Tag Archives: ASDM

Woman, 19, pushing disabled car struck, killed in Phoenix

Note to self to follow up to see how this gets coded in asdm and fars. Conceptually, a pedestrian was killed in a rear-end collision, a collision a driver should have been easily able to avoid if the struck vehicle had lights/flashers (it was at night). Was the disabled vehicle displaying emergency lights, or otherwise lit?

Phoenix file number?

Who is most at fault? For comparison, who is most at fault in the rear-end collision pictured here, the pickup driver or the school bus driver — the Pickup driver rammed a stopped school bus?

Continue reading Woman, 19, pushing disabled car struck, killed in Phoenix

Missing 2013 and 2014 Fatalities

A note about data sources

  • FARS. As of this writing the 2013 final is available, and 2014 is preliminary
  • Arizona Crash Facts; published yearly by ADOT in June of the following year
  • ADOT collision database sometimes called ASDM (I’ll refer to it as that, below); released yearly in June of the following year
  • News / Media reports; obviously this is very incomplete and hit-and-miss

Data from all these sources is located centrally on this google docs spreadsheet. which covers each bicyclist fatality occurring from 2009 onward.

Normally these are all in agreement, however there are multiple inconsistencies in both 2013 and 2014 that I cannot resolve. Continue reading Missing 2013 and 2014 Fatalities

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

Non-traffic traffic crashes

[ update: I just discovered… “The Not-in-Traffic Surveillance (NiTS) system is a virtual data collection system designed to provide counts and details regarding fatalities and injuries that occur in non-traffic crashes and in non-crash incidents…” it’s currently linked at nhtsa’s sdp page. Tt this time annual datasets for 2007-2011 (indicating they’ve ceased?); all unfortunately for me, only in SAS format. Updates from the SCI (Special Crash Investigation) unit continue as of early 2015. This all came about due to SAFETEA-LU and the Kids Transportation Safety Act of 2007 (K.T. Safety Act). Quickly glancing through the reports available, the only reference to cyclists is via nonoccupant so not clear how complete the surveillance is.  ]

This is a placeholder for info for what I am referring to as a non-traffic  (you can click there to get a list of incidents like this) traffic crash. Which I define as some sort of traffic crash that doesn’t get reported in official traffic crash stats. The most common reason these incidents might fall into this category is they occur on private property, like a parking lot, or private streets, like cyclist Robert McCain who was killed in a collision on a private street, or inside a building driver-slams-into-day-spa-1-dead-4-go-hospital. Other reasons, especially for cyclists, is for crashes “count” they have to include at least on motor vehicle in transport; so e.g. a cyclist crashing into a parked vehicle is not counted; nor are cyclists who have “simple” falls, or bike-bike crash, even when resulting in death (for example in 2014 see Karl Gerschutz and Jim Walen fatalities, respectively). Likewise bike-bike, or bike-ped crashes are not reportable as traffic crashes. Continue reading Non-traffic traffic crashes

Scottsdale Golf-Cart Shuttle Crash

First off; this has nothing whatsoever to do with a bicycle. This is interesting in light of the pedicab crash last year (golf carts apparently are being used to provide non-taxi shuttles in the immediate downtown area); and also wondering if this will generate an ACR? (Arizona Crash Report). I assume it would but you never know. For example, two of last year’s (see 2013 grid) bicyclist fatalities did not result in an ACR for various reasons; one a bike-MV collision on private streets, and another bicyclist hit-and-run with an ATV. An ACR is generally required if a crash involves at least on motor vehicle on a “trafficway”… see do-all-crashes-count for more. Continue reading Scottsdale Golf-Cart Shuttle Crash

A Tale of Five Phoenix Bike-MV collisions.

Fault was assigned to the bicyclist in four of the five reports. In two of those, the bicyclist was doing something obviously illegal/wrong (riding the wrong way in the roadway, and running into a stopped vehicle). However, the other two do not support that finding — in one a motorist violated a bicyclist’s ROW by turning into it, and in the other a bicyclist was struck by a motorist who was attempting to turn right-on-red.

Perhaps the reason Phoenix has a persistently high bicyclist MaF (Most at Fault) rate is the officers are often not investigating bike-MV crashes correctly?

Continue reading A Tale of Five Phoenix Bike-MV collisions.

Driver slams into day spa; 1 dead, 4 go hospital

[Updated; as expected/suspected this death and injuries DO NOT appear in official crash records from ADOT, nor will they appear in the FARS when that is released. See this comment for how I checked asdm]

9/27/2013. A story like this, besides being a tragedy, tends to make headlines (even going national,  usatoday.com story) but, Seriously, how often does stuff like this happen? Apparently regularly; like the shopper killed inside a Tucson convenience store in July…. or… 11-year old boy dead in a Phoenix parking lot in May… or … 2 Dead in Phoenix after pickup slams into bus stop  in March… or… 1 Dead at a Peoria Walgreens sitting on the bench in front of store in 2010… This is just what i noticed reading the paper; These were all in the recent past, just in Arizona. This is not a complete list! ha. Continue reading Driver slams into day spa; 1 dead, 4 go hospital

GIS, mapping, crash reports vs. ASDM

Some notes on mapping using the latitude/longitude; and the ASDM (Adot Safety Data Mart) dataset.

Here is a detailed breakdown of a crash chosen more-or-less at random (I wanted to choose crashes that were *not* at intersections) that occurred 2012-10-12 at a driveway just east of 51st Ave on Indian School Rd. (if the link doesn’t work use 33.494971/-112.167771, the lat/long specified in ASDM). It is ADOT incident number 2672854, Phoenix file number 12001836231 (though it was listed as 201836231 in ASDM). Continue reading GIS, mapping, crash reports vs. ASDM