ATSIP Homepage
Discussion Board Home Discussion Board HomeProject DiscussionANSI D16 Public Discussion
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - 2.4 Definitions - Accidents
  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.


2.4 Definitions - Accidents

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Message
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 9:27pm
Not sure a clarification is necessary since the vehicle is still in motion, albeit due to the water current etc.  If in the same scenario, the vehicle finally stopped against some rocks for example and the occupant/motorist was able to get out, jump in the water and drown trying to make it to shore then this would not be a trafficway related death but an accidental drowning.  In the example given though, I believe it would be.
Michael McDonald
ANSI D16 Panel Member
Delaware State Police
Director, Information Technology
302-672-5444
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: 41
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jvecchi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/08/2016 at 10:10pm
Mike, per your assessment of the unstabilized situations, I was trained that the events described are two unstabilized situations, not one.   
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
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/09/2016 at 12:37pm
Joan,

Was your latest response of two versus on unstabilized condition related to the vehicle entering the water or from another post regarding a vehicle braking for a pedestrian and striking same while another vehicle behind the first vehicle swerved to avoid and struck a pole?  In the one where I referenced that it would be handled as two separate crashes, I agree since two separate reports would be generated.  Maybe in my response I referenced the scenario posed indicated only one unstabilized condition, but I agree that it is two. 
Michael McDonald
ANSI D16 Panel Member
Delaware State Police
Director, Information Technology
302-672-5444
Back to Top
mthompson View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: May/19/2016
Location: Utah
Status: Offline
Points: 3
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote mthompson Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/15/2016 at 10:35am
Non-collision events can result in damage or injury (harmful event), yet still involve a motor vehicle in transport.  As such "contact" is not always a component of a motor vehicle accident. 
Back to Top
wstanley View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Washington
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wstanley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/16/2016 at 1:00pm
,

Edited by wstanley - Aug/16/2016 at 1:15pm
Back to Top
wstanley View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member

ANSI D16 Panel Member

Joined: Mar/29/2016
Location: Washington
Status: Offline
Points: 13
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote wstanley Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/16/2016 at 1:13pm
I am not sure I agree, or understand the scenario,  If a car goes into the water and the person exits the vehicle are you saying the un stabilized situation has ended even though the person could not make it so shore because of the current?  I can see if they got out of the car, were able to get to some rocks, debris, etc. before getting to shore and then drowning attempting to reach shore once they found safety on the rocks, then the un stabilized situation would have ended once they got to the rocks.
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: 41
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jvecchi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/17/2016 at 11:23pm
Mike:  My response was to the incident where the vehicle braked to avoid the pedestrian and the vehicle behind it swerved to avoid the collision and struck a light post.  
I would consider that situation two events because I believe that the fact that the following vehicle was not able to stop in time was not necessarily related to the first person's inability to stop.  My training was always that each driver has an independent responsibility to control his/her vehicle so that if the vehicle you're following stops suddenly, you should have left adequate space between the vehicles to come to a stop without colliding.  Had the driver of the first vehicle swerved into the adjacent lane and caused the driver of the 2nd vehicle to have to swerve to avoid a collision, that would have been a single unstabilized situation, based on my police training.   
From my perspective, it would be difficult to find a starting and stopping point for an unstabilized situation in heavy traffic if vehicles were travelling highway speeds, but suddenly slowed and somewhere back in the pack there were rear-end collisions.  I would see the first driver/vehicle involved in a collision as the first unstabilized situation.  I would not have listed the vehicle that hit the pedestrian as a non-contact vehicle for the second collision with the light pole.

Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Back to Top
tgorman View Drop Down
ATSIP Member
ATSIP Member


Joined: Jun/06/2016
Location: CT
Status: Offline
Points: 19
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tgorman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: Aug/19/2016 at 1:22am
Could we not capture the desired elements by keeping it simple or with slight modification to existing definitions?  I modified the definition that I teach with slightly--this is intended just to start a discussion but by it being "generic" it would fulfill most examples of the "crashes" people have given thus far.

