Category Archives: Uncategorized

Hi-viz clothing and safety

cycle-outfits-ian-walker-researchThe drumbeat to encourage bicyclists to always wear “hi-viz” (hi-vis, high-visibility, fluorescent) colored clothing — even in daylight — seems to become louder and louder. But it appears there is scant evidence suggesting any measurable safety improvement. The best I get when asking what evidence exists is something along the lines of “it can’t hurt”. (this has echos of the never-ending helmet wars; helmet’s claimed safety improvements have been overstated, sometimes vastly, over the years) Continue reading Hi-viz clothing and safety

35% drop in AZ traffic tickets

If ~ $250 sounds like a lot of money for a civil traffic infractions — learn where all that money goes. Most of it does NOT inure to the city which issues the ticket. Cities only get a small fraction of the ~ $250.  The rest of the money goes to state-levied “surcharges” that fund all sort of law-enforcement-related programs. This give lie to the myth that cities are getting fat off of enforcement in AZ; see revenue-from-traffic-fines for some examples, e.g. city of Phoenix generates about 1% of it’s budget from traffic fines. Continue reading 35% drop in AZ traffic tickets

Two “missing” 2015 hit-and-run fatalities

I found these two only because they appear in asdm data for 2015. I find nothing googling. Given the paucity of data and the profusion of UNKNOWNs these two appear to simply have the hit-and-run flag mis-coded?? These both have absolutely no location information, i.e. no streets, and no Lat/long. Continue reading Two “missing” 2015 hit-and-run fatalities

Arizona’s “Truth in Sentencing” Law

I feel like I’ve looked this up before.

Arizona passed a major overhaul to the state’s sentencing code (Senate Bill 1049, Chapter 255, 1993 laws) in the 1993 legislative session. Annoyingly, the online lookup azleg.gov doesn’t go back before 1997, so at the moment I don’t have access to the bill itself. (need to look it up thru library). Continue reading Arizona’s “Truth in Sentencing” Law

Alternative Transportation advocate Steve Schmitt passes away

This is mainly of interest to me as the organization Steve was director of since 1994, the Coalition for Appropriate Transportation, is my hometown of Bethlehem, PA. Although I never met Steve, his work at improving transit, walking, and bicycling are significant. I had moved away from Bethlehem for work once I graduated from college in 1983, so we didn’t really overlap in time. I had tried to meet up with him a few years ago during a visit but we weren’t able to sync up schedules. Continue reading Alternative Transportation advocate Steve Schmitt passes away

Adot Bicycle Facility Design Workshop

IMG_20141120_094433068_01IMG_20141120_155140430_01Attended an all-day Bicycle Facility Design Workshop  on Nov 20, 2014. Thanks to Mike Sanders and ADOT for putting this on.

The class was very well attended, with perhaps 40 students from all around the state; mostly either various adot personnel, or planner-types working for cities. (and the class was offered twice, and the other session was filled to capacity also).

The instructors, Mike Colety and Steward Robertson, both of Kimberly Horn Assoc,  were very knowledgeable with the subject matter, and cycling in general — if i recall correctly, it was mentioned they were both LCI’s.

The material hews very closely (or possibly, completely)  to the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.

MMUCC C9 Manner of Crash

Executive Summary: You may have never heard of the MMUCC (Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria; a set of federal guidelines), it trickles down into every state’s motor vehicle crash reporting system. It’s somewhat analogous to the relationship between the UVC and state’s vehicle codes. The problem, I should say one problem, is non-motorists tend to get overlooked. One obvious example is delved into here — the “Manner of Crash”, e.g. angle, rear-end, sideswipe, etc. is ONLY defined when it involves two motor vehicles, leaving that data-field undefined when a crash is between a MV and bicyclist. Since bicyclists are vehicle drivers, the MMUCC should reflect that. Read on for a proposed change that’s on the table, and how you can vote/comment officially:

UPDATE Sept 2016. There is a PROPOSED CHANGE similar to the change I submitted a year or two ago (they’ve added animal-drawn vehicles; I think it would be better described as …or other non-motorized vehicle). You can support or otherwise comment on the proposed changes here. The deadline for responses is 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, October 7, 2016!!

Here’s the change, extracted from Page 10 of this document, with the additions highlighted in yellow:

Issue C9: Modify definition The following is a proposal from a public stakeholder to modify the definition of “C9. Manner of Crash/Collision Impact.”
The identification of the manner in which two motor vehicles or a motor vehicle and a bicycle/animaldrawn vehicle in transportinitially came together without regard to the direction of force. This data element refers only to crashes where the first harmful event involves a collision between two motor vehicles or a motor vehicle and a bicycle/animal-drawn vehicle in transport.

 

Dear Highway Safety Expert:

The Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) is a voluntary guideline developed jointly by NHTSA and GHSA to help states determine what crash data to collect at the scene and include in their state databases. The guideline is currently undergoing a complete review, with the goal of releasing the 5th edition in 2017. The review has been led by an Expert Panel of approximately 30 participants, including representatives of law enforcement, state traffic records coordinators, state and local departments of transportation, researchers, EMS and federal officials.

The panel has made a number of initial decisions, including the creation of separate sections for fatal crashes, large motor vehicles and non-motorists. It has recommended that states be given more flexibility in the way in which they collect data and has also proposed a few new data elements, including ones for automated vehicles and ignition interlocks.

Following the first meeting, the Expert Panel formed small working groups to review particular data elements and their attributes and recommend changes. In addition, respondents to an online forum (conducted in May) and to a Federal Register notice proposed additional changes to MMUCC. We have created a second online forum to solicit your opinions about these proposals.

The forum is now open at https://fs8.formsite.com/ghsa/mmuccforum2/index.html

You will need to create a login account to access the forum. This account enables you to save your work in progress and return to the survey at a later time. Please make note of your username and password, as you will need them to log in each time you return. Full instructions for completing the forum are provided on the first page after you log in. Please note that all comments submitted to the forum will be posted without change at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided. The deadline for responses is 5:00 p.m. ET on Friday, October 7, 2016.

If you would like to review the full list of proposals and questions prior to completing the forum, you may download them here: http://ghsa.org/images/mmucc/Proposed_Changes_to_MMUCC_2.pdf

It should take between 30-60 minutes to complete the online forum. Your input is invaluable to ensure that the proposals will yield collectable and useful data that State Highway Safety Offices can use in their planning processes. I strongly encourage you, your traffic records coordinator or a member of the state Traffic Records Coordinating Committee to complete the forum.

Should you have any technical questions about the online forum, please contact Amadie Hart at ahart@ghsa.org.

Thank you for sharing your time and expertise with us as we seek to improve MMUCC and crash data collection, management and analysis.

UPDATE Sept 2017

For reasons that are not clear, issue C9 (a.k.a. proposal 4.2) was rejected, and will not be made to the MMUCC 5th Edition. The voting was 43 to approve vs. 17 to reject (20 were no opinion). There’s a breakdown by “Public Stakeholders”, 27 approve / 9 reject. Whereas “Expert Panel” was 16 approve / 8 reject.
I have no idea what the process within DOT is ??

 


Below is a proposed change to the MMUCC to clarify data collection when the first harmful event in a motor vehicle crash involves a bicycle…

Continue reading MMUCC C9 Manner of Crash