Homepage Forums ANSI D16 Discussion Proposed Change to Verbiage in 3.1.3 Reply To: Proposed Change to Verbiage in 3.1.3

John McDonough

Hi Warren and CB members,

Thank you for posting this to the board. Prior to our next batch of items, I will introduce to the CB that this is now active for these shared discussions and suggestions. I mentioned it on the webinar, but we are the first ones using it.

In an initial look, if we just remove the “medically diagnosed” component and go with a “concussion” is an example of a serious injury, I think we can be both medically aligned (pending agreement of those with expertise in that area) and not run up against that passage on fatal injuries. The fatal injury designation is in recognition that frequently death from injury does not result at the time of the crash. Where a concussion would occur at the time of the crash, just not readily confirmed without medical evaluation. Further, it is probably true of other injuries that are not readily identifiable by visual inspection. Ideally, the crash data/injury severity classification would reflect the appropriate severity and the linkage from medical diagnosis would be made back to the crash record. For example, an injury classified at scene as “possible” due to complaint of pain could later be medically determined as serious due to injuries to internal organs.


* indicates required

Membership Profile