A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles

SECTION V — Description of Strategies

Objectives of the Emphasis Area

The objectives for improving motorcycle safety and increasing the awareness of the unique characteristics of motorcycles are:

Incorporate motorcycle-friendly roadway design, traffic control, construction, and maintenance policies and practices
Reduce the number of motorcycle crashes due to rider impairment
Reduce the number of motorcycle crashes due to unlicensed or untrained motorcycle riders
Increase the visibility of motorcyclists
Reduce the severity of motorcycle crashes
Increase motorcycle rider safety awareness
Increase safety enhancements for motorcyclists
Improve motorcycle safety research, data and analysis

Explanation of Objectives

In order to more properly understand the particular safety problems related to motorcycle use, improvements in traffic research and data analysis are necessary. Historically, roadway safety studies have focused on passenger cars and trucks and have neglected to consider motorcyclists as an individual roadway user group. Thus, the safety issues that may be unique to motorcyclists are not well documented. Furthermore, motorcycles are often overlooked during standardized crash data gathering efforts.

Considering the needs of motorcyclists during the planning and construction of roadways can reduce the likelihood of motorcycle crashes. Creating a motorcycle-friendly environment goes beyond providing a gentle alignment, but also includes keeping the roadway free of foreign debris, providing a safe roadside free of objects or obstacles to motorcyclists, maintaining safe roadway surfaces during maintenance projects, and providing sufficient warning devices to motorcyclists prior to encountering potentially dangerous zones.

As with all types of motor vehicle traffic, alcohol use by motorcycle operators continues to be a problem. Research shows that alcohol-related fatalities among motorcyclists are proportionally higher than in any other motor vehicle group. In 2003, 30 percent of all fatally injured motorcycle operators had BAC levels of 0.08 g/dl or higher. An additional 7 percent had lower alcohol levels (BAC 0.01 to 0.07 g/dl) (NHTSA, 2004).

A preemptive measure in trying to reduce the number of motorcycle crashes is to ensure proper training and licensing of motorcyclists before they reach the roadways.

Even though all 50 states require separate driver's license endorsements to operate a motorcycle and 47 states sponsor rider education courses (with 18 of those states having universal training programs), it has been estimated that 20 percent of the motorcycle population is either unlicensed or improperly licensed. Even more alarming is that more than 40 percent of motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes are improperly licensed (TRB, 1994).

A common complaint of many motorcyclists is that passenger car drivers often do not see them and, as a result, violate the motorcyclists' right-of-way. The Hurt Study, Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures (Hurt et al., 1981), identified that riders who wore camouflage or other hard-to-see apparel were over-represented in right-of-way crashes, suggesting that conspicuity also plays a role in crash avoidance. The predominant color of motorcycle apparel is black: black leather jackets, black gloves and boots, and black helmets. The problem with black is that it is inconspicuous in the day and, in the absence of any retro-reflective material, invisible at night or in low-light conditions. Motorcyclists can immediately and inexpensively improve conspicuity, and thus their safety, by wearing retro-reflective material on their clothes and helmets. Retro-reflective vests are especially effective at increasing visibility at night.

A study by Sosin and Sacks (1992) found more than 50 percent of all motorcycle-related fatalities were mainly attributed to head injuries. This study along with many others indicates that helmets are the single most important piece of protective equipment that a motorcyclist has at his or her disposal. NHTSA estimates that from 1986 through 1996 motorcycle helmets have prevented more than 7,900 motorcyclist fatalities and saved over $10 billion in related costs. Increasing the use of effective FMVSS 218 compliant helmets is universally accepted as a key motorcycle safety goal. Two approaches to work toward achieving an increase in the use of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets include: campaigns to promote helmet use and universal helmet laws. These approaches vary in ease of implementation and the level of rider community acceptance.

The last objective deals with the need to enhance motorcycle safety, both on the motorcycle itself and within the roadway system. Continuing research is bringing several standard motor vehicle safety features to the motorcycle industry (such as anti-lock braking systems) and with a maintained focus, technology is sure to provide additional protection through advancements. Additionally, motorcycle detection for operational and warning systems needs to be investigated and improved.

Strategies designed to fulfill these objectives are presented in Exhibit V-1. For a more detailed arrangement of strategies, according to cost and implementation time frame, see Section IV of this guide.

EXHIBIT V-1
Objectives and Strategies to Address Motorcycle Collisions

Classification of Strategies

The strategies in this guide were identified from a number of sources, including the literature, contact with state and local agencies throughout the United States, motorcycle organizations representatives, and federal agencies. Some of the strategies are widely used, while others are used at a state or even a local level. Some have been subjected to welldesigned evaluations to prove their effectiveness, while others, including some that are widely used, have not been adequately evaluated.

Due to the varying degree to which each strategy has been used, as well as the limited knowledge about the effectiveness of most of the strategies, the reader should be prepared to exercise engineering judgment before adopting a particular strategy for implementation. To help the reader, the strategies have been classified into three types, each identified by a letter:

Proven (P): Those strategies which have been used in one or more locations, and for which properly designed evaluations have been conducted that show it to be effective. These strategies may be employed with a good degree of confidence, with the understanding that any application can lead to results that vary from those found in previous evaluations. The attributes of the strategies that are provided will help the user make judgments on which is the most appropriate for their particular situation(s).

Tried (T): Those strategies that have been implemented in a number of locations, and may even be accepted as standards or standard approaches, but for which there have not been found valid evaluations. These strategies, while frequently or even generally used, should be applied with caution; users should carefully consider the attributes cited in the guide and relate them to the specific conditions for which they are being considered. Implementation can proceed with some degree of assurance that there is not likely to be a negative impact on safety, and very likely to be a positive one. It is intended that as the experiences of implementation of these strategies continue under the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan initiative, appropriate evaluations will be conducted, so that effectiveness information can be accumulated to provide better estimating power for the user, and the strategy can be upgraded to a "proven" one.

Experimental (E): Those strategies that are ideas that have been suggested and at least one agency has considered sufficiently promising to try them on a small scale in at least one location. These strategies should be considered only after the others have proven not to be appropriate or feasible. Even where they are considered, their implementation should initially occur using a very controlled and limited pilot study which includes a properly designed evaluation component. Only after careful testing and evaluations show the strategy to be effective should broader implementation be considered. It is intended that as the experiences of such pilot tests are accumulated from various state and local agencies, the aggregate experience can be used to further detail the attributes of this type of strategy, so that it can be upgraded to a "proven" one.

Targeting the Objectives

The objectives contained in this guide are intended to target a variety of issues and a broad audience. Because motorcycle safety cannot be pinpointed to one controlling factor, neither can the responsibility of providing this safety fall solely upon the shoulders of the motorcyclist, or one group of professionals. It is thus appropriate that this guide provide objectives that are far-reaching and that encompass many areas of expertise.

Meaningful progress toward accomplishing the above objectives will be achieved when all stakeholders—licensing officials, roadway users, motorcycle riders, roadway designers, law enforcement, and legislators—take responsibility for implementing those strategies within their area of responsibility. Success will be measured in motorcyclists' lives saved and serious injuries that are averted on the roadways.

Related Strategies for Creating a Truly Comprehensive Approach

The strategies listed above, and described in detail below, are those largely unique to the motorcycle safety emphasis area. However, to create a truly comprehensive approach to the highway safety problems associated with this emphasis area, there are related strategies that may be included as candidates in any program planning process. These strategies can be organized into five categories:

Public Information and Education Programs (PI&E)—Highway safety programs can be effectively enhanced with a properly designed PI&E campaign. The primary objective of a PI&E campaign in highway safety is to reach an audience across an entire jurisdiction, or a significant part of it. However, it may be desired to focus a PI&E campaign on a locationspecific problem. While this is a relatively untried approach, as compared to area-wide campaigns, use of roadside signs and other experimental methods may be tried on a pilot basis. Within this guide, where the application of PI&E campaigns is deemed appropriate, it is usually in support of some other strategy. In such a case, the description for that strategy will suggest the possible use of a PI&E campaign (see the attribute area for each strategy entitled, "Associated Needs for, or Relation to, Support Services").

Enforcement of Traffic Laws—Well-designed, well-operated law enforcement programs can have a significant effect on highway safety. It is well established, for instance, that an effective way to reduce crashes and their severity is to have jurisdiction-wide programs that enforce an effective law against driving under the influence (DUI), or driving without seatbelts. When that law is vigorously enforced, with well-trained officers, the frequency and severity of highway crashes can be significantly reduced. This is considered an important element in any comprehensive highway safety program. Enforcement programs are conducted at specific locations by the nature of how they must be performed. The effect (e.g., lower speeds, greater use of seatbelts, and reduced impaired driving) may occur at or near the specific location where the enforcement is applied. Coordinating the effort with an appropriate PI&E program can often enhance this effect. However, in many cases (e.g., speeding and seatbelt usage) the impact is area-wide or jurisdiction-wide. The effect can be either positive (i.e., the desired reductions occur over a greater part of the system), or negative (i.e., the problem moves to another location as road users move to new routes where enforcement is not applied). A pilot program is useful when it is unclear how the enforcement effort may impact behavior, or where it is desired to try an innovative and untried method. Within this guide, where the application of enforcement programs is deemed appropriate, it is often in support of some other strategy. Many of those strategies may be targeted at either a whole system, or a specific location. In such cases, the description for that strategy will suggest this possibility (see the attribute area for each strategy entitled, "Associated Needs for, or Relation to, Support Services").

Strategies to Improve Emergency Medical and Trauma System Services—Treatment of injured parties at highway crashes can have a significant impact on the level of severity and length of time that an individual spends in treatment. This is especially true when it comes to timely and appropriate treatment of severely injured persons. Thus, a well-based and comprehensive emergency care program is a basic part of a highway safety infrastructure. While the types of strategies that are included here are often thought of as simply support services, they can be critical to the success of a comprehensive highway safety program. Therefore, it is beneficial for a comprehensive motorcycle safety effort to include a critical review of the emergency medical and trauma system services to determine if there are improvements that can be made, especially for programs which are focused on locationspecific (e.g., corridors), or area-specific (e.g., rural areas) issues. A separate guide has been developed to address the design and implementation of emergency medical systems strategies in rural areas (http://safety.transportation.org/guides.aspx?cid=36).

Strategies Directed at Improving the Safety Management System—The management of the highway safety system is essential to success. Thus it follows that a sound organizational structure, as well as infrastructure of laws, policies, etc., should be in place to monitor, control, direct and administer a comprehensive approach to highway safety. It is important that a comprehensive program include a standardized system of crash data coding, collecting and analysis. While motorcycles are often overlooked during the collection of crash data, many states are recognizing the benefits of using existing crash data as a tool for monitoring highway safety and for the development of safety countermeasures. Until another comprehensive motorcycle crash causation study is conducted, this data can serve as a useful tool to better understand motorcycle crash causation. (Objective A of this guide specifically addresses the need to improve the coding, collection, and analysis of motorcycle crash data.) It is important that a comprehensive safety management program not be limited to one jurisdiction, such as a state DOT. Local agencies are often responsible for the majority of the road system. Furthermore, many different groups (e.g., law enforcement, data entry specialists, and data analysts) are needed in the standardization of motorcycle crash data.

Strategies That Are Detailed in Other Emphasis Area Guides—Motorcycles, while unique in many regards, are still motor vehicles and subject to many of the same issues and solutions that are discussed for other vehicles. Therefore, most of the other guides in this series have strategies that may also improve motorcycle safety. The reader is encouraged to review each of the other guides, as well.

Objective 11.1 A—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes by Incorporating Motorcycle-Friendly Roadway Design, Traffic Control, Construction, and Maintenance Policies and Practices

Strategy 11.1 A1—Provide Full Paved Shoulders to Accommodate Roadside Motorcycle Recovery and Breakdowns (T)

General Description

Shoulders are desirable for all vehicle types, but provide particular benefits to motorcyclists. For example, motorcyclists that run off the roadway or experience mechanical problems within a confined cross section (e.g., bridge, work zone) with no shoulder are especially vulnerable to traffic following in their path of travel. That is, motorcyclists do not have a vehicle to provide at least limited protection and to make them more visible to oncoming or following traffic. By widening the shoulders, or providing a shoulder where one previously did not exist, motorcyclists have a refuge area out of the traveled way to accommodate motorcycle breakdowns. They also have more recovery area to regain control of their errant motorcycle before encroaching on the roadside, thereby reducing the risk of an impact with a fixed roadside object.

While there are no reliable studies in the literature that document the safety benefits to motorcyclists of providing full paved shoulders, the relationship between shoulder width and safety has been studied extensively for motor vehicles in the rural environment. An expert panel (Harwood, 2000) recently reviewed the literature on safety for shoulder widths on rural two-lane highways for the Interactive Highway Safety Design Model (IHSDM). The panel concluded that the most credible studies of shoulder width on rural two-lane highways were those by Zegeer et al. (1981) for low-volume roads and another study by Zegeer et al. (1988) for higher-volume roads. The expert panel developed accident modification factors (AMFs) based on these past studies. AMFs are used in accident prediction algorithms to represent the safety effects of various geometric features (e.g., shoulder width, right-turn lanes, etc.). The base value of each AMF is 1.0. Any feature associated with a higher accident experience than the base condition has an AMF with a value greater than 1.0, and any feature associated with lower accident experience than the base condition has an AMF with a value less than 1.0. Another expert panel in a later research study (Harwood et al., 2003) concluded that the AMFs for rural two-lane highways are also the best available estimates for rural multilane highways.

Strategy 15.1 A8 in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 6: A Guide for Addressing Run-Off-Road Collisions also addresses shoulder treatments and may be referenced for further details, including a complete list of the technical attributes of this strategy. The Run-Off-Road (ROR) guide provides one set of accident modification factors for widening a paved shoulder on a two-lane rural highway and a second set of accident modification factors for various shoulder types and widths.

To achieve the desired safety improvements, highway agencies may find it helpful to consider whether their design policies for new or reconstructed roadways—including the shoulder width and type of shoulder to be used—take into consideration motorcycle safety.

A review of existing roadways, where a full paved shoulder is not provided, may be appropriate to identify locations that could be problematic for motorcyclists. Full paved shoulders may be targeted to high-crash locations. Since many highway agencies have not yet adopted an organizational motorcycle safety philosophy, highway agency personnel need to be trained to identify locations where the lack of a full paved shoulder may be problematic for motorcycles.

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The state of Iowa has conducted a study to evaluate the costs and benefits associated with paved shoulders on primary highways in the state. This study reviewed current design criteria as well as state crash data and decided upon a minimum 3-ft paved shoulder width on rural highways in the state. Visit http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/reports/pavedshoulder.pdf for more information.

Strategy 11.1 A2—Consider Motorcycles in the Selection of Roadside Barriers (E)

General Description

Historically, roadside safety barriers have been installed to protect errant motor vehicles from encroaching on fixed objects located beyond the barrier. In most cases, the installation of safety barriers has only taken into consideration the needs and concerns of passenger cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles, while the needs of motorcyclists are typically overlooked. For example, with post and rail or wire rope barriers, there is the chance that the rider could slide under the rail or wire and continue off the roadside. Other traditional roadside barriers may be too low, and do not protect motorcyclists vaulted from their vehicle. When this happens, the rider is not only subjected to possible injury from the tops of posts should he or she come in contact with them, but the rider may continue off the roadside.

FARS data for 2006 show that fatal crashes involving fixed objects constituted a little more than one-quarter of all fatal crashes. Bryden and Fortuniewicz (1986) conducted field investigations for 3,302 traffic barrier crashes in the state of New York in order to determine the barriers' performance as different types and sizes of vehicles collided with them. They found that crashes involving motorcycles were by far the most severe. Nearly 50 percent of crashes involving motorcycles resulted in either a fatality or severe injury, and in approximately 12 percent of those crashes, the motorcyclist ended up beyond the traffic barrier.

NCHRP Report 350 (Ross et al., 1993) presents procedures for conducting vehicle crash tests and in-service evaluation of roadside safety features or appurtenances. Types of devices included are: (1) longitudinal barriers (such as bridge rails, guardrails, median barriers, transitions, and terminals); (2) crash cushions; (3) breakaway or yielding supports for signs and luminaries; (4) breakaway utility poles; (5) truck-mounted attenuators; and (6) work zone traffic control devices. FHWA requires use of NCHRP Report 350 testing protocols for all roadside safety hardware. As currently established, there are no protocols covering the performance of roadside barriers based on collisions with motorcycles.

There are three main types of barrier systems currently used in the United States:

Concrete barriers
W-beam guide rails and three-beam rail systems
Wire rope safety barriers (WRSBs)

Each of these provides unique benefits and detriments to motorcyclists based on their physical properties and placement along the roadside.

Concrete barriers, such as the one illustrated in Exhibit V-2, are the most rigid barriers in use and are often found in locations where there is limited space for barrier deflection, and/or where traffic volumes are significant and the relative frequency of impacts is higher. These barrier systems are made of interlocking sections that form a continuous smooth surface that is most advantageous in collisions where impact angle is small because it prevents snagging and blunt force impacts (from posts) to the motorcyclist. Research by Sala and Astori (1998) determined that the physical nature of concrete barriers enabled sliding and redirection of the crash victim in addition to providing a significant distribution of contact forces over the surface area of the barrier. Highway agencies may want to consider installation of concrete barriers at high-crash locations or at locations with the greatest potential for motorcycle/ barrier collisions. Appropriate locations for their application include sites with high motorcycle traffic volumes, high motorcycle accident rates, and locations where current roadside barriers are deemed problematic for motorcyclists.

The W-beam guide rail, as the name suggests, consists of a "W" shaped rail supported by posts incrementally spaced to provide sufficient strength to withstand collisions. Exhibit V-3 illustrates a W-beam guide rail. Because these barriers are not as rigid as their concrete counterparts, they do provide a significant amount of deflection during impacts with heavier vehicles. The most undesirable features of this design, from the motorcyclist's perspective, are the posts and the sharp edges associated with them, which are exposed both above and below the guide rail. Should a motorcyclist be ejected from the vehicle across the top of the guide rail, he or she could be severely injured by the tops of the posts. More common, however, is the possibility of a motorcyclist passing under the protective rail and then coming in contact with the lower portion of a post. In these situations, even if the angle of impact is relatively small, the impact with the post surface will be approximately perpendicular. Studies by Ouellet (1982) and Domhan (1987) have each shown that collisions with guide rail posts are often severe, if not fatal. Even if a person could travel between guide rail posts without coming in contact with them, there is often a roadside hazard (from which the guide rail is protecting the roadway user) directly beyond the guide rail.

Similar in many aspects to W-beam guide rails, WRSBs (Exhibit V-4) are generally composed of three or four lateral wire rope segments that are supported by vertical posts and tensioned by anchors at incremental spaces. These barriers are used in environments where there is ample space for deflection and they provide very little impediment to sight distance. The motorcycle safety issues associated with WRSBs are twofold. First, the supporting posts for this barrier pose the same threat to motorcyclists as the posts for the W-beam guide rails discussed above. Secondly, the greatest perceived concern for motorcyclists unique to this design is the potential to be severed by the wire rope.

EXHIBIT V-2 Concrete Roadside Barrier (New Jersey Type)	EXHIBIT V-3 W-beam Guide Rail
EXHIBIT V-4 Wire Rope Safety Barrier

This type of barrier device is much less expensive to implement than concrete or W-beam guardrail. Its widespread application on open medians of freeways has gained substantial interest in recent years and met with great success in eliminating crossmedian head-on crashes involving motor vehicles. Given the relative newness of this design treatment there is a general lack of research on its performance when impacted by motorcyclists.

It is understood in the design community that the best solutions to roadside hazards are eliminating the hazard itself. Thus, preference is to remove trees, objects, etc. and flatten slopes versus placing barriers to shield vehicles from them. However, quite clearly there are many, frequent situations where roadside barriers are necessary to provide overall system safety. Given that historically the basis for roadside appurtenance design uses larger vehicles and does not directly consider motorcycle impacts, the safety effectiveness of motorcyclefriendly roadside barriers is largely unknown. Further research to quantify the safety benefits of these systems is needed.

