CHAPTER 4

Development of Style and Usage Guide of Terms and Phrases to Be Used and Avoided in HSM2

The NCHRP Project 17-71A research team developed the Style and Usage Guide of Terms and Phrases to Be Used and Avoided in HSM2, which was intended to guide the research team as it drafted and revised content in the production of HSM2. During the development of chapter content and review process, other terms and phrases came to light that were incorporated into the style and usage guide. Appendix A of this report presents the full style and usage guide that was developed for use in this project.

Background for the Style and Usage Guide

From the beginning, it was understood that the HSM is not a manual of standards and warrants; nor is it a guidance document. Instead, it is a resource that provides analytical tools, techniques, and procedures for quantifying the potential effects of decisions made by transportation professionals. It is a toolbox for practitioners and researchers.

It is important that the HSM2 not inadvertently create tort liability implications in its content. Carelessly drafted language and the use of certain terms and phrases can undermine the utility of a document by allowing for misinterpretation and misuse by those in litigation against transportation agencies.

The style and usage guide includes examples and explanatory material that informed the research team of the meaning and effect of certain terms and phrases that carry legal implications. Content that is subjective and based on personal opinion is to be avoided. Instead, content based on objective, specific, and measurable data is to be used. Vague or ambiguous content subject to misinterpretation or multiple interpretations is to be made more precise. Directive or mandatory language that leaves no room for the exercise of professional judgment is to be eliminated or at least minimized. Content that sets the user up for failure by establishing performance levels beyond that which can be reasonably achieved is to be made realistic. Finally, terms and phrases with pejorative and negative implications that lend themselves to admissions of wrongdoing or liability are to be explained and neutral objective language offered as alternatives.

The context of these terms and phrases determines whether they clearly state what is intended or if they have the potential for unintended consequences. To aid the research team, the style and usage guide categorizes the terms and phrases into particular contexts to more fully illustrate why and how they should be avoided or used. The contexts include:

• Subjective terms and phrases expressing personal opinion,
• Vague and ambiguous terms and phrases,
• Terms and phrases that are directive or mandatory,
• Terms and phrases setting up for failure, and
• Terms and phrases that are pejorative and have liability implications.

The style and usage guidelines summarized here and presented in full in Appendix A of this report are appropriate for application in writing of the HSM2 since it is not a guidance document. Many of these guidelines may also be applicable for the writing of other documents but would need to be adapted to some extent for application in writing a document that is not simply a toolbox but is intended to provide guidance to transportation professionals.

Subjective Terms and Phrases Expressing Personal Opinion

The following terms and phrases are used to express a relatively positive or negative opinion. They can be lazy substitutes for data-driven conclusions. The writer attempts to be omniscient but, in reality, is only offering the writer’s personal opinion, usually without giving the user any specific support for it. They purport to reach a conclusion about what the data demonstrate without sharing the underlying data with the user. To some degree, they tend to insult the user by saying, in effect: “Trust me. I know better than you. I don’t need to support my opinion.”

The subjective terms and phrases expressing personal opinion that should be avoided in the HSM2 (or should be checked to see if they are being used in an appropriate context) include:

• Better/best,
• Deficient,
• Desired/desirable,
• Difficult,
• Excessive,
• Inadequate/insufficient,
• Poor,
• Preferred/preferable,
• Safe/unsafe, and
• Worse/worst.

Vague and Ambiguous Terms and Phrases

The following terms and phrases suffer from either having no precise meaning or clear direction of what is intended (“vague”) or having more than one meaning of what is intended or directed (“ambiguous”). These terms are sometimes used because the writer is uncertain, and their use is often an attempt to highlight an issue without explaining how it may be resolved.

The vague and ambiguous terms and phrases that should be avoided in the HSM2 (or should be checked to see if they are being used in an appropriate context) include:

• Care should be taken,
• Often,
• Problematic,
• Questionable,
• Safe/safety/safety issues/safety impacts,
• Troubling/troublesome, and
• Use with caution.

Terms and Phrases That Are Directive or Mandatory

Unlike terms and phrases that are vague or ambiguous, directive or mandatory terms and phrases clearly tell the user what to do. They do not allow for a variance using discretion or professional judgment. Deviation from these dictates can leave a practitioner exposed to liability for failure to meet a standard of care, or worse, for a violation of law.

The terms and phrases that are directive or mandatory that should be avoided in the HSM2 (or should be checked to see if they are being used in an appropriate context) include:

• Essential/imperative/necessary,
• Guide/guidance,
• Mandatory,
• Must,
• Need/needs,
• No less than/no more than,
• Regulation,
• Required/requirement,
• Shall,
• Should, and
• Standard.

Terms and Phrases Setting up for Failure

These terms and phrases set the user up for failure by establishing performance levels beyond those that can be reasonably achieved. Sometimes they may relate to well-intentioned aspirational goals. However aspirational they may be, they are still goals that cannot be met. Moreover, to the extent that these goals are adopted by an organization, not attaining them is an admission of failure. Such an admission can have liability implications in a lawsuit.

