Ballot Batch 2 Items

[John McDonough]

This post is to have a location for Consensus Members to post and share items from Batch 2. Please include the Item # and D16 term and identifier when posting about a specific item from the ballot.

[John McDonough]

Questions/clarification via email from Sarah – Regarding Item #1: In the first scenario, “A motorcyclist overturns their vehicle, and it slides on its side under another vehicle,” why isn’t this considered an underride? I guess I’m wondering at what point would a motorcycle going under another vehicle constitute an underride? And if the response is only when the motorcycle is right-side up, why? For all other vehicles, it can be any angle and there seems to be no limitation to what orientation they are, so I’m wondering why we would have constraints on motorcycles…

Response: For NHTSA data, a motorcycle vs. other vehicle crash would never be classified as an underride. They are excluded in the data by edit checking tied to Body Type. The reason is that the interest in underride/override from NHTSA is in bumper/vehicle height compatibility and even more specifically truck and trailer underride guards associated with the FMVSS. For the definition of an underride crash, we were trying to describe the dynamics of these crash without getting into a list of body types to exclude (motorcycles, ATVs, snowmobiles, etc.). That can be handled (and is) in the data reporting. The motorcycle example was related to the motorcycle being on its side (an overturn). It would go under because of that dynamic not the general crash circumstances. Likewise we were excluding crashes where other vehicles go airborne or roll over then land on top of another vehicle in the other examples.

[John McDonough]

Questions/clarification via email from Loren – Regarding Item #11: The first sentence under Introduction is:
The purpose of this classification is to describe the presence of any distractions which may or may not have contributed to the crash. Since we are NOT looking for “.. the presence of any distractions which may not have contributed to the crash.” It is more correct to take out the ‘or may not’.

The purpose of this classification is to describe the presence of any distractions which may have contributed to the crash.

Response: The “may or may not” is actually intending to suggest presence of distractions without consideration of whether or not it was contributing to the crash. For example, if two vehicles collide in the intersection, a driver with a green light is distracted by their phone and is struck by another driver that runs the red light. While fault may lie with the driver that ran the light, it would still be desirable to know about the presence of the distraction.

[Doug Mowbray]

Item #2: Reading the current definition of 2.4.3.1 police pursuit, it says “”ails to comply with the signal by either maintaining his/her speed.” Is ANSI updating the pronoun language throughout, e.g., changing his/her to their, or the driver?

[John McDonough]

Hi Doug,

This is part of the editorial updates that are being done for the 10th Edition.

John

[Author]

Posts