Ballot Batch 1 Questions and Responses via Email

Homepage Forums ANSI D16 Discussion Ballot Batch 1 Questions and Responses via Email

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #44511
    John McDonough
    Moderator

    Item #1 Background/Rationale:
    1. Examples are the same. Why not use examples only under 2.4.19?
    2. The definition “a nontraffic crash is a road vehicle crash which is not a traffic crash” is poor. One must now look up what a traffic crash is. A better definition would be: “a nontraffic crash is a road vehicle crash where neither the unstabilized situation nor a harmful event occurs on a trafficway.”

    Responses:
    1. We added in both locations to make it as clear as possible because differentiating these are a challenge for a lot of folks.
    2. The structure of that definition is in alignment with a lot of others within D16. As just one set of examples the terms starting at 2.4.10 through 2.4.25 all follow that general structure.
    3. Evaluating the ballot comments, multiple Consensus Members shared this concern.

    Item #3:
    3.) In a motor vehicle crash the occupants of the motor vehicle have non-fatal injuries and the vehicle is at rest. At this point the unstabilized situation has ended. Any subsequent injury from exposure to the elements is part of a new unstabilized situation. Is this really #3? Does it replace old #3? There are 10 examples currently.

    Response: Yes, we were thinking that would be a good spot in the list for it to fit rather than at the end as 11.
    Item #5:

    Just a question—is “disease condition” the right term? Perhaps “physical condition” is better when talking about a stroke, heart attack, etc.

    Response: Maybe we could get some insight from folks on the panel. I’m posting this one to the discussion board for Consensus Members to comment on.

    Item #7:
    1. You also have Item #15 mentioned in the rationale.
    2. You do not have 2.3.5 in the text.
    3. The highlighting of new items is missing at times.

    Response: These are mistakes and we will fix these for the posting. Thanks for the catch!

    Item #8:
    1. Why is (NEW) in the 3rd bullet under exclusions for 2.2.28?
    2. There needs to be a space above 2.5.9.

    Response: Probably should clear that up for the vote. Parking lane/zone has been in D16; however, it was not specifically defined. There is a proposal to add a definition for the term, in which case it would get an identifier. I note we need to fix the term to parking lane/zone in item #11.
    Item #10:
    What is the section number for this?
    Response: It is new, so we haven’t assigned one yet. Any suggestions?

    What does ‘down slope’ mean?
    “A pickup truck traveling on private property adjacent to the trafficway overturns down slope on the private property and comes to rest within the trafficway.”

    Response: Ugh! It’s missing an “a”! Overturns down a slope. Sorry.

    Should I be concerned that the updated definition for 2.4.7 contact vehicle notes ‘non-motorists’ even though the definition for 2.6.2 collision crash only stipulates ‘pedestrians’? I wanted to ask since we’re only seeing items 1-12 in package 1, and you might already address this in packages 2 or 3.

    Response: We don’t have that in the mix, but it is a good catch and something to clarify. If you are good with the suggested update to 2.4.7 contact vehicle, please use the Affirmative w/ comments and note the correction for 2.6.2. We will make that update and share it with the Consensus Body in the wrap-up from the first batch of voting. Thanks!

    Item #8:
    I’m also concerned about parking lane/zone, which is often dynamic. Many local streets allow on-street parking in the travel lane. If a parked vehicle is hit, does that mean it was not in the roadway? Some parking lanes change by time of day (no parking during rush hours).

    Response: We addressed the time-of-day parking in the new definition for parking lane or zone in item #11. For the local street edge of road/curbside parking, that is tied to 2.2.34.2 parked motor vehicle related to being in-transport. Vehicles on the roadway are in-transport whether in-motion or not. If you have any suggestions, please feel free to include them in your vote.

    For bike lanes, they start and stop sometimes. Why would a bike lane not be in the roadway?
    Response: We were trying to address bike lanes that are exclusive for bicycles (not roadway) versus those that are bicycle preferred but also utilized by vehicles to turn, access parking lanes, driveways, etc. Again, welcome to any suggestion here.

    Item #10
    I think a public road is “open to public travel.” So, private HOA roads are “public roads” if they’re open to the public. The term “public authority” is tough to define. Some toll lanes are owned and operated by private companies. Not sure what that means for “public authority.”

    Response: Good point here. We are trying to satisfy a FHWA request and issue of clarification related to what is required by FHWA to be reported by state DOTs for highway funding versus what is used for statistical report of motor vehicle traffic crashes. It is often a question and issue in state counts. Can you please note that in your comment and we can get input from FHWA. I am not sure how a toll road is handled by FHWA if it is not state owned. Come to think of it, the land may be state-owned but the toll road privately operated/maintained. Not sure.

    Item #11:
    …certain hours of the day (parking lane) and for other uses (e.g., regular travel) at other hours (e.g., travel lane).

    Response: If this is a suggestion for clarity, can you add it to your vote? Generally, if you approve of the item but have suggestions that are assistive or clarifying, those can go in the Affirmative w/ Comment. If you have a substantive change to the item, that would be Negative w/ Comment.

    Item #4:
    What if a vehicle’s load detaches or something falls out of the vehicle (e.g., something out of a truck, a bike rack)? What if a wheel comes off of a vehicle?

