already an “Occupant” by definition (2.2.35)

What may not be as clear is that an Occupant of Transport Vehicle Not in-Transport is also a Non-Motorist by definition (2.2.41) as depicted in the previous charts

 

Dennis Flemons
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
FARS - CRSS

Back to Top
jvecchi View Drop Down
ATSIP Fellow
ATSIP Fellow
Avatar
ANSI D16 Panel Moderator

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/05/2016 at 11:48am
Mr. Flemons: I understand Ms. Weissman's concern that the classification of persons in MVs not in transport are grouped inappropriately with non-motorists from the standpoint of safety equipment use and countermeasures.  The chart that you have prepared makes it obvious that this group is generally in a category of its own.  
Of all "people in motor vehicles" the person in a vehicle not in transport is the only non-motorist.  
Ms. Weissman suggests moving persons in this situation from the status of "non-motorist" to "occupant."  
I'm not sure I understand your alternative:  You indicate that you want to add the person in a MV not in transport to the occupant category, in addition to leaving that person in the non-motorist category.  While I realize that there are many classifications in ANSI D.16 that are not mutually exclusive, is that an important factor here?  In terms of countermeasure development, it would seem that having this person in both categories could skew the results.  

So, to both of you, is there a better solution, i.e., to develop another category, non-motorist MV occupant?  or will it suffice to have this person fall into either category or both as suggested?  


Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
DFLEMONS View Drop Down
New User
New User
Avatar

Joined: Jun/07/2016
Location: wASHINGTON, DC
Status: Offline
Points: 5
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/05/2016 at 3:03pm

There is no problem with mutual exclusivity because all of the classes of Occupant are exclusive of the classes of Non-Occupant (and they are exclusive of each other) and all of the classes of Motorist are exclusive of the classes of Non-Motorist (and they are exclusive of each other).

 

What we are dealing with are two different CLASSIFICATION SCHEMES for Persons.  Each scheme has mutually exclusive classes.

To clarify, I am not proposing “to add the person in a MV not in transport to the occupant category, in addition to leaving that person in the non-motorist category. “

I am simply saying a “person in a MV not in transport” is already an occupant.  I am proposing adding the text, "Occupants of transport vehicles not in-transport" in the Inclusions Section under 2.2.35 (occupant), just as it is in the Inclusions Section under 2.2.41 (non-motorist).

This will make it clearer to a user that this is intentional.  I believe this inclusion was overlooked in the past.   A review of the definitions under 2.2.35 (occupant) and 2.2.41 (non-motorist) reveals this is the intent.

 

As for the study of safety equipment use and countermeasures, I am sympathetic.  Rather than trying to change the definition of what people are and their classifications (which could be destructive), why not simply identify and select the subset of persons one wishes to study by their proper name?  It appears to me the subset of Persons at interest here are Persons Not in Motor Vehicles.  FARS has divided its two Person Levels as in the charts below to address this very issue.

 

ADDITIONAL CLASSIFICATION SCHEME:

I don’t think it is necessary but one could create a New Additional Classification by People in Motor Vehicles vs. People Not In Motor Vehicles.   If this is done, it is important to recognize and observe the difference between these classification terms and already defined terms like Occupant, Non-Occupant, Motorist, Non-Motorist.

People In Motor Vehicles

DRIVER of M.V. in T.

PASSENGER of M.V. in T.

 

UNKNOWN OCC. TYPE in M.V. in T.

 

OCC. of M.V. NOT in T.

People Not In Motor Vehicles

OCC. of Non-M.V. T. DEVICE

 

PEDESTRIAN

 

BICYCLIST

 

OTHER CYCLIST

 

 PERSONS on PERSONAL CONVEYANCE

 

PERSONS IN/ON BUILDINGS

 

UNK. NON MOTORIST

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

People In Motor Vehicles

MOTORIST

NON-MOTORIST

DRIVER of M.V. in T.

 

PASSENGER of M.V. in T.

 

UNKNOWN OCC. TYPE in M.V. in T.

 

 

OCC. of M.V. NOT in T.

People Not In Motor Vehicles

 

OCC. of Non-M.V. T. DEVICE

 

PEDESTRIAN

 

BICYCLIST

 

OTHER CYCLIST

 

 PERSONS on PERSONAL CONVEYANCE

 

PERSONS IN/ON BUILDINGS

 

UNK. NON MOTORIST

Dennis Flemons
Department of Transportation
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
FARS - CRSS

Back to Top
jvecchi View Drop Down
ATSIP Fellow
ATSIP Fellow
Avatar
ANSI D16 Panel Moderator

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/05/2016 at 3:13pm
Understood, Mr. Flemons.  Thank you.
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
jvecchi View Drop Down
ATSIP Fellow
ATSIP Fellow
Avatar
ANSI D16 Panel Moderator

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/14/2016 at 9:12am
Additionally to your point, under 2.2.36, the definition of pedestrian is any person who is not an occupant. This makes it more important to include persons in motor vehicles not in transport to 2.2.35 -Occupant, in order to prevent confusion.
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
jvecchi View Drop Down
ATSIP Fellow
ATSIP Fellow
Avatar
ANSI D16 Panel Moderator

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/14/2016 at 12:31pm
I feel like there is a conflict between several definitions within ANSI D.16, regarding classification of crashes.  In 2.6, Road vehicle crash types, subsection 2.6.6 says this about a motor vehicle crash: A collision involving motor vehicle in transport is a crash that is both a motor vehicle crash and a collision crash in which the first harmful even is the collision of two or more motor vehicles in-transport. The same is true for other road vehicles as subsection 2.6.7 indicates that a collision involving other road vehicle in transport is a collision crash in which the first harmful even is the collision of two or more other road vehicles in transport.  
Can someone tell me why these collision crash types require two motor vehicles or two other-road-vehicles? What crash type would apply to a collision between a motor vehicle in transport and an other road vehicle in transport?  Using these classifications, I can't find the correct category.
"2.4.12 -Motor vehicle crash is a transport accident that (1) involves a motor vehicle in transport, (2) is not an aircraft accident or watercraft accident, and (3) does not include any harmful event involving a railway train in-transport prior to involvement of a motor vehicle in transport."  This does not seem to imply that a motor vehicle crash needs to involve 2 or more motor vehicles in-transport. 
Relying on 3.3 -  Classification by transport vehicle type, the order of precedence is aircraft accident, watercraft accident, motor vehicle crash, railway accident and other-road-vehicle crash.  Thus, if a collision occurred between a motor vehicle and an other-road-vehicle, per the precedence it would be a motor vehicle crash, which, in my mind, conflicts with the definition of motor vehicle crash in 2.6.7. What am I missing?  
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
jmcdonough View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Pennsylvania
Status: Offline
Points: 15
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/14/2016 at 4:31pm
Hi Joan,

It is because the two classifications 2.6.6 collision involving motor vehicle in-transport and 2.6.7 collision involving other road vehicle in-transport are classifications based on the first harmful event.  

Specific to 2.6.6, note that first says it is a "motor vehicle accident".  That means it already must involve one motor vehicle in-transport to meet the definition of a motor vehicle accident.  So 2.6.6 are motor vehicle accidents (accidents that involve a motor vehicle in-transport) where the first injury or damage producing event involves another motor vehicle in-transport.  Thus the two.  Does that help?

John
Back to Top
jvecchi View Drop Down
ATSIP Fellow
ATSIP Fellow
Avatar
ANSI D16 Panel Moderator

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Points: 56
Direct Link To This Post Posted: Jul/14/2016 at 6:22pm
Thanks, John.  I knew I was overlooking something--that makes sense.  
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
  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 0.188 seconds.