EXHIBIT V-5
Strategy Attributes for Considering Motorcycles in the Selection of Roadside Barriers

Strategy 11.1 A3—Identify Pavement Markings, Surface Materials, and Other Treatments That Reduce Traction for Motorcycles and Treat or Replace with High-Traction Material (T)

General Description

Painted roadway markings and other surface materials can be extremely slippery when wet. In fact, slick materials that interfere with traction are applied to road surfaces with increasing frequency. The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000) made the following proposal: Take steps to remove slippery sealants and repair substances applied to road surfaces.

A motorcycle's traction can be seriously compromised by a variety of surface treatments, including:

Bituminous rubberized asphalt sealer (used for crack repair)
Plasticized adhesive pavement-marking tape
Manhole covers
Raised pavement markers

While each of these treatments is particularly slick in wet conditions, some may even be slippery in dry environments. These treatments become even more problematic for motorcyclists when they are installed in horizontal curves where a leaning motorcycle can potentially slip and crash.

Where bituminous rubberized asphalt sealers are applied to large areas, more motorcyclists can be adversely affected. Often this material is applied in widths of 12 to 24 in. As the material warms, it becomes gummy and may cause a motorcycle to slip on contact. Bridge joints that are treated with generously applied asphalt sealer can also be problematic for motorcycles.

In some conditions (i.e., wet pavement and hot temperatures), this material becomes very slippery and can cause a motorcycle traveling in a straight line to lose control and fall.

Plasticized adhesive pavement markings and large painted lines present traction problems. Usually located at an intersection, motorcyclists pass over these markings while leaning. Depending on speed and lean angle, these markings can cause a motorcyclist to lose traction and fall.

Manhole covers become extremely slippery when wet. Compounding this problem is the fact that manhole covers often blend with the roadway color and are difficult to see at night or in low-light conditions. Treating the cover with a non-slip material and edging it in contrasting color would provide greater traction and make the cover more visible.

While raised pavement markers (a.k.a. "traffic buttons") do not create a slick surface in the same way that asphalt sealers and plasticized adhesives do, they serve as potential obstacles in the roadway that can cause a motorcyclist to lose control, especially when the motorcycle operator fails to notice them.

Since there is no known design standard for traction coefficient for surface treatments and manhole covers, it is difficult to define specifically when these treatments pose a problem for motorcycles. Research is needed to create a uniform standard under which agencies can make these determinations. Also, a number of highway agencies routinely test marking materials such as paints, thermoplastics, epoxies, and temporary tapes to evaluate their retroreflectivity and durability. Routine testing of marking materials should consider including a test for the traction needed by motorcycles and reflect the compatibility of these applied materials to motorcycles in various temperatures and wet and dry conditions. For example, plasticized adhesive pavement markings may be available in a "grit" surface that provides better traction when a motorcycle crosses in a lean and/or in wet or reduced traction conditions.

Highway agencies may want to first target high-crash locations and routes with high motorcycle volumes.

EXHIBIT V-6
Strategy Attributes for Identifying Pavement Markings, Surface Materials, and Other Treatments That Reduce
Traction for Motorcycles and Treating or Replacing with High-Traction Material

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The Oregon Department of Transportation contacts the TEAM OREGON Motorcycle Safety Program when a new surface treatment is applied or tested. A member of the TEAM OREGON program visits the site(s), test rides the material or application, and takes photographs. A brief report is provided from TEAM OREGON to ODOT on the suitability of the product or application to motorcycle use.

The Idaho Department of Transportation has purchased a grooving system. It is more labor intensive, but it appears to improve roadway traction.

The Montana Department of Transportation uses a 40-mm wide reservoir and underfills it, thus minimizing the spread of asphalt sealer on the road surface. Economics was the driving force behind this effort.

Strategy 11.1 A4—Maintain the Roadway to Minimize Surface Irregularities and Discontinuities (T)

General Description

General "wear-and-tear" on the roadway system—caused by adverse weather conditions, increasing traffic volumes, and heavy vehicle loads—is inevitable. However, it can deteriorate the roadway surface to such a condition that motorcyclists traverse the roadway with great difficulty. While it is not feasible for every surface irregularity to be treated immediately, it is essential that those irregularities and discontinuities that present an inherent problem to motorcycle users be identified and treated as quickly as possible. Highway agencies may want to first target high-crash locations and routes with high motorcycle volumes. In fact, the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000) has listed "maintaining roadway surfaces" as an essential proposal.

Common surface irregularities that are especially problematic for motorcycle users include potholes, tire rutting, surface drop-offs or rises, manhole covers, deteriorating pavement and railroad grade crossings that are worn or cross the roadway at a shallow angle. Each is discussed below:

Potholes—While potholes are often an inconvenience for motor vehicles, due to the jarring involved as a tire suddenly dips into an opening in the road, they are even more of a problem for single-track vehicles whose balance is more easily disrupted by the sudden jarring action. Motorcycle tires range in size from 10 to 18 inches in diameter, so even small holes in the road can cause a motorcyclist to lose control (see Exhibit V-7).
Tire Ruts—It is not uncommon, especially on freeways, for tire ruts to be present on the roadway surface due to heavy truck traffic; however, a motorcyclist can have a particularly difficult time maneuvering in and out of the ruts without over-steering or over-correcting in the process. When a rut is filled with water from a rainstorm, the condition is amplified by the hydroplaning affect, leaving the motorcyclist to find a narrow path along the center or edge of the lane.
Surface Drop-offs—Another type of surface irregularity, surface drop-off or rise, can be found at either end of bridges or resurfacing project locations (see Exhibit V-8). If the elevation change is too drastic, the surface irregularity can be problematic for motorcyclists.
Manhole Covers—Manhole covers are especially problematic for motorcyclists when they are not placed flush with the pavement surface. That is, manhole covers that are either too high (creating a raised object in the roadway) or too low (creating a "crater" or "pothole" effect) can cause a motorcyclist to lose control. This misalignment creates a problem when the cover suddenly appears from beneath the vehicle ahead. Manhole covers that are too high are often found in construction zones where they are first installed, or relocated, and then the final surface courses are added. Compounding this problem is the fact that manhole covers often blend with the roadway color and are difficult to see at night or in low-light conditions. Exhibit V-9 illustrates a manhole cover that is too low and blends in with the roadway color. Edging the cover in contrasting color would make the cover more visible.
Deteriorating Pavement—Pavements that are poorly maintained can deteriorate and break apart, leaving a patch of broken pavement and gravel through which motorcyclists must negotiate (see Exhibit V-10). Such debris can deflect a motorcycle's wheel when it is struck, causing the rider to lose control of the motorcycle. There are certain locations where debris is a particular problem for motorcycles, such as at horizontal curves (where insufficient traction can result in running off the road or motorcycle slide-out) or locations with limited maneuvering space (such that a rider is unable to negotiate around the debris).
Railroad Grade Crossings—Outdated and well-worn railroad crossings are a rugged surface that, if not carefully traversed by motorcyclists, can easily lead to a loss of balance and control. Also, railroad crossings that do not cross the roadway at right angles can be especially difficult for motorcyclists to navigate, especially with worn crossings. The jarring impact of striking the track coupled with the slick surface can result in a loss of control.

EXHIBIT V-7 Example of a Pothole That Would Be Problematic for Motorcyclists		EXHIBIT V-8 Pavement Drop-off Due to Repaving Project
EXHIBIT V-9 Manhole Cover		EXHIBIT V-10 Deteriorating Pavement and Gravel from Poor Roadway Maintenance

Currently there is no surface irregularity/discontinuity threshold for motorcycles. Therefore, officials have no way to quantify to what degree various surface irregularities affect motorcyclists. Further research should be conducted to develop thresholds that can be incorporated into design criteria.

Highway agencies should regularly and systematically inspect all roadway surfaces for irregularities and discontinuities that potentially pose a safety problem for motorcyclists. Patchwork may serve as a temporary solution until permanent repairs can be made. However, care should be taken that the repair work is of good quality.

Where surface irregularities and discontinuities can neither be fixed nor removed, advanced warning signs should be placed upstream of the problem area. For information on advanced warning signs, see Strategy 11.1 A7.

Highway agencies may choose to develop a toll free number or Internet website where motorcycle riders could report locations where surface irregularities and discontinuities are present (See Strategy 11.1 A9). This could potentially reduce personnel costs.

EXHIBIT V-11
Strategy Attributes for Maintaining the Roadway to Minimize Surface Irregularities and Discontinuities

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

Many cities have established "pothole hotlines" that allow road users to call a local number to report the presence of a pothole or surface irregularity. City officials then take that information and take appropriate actions to repair the pothole as quickly as possible. Example cities that have implemented this strategy include St. Louis, Missouri, and Durham, North Carolina. The Seattle Department of Transportation has a pothole hotline, as well as a web-based street maintenance request form in which riders can submit a request to repair potholes, street signs or other traffic controls. For more information, visit http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/potholereport.htm.

Strategy 11.1 A5—Maintain Roadway Surfaces in Work Zones to Facilitate Safe Passage of Motorcycles (T)

General Description

There is a continual process of upgrading and refurbishing our nation's roadway systems in order to meet the ever-increasing demand for traffic capacity and safety. During construction, it is important that the roadway surface allocated for traffic use is adequate for all users, including motorcyclists. Work zones often require that lanes be shifted or new surfaces be erected on an alternate route so that construction can be undertaken on the original road. During this process, it is essential that the traveled surface be kept free of obstructions and obstacles such as construction debris, extreme or unexpected surface undulations, temporary surface covers or markings that offer little or no traction for motorcycles (see Strategy 11.1 A3 for more information on utilizing high-traction surfaces), and significant surface elevation drops and rises generally occurring at joints between permanent roadway and temporary surfaces during the construction period.

It is important that roadway surfaces in work zones be maintained to facilitate safe passage of motorcycles. Roadway surface irregularities that are common in work zones, but that are problematic for motorcyclists, include the following:

Pavement drop-offs are often abrupt and difficult to see (see Exhibit V-12). Signing is suggested.
Gravel roads present a difficult riding surface for many motorcyclists, especially when loosely packed (see Exhibit V-13). Gravel on the roadway creates a traction problem, particularly in curves.
Large temporary steel plates create an abrupt edge and a very slick surface (see Exhibit V-14). In low-light conditions, they are difficult to detect.
Pre-grinding of asphalt surfaces in preparation for paving creates an undulating surface and often a parallel ledge to the adjacent roadway.
Large grooves, gaps or roadway seams parallel to the direction of travel can trap the tire(s) and cause a crash.

EXHIBIT V-12 Inconspicuous Pavement Drop-off Due to Repaving	EXHIBIT V-13 Gravel Road through Work Zone
EXHIBIT V-14 Temporary Steel Plate

Possible countermeasures for some of these irregularities include the following:

Repaving:
- Provide a tapered edge that does not catch a motorcycle's tire.
- Reduce the possibility of "edge traps" by paving no further in a day than can be paved back in the adjacent lane. This reduces the chance of a motorcycle hitting the pavement edge in low-light conditions.
Steel plates:
- Treat with non-slip surface material (see Exhibit V-15).
- Treat edges with contrasting color for increased visibility (see Exhibit V-15).
- Taper pavement to plate surface to reduce the risk of the edge catching a motorcycle's tire.

Where such surface irregularities are unavoidable, such as chip seal or pavement grinding, advance warning signs should be placed upstream of the problem area to alert motorcyclists of an impending roadway surface problem. For information on advance warning signs, see Strategy 11.1 A7. Alternate routes for motorcycles could be suggested, if possible.

EXHIBIT V-15
Steel Plate Example with Non-slip Surface and Contrasting Color

EXHIBIT V-16
Strategy Attributes for Maintaining Roadway Surfaces in Work Zones to Facilitate Safe Passage of Motorcycles

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) formed a Motorcycle Safety Action Team to improve the conditions on Virginia highways for motorcyclists and to improve motorcyclists' understanding of VDOT and the local governments as operators of highways. For information, visit their website at http://www.virginiadot.org/programs/ resources/3motorcycle.pdf.

Strategy 11.1 A6—Reduce Roadway Debris—Such As Gravel, Shorn Treads, Snow and Ice Control Treatments (Sand/Salt), and That Resulting From Uncovered Loads—From the Roadway and Roadside (T)

General Description

Roadway debris poses a greater problem for motorcycles than for larger vehicles. Debris can deflect a motorcycle's wheel when it is struck, causing the rider to lose control of the motorcycle. Debris such as sand, cinders, gravel and substances spilled from trucks (grain, sawdust, fuel oils, etc.) can cause a motorcyclist to lose traction and control. There are certain locations where debris is a particular problem for motorcycles, such as at horizontal curves (where insufficient traction can result in running off the road or motorcycle slide-out) or locations with limited maneuvering space (such that a rider is unable to negotiate around the debris). Exhibit V-17 illustrates a horizontal curve with roadway debris.

Common types of debris that pose a particular problem to motorcyclists include:

Dirt, gravel, cinders or wood chips resulting from uncovered truck loads (Exhibit V-18)
Dirt, gravel or mud introduced by cars entering a paved roadway from an unpaved roadway (Exhibit V-19)
Sand or cinders remaining from winter snow and ice treatment
Shorn tire treads (Exhibit V-20)
Miscellaneous debris that cannot easily be traversed (i.e., mufflers, cardboard boxes, garbage, and mattresses)

Roadway debris affecting motorcycle traffic can be divided into two categories: that which is safely traversable and that which is not. For debris that can be safely traversed, such as dirt or gravel, the rider must be cautious to avoid actions requiring increased levels of traction (e.g., turning, lane changing, and braking). Larger objects, such as tire treads, rocks, displaced utility covers and other large roadway debris can appear from beneath the vehicle ahead, right in the path of the following motorcycle. These conditions present a very precarious condition for motorcycles.

A self-reported survey of Australian motorcyclists conducted by de Rome et al. (2002) found that 67 percent of those involved in single-vehicle crashes and 56 percent of those involved in multiplevehicle crashes pointed to loss of traction as a factor. Similarly, Haworth (1999) reported that surface traction played a part in 53 percent of all motorcycle crashes and directly contributed to 15 percent of motorcycle crashes. For all non-traversable debris, the key concerns for motorcyclists include (1) having sufficient sight distance to recognize the obstacle and perform necessary steering to avoid a collision and (2) having sufficient space within their traveled lane to avoid the object.

Potential solutions include integration of this strategy with a street repair and maintenance hotline. An agency can be notified immediately of the presence of the debris and take immediate action to remove it from the roadway or roadside. Coordination with other departments (e.g., snow and ice control treatments, city public works, etc.) may also lead to the development of a modified road sweeping schedule that could reduce the potential for roadway debris related to the activities of other roadway maintenance departments. In areas where sand, gravel or mud is repeatedly brought onto the roadway, consideration should be given to paving a small portion (50 ft) of the problem section nearest the intersection. Larger debris items should be removed from the roadway surface as quickly as possible to avoid being struck by an unsuspecting motorcyclist.

Highway maintenance personnel should look for debris as part of routine inspections (see Strategy 11.1 A8 below). In addition, law enforcement and other public agency personnel that travel the roads frequently should be alerted to the problem, and provided instructions on how to deal with or report it. Highway agencies may want to first target high-crash locations and routes with high motorcycle volumes.

EXHIBIT V-17 Roadway Debris on Curve	EXHIBIT V-18 Debris from Uncovered Truck Load
EXHIBIT V-19 Dirt from Unpaved Roadway	EXHIBIT V-20 Shorn Tire Treads

EXHIBIT V-21
Strategy Attributes for Reducing Roadway Debris—Such as Gravel, Shorn Treads, Snow and Ice Control
Treatments (Sand/Salt), and That Resulting From Uncovered Loads—From the Roadway and Roadside

Strategy 11.1 A7—Provide Advance Warning Signs to Alert Motorcyclists of Reduced Traction and Irregular Roadway Surfaces (T)

General Description

Advance warning signs inform motorists of reduced traction and irregular roadway surfaces. Such signs require caution on the part of the driver and may call for a reduction in speed or other maneuver. Advance warning signs are typically geared to all types of vehicles and do not typically address one particular vehicle type. The exception to this is advance warning signs that specifically address large trucks (e.g., truck-tipping signs that warn trucks of a sharp horizontal curve, signs that warn trucks of a steep grade ahead, etc.).

Another group of roadway users that could benefit from advance warning signs is motorcyclists. There are a number of roadway conditions that are potentially problematic for motorcyclists. With proper advance warning, motorcyclists can take necessary steps to safely negotiate through those conditions. Advance warning signs for motorcyclists should be considered for the following situations:

Where speed may have to be reduced—Roadway surface irregularities (e.g., gravel, uneven pavement, longitudinal grooves, steel grate bridge deck, and pavement ending) and reduced traction surfaces (e.g., water across roadway, moss in perpetual wet and shaded areas) may require a reduction in speed (see Exhibit V-22).
Where lateral placement is limited or may have to be modified—Roadway surface irregularities (e.g., gravel, uneven pavement, longitudinal grooves and gaps) and wind gust areas may require a change in lateral placement (see Exhibit V-23).
Potential conflict zones—Anywhere that surface traction or stability may be compromised (e.g., gravel, oil treatments, longitudinal differences in pavement elevation) represents a potential conflict zone.
Work zones—The frequency of steel plates, gravel, sand, uneven pavement, and longitudinal grooves in construction and work zones make these areas particularly problematic for motorcyclists.

Advance warning signs in these situations may be beneficial for all drivers. However, due to the unique characteristics of motorcycles, it is particularly important that advance warning signs be placed well in advance of the location with reduced traction or irregular roadway surface to provide motorcyclists with sufficient time to react appropriately. Highway agencies may want to first target high-crash locations and routes with high motorcycle volumes. Exhibit V-24 illustrates an example of an advance warning sign geared to motorcyclists. Further research should be conducted to determine the feasibility of developing a series of basic motorcycle warning signs that could be integrated into the MUTCD.

EXHIBIT V-22 Grooved Pavement Warning Sign
EXHIBIT V-23 Irregular Roadway Surface and Advance Warning Sign		EXHIBIT V-24 Advance Warning Sign for Motorcyclists

EXHIBIT V-25
Strategy Attributes for Providing Advance Warning Signs to Alert Motorcyclists of Reduced Traction and Irregular Roadway Surfaces

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The Oregon Department of Transportation posts motorcycle-specific signs warning motorcyclists of changing roadway conditions, such as "Rain Grooves Ahead." The New Hampshire Department of Transportation also posts motorcycle-specific warnings. The Virginia Department of Transportation formed a Motorcycle Safety Action team to (1) heighten awareness of motorcyclists with resident engineers, (2) add language to the VA Work Zone Protection Manual and classroom training, (3) create signs for longitudinal joints, (4) create signs for certain transverse (expansion) joints, (5) meet with various utility providers regarding hazards for motorcyclists, (6) develop an informational flyer for distribution, and (7) evaluate an anti-skid treatment for steel plates. For information, visit their website at http://www. virginiadot.org/programs/resources/3motorcycle.pdf.

Strategy 11.1 A8—Incorporate Motorcycle Safety Considerations into Routine Roadway Inspections (E)

General Description

Typically, highway agencies perform a routine visual site investigation of the entire roadway network within their jurisdiction. The investigator reviews the condition of such roadway elements as pavement, pavement markings, traffic signs, traffic signals, and roadside elements (including guide rail) to identify potential problems and repair needs. While the investigation may be conducted with all vehicles in mind, it is more likely that the unique characteristics and needs of motorcycles are not thoroughly considered. Previous strategies have identified a number of roadway conditions (i.e., surface irregularities and discontinuities) that may not be a problem for motor vehicles, but are problematic for motorcyclists, including:

Roadway debris such as tire treads, rocks, mufflers and other large objects that can cause loss of stability and control.
Roadway debris such as sand, gravel, mud and moss that can cause a loss in traction.
Temporary surface treatments such as gravel roads and culvert fills, steel plates, abrupt pavement drops and rises can erode with time and become increasingly problematic for motorcycles.