The terms and phrases setting up for failure that should be avoided in the HSM2 (or should be checked to see if they are being used in an appropriate context) include:

• All,
• Always,
• Ensure,
• Possible, and
• Will.

Terms and Phrases That Are Pejorative and Have Liability Implications

Pejorative terms and phrases that have liability implications are of particular interest to litigants and their attorneys. These terms can have a common meaning to the user, yet at the same time, they may have a legal meaning or connotation as well. They can cast an unintended judgment or call for immediate action without the writer being consciously aware of the legal consequences. In the hands of a skilled plaintiff’s attorney, they can be used against the transportation agency.

The terms and phrases that are pejorative and have liability implications that should be avoided in the HSM2 (or should be checked to see if they are being used in an appropriate context) include:

• A concern/is concerned/of concern,
• Danger/dangerous,
• Defect/defective,
• Drop off,
• Hazard/hazardous,
• Hot spot/black spot,
• Negative effect,

• Obstacle/obstruction,
• Problem,
• Risk/risky/risk factors/safety risk/level of risk/higher-risk facilities,
• Trap,
• Unsafe,
• Unshielded/unprotected, and
• Weak/weakness.

Examples

As noted previously, the style and usage guide includes several examples and explanatory material that informed the research team of the meaning and effect of certain terms and phrases that carry legal implications.

It is useful to look at some examples of the language changes made during the review process of the HSM, both for the identification of terms and phrases to be avoided and how they were revised accordingly. The following extract shows one example provided in the style and usage guide that demonstrates how issues raised in the original text can be restated in a positive way; in the end, the revised text is a marked improvement from the original.

An early draft of the HSM set forth the following in Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1, Page 11-3, line numbers 21–28:

21 Roads that intersect at angles less than 90° can lead to sight distance and

22 operational concerns. . . . Vehicles have a longer distance to travel through the

23 intersection thus increasing their exposure to conflicts, crossing distances for

24 pedestrians are increased and drivers, particularly older drivers, may find it difficult

25 to turn their head and neck far enough to view approaching vehicles. Vehicles

26 turning right at an acute angle may have difficulty keeping within the designated

27 lane. When right-turn-on-red (RTOR) are permitted, drivers may have more

28 difficulty judging gaps when turning.

The reviewer addressed the issues raised by the original text by noting the use of terms of personal opinion (“difficulty”/“difficult”) and those that are pejorative or prejudge an issue without supporting data (“concern”). Moreover, rather than simply stating in a positive way what the safety impact of reducing skew angle may be attributed to, it states negatively that skew can cause “sight distance and operational concerns.” It then proceeds to give examples of those “concerns,” which give rise to tort liability issues. Instead, the discussion should focus on what reducing skew angle may achieve.

The HSM went through several revisions before it was published. The foregoing material ended up in Chapter 14.6: Crash Effects of Intersection Design Elements, Section 14.6.2.1, Reduce Intersection Skew Angle, Page 14-16, as follows:

An intersection that is closer to perpendicular reduces the extent to which drivers must turn their head and neck to view approaching vehicles. Reducing the intersection skew angle can be particularly beneficial to older drivers, and can also result in increased sight distance for all drivers. Drivers may then be better able to stay within the designated lane and better able to judge gaps in the crossing traffic flow. . . . Reducing the intersection skew angle can reduce crossing distances for pedestrians and vehicles, which reduces exposure to conflicts. (AASHTO 2010)

Again, the final text is a marked improvement from the original. It covers all the issues raised in the original text but restates them in a positive way by setting forth the benefits of reducing skew angle.

Conclusion

The research team kept these terms and phrases in mind when drafting and revising content in the HSM2. Of particular significance will be the context in which these terms and phrases appear. Context can change an otherwise innocuous word into one that may have legal ramifications. Throughout the course of the project, more terms and phrases were added to the style and usage guide.

During Task 5 and the development of the interim report, the research team performed a quick word search using the electronic files of the draft HSM2 chapters to estimate the frequency of use of the terms from the style and usage guide. The research team found that terms from the style and usage guide were used close to 4,000 times in the draft chapters. This does not mean that the research team had to change/modify 4,000 sentences/terms in the draft chapters because the terms were in the style and usage guide. Context is everything. However, with the frequency of use of the terms from the style and usage guide found in the draft chapter, it was evident that reviewing and editing the draft HSM2 chapters so that the manual would not inadvertently create tort liability implications would not be a small effort. A summary of the use in the initial HSM2 drafts of the terms addressed in the style and usage guide, by HSM2 parts, is provided in Table 3.

Terms from the style and usage guide found most frequently in the initial HSM2 draft chapters were:

• Desired/desirable (101),
• Often (101),
• Safe/safety/safety issues/safety impacts (1,239),
• Essential/imperative/necessary (122),
• Need/needs (278),
• Should (214),
• All (722),
• Possible (150), and
• Will (331).

Table 3. Frequency of terms from the style and usage guide found in the initial draft of each HSM2 part.