Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.
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.
There was a general question about comments within the ballot. Response below:
If I like something but want changes, do I select affirmative with comment or negative? Either way I’ll add my comments, but I wasn’t sure. Right now I have it as affirmative with comment, but I wanted to check before I submit. Thanks!
Response: If the changes are significant and substantive and without them you don’t agree with the change, then I suggest negative. If you agree with the change in general content and intent, and your changes are editorial, suggested additions for clarity, re-wording, etc., then I suggest affirmative with comment.
All comments will be considered. However, procedurally, for every negative vote with comments we have to respond in writing to try to resolve the objection and document all of the conversation for ANSI.
I wasn’t sure how this first voting batch would go and I didn’t want to suggest how people should vote ahead. If we get a lot of negative votes this round for things like “add a comma” or “example 1 should be example 2,” I am going to have to clarify it for the group. It is just hard to get 25 busy people from across the country on one call.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.