Such roadway surface problems should be identified by highway agency personnel through routine roadway inspections. In fact, motorcycle considerations could be incorporated into maintenance management systems.

EXHIBIT V-26
Strategy Attributes for Incorporating Motorcycle Safety Considerations into Routine Roadway Inspections

Strategy 11.1 A9—Provide a Mechanism for Road Users to Notify Highway Agencies of Roadway Conditions That Present a Potential Problem to Motorcyclists (E)

General Description

A number of roadway conditions (i.e., surface irregularities and discontinuities) that are problematic for motorcyclists have been identified in previous strategies within this objective. Such roadway surface problems should be identified by highway agency personnel through routine roadway inspections, as discussed in Strategy 11.1 A8. However, regularly inspecting all roadway miles within their jurisdiction is a daunting task for highway agency personnel, and it is possible that a surface irregularity (e.g., pothole, gravel, etc.) may go unnoticed for several days. Motorcyclists, on the other hand, are very adept at recognizing surface irregularities that are problematic for them. Therefore, highway agencies would benefit from having a mechanism (e.g., toll-free number, website, etc.) whereby motorcyclists or other roadway users can report roadway surface problems. A toll-free number could be answered by a member of the highway agency staff or it could provide a voicemail for callers to leave a message. Of course, voicemail left at the toll-free number or email sent to a website would need to be checked regularly and in a timely manner by highway agency staff.

EXHIBIT V-27
Strategy Attributes for Providing a Mechanism for Road Users to Notify Highway Agencies of Roadway Conditions
That Present a Potential Problem to Motorcyclists

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

Many cities and regions have implemented pothole hotlines and Internet-based notification systems. Some examples include:

St. Louis, Missouri
http://stlcin.missouri.org/release/getpressdetails.cfm?Auto=670

Durham, North Carolina
http://www.ci.durham.nc.us/departments/works/pothole.cfm

Seattle, Washington
http://www.cityofseattle.net/transportation/potholereport.htm

Additionally, motorcyclist groups and organizations have created reporting resources for their memberships that include the phone numbers or websites of various highway agencies within a specific district or region. Members report roadway problems they encounter while on the road. Oregon's Governor's Motorcycle Safety Advisory Committee created a business card-sized resource listing the phone numbers of the major highway districts in Oregon. These cards were made available to motorcyclists across the state through motorcycle dealers and clubs.

Objective 11.1 B—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes Due to Rider Impairment

Strategy 11.1 B1—Increase Motorcyclist Awareness of the Risks of Impaired Motorcycle Operation (T)

General Description

Riding a motorcycle while under the influence of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicants is a leading cause of fatal crashes involving motorcycles. While alcohol involvement in motorcycle crashes has shown a steady decline (from 49 percent in 1992 to 27 percent in 2006), over one-third of operators (36 percent) involved in fatal crashes were found to have been drinking prior to the crash (FARS, 2006). Alcohol involvement among motorcycle crashes is higher than crashes involving other vehicle types (FARS, 2006). In 2006, almost one-half (41 percent) of all motorcycle riders who died in single-vehicle crashes were intoxicated (i.e., blood alcohol content of 0.08 g/dL or greater), and almost two-thirds (59 percent) of those killed in single-vehicle crashes on weekend nights were intoxicated (FARS, 2006). Clearly, the operation of a motorcycle combined with alcohol or other substances can lead to deadly consequences for motorcycle riders and passengers.

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) provides guidance for enhancing motorcycle safety at the national, state, and local levels. Based on information and ideas from a broad, multidisciplinary spectrum of stakeholders, as well as the most objective data available, a number of proposals for improving motorcycle safety were developed and categorized into three groups: urgent, essential, and necessary. One of the "urgent" items that addresses the problem of alcohol and other impairments as they relate to motorcycle safety is the following: Continue to discourage mixing alcohol and other drugs with motorcycling.

The following points were identified as essential:

Study how alcohol, drugs and other substances, including over-the-counter medications, can affect a motorcyclist's operating skills
Study the alcohol, drug, and other substance use patterns of motorcyclists
Educate law enforcement about unique alcohol-related behavior of motorcyclists
Encourage partnerships with groups already involved in alcohol/substance abuse issues related to motor vehicle crashes, e.g., Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), Students Against Destructive Decisions (SADD)

Motorcycles require a greater level of finesse and skill to operate than automobiles or small trucks. Because they are single-track vehicles, motorcycles have to be balanced at a stop and are less stable at low speeds. Operating a motorcycle requires the coordinated use of both hands and both feet. Riders are exposed to the elements which, after extended exposure, can dull the rider's senses. Motorcycles are harder to see in traffic, a condition amplified in low light conditions. With the amount of skill and attention required to safely operate a motorcycle, anything that impairs concentration, coordination, and judgment can be fatal.

The article "Finding Fault in Motorcycle Crashes in Hawaii: Environmental, Temporal, Spatial and Human Factors"(Kim, 2001) identifies the following factors:

Factors that increase the odds of a motorcyclist being at-fault in a collision include if the motorcyclist was inattentive, or exhibited misjudgment, engaged in speeding or improper overtaking, or followed too closely. Drivers were more likely to be at-fault if they exhibited inattention or misjudgment, they failed to yield, or their vision was impaired. Alcoholimpaired drivers were 16.9 times more likely than sober drivers to be classified at-fault. While turning actions also increased the odds of a driver being at-fault, accidents occurring on curved roads increased the odds of the motorcyclist being classified at-fault.

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000) lists some additional factors.

The effects of prescription, over-the-counter, and illegal drugs are unknown as they relate to motorcycle crashes. The dulling affects of extended exposure to the elements (heat, cold, wind, rain, etc), or the effect of other impairments such as drowsiness, allergies, etc. are known to play a role in crashes, but these relationships have not been studied in detail. Most transportation safety measures target motorists and fail to consider the unique conditions faced by the motorcycle riding population. Transportation safety practitioners should examine statewide/regional crash data to determine the extent of the problem that a state or region faces with impaired motorcycle operation, including the use of drugs other than alcohol. Findings should be incorporated into the highway agency safety plan. Enforcement officials should be advised and trained in how to recognize impaired motorcycle operators. Public information programs should be designed to (a) target the demographic over-represented in motorcycle crashes, (b) inform the public of the problem of impaired motorcycle operation, and (c) foster and promote the safe and responsible use of motorcycles.

The report, Drinking, Riding, and Prevention: A Focus Group Study (Becker et al., 2003) explores effective prevention and intervention approaches for dealing with the drinking rider problem. The findings indicate:

Riders often discourage their peers from riding after drinking, but a culturally reinforced respect for rider freedom and individual responsibility sets boundaries for peer actions.

Rider concern for the safety and security of the motorcycle itself nearly always overshadows concern for individual safety and contributes to drinking and riding. That is, motorcyclists are less inclined to abandon their motorcycle to accept a ride home than motor vehicle drivers are to abandon their vehicle.

Motorcycle impoundment and court-ordered payment of costs for vehicle storage, alcohol treatment programs, and other costs are considered persuasive countermeasures.

The report concludes that "the results suggest that future drinking-and-riding prevention efforts should incorporate peer approaches and social norms modeling. Crisis Intervention Techniques may be valuable in preventing already impaired riders from operating their motorcycles".

Success in this strategy requires a coordinated effort among government, motorcycle users, and law enforcement to identify problem areas and times. A comprehensive plan of public information, education, enforcement and intervention should be developed.

EXHIBIT V-28
Strategy Attributes for Increasing Motorcyclist Awareness of the Risks of Impaired Motorcycle Operation

EXHIBIT V-29
MSF Advertisement

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA) collects samples of campaigns, advertisements, billboards, posters, brochures and bumper stickers that several states have used to treat the impaired riding problem. Contact SMSA for more information: http://www.smsa.org/motorcycle_awareness/promotional_materials/.

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) has developed drinking and riding public service announcements (PSAs) for print and web applications in a variety of sizes and formats and will provide them at no cost to the state. Contact the MSF for more information: http://msf-usa.org.

Riders Helping Riders (RHR) is an instructional program developed by NHTSA designed to encourage motorcyclists to intervene to prevent drinking and riding by their motorcyclist peers. The program provides a "toolkit" of techniques for separating drinking from riding, discouraging riders from becoming impaired, recognizing impairment, and discouraging impaired riders from riding. More information can be found on NHTSA's website: http:// www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template. MAXIMIZE/menuitem.d7975d55e8abbe089ca8e410 dba046a0/?javax.portlet.tpst=4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6 b760008a0c_ws_MX&javax.portlet.prp_4670b93a0b088a006 bc1d6b760008a0c_viewID=detail_view&itemID=0d6576 ca7dcb8110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD&override ViewName=Article.

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA) has partnered with NHTSA to create, broadcast and support campaigns that address the drinking rider problem. The website below features a wide range of educational and informational resources, in addition to links to other motorcycle safety programs: http://www.ridestraight.com.

Various states have created public information materials and campaigns targeting the drinking rider.

Oregon: http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/
Connecticut: http://www.ride4ever.org/
Missouri: http://www.mmsp.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28&Itemid=47
Minnesota: http://www.motorcyclesafety.state.mn.us/

For more information on state motorcycle safety activities, visit the SMSA website: http://www.smsa.org/index.php.

EXHIBIT V-30
AMA Advertisement

EXHIBIT V-31
Samples of Minnesota Public Information Materials

Strategy 11.1 B2—Expand Existing Impairment Prevention Programs to Include Motorcycle Riders and Specific Motorcycle Events (T)

General Description

Many motorcyclists accept the risk of riding in exchange for the perception of freedom and adventure. The popularity of motorcycling has soared, spawning the promotion of rider groups, rallies and events. Motorcycle-related functions have increased in number and size, and are scheduled year-round throughout the United States. A visit to the AMA website (http://www.amadirectlink.com/news.asp) yields 25 different types of riding events, from Bike Show to Fun Run, Poker Run, and the Gypsy tour. Some manufacturers promote riding by sponsoring riding groups and events. An example of the strength of group affiliation and brand loyalty can be witnessed in the motorcycle industry's rider group. The Harley Owner's Group (HOG) is the largest group, with over 800,000 members around the world. Honda's Rider Club of America (HRCA) boasts a membership of 300,000 members. Other rider organizations not operated by the marquee include BMW Owners of America, the Gold Wing Road Riders Association, and the Yamaha Royal Star Touring and Riding Association, to name a few. A variety of niche groups also exist, such as: Women on Wheels, Christian Motorcycle Association, Antique Motorcycle Club of America, or the Blue Knights Enforcement Motorcycle Club.

Hundreds of sponsored rides, rallies and motorcycling events are held each year and in every state. They are typically scheduled during the summer and can attract thousands of riders. A good reference is http://motorcycleevents.com. While these events are fun for motorcycle riders, the presence of alcohol at some of these events can bring about an increase in alcohol-related motorcycle crashes. According to Analysis of Alcohol- Related Motorcycle Crashes in Florida and Recommended Countermeasures (Turner and Georggi, 2001):

Approximately one-third of all alcohol-related motorcycle crashes in Florida occur in the springtime months (March through May). March has the highest proportion of alcoholrelated crashes (13 percent), which may be related to annual motorcycle events (Bike Week) held in Florida during that month. More motorcyclists were killed at Bike Week 2000 (11 motorcyclists died) than during any other time in the event's 59-year history (Tampa Tribune, 2000). Thus, it may be worthwhile to intensify efforts to promote responsible riding well in advance of the annual motorcycle event. The report also states that, "The cumulative effect of vehicle, road, and environmental factors in alcohol-related motorcycle crashes is negligible which suggests that human factors play a greater role in motorcycle-alcohol crashes than factors associated with the vehicle, road and the environment surrounding the crash".

The effect of such events on the community health care system can be staggering, as described in Epidemiology of Mass Casualties during Bike Week 2000, Daytona Beach, Florida (Kanny et al., 2003).

Although fatalities first called attention to the problem, nonfatal injuries outnumbered fatalities 20:1. The manpower resources of civil service and health resources could become overwhelmed or exhausted in circumstances in which many people are injured or killed throughout a relatively long period. The situation deserves future study. Better risk factor surveillance is needed to help prevent crashes.

Many groups and organizations meet in bars and taverns. Some groups sponsor tavernto- tavern rides, and some rallies find a large percentage of attendees relaxing in bars and beer gardens. In fact, the alcoholic beverage industry has even sponsored motorcycle events.

In recent years, some organizers have taken steps to curb drinking and riding by hosting activities and events such as concerts, parades, bike shows, swap meets, guided tours, etc. Some groups prohibit alcohol while others close the gates at the end of the day to prevent participants from riding away after drinking. Others provide free shuttle service. Both riders and event organizers have taken action to curb drinking and riding because no one wants avoidable injury or fatal crashes due to alcohol to occur. However, much ground can be gained in the fight to reduce the number of alcohol-related crashes, injuries, and fatalities by partnering with event organizers to keep the event safe and enjoyable.

A highway agency can target this audience by coordinating with key stakeholders and event planners to foster and promote responsible viewpoints on drinking and riding. With thousands of riders descending upon a community or region, the potential for crashes and injuries is magnified. Awareness and early action can reduce injuries and fatalities. Personnel currently involved in drinking/driving programs for motorists should expand those programs to include motorcyclists and partner with event organizers and other stakeholders to promote a safe event.

EXHIBIT V-32
Crash, Injury and Death Frequency by Study Period
Source: Kanny et al., 2003

EXHIBIT V-33
Strategy Attributes for Expanding Existing Impairment Prevention Programs to Include Motorcycle Riders and Specific Motorcycle Events

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

An example of an effective treatment can be found in the Motorcycle Safety Foundation's (MSF) "Take it Easy" campaign for Daytona Bike Week, 2001. The campaign featured billboards, buses, street banners, posters and airwaves concentration. The "Take It Easy" theme was chosen because it is a commonly used phrase that applied to all aspects of safe riding and driving, including observing all traffic laws, riding or driving unimpaired and respecting all roadway users. The "Take it Easy" goal was to reduce the number of crashes and fatalities associated with Bike Week. See Exhibit V-34. Visit the MSF website at: http://www.msf-usa.org/index_new.cfm? pagename=Search&content=12D63D09-A0CC- 53D5-64764948F882EC77&spl=1&Criteria= &content=B9DA9457-A0CC-53D5-644C591F 676562BC&spl=0 .

MSF has created a set of print public service announcements in a variety of sizes and formats. MSF provides these free of charge. Visit: http://www.msf-usa.org/.

The Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Program has produced creative posters designed to capture the attention of motorcyclists. Other examples can be found by visiting their website. Visit: http://www.motorcyclesafety.state.mn.us/.

EXHIBIT V-34
Take It Easy Campaign

EXHIBIT V-35
Example of Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Program Posters

Strategy 11.1 B3—Target Law Enforcement to Specific Motorcycle Rider Impairment Behaviors That Have Been Shown to Contribute to Crashes (T)

General Description

The problems associated with impaired operation of motorcycles are detailed in Strategy 11.1 B1, "Increase Motorcyclist Awareness of the Risks of Impaired Motorcycle Operation". Research has shown that, in 2005, motorcyclists were about 37 times as likely as passenger car occupants to die in a traffic crash, and 8 times as likely to be injured (NHTSA, 2006b). A large number of the motorcycle fatalities can be attributed to motorcyclists riding under the influence. Traffic Safety Facts from 2006 also reports the following:

In fatal crashes reported in 2006, alcohol involvement among motorcycle drivers was higher than alcohol involvement for passenger cars and light truck drivers.
Of the motorcyclists involved in fatal crashes, 89 percent were operators (riders).
In 2006, over one-third of motorcycle operators involved in crashes were found to have been drinking prior to the crash.
The ratio of intoxicated motorcycle operators to impaired motorcycle operators was nearly 4 to 1.
Motorcycle operators were almost twice as likely to test positive for alcohol in singlevehicle crashes compared to multiple-vehicle crashes.

Enforcement of DUII laws is an essential element of any comprehensive transportation safety plan. Arming the enforcement community with the necessary tools and training to detect impaired motorcyclists is the key to reducing the number of alcohol-related crashes, injuries and fatalities.

In order to address this problem, NHTSA sponsored research to develop a set of behavioral cues that can be used by law enforcement personnel to accurately detect motorcyclists who are operating their vehicles while intoxicated. This research resulted in the development of the "Detection of DWI Motorcyclists" training guide, a "Motorcycle DWI Detection Guide", and a training video.

Seventeen cues were identified in this resource that best discriminate between impaired and normal operation of a motorcycle. The cues were labeled as "excellent predictors" and "good predictors". The "excellent" cues predicted impaired motorcycle operation at least 50 percent of the time. The "good" cues predicted impaired motorcycle operation 40 to 49 percent of the time. Most of the behaviors in the "excellent" category were drawn from the special coordination and balance requirements of riding a two-wheeled vehicle. The cues include:

Drifting during turn or curve
Trouble with dismount
Trouble with balance at stop
Turning problems
Late braking during turn
Improper lean angle during turn
Erratic movements during turn
Inattentive to surroundings
Inappropriate or unusual behavior
Weaving
Erratic movements while going straight
Operating without lights at night
Recklessness
Following too closely
Running stop light or sign
Evasion
Wrong way

These training and guidance materials help officers (1) detect impaired motorcyclists, (2) articulate observed behaviors on arrest reports, and (3) support their expert testimony during legal proceedings. These materials are available from NHTSA (NHTSA, 2007).

Highway agency personnel should partner with enforcement officials to foster and support officer training and deployment of this resource. Ideally, this training should be incorporated as part of the Standard Field Sobriety Testing taught to law enforcement. All enforcement agency personnel should complete training to become better aware of the visual cues associated with impaired motorcycle operation. This resource and training is especially effective during periods when there is a large concentration of riders that match the following profile (FARS, 2006):

Male—7 percent of fatalities are male
Ages 35—39, 40—44 and 45—49—these age groups represent the highest alcohol involvement of all age groups
Riding large motorcycles—operators of motorcycles with large engines had the highest alcohol/crash involvement when compared to operators of other motorcycle engine sizes
Riding at night—motorcycle operators killed in traffic crashes at night were 4 times as likely to have BAC levels of 0.08 g/dL or higher than those killed during the day (43 percent and 12 percent, respectively).
Not wearing a helmet
Improperly licensed

EXHIBIT V-36
Strategy Attributes for Targeting Law Enforcement to Specific Motorcycle Rider Impairment Behaviors That Have Been Shown to Contribute to Crashes

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

"The Detection of DWI Motorcyclists" is a valuable training tool that has been in circulation for more than ten years. More information may be found at the following website: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/610DWIMotorcyWeb/pages/index.htm.

Objective 11.1 C—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes Due to Unlicensed or Untrained Motorcycle Riders

Strategy 11.1 C1—Increase Awareness of the Causes of Crashes Due to Unlicensed or Untrained Motorcycle Riders (E)

General Description

Every year thousands of riders and passengers are injured or killed in motorcycle crashes nationwide. The number of fatal motorcycle crashes has been increasing at an alarming rate since 1997—from 2,116 in 1997 to 3,592 in 2003, representing a 70 percent increase. This trend cannot be easily explained, and research into motorcycle crash causation remains inadequate. A thorough motorcycle crash research study has not been conducted since the landmark "Hurt Study" (Hurt et al., 1981). In the 25 years since the Hurt Study, vast changes have occurred in the motorcycling profile, as reported in The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000):

The riding demographic has aged considerably, from 24 in 1980 to 38 in 2000.
Motorcycle popularity and use have increased. Motorcycles are larger, have greater performance than those of the 1980s, and cost more. Vehicle design, engine size, suspension, braking systems and lighting have all seen dramatic improvements. Sport bikes and cruisers—styles that didn't exist when the Hurt Study data was collected in the late 1970s—are top sellers.
States have improved licensing programs and established rider training and motorcycle safety programs across the nation, yet the effectiveness of these programs has not been measured or quantified.

