4 ms·

That's interesting, though non-crossings seems vague. Are those parking lots combined with people j-walking?

by kodah 5y ago

tfehring 5y ago
The cited data [0] is presented in a super confusing way - the categories are "At Intersection" (18%), "Not At Intersection" (73%), and "Other" (9%). Apparently "other locations such as roadsides/shoulders, parking lanes/zones, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, medians/crossing islands, driveway accesses, shared-use paths/trails, non-traffic way areas, and other sites," which make up the "Other" category, are neither intersections nor non-intersections. I'm gonna guess the "Not At Intersection" category refers solely to jaywalkers. [0] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812681 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...
- watwut 5y ago
  > I'm gonna guess the "Not At Intersection" category refers solely to jaywalkers. That is absurd guess. Plenty of crossings are outside of intersections. Plus it is often completely legal to cross when there is not crossing close.
  - kodah 5y ago
    > Plus it is often completely legal to cross when there is not crossing close. Jaywalking is an act, I don't think anyone in this thread cares about it's legality with respect to the situation. We're just discussing how to interpret the statistics. The point here is that a majority of these accidents occur at non-intersections which are not covered by "Other".
  - Talanes 5y ago
    >Plus it is often completely legal to cross when there is not crossing close. Though not always, got burned by this as a teenager when I got hit crossing the highway in front of my trailer park. The intersection I crossed from was a private road, which stuck my family with liability on the ambulance ride (which luckily was the worst of it.)
takk309 5y ago
I am a traffic engineer that deals with crash reports quite often. One thing we include at the beginning of every crash analysis we do is a disclaimer that the contents of the crash report are subjective and solely the work of the responding officer. This means that junction/non-junction or crossing/non-crossing can vary a lot. The data are very messy with inaccuracies in location and direction of travel. (Side note, it is super frustrating when the road winds a lot and the eastbound direction is traveling westerly, for example.) The data that are reported to FHWA and NHTSA are even more generalized that those kept by the individual states. Additionally, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes tend to be underreported unless there is a severe injury. This can greatly skew the data to look more rosey than reality.

That's interesting, though non-crossings seems vague. Are those parking lots combined with people j-walking?

by kodah 5y ago

That's interesting, though non-crossings seems vague. Are those parking lots combined with people j-walking?

The cited data [0] is presented in a super confusing way - the categories are "At Intersection" (18%), "Not At Intersection" (73%), and "Other" (9%). Apparently "other locations such as roadsides/shoulders, parking lanes/zones, bicycle lanes, sidewalks, medians/crossing islands, driveway accesses, shared-use paths/trails, non-traffic way areas, and other sites," which make up the "Other" category, are neither intersections nor non-intersections. I'm gonna guess the "Not At Intersection" category refers solely to jaywalkers. [0] https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812681 https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/...

watwut 5y ago
> I'm gonna guess the "Not At Intersection" category refers solely to jaywalkers. That is absurd guess. Plenty of crossings are outside of intersections. Plus it is often completely legal to cross when there is not crossing close.
- kodah 5y ago
  > Plus it is often completely legal to cross when there is not crossing close. Jaywalking is an act, I don't think anyone in this thread cares about it's legality with respect to the situation. We're just discussing how to interpret the statistics. The point here is that a majority of these accidents occur at non-intersections which are not covered by "Other".
- Talanes 5y ago
  >Plus it is often completely legal to cross when there is not crossing close. Though not always, got burned by this as a teenager when I got hit crossing the highway in front of my trailer park. The intersection I crossed from was a private road, which stuck my family with liability on the ambulance ride (which luckily was the worst of it.)

takk309 5y ago

I am a traffic engineer that deals with crash reports quite often. One thing we include at the beginning of every crash analysis we do is a disclaimer that the contents of the crash report are subjective and solely the work of the responding officer. This means that junction/non-junction or crossing/non-crossing can vary a lot. The data are very messy with inaccuracies in location and direction of travel. (Side note, it is super frustrating when the road winds a lot and the eastbound direction is traveling westerly, for example.) The data that are reported to FHWA and NHTSA are even more generalized that those kept by the individual states. Additionally, pedestrian and bicyclist crashes tend to be underreported unless there is a severe injury. This can greatly skew the data to look more rosey than reality.