Reply To: 2.4 Definitions – Accidents

Homepage Forums Reply To: 2.4 Definitions – Accidents

#1660
kaitlan
Keymaster
Posted: May/12/2016 at 5:42pm – author: jvecchi
What you’re describing–potentially replacing the vehicle with a bicyclist, who then strikes a utility pole– is a situation where the secondary collision is not a motor vehicle accident, because no motor vehicle in transport is involved.  Part of this goes back to a solid definition of the term accident/crash.  In 2.4.12 A motor vehicle accident is an accident that involves a motor vehicle in transport… and results in injury and / or damage.

When you say, no other traffic unit is given the same consideration, that’s only true if that other traffic unit is not a motor vehicle in transport.
There are many types of crashes described in this standard that do not involve collisions. So, a collision is not a necessity, only a motor vehicle in transport.  If a bicycle strikes a legally parked motor vehicle, you’re in the same boat: Its a non-traffic accident/crash.
I have noted several comments which indicate that there is some issue with understanding of the unstabilized situation, which is essentially nothing more than loss of control.  I’d certainly welcome a more user-friendly definition of unstabilized situation if anyone has one.
Joan vecchi,
Project Manager
Scroll to Top
Please include the time the issue happend (with timezone), what you did to trigger the error (ex: what link you clicked on, or did it happen on page load? etc.)
Please attach a screenshot of the problem/error (if any)