In the absence of contemporary or timely crash facts, validation of existing countermeasures cannot be fully quantified, leaving safety advocates and practitioners to study statistical patterns and extrapolate crash indicators. Timely and comprehensive crash causation factors are needed to understand the rising trends in motorcycle crashes and to develop countermeasures in enforcement, engineering, rider education and training, licensing and public information. One of the four "urgent" recommendations of the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety was: "Immediate action should be taken by government and industry to address the critical questions in motorcycle safety through comprehensive, in-depth studies as well as studies focused on specific topics."

Motorcycle crash data are needed in order to be able to understand and quantify rider exposure and effective response in crash situations so that effective treatment can be applied. The samples below are just a few factors that could be measured by a comprehensive indepth motorcycle crash causation research project. Such a study could answer some of the following questions:

Did the rider perceive the hazard? When did the rider perceive the hazard? What prevented an earlier assessment?
Did the rider use both brakes effectively? If not, how was the braking characterized?
Did the rider swerve or make any attempt to avoid the obstacle? Was this an appropriate reaction given the circumstance?
Did alcohol, drugs or fatigue contribute to the crash?
What other factors contributed to the crash (roadway conditions, weather, mechanical problems)?
Was the operator wearing protective equipment (helmet and other protective apparel)? What was the extent of injury and what effect did the protective equipment have on injury reduction?
Had the operator completed a rider training program?
Was the operator properly licensed and/or endorsed to operate a motorcycle?

In the meantime, much can be gained by understanding statistical patterns and trends in motorcycle crashes. Standard crash data elements such as time of day, age of rider, type of bike, speed, the presence of protective apparel, alcohol involvement, and licensing status provide insight into the general trends and patterns of motorcycle crashes. Highway agency officials should continue to seek information on motorcycle crashes, and use this information to craft programs designed to target problems, improve safety and educate the motoring and motorcycling public.

Motorcycle Licensing Programs

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety identified five "essential" recommendations for licensing improvement:

Commission studies to ensure that licensing tests measure skills and behaviors required for crash avoidance
Identify and remove barriers to obtaining a motorcycle endorsement
Develop and implement programs to allow all state motorcycle safety programs to issue motorcycle endorsements immediately upon successful completion of rider training courses
Enforce penalties for operating a motorcycle without a proper endorsement
Encourage states and jurisdictions to provide motorcycle-specific training to license examiners administering testing for motorcyclists

One "necessary" recommendation was identified: Develop an enhanced motorcycle licensing model using appropriate Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) concepts and evaluate its effectiveness.

Motorcycle licensing programs and requirements for testing are in place in all states and the District of Columbia. The licensing components include a special motorcycle operator's manual, knowledge test, skills test, learner's permit and license endorsement. In many states, these licensing programs are waived for completion of a state-approved motorcycle rider training course. Most licensing agencies waive knowledge and/or skill tests for eligible applicants who hold licenses from another jurisdiction that maintain similar standards as the issuing jurisdiction. Likewise, many states waive knowledge and/or skills tests for applicants who have completed a motorcycle safety program from another jurisdiction.

These licensing programs are necessary to measure the readiness of riders to ride safely. The operator's manual provides important information and strategies for safe riding. The knowledge test measures the understanding of that material, and the skills test quantifies the rider's readiness to venture safely onto public roads.

Most states use skills tests developed by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation in cooperation with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and NHTSA, although in 16 jurisdictions, locally designed off-street tests are used. Typically, one of the following tests is used:

The Alternate Motorcycle Operator Skill Test (Alternate MOST)
An off-street test comprising six individual skill tests designed to measure basic vehicle control and hazard response skills. The test features a sharp turn, normal stop, cone weave, U-turn, quick stop and obstacle avoidance maneuver.
The Motorcycle Licensing Skills Test (MLST)
The MLST features electronic or manual timing equipment that converts speed traveled through a timing zone to a score. The test features a straight path and sharp turn, quick stop, swerve and curve negotiation.
The Motorcyclist In-Traffic Test (MIT)
The MIT evaluates rider judgment in actual traffic situations. The test measures 8 to 11 riding behaviors. The examiner follows the applicant in a car and transmits instructions through a receiver carried by the applicant.

In order for the skills test to be valid, it must be objectively scored. Examiners do not have to be motorcycle operators to administer these tests, but they do need to complete specialized training to learn the policies and demonstrate scoring objectivity and accuracy.

Even though much has been done to establish educational resources and testing mechanisms, many riders avoid the licensing process and ride illegally. In 2003, one in four motorcycle operators (24 percent) involved in fatal crashes was operating the vehicle with an invalid license. This compares with only 12 percent of drivers of passenger vehicles in fatal crashes without a valid license (FARS, 2003). Typically these riders who are operating the vehicle with an invalid license are actually operating a vehicle "out of class", meaning that an automobile license exists but the license is not lawfully endorsed for motorcycle operation.

The licensing process is a critical first step for anybody wanting to operate a motorcycle on public roads. The material in the operator's manual and the content of the knowledge and skills tests must be based on timely and accurate data and must measure the skills and strategies necessary for the safe operation of a motorcycle. Minimum standards and pass rates must be defined for these tests to be valid. Objective scoring and unbiased treatment of applicants ensure that every applicant has the best opportunity to demonstrate readiness and comply with state law. Finally, law enforcement should provide consistent enforcement for violations of "operating a vehicle out of class,?including citing the operator and impounding the motorcycle.

Rider Training Programs

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) identified three "essential" and three "necessary" priorities for rider education and training. The following are "essential"

Expand motorcycle safety programs to accommodate all who need or seek training.
Conduct uniform follow-up research into the effectiveness and impact of rider education and training.
Merge rider education and training and licensing functions to form one-stop operations. The following are "necessary"
Increase the number of states conducting Motorcycle Safety Program Assessments.
Establish benchmarks for rider education and training effectiveness and program operation excellence.
Explore the effectiveness of on-street training.

Motorcycle rider education and training has been shown to provide effective treatment for motorcycle crashes, as identified in the research report, "Evaluation of the California Motorcyclist Safety Program (CMSP)" (Billheimer, 1998). This report documented the impact of the CMSP on motorcycle crashes within California using the following measures:

Analyzed crash trends over the 9-year life of the program
Compared accident experience of California riders with those in the rest of the United States
Assessed accident rates of persons completing classes in contrast with persons not having completed classes

The findings showed:

Motorcycle crashes dropped 67 percent from 1986 to 1995; fatalities dropped by 69 percent during the same time period.
Crashes involving riders under the age of 18 (for whom training is mandatory) dropped 88 percent from 1987 to 1995.
Accident rates of untrained novice riders were more than double the rates of their trained counterparts for at least 6 months after training.

Motorcycle rider education and training enjoys the broad support of industry, government and users. In fact, groups such as ABATE ("A Brotherhood Against Totalitarian Enactments" , "A Brotherhood Aimed Toward Education", or "American Bikers Aimed Toward Education") have been among the most active supporters. This group of motorcyclists believes that education and training are the most effective ways to reduce motorcycle crashes, injuries and fatalities. They share the common mission to "promote motorcycle awareness, education, safety and liberty through community involvement and legislative action". For more information about this group, visit their website at: http://www.abateoforegon.net/.

Forty-seven states support self-funded motorcycle safety and rider training programs. Funding is typically derived from fees on motorcycle endorsements and/or registrations. Some jurisdictions rely heavily on course fees.

Most jurisdictions offer rider training programs created and supported by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation and typically include training for beginning and experienced riders and instructor training programs. Approximately three million riders have completed rider training since 1973, with 250,000 riders passing through a training program each year since 2000. Some states require training for riders under the ages of 16, 18, or 21. Tuition nationwide runs from free to $350 for the beginning or experienced course (SMSA, 2003). The National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA) maintains an extensive survey resource detailing state-by-state information on program infrastructure, contacts and services. The website is http://www.qandapro.com/report/report.php (username: survey, password: visitor).

Unfortunately, many of the jurisdictions that offer and support rider training programs cannot meet the increasing demand for courses. Many potential students report wait times for training from 3 months to as much as 1 year. Riders are opting out of the training process completely because they cannot find a training course nearby or within a reasonable period of time. Motorcycle safety programs are unable to identify and train enough instructors to meet the growing demand. Sites, personnel and equipment are in short supply. Funding in many jurisdictions is inadequate to meet this growing demand. Clearly, many state and local motorcycle safety programs need to forecast demand, prepare strategic plans for meeting the growing need for training, and implement performance measures to evaluate effectiveness of effort and expense.

Nationally, three groups have the influence to effect change in rider training programs, delivery and evaluation: the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA), and NHTSA through the Safety Countermeasures Division and state offices of highway safety. Close partners include the Motorcycle Riders? Foundation (MRF) and the American Motorcyclist Association (AMA). These groups often, but not always, cooperate on initiatives to strengthen motorcycle safety and rider training programs.

NHTSA supports a "State Motorcycle Safety Program Assessment", a technical assistance tool offered to states that allow management to review the motorcycle safety program, note the program's strengths and accomplishments, and note where improvements can be made. The assessment can be used as a management tool for planning purposes and for making decisions about how best to use available resources. The Motorcycle Safety Program Assessment process provides an organized approach for meeting these objectives.

The Motorcycle Safety Program Assessment is a cooperative effort among NHTSA, the state motorcycle program office, the state highway safety office, and other agencies or offices, such as the Department of Motor Vehicles, Department of Public Safety, Department of Transportation, and/or Department of Education, which contribute to the state's motorcycle safety program efforts. The Motorcycle Safety Program Assessment follows the format and procedures utilized by other highway safety and emergency medical services program assessments.

The Motorcycle Safety Program Assessment examines the following components of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program:

Program management
Motorcycle personal protective equipment
Motorcycle operator licensing
Motorcycle rider education and training
Motorcycle operation under the influence of alcohol or other drugs
Legislation and regulations
Law enforcement
Highway engineering
Motorcycle conspicuity and motorist awareness programs
Communication program
Program evaluation and data

For more information, see NHTSA's Uniform Guidelines for State Highway Safety Programs: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/tea21/tea21programs/pages/MotorcyclePDF.pdf.

The demand for training has borne witness to the emergence of industry training programs. With the assistance of the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Harley-Davidson has developed and continues to support a network of "Rider's Edge" courses that are offered and run through local dealerships. Students register at the dealership, complete classroom training at the dealership, and ride new Buell Blast motorcycles for the on-cycle portion of the training.

It is expected that motorcycle sales will continue to rise as the "baby boomer" generation continues to exercise financial freedom. In addition, the effect of increasing fuel costs and increased traffic congestion may well be the launching point for resurgence in popularity of motorcycles. Motorcycle rider education and training programs need to remain viable, responsive and strong to keep quality rider training accessible and affordable to all who are interested in riding or improving skills and safety.

The effective cure for this strategy is to support a means and mechanism for riders to complete training and licensing. In those states where licensing tests are waived for course graduates, the completion of training resolves both education and licensing issues (once the rider completes the endorsement application and payment process). Most jurisdictions allow a license testing waiver for the beginning course, but several jurisdictions also allow testing waivers for intermediate and/or experienced rider training.

EXHIBIT V-37
Strategy Attributes for Increasing Awareness of the Causes of Crashes Due to Unlicensed or Untrained Motorcycle Riders

EXHIBIT V-38
Motorcycle Safety Foundation Educational Materials

EXHIBIT V-39
SMSA's Safety Workshop Publication

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) has developed training and licensing PSAs for print and web applications in a variety of sizes and formats and will provide them at no cost to the state. Contact the MSF for more information.

The TEAM OREGON Motorcycle Safety Program maintains a listserv for motorcycle patrol officers in Oregon. More than 100 officers are enrolled. The service is used to provide educational and safety information and resources to the Oregon motor officer community and has targeted unendorsed and untrained rider issues in the past.

The Maryland Motor Vehicles Administration (MVA) has linked data from different sources to track motorcycle crashes, violations, injury reports and compliance with licensing regulations. Linking data from CODES, vehicle registration, operator licensing and rider training records, MVA can begin to evaluate and understand violation and crash trends and the effects of training and licensing on those crashes and violations. For more information, contact the Maryland Motorcycle Safety Program: www.motorcyclesafety@mdot.state.md.us.

The National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators (SMSA) provided professional development and resources for members to forecast program growth at the 2002 National Conference in Boise, Idaho. The workshop entitled, "Forecasting the Future: A Manager's Guide to Program Health and Sustainability" was prepared and delivered by the TEAM OREGON Motorcycle Safety Program at Oregon State University. A CD complemented the presentation and provided tools to calculate the number of instructors needed to meet the anticipated demand and the number of course offerings required to meet local, regional and state demand. Many states were found to be maintaining a consistent number of instructors and sites while the demand for student training was increasing. The training and CD identify the potential problems with continuing that strategy. Many state managers have reported that the training and resources have been successfully applied to develop an improved business plan and funding appropriation. For information, contact TEAM OREGON: http://teamoregon.orst.edu. Several states have completed a Motorcycle Safety Program Assessment, including Washington, Indiana, Oklahoma, Ohio, Delaware, Missouri, West Virginia, Florida and Hawaii.

The following resources were created and produced by Oregon Department of Transportation (left) and the Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Program (right) to promote motorcycle safety and rider training.

EXHIBIT V-40
Educational Materials Produced by Oregon Department of Transportation (left) and Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Program (right)

Strategy 11.1 C2—Ensure That Licensing and Rider Training Programs Adequately Teach and Measure Skills and Behaviors Required for Crash Avoidance (T)

General Description

This strategy is an "essential" recommendation of the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS). As described in Strategy 11.1 C1, motorcycle licensing and training programs are well established in most states. Most licensing and rider training programs use curriculum and materials designed and supported by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF). The MSF is responsible for a series of Cycle Safety Information (CSI) reports, including: (1) annual licensing procedures and standards, (2) annual training statistics on a state-by-state basis, and (3) annual crash statistics. These are excellent resources and may be downloaded at http://www.msf-usa.org/ (click on the "Library" section).

Materials used in rider training and licensing are updated infrequently. Instructor and examiner training often fail to address current local/statewide crash causation issues. Unfortunately, even when those issues are identified, the task of integrating new motorcycle research findings into training and licensing programs is not thoroughly applied. Often, years will pass with no oversight or assurances that state/regional licensing and education programs are measuring the skills and behaviors required for crash avoidance.

Many licensing and education programs are based on the Hurt Study (Hurt et al., 1981). While changes in licensing programs have been made since the Hurt Study, the purpose of many of the changes has been to accommodate larger motorcycles in slow speed exercises.

Subtle changes have been made in technical treatment of skills and strategies in training or licensing. New training curricula continue to address the problems identified in the Hurt Study, which are believed to remain problems today. Realistically, this may or may not be true. For example, the Hurt Study identified that 92 percent of riders involved in crashes were self-trained. Thirty years later, this may have changed. Most riders from the Hurt Study showed significant deficiencies in performing emergency braking and evasive maneuvers. In most multiple-vehicle crashes today, the operator of the other vehicle is at fault for violating the motorcyclist's right-of-way. While multiple-vehicle crashes represent 54 percent of total crashes (FARS, 2003), it is unknown whether the driver of the other vehicle remains culpable for the crash causation or if other characteristics are present. Singlevehicle crashes constitute 46 percent of all fatal crashes (FARS, 2003), but the cause of these crashes is largely unknown.

Training and licensing practices should be based on current research and best practices, as prescribed in two NAMS recommendations:

Conduct follow-up research into the effectiveness and impact of rider education and training.
Establish benchmarks for rider education and training effectiveness and program operation excellence.

Highway agency safety personnel should research current motorcycle crash statistics to identify the crash factors facing riders in that jurisdiction and compare those findings with current testing and education practices. Those findings should be shared with groups responsible for national guidelines—MSF and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA)—in a collaborative effort to improve safety. Changes in training or licensing should be communicated to the training and licensing communities through periodic instructor and examiner in-service training programs.

EXHIBIT V-41
Strategy Attributes for Ensuring That Licensing and Rider Training Programs Adequately Teach and Measure Skills and Behaviors Required for Crash Avoidance

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The Oregon Department of Transportation has implemented this strategy. When statewide data indicated that most riders were crashing in curves, the department instructed the TEAM OREGON Motorcycle Safety Program to evaluate the training curriculum against this and other local safety measures. A field test was conducted. New rider training and educational treatments were developed and a new curriculum was adopted. The new program emphasizes safe cornering theory, technique and performance. This program was also compared with national benchmarks to assure quality and accuracy.

Motorcycle Rider Education and Licensing: A Review of Programs and Practices (Baer et al., 2005a) provides a comparison of trends in rider education and motorcycle operator licensing across the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The report presents state-by-state data on all aspects of rider education and licensing. NHTSA released a follow-up report in 2005 that details promising practices in rider education and motorcycle operator licensing (Baer et al., 2005b).

Strategy 11.1 C3—Identify and Remove Barriers to Obtaining a Motorcycle Endorsement (T)

General Description

This strategy is a NAMS "essential." It is important to identify and remove barriers to obtaining a motorcycle endorsement. It has been established that, in 2001, one in four motorcycle operators (25 percent) involved in fatal crashes was operating the vehicle with an invalid license (FARS, 2002). It is unknown how many riders are currently operating a motorcycle without proper licensure. The ability to compare registered cycle owners to endorsed operators is complicated in many states due to incompatible licensing and registration database systems. In some states, it is also not possible to quantify the number of unqualified motorcycle riders that are involved in crashes, simply because the motorcycle license endorsement is not reported on the crash reporting form.

Qualifying for a motorcycle endorsement indicates the rider has met minimum standards for knowledge, skill and safety, and is a requirement in all states. It is the skills test, more than the knowledge test, that complicates compliance:

The testing times are inconvenient and not immediate. Appointments are required and often the wait time is several weeks or months.
Some jurisdictions cancel the testing for rain. This starts the scheduling process all over.
The rider has to transport their personal motorcycle to the testing site. For those who are riding on a permit, another person has to accompany him/her on another motorcycle.
The test intimidates some riders. Common excuses are:
- "My bike won't turn that tight."
- "My bike won't ride that slow."
- "My bike is too big."
- "What do they (the examiners) know about riding a motorcycle?"
The fear of failure is commonly present, and when a rider fails, the testing cycle starts over again—appointments, delivery, testing and fear of failure.
The licensing system in many states allows riders to renew permits year after year, providing no incentive to complete the endorsement process.
Law enforcement may not always enforce the violation of riding without an endorsement. Even when a rider is stopped and cited, in some cases they are allowed to ride away. The laws for operating a vehicle out of class should be consistently applied for all vehicles. In some jurisdictions, operators caught driving or riding without proper licensing credentials have their vehicles impounded.

Many licensing jurisdictions waive skills and knowledge testing for graduates of basic rider training. This has proven to be a training incentive. The advantages are many:

Small, lightweight training motorcycles are typically provided for training and testing.
The training builds skill, develops strategy, and improves knowledge.
Knowledge and skill testing are included in the training program. To successfully complete the course, the rider must pass both a knowledge and a skills test.
With the completion certificate in hand, the graduate applicant simply visits the licensing office to present the certificate and have his/her license endorsed for motorcycle operation, no appointment, no rain-out, no concern about getting a bike to the licensing office, and no threat about possibly failing the skills test and having to repeat the process.

The training and licensing partnership is the most effective means to prepare a motorcyclist to venture onto public roads safely and legally. However, it is unknown how many course graduates actually complete the last step of visiting the licensing office to acquire the "M" endorsement. This last step could be eliminated by allowing rider training providers to issue temporary endorsement certificates to eligible students. Once the licensing department receives training reports, it could mail a replacement "sticker" or other form of authorization that the applicant could adhere to his or her driver's license. Tight security, quality assurance and compliance measures would have to be established. The advantage of this solution is that the thousands of people completing rider training would not have to also visit local licensing offices. The licensing department would benefit, as would the students. Compliance with licensing of the training population should increase. The state of Pennsylvania has such an arrangement: http://www.dmv.state.pa.us/faq/faq-mcpermit.shtml.