Motor Vehicle Crash:  any event or incident on a trafficway (trafficway definition from MMUCC) that results in the unintended death, injury or property damage attributable directly or indirectly to a motor vehicle or its load.

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 3:20pm
Originally posted by jmcdonough jmcdonough wrote:

The definition of 2.4.12 Motor Vehicle Accident does not specifically say that it must involve a “contact” motor vehicle in-transport.  Suggest adding the word "contact" to the definition to say say “(1) involves a contact motor vehicle in-transport,..." 

Even though all directly involved vehicles are defined as "contact vehicles," no actual contact in the standard sense of the term is required for the incident to be considered a crash (see 2.6.3).
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 7:56pm
Originally posted by jvecchi jvecchi wrote:

Mike:  My response was to the incident where the vehicle braked to avoid the pedestrian and the vehicle behind it swerved to avoid the collision and struck a light post.  
I would consider that situation two events because I believe that the fact that the following vehicle was not able to stop in time was not necessarily related to the first person's inability to stop.  My training was always that each driver has an independent responsibility to control his/her vehicle so that if the vehicle you're following stops suddenly, you should have left adequate space between the vehicles to come to a stop without colliding.  Had the driver of the first vehicle swerved into the adjacent lane and caused the driver of the 2nd vehicle to have to swerve to avoid a collision, that would have been a single unstabilized situation, based on my police training.   
From my perspective, it would be difficult to find a starting and stopping point for an unstabilized situation in heavy traffic if vehicles were travelling highway speeds, but suddenly slowed and somewhere back in the pack there were rear-end collisions.  I would see the first driver/vehicle involved in a collision as the first unstabilized situation.  I would not have listed the vehicle that hit the pedestrian as a non-contact vehicle for the second collision with the light pole.


The issue here is one of semantics. Looking carefully at example nine we see the following included when referring to the second vehicle: "At the same time (i.e., when the first vehicle started to brake and before it came to rest), a second motor vehicle in-transport swerves . . . " So, the implication is that the unstabilized situation begun by the first vehicle has not ended, therefore the swerving of the of the second vehicle is part of the same unstabilized situation. Common sense may tell us otherwise, but based on a strict reading of the definition, this is an entirely defensible position. Now, we begin to have even worse problems when we consider some other factors. Let's ask, for example, can the second car be any arbitrary distance from the first car, and still be part of the first unstabilized situation? According to this example, the answer is "yes"! Consider a driver who has a medical event and slow rolls across the roadway before hitting a telephone pole. We all know this is not uncommon. The unstabilized situation could last for several seconds. Now, suppose I am a driver approaching this event on the same roadway, but I am playing Pokemon Go while I drive. I look up from catching a Jigglypuff only to see another vehicle slowly rolling across the roadway front of me. I swerve to avoid it, and hit a rock wall on the other side of the road. I think we'd all agree that common sense tells us that these are two separate unstabilized situations, one caused by a medical problem and the other by stupidity. But, because the first vehicle had not come to rest before I looked up from my Pokemon Go game, by definition 2.4.4 these are all part of the same unstabilized situation, and hence part of the same crash. I am not advocating that we abrogate common sense to force situations into a technical definition. Gosh, report these as two crashes. What I am saying is that this is a particular kind of logical problem inherent in language and closely related to something called the Sorites Paradox. It is a well studied problem, and there is no particularly good solution in a lot of cases, but a common approach when faced with this kind of linguistic vagueness is to develop specific criteria to define a term and to stick with those criteria come hell or high water. If we adopt that attitude then examples 8 and 9 seem just fine to me. Otherwise we need to modify the definition, but I believe that no matter what definition you choose, your going find examples that introduce this problem. I vote for leaving the standard as it is, and reporting the the crashes as they are.
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 0.141 seconds.