We need your input for the 4th Edition

 Alabama will also be keeping all data elements.  As of June 2009 we revised almost all of our data elements going to a paperless submission system (eCrash), and the PDO screens are the same as those for injury crashes.  Our officers are as strapped for time as in any other state -- but the time they save using eCrash generates more than enough to complete the PDO crashes.  Of course, being able to complete and submit their reports from their cars also keeps them in the field and ready to respond to any emergency, so it is really not lost time.  The question that must be asked is: "Could the data element that is being sacrificed ever be useful in determining why a crash is a PDO and not an injury or a fatality?"  If the data element could never serve this purpose, or if there is no intention within the state to answer that question in the future, then those data elements could be sacrificed.  We could not find enough that qualified to warrant two different submissions or to justify the additional problems created by not being able to compare results between injury and non-injury crashes. Take care -- daveDavid B. Brownhttp://www.safehomealabama.gov/  

Reduce the minimum criteria for all crashes. A few simple suggestions are: combine C13 & C14; combine C15 & C16; combine P17 & P19; combine P18 & P20; delete C17 & V22 as they are already picked up in V8. Also some of the attributes can be deleted or combined. For example, in P25 is it really worthwhile to know if a nonmotorist was wearing elbow or knee pads?

Alaska has many trails along the roadsides dedicated to snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles (ATVs). These trails are within the trafficway, and related crashes are therefore being collected in our state system and in FARS. Although knowledge of these crashes is benificial, many folks in the Alaska Highway Safety community believe including them in our systems with crashes which occur on the roads involving regular vehicular traffic is causing our statistical results to be imprecise. We would like a way to include them but seperately. Perhaps a code somewhere for crashes involving motor vehicles which were never being driven on the roadway itself, but rather in the trafficway.

Idaho has just revised the crash data collected to be more MMUCC compliant (at least to the 3rd edition) and is implementing the new software in 2011.  Idaho has no plans to create a shorter report for PDO crashes.

In Maryland, we are developing a new electronic crash report and our intent is to make it as MMUCC-compliant as possible. We anticipated the need for more detailed codes for the Distracted Driver By field and came up with a list prior to seeing MMUCC 4 recommendations. After an initial list of codes was considered, we looked to the FARS Coding Manual. The new Pre-Crash coding form in FARS is more detailed for Driver Distracted By. Below is our proposed list of codes for the new Maryland crash form, which has a few more codes than MMUCC 4:

Mr. Mowbray,

It looks to me as if all of MD's proposed distraction codes either match or could be easily mapped to the proposed 4th Edition MMUCC Driver Distracted By attributes.  I'll forward the list to NCSA's driver distraction analyst to see if she has any comments.

Increase in (C) Crash level data elements from 18 to 19

Increase in (P) Person level data elements from 27 to 28

Workgroup has done well – increasing only 2 “at scene” data elements from 75 to 77.  Did Workgroup talk about earlier suggestions to combine C13 & C14; or C15 & C16; or P17 & P19 or P18 & P20?  One we would suggest would be to combine V6 & V7.

Emergency MV Use – liked the improved attribute descriptions

Name of Person Involved – good idea, instead of just Name of Driver

Injury Status – liked the improved attribute descriptions, which expanded on the D16 definitions.  We are torn between the two options.  Would probably opt to keep KABCO intact

Speeding – unsure about removing the “speed” attributes from Driver Actions; however, seeing that Driver Actions also do not include “alcohol related” – it treats these two driver extreme actions separately from Driver Actions.  Speeding will still be difficult to record, but we’ve got to make the attempt through MMUCC

Driver Distracted – correction change – this should be P16.  Which list is closer to the FARS attributes – the proposed 4^th Edition MMUCC listing or the Maryland listing?

Looked for a definition for a non-traditional vehicle; couldn’t find.  Only thing I saw in D16 was Personal Conveyance.  I’m sure the category includes much more than those.

Vehicle Removal – liked the removal of the sentence … “Estimation of damage to vehicle” – fits in with what the Connecticut TRCC is proposing to pilot test, which would be a towed due to damage threshold.

Condition – Data element still refers to Driver & Non-Motorist; however the first subheading refers only to Driver

Regarding the PDO question; we will talk during the Wednesday morning session - some about the MMUCC Forum PDO question posed a few months ago; and the 21 states who responded.  Connecticut is hoping to pilot test a “question-based/turbo tax type of approach” recommending complete upgrade to MMUCC.

With “question-based” electronic crash reporting, we are looking to exclude all questions that are not applicable to the crash.  “Vehicle towed due to damage” would be a criteria for recording all of the related MMUCC elements for a PDO; however, if damage was modest, towing wasn’t required and there was no egregious hazardous traffic violation, this might lead to a second (abbreviated) level of reporting for PDOs; excluding the following, which would be recommended for complete MMUCC.

a) crashes involving death or injury, b) crashes involving non-motorists, c) crashes involving school buses, and d) crashes involving commercial motor vehicles