Finally, licensing reciprocity between state-to-state licensing programs may streamline operations and eliminate unnecessary testing. Many states currently recognize other states? licensing standards and do not require legally licensed out-of-state applicants to complete the battery of operator licensing tests to qualify for a driver's license and motorcycle endorsement. Another form of reciprocity is for state licensing agencies that currently reward rider training graduates with an endorsement to extend that reward to out-of-state applicants who submit appropriate training credentials recognized by the host state. Both of these initiatives will likely reduce traffic at licensing offices and should improve compliance with state licensing laws. For more information on motorcyclist licensing elements in the United States, see Strategy 11.1 C1. Another related strategy that addresses licensing of motor vehicle drivers can be found in NCHRP Report 500, Volume 2, "A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Unlicensed Drivers and Drivers with Suspended or Revoked Licenses."

EXHIBIT V-42
Strategy Attributes for Identifying and Removing Barriers to Obtaining a Motorcycle Endorsement

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Program conducted the Enhanced Motorcycle Licensing Project, initiated in 1995 with NHTSA Section 403 assistance. The goal of the project was to increase the number of safe motorcycle operators by developing a program targeting unendorsed motorcycle operators and creating a program that simplifies the endorsement process and eliminates disincentives for compliance. The report identified the following disincentives:

Motorcycle permits cost $2.50 and are renewable for $1.00, while the endorsement fee is $16
Driver exam stations are overcrowded, forcing an endorsement applicant to schedule the skills test months in advance
Skills tests were often postponed due to rain

The disincentives were removed. Extended evening motorcycle testing hours were provided at select exam stations throughout the state. A strong public information and media effort advertised the evening hours, and the state motorcycle safety program made available stateowned training motorcycles for endorsement applicants to use. An average of 800 motorcycle operators took advantage of the opportunity in each of the first 3 years of the program, with 920 operators participating in the last year, 1998. When polled, 88.5 percent of the respondents reported that evening hours were an important incentive; 33 percent disclosed that they would not have taken the skills test without evening hours. Visit http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safedige/Winter1999/n5-128.html.

The state of Maryland formed a Motorcycle Safety Task Force comprising NHTSA Region 3, Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), the Maryland Highway Safety Office (MHSO), the National Study Center, State Police and ABATE of Maryland. The purpose of the task force was to protect motorcyclists by promoting:

Accurate collection of information
Additional research
Broader outreach effort
Increased funding available
Development of a long-term plan that can be evaluated

The accomplishments of a diverse group such as this are far greater than individual approaches. This Task Force succeeded in:

Gathering and linking information to identify the problem—training, licensing, registration, crash reports, hospital reports, crash reconstruction, citations, etc.
Identifying unlicensed or improperly licensed operators as a significant problem in crashes
Coordinating roll call training for police departments on investigating motorcycle crashes—evidence and correct information
Inspecting helmets after a crash
Pilot testing motorcycle crash reconstruction
Class M (Motorcycle) licensing effort included comparing vehicle registration data with licensing data to identify those who owned motorcycles but were not endorsed. The findings showed 14 percent of the state's riders lacked the M endorsement. A letter was sent to these individuals reminding them of that legal requirement. As a result, 1,700 people (a response rate of 17 percent) got an M license. After-hours testing was conducted in which 300 individuals participated.

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) supports motorcycle licensing programs and has developed licensing PSAs for print and web applications in a variety of sizes and formats and will provide them at no cost to the state. Contact the MSF for more information.

EXHIBIT V-43
MSF's Licensing PSA

Objective 11.1 D—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes by Increasing the Visibility of Motorcyclists

Strategy 11.1 D1—Increase the Awareness of the Benefit of High-Visibility Clothing (E)

General Description

A common complaint of many motorcyclists is that passenger car drivers often do not see them and, as a result, violate the motorcyclists?right-of-way. This issue was addressed in the Hurt Study (Hurt et al., 1981) as well, which reported many passenger car drivers as saying "I didn't see him" or "He came out of nowhere." The Hurt Study also found that "the failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents.?Hurt identified that riders who wore camouflage or other hard-to-see apparel were over-represented in right-of-way crashes, suggesting that conspicuity also plays a role in crash avoidance. Other research also suggests that motorcycle conspicuity is a contributing factor in motorcycle-automobile collisions (Wells et al., 2004).

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000) reports:

One of the easiest and most effective ways for a motorcyclist to be seen by other motorists is by wearing brightly colored, upper-torso clothing and/or retro-reflective material. However, only minorities of motorcyclists choose such brightly colored apparel, whether for fashion or other reasons.

The predominant color of motorcycle apparel is black: black leather jackets, black gloves and boots, and black helmets. NAMS reports that more than one-half of the motorcycle helmets sold in the United States are black. The problem with black is that it is inconspicuous in the day and, in the absence of any retro-reflective material, invisible at night or in low-light conditions. While motorists must be responsible for actively looking for motorcyclists, it is incumbent upon motorcyclists to recognize how conspicuity issues affect their safety and to prepare accordingly.

According to the New Zealand study, Motorcycle Rider Conspicuity and Crash Related Injury: Case-Controlled Study, (Wells et al., 2004):

Riders wearing any reflective or fluorescent clothing had a 37 percent lower risk of being in a crash when compared to riders who did not wear reflective or fluorescent clothing.
Compared with wearing a black helmet, use of a white helmet was associated with a 24 percent lower risk of being in a crash.
Self–reported use of a light-colored helmet versus a dark-colored helmet was associated with a 19 percent lower risk of being in a crash.

Increased awareness of this issue can occur at the state level by integrating this information into driver training programs—drivers can be made more aware of the motorcycle and the motorcycle rider. Similarly, motorcycle rider training programs can emphasize the concept of motorcycle conspicuity. Rider training programs should promote conspicuity and provide specific examples of how riders can improve their visibility to surrounding traffic.

Motorcyclists can immediately and inexpensively improve conspicuity, and thus their safety, by wearing retro-reflective material on their clothes and helmets. Retro-reflective vests are especially effective at increasing visibility at night, and come in a variety of colors to complement the rider's apparel.

Highway agencies should partner with the motorcycling community and the state's motorcycle safety authority to implement this strategy through education, information and awareness.

EXHIBIT V-44
Strategy Attributes for Increasing the Awareness of the Benefit of High-Visibility Clothing

EXHIBIT V-45
Public Service Announcements for Appropriate Cycling Clothing

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

In Exhibit V-45, the sample on the left from the TEAM OREGON Basic Rider Training Rider's Guide provides information on the characteristics of good riding gear, including conspicuity treatments.

The Gold Wing Road Riders Association (GWRRA) has created a publication to educate members on ways to improve conspicuity. For more information, visit: http://www.gwrra-mi.org/MAD/conspicuity.pdf.

Strategy 11.1 D2—Identify and Promote Rider Visibility-Enhancement Methods and Technology (T)

General Description

Motorcyclists who are inconspicuous are over-represented in crashes (Wells et al., 2004). Depending on the trends and patterns of crash data, conspicuity may be a significant factor in accident causation. This strategy promotes motorcyclist safety through visibilityenhancing methods and technology.

The Hurt Study (Hurt et al., 1981) found that "the failure of motorists to detect and recognize motorcycles in traffic is the predominating cause of motorcycle accidents." The study also identified intersections as the most likely place for crashes to occur and determined that the conspicuity of the motorcycle is a critical factor in these crashes. Accident involvement was significantly reduced by the use of motorcycle headlights during the day and conspicuity (e.g., light/bright colors) of the motorcycle and rider frontal surfaces.

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, developed by NHTSA, identified a variety of recognized tactics to make motorcycles and riders more conspicuous, including lighting, surface color and size, and rider traffic strategy (NHTSA, 2000). Lighting factors include:

Headlights that automatically illuminate when the motorcycle is started. This technology has been featured on most motorcycles since 1979. Twenty-three states have laws requiring the use of daytime headlights for motorcycles (Motorcycle Industry Council, 2000). It is estimated that 86 percent of motorcycles on the road have their headlight on during the daytime (Turner and Hagelin, 2000).
Auxiliary headlights, such as those found on large cruiser style motorcycles, are useful for increasing frontal visibility.
Auxiliary LED brake lights that flash while the brakes are applied provide extra warning to following traffic. Unfortunately, these devices are not legal in all states because some states prohibit the use of flashing red lights on anything but emergency vehicles. A strong case can be made for legislation to legalize these safety devices.
Auxiliary LED wireless brake lights can be installed on helmets and saddlebags.
Headlight modulators are available, but not widely used. These devices cause the motorcycle headlight to pulse at 240 cycles per minute (plus/minus 40). Headlight modulators are permitted in all 50 states (FMVSS 108).
Some modern motorcycles are equipped with position lamps that provide full-time illumination of the front turn signals. Aftermarket products are available that accomplish the same objective. Some devices illuminate the rear turn signals as red brake lights when brakes are applied.

The position of a motorcycle within the lane is a critical visibility factor. It is essential that motorcyclists place themselves in clear view of surrounding traffic. Motorcyclists that hide in traffic place themselves at greater risk of right-of-way violations. Rider training programs promote effective lane positioning to account for visibility, lane protection, roadway hazard detection, space cushion, following distance and escape path.

Highway agencies should promote measures to improve motorcycle conspicuity by supporting public information and education programs and by partnering with the rider training community to advocate for rider education, training, and safety. Increasing the use of daytime headlights and other conspicuity-enhancing measures are inexpensive and valuable interventions. States that do not currently require the use of daytime headlights for motorcycles may consider enacting such a law. States in which auxiliary LED lights are not legal may consider not only making them legal but requiring them.

EXHIBIT V-46
Strategy Attributes for Identifying and Promoting Visibility-Enhancement Methods and Technology

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

An Oregon law enforcement agency installed auxiliary LED brake light bars on their fleet of police enforcement motorcycles. The LED lights flash to draw attention to the stopping motorcycle. However, the state's Attorney General ruled that state law prohibits flashing red lights for use in any circumstance other than on emergency vehicles where allowed. The LED devices were removed. The state law was subsequently changed to allow such devices.

Objective 11.1 E—Reduce the Severity of Motorcycle Crashes

Strategy 11.1 E1—Increase the Use of FMVSS 218 Compliant Helmets (P)

General Description

The objective of this strategy is to reduce the severity of motorcycle crashes by increasing the use of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets among motorcycle riders.¹ When worn, helmets are estimated to be 37 percent effective in preventing fatalities in crashes. Enactments of universal helmet laws have consistently been associated with a 90- to 100-percent increase in helmet usage, a 20- to 40-percent decrease in fatalities and fatality rates, and approximately a 67-percent decrease in serious head and brain injuries. Universal helmet laws are the only proven way to increase the use of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets. On the other hand, the repeal or weakening of such laws has been associated with a 40- to 50-percent decline in usage and a 20- to 100-percent increase in fatalities and serious injuries, particularly head and brain injuries. These findings have been replicated over several cycles of legislative activity, including two periods of law enactments (1966-1975 and 1990-1995) and two periods of repeals (1977-1981 and 1996–present).

Recently, there has been a decline in nationwide helmet usage, particularly from 2000 to 2006, when compliant usage declined from 71 to 51 percent. Coupled with this decline, there has been a dramatic increase in rider fatalities, which have more than doubled since 1995. While factors other than declining helmet use have contributed to the increase in fatalities, statespecific studies consistently show large and significant reductions in helmet use and increases in fatalities and injuries associated with recently repealed or weakened universal helmet laws. Thus, the potential for helmet use to ameliorate the negative impact of the other factors contributing to the increase in motorcycle fatalities has not been realized during this recent period of repeals and declining usage.

With regard to strategies for increasing helmet usage, there is compelling evidence regarding the impact of universal helmet use laws but little or no evidence to suggest that partial laws or other approaches have the potential to achieve high use rates.

In addition to declining helmet use, it appears that FMVSS 218 non-compliant helmets are being worn with greater frequency in recent years. Because such helmets provide no protection in a crash, they do not have fatality-reduction potential.2 Nationwide non-compliant helmet use was observed to be between 13 and 15 percent in 2006, and there is evidence that non-compliant use is higher in some universal helmet law states. Thus, a second important objective of this strategy is to eliminate the use of non-compliant helmets.

Helmet Effectiveness

Fact: Motorcycle helmets are effective in reducing fatalities and injuries, particularly serious head injuries.

A 1991 study, conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office (U.S. GAO, 1991)³ found that:

Helmets were 28- to 29-percent effective in reducing fatalities. Helmeted riders suffered fewer serious and critical injuries because of a lower incidence of head injuries.
Fatality rates among helmeted riders involved in crashes were 32- to 73-percent lower than among non-helmeted riders (median: 55 percent).

More recent studies based on CODES data⁴ reported that:

Helmets are 35-percent effective in reducing fatalities and 26-percent effective in reducing serious injuries (Johnson and Walker, 1996).
Helmets are about 65-percent effective in preventing brain injuries (NHTSA, 1998).
Unhelmeted riders are three times more likely to have head injuries requiring EMS transport or hospitalization or resulting in death (Finison, 2001).

Most recently, a 2004 study of FARS data (Deutermann, 2004)⁵ concluded that:

The effectiveness of helmets against fatalities was 37 percent, an increase from 29 percent in the late 1980s, likely associated with improvements in helmet design and materials.⁶

Myth: Motorcycle helmets increase the incidence of neck injuries.

Fact: Research has refuted these claims. Studies that have examined this issue have found fewer head and neck injuries among helmeted riders than among non-helmeted riders.⁷

Myth: Motorcycle helmets cause crashes by restricting the operator's field of vision or by inhibiting a rider's ability to hear warning signals

Fact: Research has consistently found such claims to be untrue.⁸ The most recent in a series of studies concluded that wearing motorcycles helmets does not restrict a rider's ability to hear auditory signals or see a vehicle in an adjacent lane(McKnight and McKnight, 1994).

As a result of the compelling evidence of the safety benefits of helmet use, the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) concluded that:

In the event of a crash, no existing strategy or safety equipment offers protection comparable to a FMVSS 218 compliant helmet (NHTSA, 2000).

Strategies to Increase Helmet Usage

Conceptually, strategies to increase helmet usage can be dichotomized into mandatory and educational approaches. Within the mandatory approach, there have been universal helmet laws, which require use among all age groups and under all conditions; and there have been partial helmet laws, which generally require use only among riders under age 21 or under age 18.⁹

Effectiveness of Universal Helmet Laws

Fact: Observed usage among riders in universal helmet law states is 60- to 100-percent greater than in other states. Examples include:

Thirteen years of observations in 19 U.S. cities documented that motorcycle operator usage averaged about 96 percent in states with universal helmet laws and 45 percent in all other states.¹⁰
The 2006 National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS) found 83-percent helmet use overall in states with universal helmet laws and 50-percent use in all other states.¹¹
In addition to these survey results, at least 19 studies conducted in individual states have shown this large difference in observed usage between states with universal helmet laws and other states, leading the U.S. General Accounting Office to conclude that helmet use is consistently higher under universal helmet laws (U.S. GAO, 1991).

Fact: Helmet usage among crash-involved riders in states with universal helmet laws is generally twice the rate of usage among such high-risk riders in states with partial helmet laws and no helmet laws.

Results from the GAO review show usage among crash-involved riders in universal helmet law states to be more than twice the usage among such riders in partial helmet law states. Median usage rates were 95 and 42 percent, respectively.

Fact: When a universal helmet law is enacted (or re-enacted), observed usage generally doubles and fatalities decline by 20 to 40 percent. Examples include:

In Louisiana, following a 1982 re-enactment, observed usage increased from 50 to 96 percent (McSwain, and Willey, 1984).¹² Following a subsequent downgrade in 1999, usage again declined to 50 percent (Ulmer and Preusser, 2003).
Texas twice enacted and twice repealed its universal helmet law. Usage increased from 50 to 95 percent with its initial law in 1968, then declined to below 45 percent following a repeal in 1977 (Lund et al., 1991). Usage increased for a second time, to near 100 percent following a 1989 universal helmet law re-enactment, then fell to 66 percent following a 1997 repeal (Preusser, Hedlund, and Ulmer, 2000). Two studies suggested that the 1989 re-enactment was associated with a 55-percent reduction in serious head-related injuries (Mounce et al., 1992, Fleming and Becker, 1992).
In California, usage increased from 50 to 99 percent following enactment of a universal helmet law in 1992. Fatalities declined by 37 percent and the fatality rate (per registered motorcycle) declined by 26 percent (Kraus et al., 1994; 1995b). Another study found that the average annual number of rider fatalities was 54 percent lower in the 5 years after the law than in the 5 years prior to the law (Ulmer and Preusser, 2003), providing evidence of a long-term impact of the law.
In Maryland, a 1992 re-enactment was followed by a 42-percent decline in average annual fatalities (5 years before the law versus 5 years after the law), based on autopsy reports (Mitchell et al., 2001).¹³

Fact: Partial helmet laws, resulting from downgrades of universal helmet laws, are associated with large declines in observed usage (by as much as 50 percent), declines in usage among crash-involved riders (of about 40 percent), and by increases in fatalities. Examples include:

The 1980 Report to Congress, which reviewed all studies prior to 1980, reported that repeals or downgrades were followed by 50-percent declines in observed usage¹⁴ and declines of more than 40 percent in usage among crash-involved riders (from near 90 to 50 percent).¹⁵

More recently, universal helmet laws have been repealed in Arkansas and Texas (1997), Kentucky (1998), Louisiana (1999), Florida (2000), and Pennsylvania (2003). Evaluations have been conducted in nearly all of these states. These evaluations found:¹⁶

Significant declines in observed usage, from pre-repeal levels of 95 to 100 percent to post-repeal levels of 50 to 60 percent.¹⁷
A 35-percent median decline in usage among crash-involved riders in Arkansas, Texas, Kentucky, Louisiana, and Florida, from 60- to 93-percent usage under universal helmet laws to 30- to 60-percent usage after repeals.
More importantly, a median 50-percent increase in fatalities (range: 20 to 100 percent). Fatalities per registered motorcycle increased as well.

Fact: Usage among young riders covered by partial helmet laws is substantially lower under such laws than under universal helmet laws.Examples include:

In Texas, only 29 percent of injured riders under age 18 were found to be helmeted under a partial helmet law (U.S. GAO, 1991).
In North Dakota, only 44 percent of young riders involved in crashes were helmeted under a partial helmet law (Heilman et al., 1982).
A 2000 downgrade in Florida was associated with a 26-percent decline in usage among young riders killed, along with nearly a 200-percent increase in fatalities among such riders (Ulmer and Shabanova-Northrup, 2005).

Myth: Changes in fatalities associated with universal helmet law enactments or repeals are the result of changes in motorcycle registrations, rather than a result of the law changes.

Facts: During some time periods, such as when there are large changes in registrations, some of the changes in fatalities have been associated with increases or decreases in motorcycle registrations.

Many studies have controlled for such changes by reporting impact in terms of fatalities per registered motorcycle and by comparing changes in state rates (post-law versus pre-law and/or state versus national changes in rates).

These studies show substantial increases in usage associated with universal helmet law enactments, despite downward trends nationwide, and they show large and significant reductions in fatality rates, compared with national trends. Examples include:

Eight GAO-reviewed studies showed a median 33-percent reduction in fatalities per registered motorcycle under universal helmet laws, compared with pre-enactment periods (range: 20 percent to 58 percent).
Twelve GAO-reviewed studies showed a median 35-percent lower rate of fatalities per registered motorcycle under universal helmet laws, compared with subsequent repeal or downgrade periods (range: 12 to 62 percent).

It should be noted that, as a result of these findings, the GAO reviewers concluded that "Congress may wish to consider encouraging states to enact and retain universal helmet laws; and that . . . this could be accomplished via the use of penalties, incentives, or a combination of the two" (U.S. GAO, 1991, page 31).

More recent studies of enactments have also controlled for changes in registrations. For example:

Following the California enactment, fatalities declined by 37 percent and the rate of fatalities per registered motorcycle declined by 26 percent (Kraus et al., 1994).
The 1989 universal helmet law re-enactment in Nebraska was accompanied by a sharp decline in the number and rate of injuries per registered motorcycle (Muelleman et al., 1991).

