September 17, 2019 at 1:56 pm #1699
|Posted: Jul/15/2016 at 3:58pm – author: jmcdonough|
The identification of the location as public or private property is something that appears on numerous crash reports in the country and experience has shown is important to states and local jurisdictions. Certainly the distinctions make sense with respect to responsibility for allocation of public funds to address issues and/or maintenance of the location. The addition of the MMUCC element C2. Crash Classification in the 4th edition was in-part in recognition of this distinction.
This is an area with respect to application of D16 that frequently raises questions because the public versus private ownership of the land way is not a consideration with respect to the term “2.2.1 Trafficway”. To be a trafficway by definition the land way has to be “open to the public for moving persons or property from one place to another”. In other words, open for transportation purposes. In addition, to be a “traffic accident” either the unstabilized situation must begin on a trafficway or there must be a harmful event on a trafficway. This most frequently raises challenging situations in locations like shopping centers, universities, or apartment complexes where the land ways are open to the public for transportation but not necessarily on public property. These areas also add the complexity of parking lots where by definition the stalls and aisles are not considered trafficways but the parking lot way (if present) is a trafficway.
Consequently, in addition to consideration of the classification terms to address Public Property and Private Property as in 4ht edition MMUCC element C2. Crash Classification, I suggest additional inclusions, exclusions, and examples be added to 2.2.1 Trafficway and 2.4.18 Traffic Accident, and 2.5.22 parking lot to help clarify these often mis-interpreted areas.