    Response: For the situation that you describe, it is considered part of the vehicle that it came from for the duration of the unstabilized situation. For example, if logs fall from a pickup carrying firewood and bounce into another vehicle, it is a two-vehicle crash. If the logs fall, nothing happens, and everything stabilizes, that would end the unstabilized situation. If another vehicle subsequently comes upon and hits the logs at rest in the roadway, it would be a separate single-vehicle crash. Generally, this is covered in the definition of a 2.1.4 transport vehicle where it generally states that the vehicle includes things on it, in it, attached to it, or set in-motion by it.
    That said, looking at the draft, it would probably be good to add in something about vehicle parts, like your wheel example.
    Can you please note that suggestion as a comment when you vote?

Viewing 1 post (of 1 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Subscribe

* indicates required
Stacey Manware

As Deputy Director of Centralized Court Services for the State of Connecticut’s Judicial Branch, Stacey Manware directs the development and implementation of electronic citation and adjudication systems Statewide. A long-standing member of the Connecticut Traffic Records Coordinating Committee, she is the judicial champion of an award winning comprehensive paperless platform for motor vehicle infractions from issuance to placement on the driver history record. Attorney Manware is an adjunct professor of legal research and writing at Post University in Waterbury, Connecticut. She received her Bachelor of Arts in Political Science from Fordham University (Bronx, NY) and Juris Doctor from New England Law School (Boston, MA).

Tara Powell Casanova

Tara Casanova Powell is the Principal of Casanova Powell Consulting, an independent traffic safety research consulting firm and the current CEO for the Association of Transportation Safety Information Professionals (ATSIP). Tara is the former Program Coordinator for the Annual Lifesavers National Conference on Roadway Safety Priorities and a Research Consultant for Acusensus and the Governors Highway Safety Association (GHSA). Tara also serves as a faculty staff member for Impaired Driving Solutions, formerly the National Center for DWI Courts (NCDC), under “All Rise”. With over 25 years of experience in the field of road safety, Tara’s career has spanned several niches within this community.

Tara has been engaged with the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine for several years where she currently serves as the Chair for the Impairment in Transportation Committee and was the Chair of the 2021 TRB Drug-Impaired Driving Conference Planning Committee. Tara also founded and Chairs the International Council on Alcohol, Drugs and Traffic Safety (ICADTS) Impaired Driving Behavioral Intervention Working Group (IDBIIIG) and has recently been elected to the ICADTS Board of Directors as an At Large Member.

In 2023, Tara co-authored the Impact of Compliance-Based Removal Laws on Alcohol-Impaired Driving Recidivism for GHSA, and “Rideshare Volume and DUI Incidents in Boston, Worcester, and Northampton, Massachusetts”, a collaborative project between Lyft and Uber developed for the National Association of District Attorneys (NDAA). Prior reports include “Rideshare Volume and DUI Incidents in Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; and Fort Worth, Texas” and “Rideshare Volume and DUI Incidents in Target California Communities” in collaboration with Lyft and also developed for NDAA. Through Tara’s judicial experience, she authored “A GUIDE TO DUI PRETRIAL SERVICES Key Components & Best Practice Recommendations” prepared for the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility illustrating Pretrial Services Early Intervention Programs for DWI Offenders.

Tara has also conducted extensive research on distracted driving including several studies with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) and Preusser Research Group in NY, CT, Northern Virgina, and Maryland and served on the Behavioral Traffic Safety Cooperative Research Program (BTSCRP) expert panel for the completed project “Examining the Implications of Legislation and Enforcement on Electronic Device Use While Driving”.

Tara’s professional experience and network span several roadway safety priorities, with expertise in impaired driving, distracted driving, speed, occupant protection, and traffic records that transcend barriers that often exist within the silos of the transportation profession. Tara is very passionate about her role in transportation safety and has worked to connect traffic safety professionals including research scientist; federal, state, and local practitioners; law enforcement; and traffic records data professionals to work together to work towards ZERO deaths and to provide equitable transportation for all road users.  

Cory Hutchinson

Cory Hutchinson currently serves as the Director for the Center for Analytics and Research in Transportation Safety (CARTS) at Louisiana State University.  He earned a MS in Quantitative Business Analysis, a MBA, and a PhD in Human Resource Education and Workforce Development from LSU.  Within CARTS, Cory oversees all IT related projects including business analytics, web site design, data quality analysis, electronic crash data collection, data reporting, disaster recovery, graphical information systems, business intelligence, and crash data integration.  Cory also teaches graduate level Business Intelligence courses within the College of Business at LSU.

Membership Profile

 Ms. Andrea Bill is the Director of the Wisconsin Local Technical Assistance Program and Associate Director of the Traffic Operations and Safety Laboratory and Eastern Tribal Technical Assistance Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. With these roles, she has been bringing research to technology transfer through in person and virtual webinars throughout Wisconsin and the U.S.  She is a passionate advocate for making research tangible to practitioners and to foster implementation and widespread adoption. 

Ryan Klitzsch, a certified Road Safety Professional (RSP), has more than 15 years of experience in transportation safety planning, including eight years as the Administrator the Indiana Highway Safety Office. Currently, Mr. Klitzsch is as a Senior Associate of Cambridge Systematics working in the areas of transportation safety policy, traffic records data, and planning. In this position, he has leveraged his practical highway safety office expertise in data and performance management with states to develop and implement countermeasures to move our roadways closer Toward Zero Deaths. Mr. Klitzsch has developed planning strategies for emerging technologies, Strategic Highway Safety Plans, Highway Safety Plans, Bicycle and Pedestrian plans, and Traffic Records Strategic Plans for more than a dozen states.