Similarly, recent studies of repeals or downgrades have found that:¹⁸

The 1998 repeal in Kentucky was followed by a 38-percent increase in fatalities per registered motorcycle.
The 1999 repeal in Louisiana was followed by a 75-percent increase in fatalities per registered motorcycle.
The 2000 repeal in Florida was followed by a 21-percent increase in fatalities per registered motorcycle.

Thus, while some change in fatalities (and injuries) can be explained by changes in registrations, large and significant changes are also associated with law changes.

Nationwide Changes in Fatalities, Registrations, and Fatality Rates Since 1975

The number of registered motorcycles has generally increased over time. As indicated, these changes are important when considering the impact on fatalities and injuries associated with helmet legislation. Following are trends in rider fatalities, motorcycle registrations, and fatalities per registered motorcycle since 1975 (when initial repeals began):

1975—1980 (26 repeals): Registered motorcycles increased by 20 percent, fatalities increased by 55 percent, and fatalities per registered motorcycle increased by about 35 percent.
1981—1990 (little change in laws). Registrations declined by 20 percent, fatalities declined by 25 percent, and fatalities per registered motorcycle declined by about 5 percent.
1990—1994 (modest number of enactments). Registrations declined by 20 percent, rider fatalities declined by 26 percent, and fatalities per registered motorcycle declined by 12 percent.
1995 to 2005 (modest number of repeals): Registered motorcycles increased by 60 percent, fatalities doubled, and fatalities per registered motorcycle increased by 28 percent.

EXHIBIT V-47
Motorcycle Rider Fatality Rates by Legislative Phase

EXHIBIT V-48
Motorcycle Fatalities, Registrations, Mileage, and Fatality Rates (2-Year Intervals)

Summary of Effectiveness: Universal and Partial Helmet Laws

There is strong evidence of the effectiveness of universal helmet laws in that they are associated with large and significant increases in usage and declines in fatalities, fatality rates, injuries (particularly head and brain injuries), and reduced medical costs.
Partial helmet laws have been shown to be ineffective in maintaining high usage rates; these repeals or downgrades to universal helmet laws have been associated with substantial declines in usage (observed and among crash-involved riders) and with increases in fatalities and injuries.

As a result of these facts, in September 2007, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has recently issued a recommendation that all states with partial or no helmet laws enact a universal helmet law to increase helmet use and decrease fatalities and serious injuries.

Costs Associated with Helmet Non-Use

Fact: Repeals of universal laws have consistently been followed by substantial declines in usage (observed and among crash-involved riders) and increases in serious head and brain injuries. As such, these law changes have also been followed by increased costs associated with such injuries.

The most common finding is that crashes involving non-helmeted riders result in more serious head and brain injuries and that these injuries are generally the most expensive to treat.
The costs associated with brain injuries range from $42,000 to more than $1.4 million per injured rider, depending upon the seriousness of the injury and the range of costs included (Zaloshnja et al., 2004).
The 1998 CODES study found helmets to be 65 percent effective in reducing brain injuries (NHTSA, 1998).

Fact: Studies that have looked at the impact of universal helmet laws on costs have generally concluded that enactment (or re-enactment) of such a law significantly reduces head and brain injuries and total costs incurred by riders involved or injured in crashes.

For example, a critical review of this literature entitled, Costs of Injuries Resulting from Motorcycle Crashes found that:

Helmet use reduced the fatality rate, the probability and severity of head injuries, the cost of medical treatment, the length of hospital stay, the necessity for special medical treatments (including ventilation, intubation, and follow-up care), and the probability of long-term disability (Lawrence et al., 2003).

In addition, this review found that:

Slightly more than one-half of motorcycle crash victims had private health insurance coverage.
For patients without private insurance, a majority of medical costs were paid by government sources.

Costs and Barriers Associated with Universal Helmet Laws

The actual costs associated with enacting universal helmet laws are minimal, particularly in comparison with the cost-savings associated with reductions in fatalities and injuries.

However, while the effectiveness and benefits associated with universal helmet laws are large and consistent, the barriers to enacting such laws have become formidable as well. Some motorcycle rider groups oppose such laws on the grounds that they violate personal freedoms. These groups have, in the past, mounted organized campaigns for the elimination of such laws.

If a state proposes a universal helmet law, it can be expected that some rider groups will work hard to oppose it. In addition to the issue of personal freedom, it is likely that such groups will again raise issues regarding helmet causation of neck injuries, restricted vision, and diminished ability to hear warning sounds, issues that have not been supported in the research literature.¹⁹

On the other hand, public support for universal helmet laws is strong. The 2000 Motor Vehicle Occupant Safety Survey (MVOSS), the last MVOSS that surveyed this issue, found that just over 80 percent of the public supported a universal helmet law. Support was lower (51 percent) among current or recent riders of motorcycles (NHTSA, 2006a).

In spite of objections by some riders, it is clear that helmet use and universal helmet laws have been proven to reduce motorcycle head injuries, fatalities, and associated costs. From an evidence-based perspective, a recent review of Countermeasures That Work found universal helmet laws to be the only proven effective strategy for increasing helmet use (GHSA, 2007).

Elements of a Strategy to Enact Universal Helmet Laws

Work with Motorcycle Rider Organizations. Enacting or re-enacting a universal helmet law will likely face stiff opposition from some rider organizations. It is important to work with such organizations, to the extent possible, to convince them of the proven life-saving and injuryprevention potential of such laws. That will likely be a difficult task but every effort should be made.

Form Broad-based Coalitions. Nearly all successful efforts to enact universal helmet laws have involved broad-based coalitions that have included law enforcement, insurance, medical, public health, advocacy and safety organizations.

Hire Someone to Coordinate Your Campaign. Opposition to universal helmet laws is strong and very well-organized. In order to present your case and convince a sufficient number of legislators to vote for your bill, you must also be well-organized and have someone to spearhead the activity. This will require the coordination of support and resources from many potential allies and advocates.

Gain Bipartisan Support in the State Legislature. Many successful coalitions have been able to gain sponsors from both parties.

Use Paid Lobbyists. It is important to enlist the services of paid lobbyists. They understand the dynamics of the legislature and they have existing relationships, usually among both parties.

Gain the Support of the Governor and His/Her Staff. This is a critical element in efforts to obtain a universal helmet law. There have been cases where such legislation has been enacted but the Governor failed to sign it and there have been examples where such laws have been repealed but the repeal was vetoed by the Governor. Work with the Governor's staff early to make sure they understand the strength of the evidence in support of such a law, public opinion with regard to such laws, the costs associated with helmet non-use and the costsavings associated with helmet use.

Conduct Public Opinion Polls. Measure the support for a universal helmet law. This may help to convince legislators that the vast majority of the public supports universal helmet laws.

Conduct Evaluations and Cost-Savings Analyses. It is important to understand and be able to communicate the current status of usage rates (observed and among crash-involved and injured motorcycle riders), fatalities, injuries (particularly severe head injuries), and costs associated with existing law and to predict likely changes if a universal helmet law is enacted.

Make Use of Existing Resources. Many organizations have conducted research and developed materials to aid advocates of universal helmet laws. Make use of these organizations, their websites, and the materials that they have developed.

Increasing Helmet Use Through Education

Conceptually, an alternative strategy for increasing motorcycle helmet usage is to communicate the benefits of helmet use to riders and rider groups and to promote use of FMVSS 218 compliant helmets.

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000) for example, states that, "All motorcyclists should choose to wear protective apparel because they understand that such apparel can reduce injuries in a crash. All motorcyclists should want to wear FMVSS 218 compliant helmets while riding to reduce head trauma resulting from a crash."

Effectiveness of Strategies to Increase Helmet Use Through Education

Evidence to Support the Potential for Impact. We found no research to suggest that riders will voluntarily choose to use safety helmets, regardless of the frequency or type of messages communicated to them, particularly messages regarding safety benefits. Such benefits have been known for more than 60 years and they have been communicated to motorcycle riders.. We found no research to suggest that riders will voluntarily choose to use safety helmets, regardless of the frequency or type of messages communicated to them, particularly messages regarding safety benefits. Such benefits have been known for more than 60 years and they have been communicated to motorcycle riders.

Efforts to Increase Seat Belt Use Through Education. Experience with safety belt usage provides some interesting parallels. Prior to 1984, when the first safety belt use law was enacted, more than 20 years of efforts to promote safety belt usage had little or no impact.²⁰ Usage remained well below 30 percent in any community that implemented a comprehensive communications effort. The most publicized examples were:

In Oakland County, Michigan, where a campaign consisting of print, radio, and television ads increased usage (temporarily) from 18 to 21 percent (Oakland County Traffic Improvement Association, 1969)
In Southeast Michigan, where a $900,000 media campaign was associated with an increase in usage from 12 to 17 percent (Motorists Information Inc., 1978)
In California, public service campaigns in three moderate-size towns resulted in no significant increase in safety belt usage (Fleischer, 1973)
Another controlled evaluation of an extensive cable television campaign in New York resulted in no measured impact on safety belt usage (Robertson et al., 1974)

At the national level, an intensive, 5-year program to promote safety belt usage was implemented by NHTSA in 1980. This effort included a multi-million dollar outreach and education effort, involving scores of national organizations, to educate targeted constituencies about the benefits of safety belt use. It also included one of the most popular and widely known public-service media campaigns ever implemented in the United States, the "Vince and Larry" crash dummy campaign. Outreach efforts, media campaigns, and incentive programs were implemented in many states and communities as well. As a result of these efforts, national safety belt usage increased by three percentage points (from 11 percent in 1979 to 14 percent in 1984), as measured by NHTSA's 19-city surveys (Nichols, 2002). At the time, these same surveys were documenting decreases in motorcycle helmet usage associated with law repeals and they were finding the large and significant differences in usage in states with universal helmet laws, compared to states with partial helmet laws and states with no helmet laws.

The single greatest benefit from the 1980—1984 media and outreach campaign may have been that it facilitated the enactment of safety belt laws. Whether or not that was the case, extensive nationwide lobbying for such laws began in 1985, and by 1992, 43 states and the District of Columbia had enacted a safety belt law. National usage increased rapidly and did not return to pre-law levels. In fact, subsequent media and high visibility enforcement campaigns have resulted in sustained increases in national usage to over 80 percent, with some states exceeding 90 percent.

Costs and Barriers to Increasing Helmet Use through Education

The primary barrier to promoting helmet use through education is the fact that there is no research-based evidence, domestically or internationally, that such a strategy is effective. In fact, based on research and experience in other areas of safety, there are consistent indications that a public education campaign, based on some combination of media, education, and incentives, would not significantly increase helmet usage.

Another barrier is cost. Any comprehensive media campaign would likely involve repeated waves of media, education, and outreach with (per wave) costs of about 3 to 6 cents per capita for paid advertising alone (based on current Click It or Ticket campaigns in various states).

That would translate to $10 to 20 million per wave and, unless such a campaign was designed to support enforcement of a universal helmet law, existing evidence suggests that it would not have a significant impact on usage.

Should a public education campaign be undertaken, the following elements should be included:

Safety organizations and agencies could partner with the motorcycle community to promote knowledge of helmet effectiveness (and of universal helmet law effectiveness). It is important that all motorcyclists understand how FMVSS 218 helmets perform to protect them from injury.
Additionally, it may be important to convey that helmets provide comfort from exposure to the elements (e.g., sun, wind, rain, temperature extremes, wind-borne insects and debris, etc.), thus allowing riders to concentrate more on the task of riding than on discomforts or distractions.
A public information effort should also address common myths regarding the dangers of FMVSS 218 helmet use (i.e., helmets cause neck injury, restrict vision and hearing), and inform riders about the lack of protection afforded by non-compliant helmets.

In the end, however, unless such a campaign increases support for enactment of universal helmet laws, it is unlikely that it will have any significant impact on the use of safety helmets, particularly among riders most likely to be involved in a potentially fatal crash.

Improve Effectiveness of Enforcing Helmet Standard FMVSS 218

Fact: Surveys suggest that there has been an increase in the use of helmets that are not compliant with the current FMVSS 218 helmet standard (Peek-Asa et al., 1999; Turner and Hagelin, 2000).

Non-compliant helmets, sometimes referred to as novelty or 'beanie-style' helmets, are intended to give the appearance that the rider is wearing a compliant helmet, thereby minimizing the chances of being stopped for a universal helmet law violation.
Many non-compliant helmets carry a fake DOT label, but they do not comply with the FMVSS 218 standard due to minimal coverage area, lack of impact-absorbing material, and inadequate retention systems.
At the present time, it is not clear how prevalent such helmets are among crashinvolved riders.

Fact: Non-compliant helmets make enforcement of universal helmet laws more complicated.

While some resources have been provided to help law enforcement officers identify non-compliant helmets, more needs to be done.

Because of difficulties in such identification and in the interpretation of FMVSS 218, which is an engineering standard, some law enforcement agencies have reduced their level of enforcement of universal helmet laws.

While non-compliant helmets may be obvious to the trained eye, providing proof that a helmet is non-compliant in court can be difficult.

Possible Strategy Components

NHTSA is currently working with appropriate national, state, and local law enforcement organizations to train law enforcement officers to identify noncompliant helmets while also developing training for judges and prosecutors to adjudicate universal helmet law violations.
NHTSA is currently preparing a proposed revision to the FMVSS labeling requirement to strengthen the enforceability of the standard. The objective is to enable officers to distinguish and provide evidence of non-compliance more readily.
All stakeholders should work with the U.S. Department of Transportation to develop strategies to ensure that all helmets offered for sale meet the FMVSS 218 standard.
Another strategy component would be for interested stakeholders, in cooperation with NHTSA and motorcycle helmet manufacturers, to develop a comprehensive and regularly updated list of FMVSS 218 compliant motorcycle helmets. This list could be available through the Internet as a tool for enforcement, consumers, training providers, and other groups seeking information on compliant helmets.

EXHIBIT V-49
Strategy Attributes for Increasing the Use of FMVSS 218 Compliant Helmets

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

NHTSA has created a training video and brochure, "Fake Helmets, Unsafe On Any Head" ( http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/21qp/html/program_ pubs/moto_safety.html). This 12 and 1/2 minute instructional video teaches law enforcement officers how to identify non-compliant motorcycle helmets. It also shows some examples of non-compliant helmets. Police agencies and the military are currently using this video.

Current status of motorcycle helmet legislation is summarized by the National Conference of State Legislatures. For more information, visit http://www.ncsl.org/.

The Wisconsin Motorcycle Safety Program promoted protective apparel in this promotional piece targeting riders—http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/safety/vehicle/motorcycle/.

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) has developed PSAs promoting helmet usage and web applications in a variety of sizes and formats and will provide them at no cost. Contact the MSF for more information—http://www.msf-usa.org/.

There have been cases of motorcycle dealerships instituting a "beanie buy-back" program, where discounts are given to riders who turn in non-compliant helmets and purchase a helmet that meets FMVSS 218.

Washington State Police have developed a brochure which describes some of the differences between non-compliant helmets and FMVSS 218 compliant helmets. They have developed public awareness campaigns to promote usage of FMVSS 218 compliant motorcycle helmets: http://www.wsp.wa.gov/traveler/helmets.htm.

Additional information is available from the FHWA Motorcyclist Advisory Council: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/index.htm.

EXHIBIT V-50
MSF Helmet Usage PSAs

Websites

The following websites are listed to provide information on the arguments in support of and opposition to universal helmet laws.

Organizations That Support Universal Helmet Laws

Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety:
http://www.saferoads.org/issues/fs-helmets.htm

American College of Emergency Physicians:
http://www.acep.org/

American College of Surgeons:
http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-35.html

Trauma Foundation:
http://www.traumaf.org/featured/7-28-04motorcycle%20helmet%20laws.html

Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA):
http://www.statehighwaysafety.org/

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/safebike/helmet.html
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/6000/6200/6285/fs_mcycl.pdf

National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):
www.ntsb.gov

Organizations That Oppose Universal Helmet Laws

American Motorcyclist Association position paper in support of promoting helmet use:
http://www.amadirectlink.com/legisltn/positions/helmet.asp

Motorcycle Rider Foundation White Papers on Helmets:
http://www.mrf.org/whitepapers.php

Strategy 11.1 E2—Increase the Use of Protective Clothing (T)

General Description

Constant exposure to the elements is physically dangerous, but wind, weather conditions, and temperature extremes can also affect a rider's concentration. Furthermore, dehydration, overheating, and hypothermia can compromise a rider's judgment and cause decreased vision, light-headedness, and impaired coordination.

Safety is the main reason to wear protective apparel, but comfort is important also. Motorcycle riding gear is designed specifically for this activity. Arm and leg lengths are cut longer to provide comfort in the seated position. Sleeves can be zipped tight and collars can be either closed (with Velcro), to block cold wind, or opened, for ventilation.

Most riding gear is constructed of leather or ballistic nylon—tough material for tough conditions. It has to be able to resist abrasion and stay affixed while sliding along the roadway or roadside surface. Body padding or body armor built into the gear dissipates impact forces and provides greater protection. The European Union has devised testing standards: CE EN1621-1&2 for elbow, shoulder, knee and spinal armor. No such armor standards exist in the United States.

Typical protective riding gear includes:

FMVSS 218 compliant helmet
- Helmets come in three basic styles—full face, three-quarter shell, and half-shell. The full face provides the most protection and includes a face shield to protect the face and eyes and a chinbar to protect the jaw and teeth.
Eye protection
- Face shields or goggles provide the most protection from wind, insects and flying debris.
Jacket and long pants
- Fabricated out of abrasion-resistant materials such as leather or ballistic nylon, motorcycle gear provides ventilation and closures and often comes with body padding or body armor.
Gloves
- Motorcycle gloves are usually made of leather. Winter gloves with gauntlets keep cold wind from going up the sleeve.
Boots
- Boots provide solid ankle support at a stop and better protection than low-cut shoes. Boots should also provide a good grip with the road when stopped.
Raingear
- Raing ear has to stand up to the wind and seal out driving rain to keep the rider warm and dry.

The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety identified several ways to increase use of protective apparel (NHTSA, 2000):

Educate motorcyclists about the value of protective apparel by providing an information source on related research and a forum for the exchange of information.
Conduct research regarding protective apparel and its effectiveness, and consider development or adoption of existing standards, if research justifies.

The objective of this strategy is to convince riders to wear clothing that provides protection and comfort from the elements as well as from the dangers of a fall from the motorcycle. Wearing protective clothing can make the difference between an uncomfortable slide and severe injury along with months of rehabilitation.

The motorcycle safety and rider training communities should be involved in this strategy to assist in the development of public information and education resources for motorcyclists to understand the benefits of helmets and protective gear.

EXHIBIT V-51
Strategy Attributes for Increasing the Awareness of the Benefit of Protective Clothing

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The Wisconsin Motorcycle Safety Program promoted protective apparel in this promotional piece targeting riders.

Additional information is available from the FHWA Motorcyclist Advisory Council: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/index.htm.

EXHIBIT V-52
SMSA Protective Clothing Promotional Poster

Objective 11.1 F—Increase Motorcycle Rider Safety Awareness

Strategy 11.1 F1—Form Strategic Alliances with Motorcycle User Community to Foster and Promote Motorcycle Safety (T)

General Description

An important step of any program to improve motorcycle safety is to build strategic alliances between highway agencies, law enforcement agencies, and the motorcycle rider, safety, and education communities. The motorcycle safety community is eager to be a part of the solution because they know that any improvement in motorcycle safety can have a direct effect on them (i.e., it may save their life or the life of a friend or loved one). It is recommended that the members of a strategic alliance represent a cross-section of the motorcycling community in the state or region, and that the motorcycle safety issues of that particular state or region be addressed.

Strategic alliances are critical to the success of improved motorcycle safety for a number of reasons. Alliances allow stakeholders with different ideas to have input and provide an opportunity to discover common causes and desired outcomes. Fortunately, safety is an easy issue on which to join together, and while different groups may have different ideas on the best or most appropriate ways to improve safety, usually all stakeholders can agree that reducing motorcycle fatalities and injuries is a worthy goal. With a common starting point, motorcycle safety approaches from a diverse set of perspectives can be suggested, fleshed out and refined. Where individual stakeholder groups can become very narrowly focused on a specific type of safety strategy, an alliance provides an opportunity for out-of-the box ideas and solutions to be brought forth, and forces a recognition of the legitimate concerns and goals of other stakeholders in the same community.

Any safety initiative is only as effective as the stakeholders' commitment to implement it. Strategic alliances increase the likelihood that the diverse stakeholders in the motorcycle community will buy in to the safety initiatives and encourage their use among the members of the groups they represent. Even when safety laws are passed, if they are not understood or respected, they are ineffective. A strategic alliance of law-enforcement, safety engineers, health care providers, researchers, and motorcycle riders can act as one voice to educate riders and other motorists about the importance of motorcycle safety efforts and the consequences of ignoring them. An alliance that represents not only the voice of public safety, but also the voices of riders themselves will be much more effective in promoting the message of motorcycle safety.

NHTSA discovered the benefit of collaborating with a diverse stakeholder community when it launched the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS). Developing the framework for NAMS involved participation from experts in industry, research, training, and rider communities, as well as health care, media, insurance and law enforcement. The result was a collaborative document that has gained broad-based support and action.

According to NHTSA's Motorcycle Safety Program, "The agency values its partnerships with stakeholders in the motorcycle manufacturing and aftermarket industries, as well as the rider and education communities . . . NHTSA views interactions with stakeholders as a crucial means to allow it to collaborate on how to best improve these and other issue areas affecting motorcycle safety" (NHTSA, 2002).

Key state or regional stakeholders include:

State motorcycle safety manager
State Highway Safety office
Rider organizations—ABATE, HOG chapters, GWRRA, etc.
Law enforcement and licensing authorities
The state's motorcycle safety advisory committee—These groups exist in 25 states (SMSA, 2002), meet frequently and often hold public meetings to hear constituency issues and concerns. Additional information is available from the state's motorcycle safety manager. If a state doesn't have such an advisory committee, forming one is the first step of this strategy.

Further support can be gained by partnering with:

The American Motorcyclist Association (AMA)
The Motorcycle Rider's Foundation (MRF)
The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF)

Motorcycle issues generate interest and excitement from many quarters, and it is common for the motorcyclists in any agency office (e.g., DOT, enforcement, licensing, etc.) to take a keen interest in motorcycle-related initiatives. This interest should be encouraged and used in the development of safety initiatives. Much can be gained by involving those who have expertise in their field, personal experience as a rider, and an interest in the issues that involve both.

NAMS presented several recommendations that transportation agencies can implement with the advocacy and support of the motorcycling community. These points serve as an example of the safety ideas produced by a successful motorcycle strategic alliance:

Identify and prioritize roadway hazards to motorcycle operation.
Develop and revise highway standards at all levels—federal, state, county and local—to reflect the needs of motorcyclists and encourage motorcycle-friendly design, construction, and maintenance procedures.
Create a working group to identify changes to highway standards to increase motorcycle safety.
Post specific warnings for motorcyclists where unavoidable hazards exist.
Revise the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) so that roadway signs better communicate roadway or construction conditions that present potential problems for motorcyclists.
Educate road design and maintenance personnel about conditions that present potential problems for motorcyclists.
Include motorcycles in the design and deployment of Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS).

The keys to a successful strategic alliance are to identify as many diverse stakeholders as possible; encourage active participation not only by traditional safety advocates, but also by rider organizations; identify common goals around which to base the mission and goals of the alliance; and use the broad range of perspectives to look for new opportunities for safety improvement.

EXHIBIT V-53
Strategy Attributes for Forming Strategic Alliances with the Motorcycle Community to Foster and Promote Motorcycle Safety

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

A Motorcycle Safety Advisory Board has served Washington State since 1982. The Board consists of five members appointed by the Director of the Department of Licensing; appointments are for 2 years. The Board meets quarterly and has been instrumental in the investigation, development and support of motorcycle safety legislation. Priorities include:

Public awareness of motorcycle safety
Motorcycle safety education programs conducted by public and private entities
Classroom and on-cycle training
Improved motorcycle operator testing

For more information, visit http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/.

Similar committees have been established in Oregon, Idaho, California, Arizona, Delaware, Kentucky, Indiana, Wisconsin, Montana and other states. This is an excellent resource to begin the development of this strategy.

On February 28, 2004, WisDOT convened the Wisconsin National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NAMS) Summit. The summit represented the first state-level workshop on motorcycle safety developed from the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety report and involved extensive input from WisDOT's partners in traffic safety, including motorcycle advocacy groups, law enforcement, educational institutions and others. Those who attended the meeting participated in small group brainstorming sessions in a workshop setting to identify: (1) the problems and issues which contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities and (2) what each organization can do, using the resources available to them, to address the problem. The feedback obtained from all of these meetings was invaluable to the development of strategies contained within the 2004 Motorcycle Safety Action Plan and for long-range, motorcycle safety planning efforts (Wisconsin Department of Transportation, 2004).—For more information, visit http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/library/publications/topic/safety/motorcycleplan.pdf.

The Virginia DOT (VDOT) has been actively involved in addressing the unique characteristics of motorcyclists and their particular safety concerns on the roadway. A standing committee was formed, consisting of representatives from the DOT, local government, DMV and motorcycle community. Outcomes include:

Greater awareness of motorcyclists' concerns
Instructional memorandums regarding posting signs on longitudinal and transverse joints on bridges
Collaboration with other utilities to share motorcycle safety information
Motorcycle safety brochure to be delivered to all holders of Virginia motorcycle class operator's licenses by VDOT

Riders Helping Riders (RHR) is an instructional program designed to encourage motorcyclists to intervene to prevent drinking and riding by their motorcyclist peers. The program is based on focus group research which found that riders consider themselves to be united by an interest in riding, and willing to help other riders in need, but that a sense of individualism limits the extent to which riders are willing to intervene in drinking and riding.

RHR is intended to convince motorcyclists that an impaired rider needs their help, and that they are in the best position to provide help. The program provides a "toolkit" of techniques for separating drinking from riding, discouraging riders from becoming impaired, recognizing impairment, and discouraging impaired riders from riding. An optional role-playing module is included. At the end of class, students are asked to sign a pledge to do their best to help an impaired rider live to ride another day.

RHR was developed by NHTSA with the assistance of instructors from the South Carolina Rider Education Program and pilot tested by instructors of Georgia's Department of Driver Services, Motorcycle Safety Program. More information is available at:

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/template.MAXIMIZE/menuitem.d
7975d55e8abbe089ca8e410dba046a0/?javax.portlet.tpst=4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6b760008a0c_ws_MX&
javax.portlet.prp_ 4670b93a0b088a006bc1d6b760008a0c_viewID=detail_view&
itemID=0d6576ca7dcb8110VgnVCM1000002fd17898RCRD&overrideViewName=Article.

Websites

Motorcycle Safety Advisory Committees:

Montana—http://motorcycle.msun.edu/advisory.htm
Minnesota—http://www.dps.state.mn.us/mmsc/latest/MMSCHomeSecondary.asp?cid=2&mid=52
Wyoming—http://legisweb.state.wy.us/statutes/titles/Title31/T31CH5AR15.htm
Missouri—http://www.moga.mo.gov/statutes/C300-399/3020000136.HTM
Idaho—http://idahostar.org/pdf/annuals/annual96.htm
Oregon—http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TS/motorcyclesafety.shtml

Strategy 11.1 F2—Increase Awareness of the Consequences of Aggressive
Riding, Riding While Fatigued or Impaired, Unsafe Riding, and Poor Traffic Strategies (T)

General Description

Every year, hundreds of motorcycle riders are injured or killed in motorcycle crashes. The role of alcohol, unendorsed operation, and lack of training as risk factors has been well established (Objective 11.1 B—"Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes Due to Rider Impairment" and Objective 11.1 C—"Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes Due to Unlicensed or Untrained Motorcycle Riders"). However, what is not known is the crash representation of such characteristics as aggressive riding, riding while fatigued, unsafe riding, and poor traffic strategies.

Motorcycling is a risky activity. In terms of vehicle miles traveled, motorcyclists are about 27 times more likely to die in a crash than someone riding in a passenger car, and six times more likely to be injured (NHTSA, 2003). Unfortunately, many motorcyclists are willing to magnify that risk by exercising poor judgment and riding recklessly. Below are samples of police descriptions of fatal crashes in 2003:

Motorcycle versus auto: Motorcycle very high speed wheelie on Stark St.—80 yr. old woman pulled out, MC struck auto. Died at scene.
Single vehicle: Motorcycle attempted to pass semi on right side, went off shoulder, hit road sign. Alcohol was a factor in this crash.
Single vehicle lost control, very high speed, trying to flee from police. Double fatal. Rider observed at over 100 mph before pursuit.
Single vehicle westbound at high speed lost control on corner of I-84 near NE 28th Ave. hit concrete center divider and launched into oncoming traffic where he was struck by a vehicle. Witnesses indicated motorcycle traveling 80 mph or faster prior to crash.

NHTSA reports that one-half of the fatalities in single-vehicle crashes relate to problems negotiating a curve prior to a crash. Over 80 percent of motorcycle fatalities in single-vehicle crashes occur off the roadway. Operator DWI was a factor in 44 percent of all single-vehicle crashes. The problem of alcohol and motorcycling is compounded with the exercise of poor judgment and excessive, and in some cases extreme, speed. In fact, speed is a contributing factor in fatal motorcycle crashes 36 percent of the time, about twice the rate for drivers of passenger cars or light trucks (FARS, 2003). It is common to witness speeds double, and sometimes triple, that of posted limits.

While motorcycle performance continues to improve, allowing greater speeds and better handling, many riders have failed to improve their caution and judgment accordingly. Speed, reckless riding and the competitive nature of some riders place motorcycle riders at an increased risk of crashing and becoming injured or killed. Rider education should include not only skills training, but also a discussion of the potential consequences of unsafe and aggressive riding. In addition to teaching safe riding strategies, statistics on fatalities, injuries, and legal consequences should be presented to increase awareness of the dangers associated with drinking and riding, speeding, and unsafe maneuvers.

Rider training programs are a key element of motorcycle safety. They develop fundamental skills and safe riding strategies. However, such programs need to be supplemented with enforcement to be effective. Enforcement should include strict punishment and commensurate fines for aggressive or unsafe riding. Enforcement should also be highly visible and well-publicized to raise awareness not only of the safety risks of aggressive riding behaviors, but also of their legal consequences. Traffic laws violated by motorcycle riders can be more difficult to enforce than passenger vehicles because of their ability to accelerate to high speeds very quickly and to weave in and out of traffic. For the safety of the motorcyclist, the officer, and other motorists and pedestrians nearby, some law enforcement agencies have enacted "no pursuit" policies for motorcycle riders who violate traffic laws, and riders have learned that they can get away with aggressive driving behaviors. Law enforcement personnel should come together to identify new solutions for safely enforcing traffic laws among motorcycle riders.

EXHIBIT V-54
Strategy Attributes for Increasing Awareness of the Consequences of Aggressive Riding, Riding While Fatigued or Impaired, Unsafe Riding, and Poor Traffic Strategies

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

Exhibit V-55 shows the speed at which a motorcyclist was captured riding (132 mph) on a rural highway with a designated speed of 55 mph.

The crash scene photo in Exhibit V-56 is the crash scene of a rider who lost control traveling at a reported speed of 95 mph in a 45-mph speed zone. The collision killed the rider and seriously injured the passenger.

EXHIBIT V-55
Radar Gun Measuring Motorcycle Speed of 132 mph

EXHIBIT V-56
Crash Scene Involving Speeding Motorcyclist

EXHIBIT V-57
Crash Car Display

"Crash Car" Display

The "Crash Car" display (Exhibit V-57) was acquired and reconstructed by the TEAM OREGON Motorcycle Safety Program. The motorcycle impacted the car at a reported speed of 90 mph, killing the operator and seriously injuring his passenger and the motorist. The display and storyboard were delivered across the state to schools (as part of "Project Graduation,") and to motorcycling and civic events, fairs and celebrations. It presented a sober and vivid reminder of the hazards of drinking and riding.

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) has developed motorcyclist awareness PSAs for print and web applications in a variety of sizes and formats and will provide them at no cost to the state. Contact the MSF for more information.

Riders Helping Riders (RHR) is an instructional program designed to encourage motorcyclists to intervene to prevent drinking and riding by their motorcyclist peers. See Strategy 11.1 F1 in this guide for a detailed description of the program.

EXHIBIT V-58
MSF Motorcyclist Awareness PSAs

Strategy 11.1 F3—Educate Operators of Other Vehicles to Be More Conscious of the Presence of Motorcyclists (T)

General Description

The Hurt Study (Hurt et al., 1981) revealed many disturbing facts that forever changed the face of motorcycling in the United States, including:

Not much has changed since that finding. FARS data show the following statistics (FARS, 2003):

About one-half (54 percent) of all motorcycles involved in fatal crashes in 2003 collided with another motor vehicle.
In 78 percent of the two-vehicle crashes, the motorcycles involved were impacted in the front; only 5 percent were struck in the rear.
In 38 percent of the two-vehicle fatal crashes involving a motorcycle and another vehicle, the other vehicle was turning left while the motorcycle was going straight, passing, or overtaking the vehicle.
In 27 percent of the two-vehicle crashes, both vehicles were going straight.

Motorcyclists are still affected by motorists who fail to see them and pull into their path, often cutting off any chance of escape and resulting in an injury crash. The National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety identified the following factors that, when combined, can cause drivers to overlook motorcyclists (NHTSA, 2000):

Motorcycles and riders represent a relatively small component of the total traffic mix. Visual recognition is reduced.
Many drivers are not expecting to see motorcyclists in traffic and therefore do not anticipate routine encounters.
Motorcycles are smaller visual targets and much more likely to become obscured.
Automobiles and trucks have obstructions (door and roof pillars, outside mirrors, etc.) and blind spots that can obscure or hide a motorcyclist.
Other conditions affecting the vehicle, including precipitation, glare, and cargo, can impair a driver's view and obscure a motorcyclist.
Roadside objects, other vehicles, and light patterns can make it difficult to discern a motorcyclist.

The problem of drivers not seeing motorcyclists is expected to get worse. That is, as the population of drivers continues to age, vision problems will likely become more prevalent (see NCHRP Report 500, Volume 9, "A Guide for Reducing Collisions Involving Older Drivers"). Tips on watching for motorcycles should be placed in older driver handbooks.

The objective of this strategy is to promote public information campaigns to better educate motorists to be more conscious of the presence of motorcycles in the traffic mix. Several states have mounted clever motorist awareness campaigns to deliver that message (samples are provided at the end of this section). Distribution methods include driver education programs, driver manuals and tests, and remedial education programs for violators. Media include billboards, bus advertising, radio, and literature or posters displayed wherever motorists linger—visitor centers, motor vehicle offices, auto shows, gas pumps, banks, etc. Messages can be printed on license renewal notices or other general population mailings.

Public information campaigns could be coordinated with Motorcycle Awareness Month, a month designated by many state motorcycling groups to heighten the awareness of motorcycling. Typically, but not always, Motorcycle Awareness month is in May and aligns with the Motorcycle Awareness and You (MAY) theme. This event serves as an excellent opportunity for officials to engage with those involved in the motorcycling movement. Many DOTs support this activity with public information and education resources designed to draw awareness to the presence of motorcycles on our streets and highways, and to urge motorists to "Watch for Motorcycles."

Highway agencies should involve the motorcycle safety and rider training community in this strategy. Motorcycle groups will likely seize the opportunity to assist with motorist and motorcyclist awareness programs.

EXHIBIT V-59
Strategy Attributes for Educating Operators of Other Vehicles to be More Conscious of the Presence of Motorcyclists

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

The Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) has produced and distributed the campaigns shown above (Exhibit V-60). These images have appeared on bus advertising, billboards, and on posters that have been placed in DMV Field Offices, schools and colleges.

The Wisconsin Motorcycle Safety Program has produced and distributed the Motorcycle Awareness and You (MAY) campaign (see Exhibit V-61).

The Maryland Motorcycle Safety Program within the Motor Vehicles Division adopted the Take it Easy campaign (see Exhibit V-62).

EXHIBIT V-60
Oregon DOT Public Information Campaign

EXHIBIT V-61
MAY Campaign in Wisconsin

EXHIBIT V-62
Take It Easy Campaign in Maryland

The SMSA supports a website of valuable resources for Motorist Awareness. For more information, visit http://www.smsa.org/motorcycle_awareness/idea_sampler/.

The Motorcycle Safety Foundation (MSF) has developed motorist awareness PSAs (Bikes Belong) for print and web applications in a variety of sizes and formats and will provide them at no cost to the state (see Exhibit V-63). MSF also distributes copies of Cars, Motorcycles, and the Common Road video and leader's guide, a useful resource for group presentations. Contact the MSF for more information: http://msf-usa.org.

EXHIBIT V-63
MSF's Bikes Belong Campaign

NHTSA supports Motorcyclists Awareness Month—http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/motorcyclemonth.html

NHTSA's Motorist Awareness Program—http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/motorcycle03/moto_awareness.htm

The Gold Wing Road Riders Association (GWRRA) promotes a motorist awareness program at http://www.gwrra.org/regional/MAD/.

Ride to Work (RTW) Organization advocates and supports the use of motorcycles for transportation, and provides information about transportation riding to the public. Every year RTW proclaims one day "Ride to Work Day." RTW encourages:

Employer recognition and support for motorcycling
Public and government awareness of the positive value of motorcycling

For more information, visit: http://www.ridetowork.org/home.php.

Websites

Motorcyclist Awareness Month

Share the Road

Kansas—http://www.ksdot.org/burTrafficsaf/psa/pdf/khpmcsafawaremo42108.pdf.pdf
Minnesota—http://www.dps.state.mn.us/mmsc/latest/MMSCHomeSecondary.asp?cid=4&mid=17&scat=1
Massachusetts—http://www.mass.gov/rmv/motorcycle/tips.htm

Objective 11.1G—Increase Safety Enhancements for Motorcyclists

Strategy 11.1 G1—Include Motorcycles in the Research, Development and Deployment of ITS (E)

General Description

Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) include a wide variety of integrated information, control and electronics technologies designed to enhance driving, improve traffic flow, and increase driving and riding safety. Applications are found both on the vehicle as well as within the transportation infrastructure. The U.S. Department of Transportation has divided ITS into seven general development areas which include:

Travel and traffic management
Public transportation
Electronic payment
Information management
Commercial vehicle operations
Advanced vehicle safety systems
Emergency management

New developments are rapidly being integrated into transportation systems and too often new ITS developments have not considered motorcycles as a user of the transportation infrastructure. For example, traffic management strategies employ the use of sensors embedded in the pavement to detect the presence of a vehicle in a left-turn lane. This greatly improves the efficiency of the traffic control system; however, the sensors are often unable to detect the presence of a motorcycle, thus causing the motorcycle rider to either wait until another vehicle enters the left-turn lane to trigger the sensor, or violate traffic code and make an unauthorized left turn. This example illustrates that while ITS has a great potential benefit for all road users, much of the research regarding ITS has been focused on automobiles.

It is important to note that this strategy focuses on the need to consider motorcycles and motorcyclists in the deployment of infrastructure-based ITS systems, rather than integrated vehicle-based systems (e.g., advanced vehicle safety systems), since the latter is the responsibility of the vehicle manufacturers.

EXHIBIT V-64
Strategy Attributes for Including Motorcycles in the Deployment of ITS

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

Many states have implemented electronic toll collection for all toll roads and have developed systems which will permit motorcycles to use these toll roads (e.g., http://www.bayareafastrak.org). Some states even provide special reduced tolls for all riders that use the electronic toll collection system (http://www.e-zpassny.com).

Websites

Department of Transportation—Intelligent Transportation Systems website
http://www.its.dot.gov/

Intelligent Transportation Society of America website
http://www.itsa.org/

WP.29 World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations—International Harmonized Research Activities—Intelligent Transport Systems Working Group
http://www.unece.org/trans/main/wp29/wp29wgs/wp29gen/infpape_125.html

National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety—position statement on deployment of ITS
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/00-NHT-212-motorcycle/environmental59-60.html

American Motorcyclist Association—comments on need to include motorcycles in the development and deployment of ITS
http://www.ama-cycle.org

Objective 11.1H—Improve Motorcycle Safety Research, Data, and Analysis

Strategy 11.1 H1—Develop and Implement Standardized Data Gathering and Reporting for Motorcycle Crashes (N/A)

General Description

Motorcycles are often overlooked during crash data gathering efforts. The frequency of motorcycle crashes is considerably lower than the frequency of automobile crashes; therefore, motorcycle crash data analysis is often limited to the evaluation of rider compliance with legislated safety measures (e.g., helmets, licensing).

It is acknowledged that the collection, data coding, data entry and analysis of crash data requires the assistance of many different groups (e.g., law enforcement, data entry specialists, data analysts, etc.) and the scope of the crash data collection effort is often affected by budget considerations. However, many states are recognizing the benefits of using existing crash data as a tool for monitoring highway safety and for the development of safety countermeasures. Until another comprehensive motorcycle crash causation study is conducted, this data can serve as a useful tool to better understand motorcycle crash causation.

Exhibit V-65 presents a number of sources that are available for obtaining information on motorcycle crashes. Numerous other resources for motorcycle data exist at the National Center for Statistical Analysis (NCSA—http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/NCSA/) and the Governor's Highway Safety Association (GHSA—http://www.statehighwaysafety.org). Additional reports are presented in the Key References section.

EXHIBIT V-65
Sources of Motorcycle Crash Data

Most states rely on national fatality data which may or may not be indicative of the motorcycle crash patterns in their particular state. Appendixes 1 and 2 illustrate the distribution of single- and multiple-vehicle fatal motorcycle crashes for each state. The data show that each state is unique and, in many cases, state trends in motorcycle crashes are different from the national trends. For this reason, each state must develop its own solution to reducing the frequency and severity of motorcycle fatalities. For an additional discussion of approaches to data analysis, see the Model Implementation Process in this guide, especially the discussion and examples provided under Step 1.

This strategy involves the introduction to and the development of state-level data gathering and reporting of motorcycle crashes. Most states collect sufficient data to determine the number of motorcycle crashes within a state; however, standardized data gathering, data linkages and the addition of motorcycle-related elements to the state crash reporting form could significantly increase understanding of motorcycle crashes and their causes.

This strategy strongly supports the efforts of NHTSA in the development of the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC at: http://www.mmucc.us/default.aspx? home=yes). The MMUCC includes 113 data elements, many of which can be used independently for analysis and many of which can be linked to other data sources such as hospital records, license records, etc. Appendix 3 shows the results of an analysis of 51 different traffic crash data reports in terms of whether or not the crash data form included a selected group of motorcycle related variables. The overall results of this analysis are presented in Exhibit V-66.

Once the data listed in the table are being regularly collected by states, and a consistent crash data reporting system has been established, data linkages can be initiated in order to further understand motorcycle crash causation. The CODES project is an illustration of how crash data records can be linked to hospital records in order to find detailed information regarding different types of motorcycle crashes and their associated medical outcome (http://www. nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.9fef9613e59b4dd24ec86e10dba046a0/). Other potential projects could include links with motorcycle licensing or rider training programs to better understand the benefits of such programs within a given jurisdiction.

EXHIBIT V-66
Analysis of Motorcycle Data Elements in 51 State Crash Reporting Forms

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

Several states have begun to implement data linkages using the CODES system and many states have made efforts to increase the number of motorcycle-related data elements. The state of Wisconsin has linked motorcycle crash information with hospital information in order to determine the impact of helmet use and alcohol consumption on motorcycle crashes in their state. A complete summary of the report may be found at the following link: http://www.chsra.wisc.edu/codes/motorcycle_crash_information.htm.

The Maryland Motor Vehicle Division (MVD) has initiated a project to link motorcycle crash information with hospital, state licensing and rider training records to determine crash causation, rider behavior, licensing status and training experience. Further information can be obtained from the Maryland Motorcycle Safety Program at 1-800-638-8236 or e-mail at motorcyclesafety@mdot.state.md.us. The website for Maryland motorcycle safety programs is: http://mva.state.md.us/MVAProg/moto/default.htm.

Websites

FARS Web Encyclopedia (Query System)—http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/

NCSA State Data System—Crash Data Report: 1990—1999, Section 11: Motorcycles
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809_301/12motorcycles.pdf

NHTSA, Traffic Safety Facts 2003-Motorcycles, DOT HS 809 764
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/PresMCFatsUpdate.pdf

NHTSA, Safety Belt and Helmet Use in 2002-Overall Results, DOT HS 809 500
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/Rpts/2002/809-500.pdf

Bureau of Transportation Statistics—Motorcycle Rider Safety Data
http://www.bts.gov/publications/national_transportation_statistics/2003/html/table_02_22.html

NHTSA MMUCC website
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/perform/trafrecords/pages/mmucc/mmucc.htm

State Traffic Data Forms website
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/perform/trafrecords/crash2003/Default.htm

CODES website
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.9fef9613e59b4dd24ec86e10dba046a0/

State of New Jersey—Crash Data Records
http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/refdata/accident/rawdata01-02.shtm

Please see the Key References section for other agencies that have implemented this strategy.

Strategy 11.1 H2—Include Motorcycle Attributes in Vehicle Exposure Data Collection Programs (N/A)

General Description

The identification of risk factors in traffic crashes requires the use of exposure data. Ideally this data source represents the population-at-risk, i.e., the population of motorcycle riders that are exposed to the same risks as those within the accident population. This allows for the analysis of over- and under-representation and the identification of specific risk factors.

This exposure data is used to compute vehicle miles traveled (VMT) which is then compared with the accident data found in the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) and the National Automotive Sampling System (NASS) to identify risk factors in traffic crashes. Exhibit V-67 illustrates motorcycle trends—with respect to sales, registrations, fatalities, and vehicle miles traveled—from 1982 to 2002.

EXHIBIT V-67
Trends in Motorcycling: New Unit Sales, Registrations, Fatalities, Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Fatalities per VMT
Source: Jim Ouellet, Head Protection Research Laboratory

Unfortunately, the methods for computing VMT data for motorcycles vary from state to state, so it is difficult to make comparisons, though FHWA is currently reassessing how to improve data and reporting. The most commonly used exposure database is the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) or National Household Travel Survey (NHTS), which is conducted every 5 or 6 years. The 2001 data comparing motorcycles and cars are presented in Exhibits V-68 and V-69. Detailed tables, with comparisons for other types of vehicles, may be found in Appendix 5.

The data presented below clearly show that the travel patterns of motorcycle riders, with respect to rider age, are quite different from other road users, both in the number of annual miles driven as well as the average trip duration. This strongly suggests that special attention needs to be given to the collection of accurate motorcycle rider exposure data.

EXHIBIT V-68
Annual Miles Driven versus Age for Males in 2001
Source: NHTSA, 2001

EXHIBIT V-69
Average Trip Duration versus Age for Males in 2001
Source: NHTSA, 2001

In 1996, the National Roadside Survey was conducted between 10:00 p.m. and 3:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday nights in order to obtain information about drinking and driving as well as vehicle type, seat belt use and number of occupants. The survey was done in all 48 contiguous states; however, due to logistical problems, no motorcycle riders were surveyed as part of the study.

Unfortunately, due to the relatively small number of motorcycles and the cyclical nature of motorcycle riding, it is very difficult to obtain reliable motorcycle exposure data. Less than 2.5 percent of the people surveyed in the 2001 National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) owned a motorcycle. Due to their small size and light weight (relative to other vehicles), motorcycles are also difficult to detect with some roadway data collection devices (e.g., roadway tubes, vehicle length measurement devices, lane monitors, etc.).

Many riders own motorcycles and do not ride them on a regular basis; therefore, the use of vehicle registration data and the use of telephonic surveys does not adequately reflect the over-the-road and at-risk population of motorcycle riders. In many cases, these methods tend to over-estimate the actual riding population because, for many people, motorcycle riding is not a daily activity. Previous studies which have tried to draw conclusions without comparison to exposure data have been strongly criticized (Kraus et al., 1988).

This strategy supports the enhancement of existing over-the-road user surveys to include motorcycles.

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

NHTSA has explored methods to collect motorcycle rider exposure data. A workshop was held in June 2003 to discuss potential methodologies for motorcycle rider exposure data collection and the summary report of that workshop is available.

Department of Transportation Solicitation DTNH22-01-R-05162, Methodology for Determining Motorcycle Operator Crash Risk and Impairment

Department of Transportation Solicitation DTNH22-02-R-05112, Characteristics of Motorcycle Operators Study

Websites

Federal Highway Administration—National Household Travel Survey
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohpi/nhts/index.cfm

NTSB Recommendation to improve VMT data
http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/final010808.htm

FHWA Motorcycle Traffic Symposium (and ongoing work)
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/motorcycles/2007symposium.cfm

Strategy 11.1 H3—Develop a Set of Analysis Tools for Motorcycle Crashes (N/A)

General Description

In order to fully understand motorcycle crashes and crash causation, existing data must be analyzed and used to develop appropriate countermeasures. Many highway agencies currently have, or at least have access to, sufficient data to identify motorcycle crash patterns and potential countermeasures. Unfortunately, evaluation of existing data often requires the use of advanced statistical software packages which may not be available to staff and require a high level of statistical knowledge to utilize.

This strategy builds upon the efforts of Strategy 11.1 A1 and emphasizes the development of common software tools that can be used to evaluate the data collected using the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC). These tools should be intuitive and easy to use and they should be adaptable for different types of data.

This strategy is intended to allow highway agencies to use their own crash data, which would be compared to an exposure population, to identify risk factors for motorcycle crashes in their region. Additional analysis could be performed to compare the user data to other larger data sources such as FARS. The following is a partial list of significant motorcycle crash variables which are currently available in the FARS data and are typically found within state or regional crash data:

Time of accident
Type of roadway
Day of accident
Age of rider
Alcohol involvement
Motorcycle engine size

It is expected that the amount of information available at the state level and at the national level will continue to grow as more and more states begin to adopt the MMUCC guidelines and crash contributing factors are reported with greater frequency.

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

In an effort to consolidate and communicate between different agencies and groups within the state of Iowa, the Department of Transportation Office of Traffic Safety created a website with a set of crash analysis tools that can be used by anyone interested in better understanding Iowa crash data. This website and the associated tools can be found at the following link: http://www.dot.state.ia.us/crashanalysis/.

The University of Alabama has developed the CARE system which allows users to analyze crash and other data. In addition to crash databases and analysis tools, the website for CARE (http://care.cs.ua.edu/) tells about other data collection and analysis initiatives being carried out. The site allows for online analysis of highway crash data from several states.

NHTSA has currently developed software tools that will allow users to estimate the economic cost of crashes in their area. This software tool could easily be used to estimate the economic cost of motorcycle crashes within a given jurisdiction. The PC/Window-based software is available free of charge from the following link: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/crash/MVS/

Using Minnesota crash data, the Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Center (MMSC) has determined that the majority of motorcycle fatalities and injuries in Minnesota involve collisions with other vehicles. A complete analysis of the crash data records for the state has identified that alcohol and the lack of training and personal protective equipment are the most frequently reported contributing factors. Given this information and awareness, specific public service ad campaigns have been developed to address these issues. http://www.motorcyclesafety.state.mn.us/pages/ad2.asp http://www.dps.state.mn.us/ots/crashdata/2003CFacts/CF03-4Motorcycle.pdf

Using Utah crash data, researchers attempted to identify the factors associated with animalvehicle collisions. It was determined that 94 percent of all motorcycle/animal crashes involved an injury to the motorcycle rider. Using the crash data, sections of roadway that reported a high frequency of animal-to-vehicle collisions were identified and specific countermeasures were introduced in an effort to reduce this type of single-vehicle motorcycle crash. The report can be found at the following link: http://www.dot.state.ut.us/main/uconowner.gf?n=200312091625312.

Websites

CODES documents available from NHTSA regarding statistical analysis of crash data
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.9fef9613e59b4dd24ec86e10dba046a0/

National Center for Statistical Analysis
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/NCSA/

North Carolina crash data query website
http://www.hsrc.unc.edu/crash

^{1 - The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has developed and enforces Federal Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard 218 (FMVSS 218) which provides minimum performance requirements for helmets designed for use by motorcyclists.}

^{2 - In 2006, the last year for which such data were available, there was no significant difference in non-compliant helmet usage
between states with universal helmet laws and those with partial or repealed laws.}

^{3 - More recently called the U.S. General Accountability Office.}

^{4 - The Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) links data from police crash reports, emergency medical services,
hospital emergency departments, hospital discharge files, claims and other sources. States are funded by NHTSA to link
statewide crash and injury data. The purpose of the linkage is to find out who is injured in motor vehicle crashes, what types
of injuries occur, and how much it cost to treat these injuries over time.}

5 - FARS refers to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a census of all crash-related fatalities occurring on public roadways.

6 - According to the 2004 report, one of the more significant improvements in helmet material has been the use of Kevlar, expanded polypropylene, and carbon fiber in helmet shells and linings.

7 - These studies included Newman (1974), Nebraska Dept. of Public Roads (1975), Carr, Brandt and Swanson (1981), Hurt et al. (1981), Kelley et al. (1989), Sakar, Peek, and Kraus (1995), and Rowland et al. (1996).

8 - Early research included studies by Gordon and Prince (1975), Henderson (1975), Van Moorhem et al. (1977), Lummis and Dugger (1980), and by Hurt et al. (1981).

9 - Some states also have other provisions or contingencies, such as having a minimum of $10,000 in medical insurance.

10 - Data collected in 1979, 1980, 1981, and 1982 were from surveys conducted by Opinion Research Corp. and reported by Phillips (1980 and 1983). Data collected from 1983 through 1991 were from surveys conducted by Goodell Grivas Inc. They included the following years of data and reports: 1983 use rates (Perkins, Cynecki, and Goryl, 1984); 1984 use rates (Goryl and Cynecki, 1985); 1985 use rates (Goryl, 1986); 1986 use rates (Goryl and Bowman, 1987); 1987?8 use rates (Bowman and Rounds, 1988 and 1989); and 1989?1 use rates (Datta and Guzek, 1990, 1991, and 1992).

11 - Usage rates include 15 percent non-compliant use in universal law states and 13 percent non-compliant use in other states.

12 - Note that the Louisiana law was again repealed in 1999 resulting in another decline from near 100 percent usage to about

50 percent usage (Ulmer and Preusser, 2003).

13 - After the 5-year post-law period, fatalities increased in Maryland, as they did nationwide (Ulmer and Preusser, 2003).

14 - These results are identical to those of the 19-cities surveys conducted throughout the 1980s.

15 - These early studies included Krane and Winterfield (1980) and Struckman-Johnson and Ellingstad (1979).

16 - These studies included: Preusser et al. (2000); Ulmer and Preusser (2003); Muller (2004); and Ulmer and Shabanova- Northrup (2005).

17 - The high rate of use in Florida, prior to repeal, included a substantial percent of riders wearing non-compliant helmets.

18 - These data come from studies conducted by Ulmer and Preusser (2003).

19 - At the end of this section there are links to websites representing some of the groups and arguments in support of and opposition to universal helmet laws.

20 - This was also the case in more than 20 foreign nations, including Australia, Canada, and several European nations, including France, Germany, Great Britain, etc. In several of these countries extensive multi-year public information and education efforts were mounted, sometimes with expensive paid media campaigns and incentive programs. None of these nations was able to attain a usage rate greater than 40 percent until a mandatory safety belt use law was enacted. After such enactment, usage immediately increased to 70—90 percent in nearly every case (Nichols, 2002).

21 - Motorcycles are include in this database only when they are involved in a collision with another vehicle and that vehicle qualifies as NASS case.

A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles

SECTION V — Description of Strategies

Objectives of the Emphasis Area

Explanation of Objectives

Classification of Strategies

Targeting the Objectives

Related Strategies for Creating a Truly Comprehensive Approach

Objective 11.1 A—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes by Incorporating Motorcycle-Friendly Roadway Design, Traffic Control, Construction, and Maintenance Policies and Practices

Strategy 11.1 A1—Provide Full Paved Shoulders to Accommodate Roadside Motorcycle Recovery and Breakdowns (T)

Information on Agencies or Organizations Currently Implementing This Strategy

Strategy 11.1 A2—Consider Motorcycles in the Selection of Roadside Barriers (E)

Strategy 11.1 A3—Identify Pavement Markings, Surface Materials, and Other Treatments That Reduce Traction for Motorcycles and Treat or Replace with High-Traction Material (T)

Strategy 11.1 A4—Maintain the Roadway to Minimize Surface Irregularities and Discontinuities (T)

Strategy 11.1 A5—Maintain Roadway Surfaces in Work Zones to Facilitate Safe Passage of Motorcycles (T)

Strategy 11.1 A6—Reduce Roadway Debris—Such As Gravel, Shorn Treads, Snow and Ice Control Treatments (Sand/Salt), and That Resulting From Uncovered Loads—From the Roadway and Roadside (T)

Strategy 11.1 A7—Provide Advance Warning Signs to Alert Motorcyclists of Reduced Traction and Irregular Roadway Surfaces (T)

Strategy 11.1 A8—Incorporate Motorcycle Safety Considerations into Routine Roadway Inspections (E)

Strategy 11.1 A9—Provide a Mechanism for Road Users to Notify Highway Agencies of Roadway Conditions That Present a Potential Problem to Motorcyclists (E)

Objective 11.1 B—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes Due to Rider Impairment

Strategy 11.1 B1—Increase Motorcyclist Awareness of the Risks of Impaired Motorcycle Operation (T)

Strategy 11.1 B2—Expand Existing Impairment Prevention Programs to Include Motorcycle Riders and Specific Motorcycle Events (T)

Strategy 11.1 B3—Target Law Enforcement to Specific Motorcycle Rider Impairment Behaviors That Have Been Shown to Contribute to Crashes (T)

Objective 11.1 C—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes Due to Unlicensed or Untrained Motorcycle Riders

Strategy 11.1 C1—Increase Awareness of the Causes of Crashes Due to Unlicensed or Untrained Motorcycle Riders (E)

Strategy 11.1 C2—Ensure That Licensing and Rider Training Programs Adequately Teach and Measure Skills and Behaviors Required for Crash Avoidance (T)

Strategy 11.1 C3—Identify and Remove Barriers to Obtaining a Motorcycle Endorsement (T)

Objective 11.1 D—Reduce the Number of Motorcycle Crashes by Increasing the Visibility of Motorcyclists

Strategy 11.1 D1—Increase the Awareness of the Benefit of High-Visibility Clothing (E)

Strategy 11.1 D2—Identify and Promote Rider Visibility-Enhancement Methods and Technology (T)

Objective 11.1 E—Reduce the Severity of Motorcycle Crashes

Strategy 11.1 E1—Increase the Use of FMVSS 218 Compliant Helmets (P)

Strategy 11.1 E2—Increase the Use of Protective Clothing (T)

Objective 11.1 F—Increase Motorcycle Rider Safety Awareness

Strategy 11.1 F1—Form Strategic Alliances with Motorcycle User Community to Foster and Promote Motorcycle Safety (T)

Strategy 11.1 F2—Increase Awareness of the Consequences of Aggressive Riding, Riding While Fatigued or Impaired, Unsafe Riding, and Poor Traffic Strategies (T)

Strategy 11.1 F3—Educate Operators of Other Vehicles to Be More Conscious of the Presence of Motorcyclists (T)

Objective 11.1G—Increase Safety Enhancements for Motorcyclists

Strategy 11.1 G1—Include Motorcycles in the Research, Development and Deployment of ITS (E)

Objective 11.1H—Improve Motorcycle Safety Research, Data, and Analysis

Strategy 11.1 H1—Develop and Implement Standardized Data Gathering and Reporting for Motorcycle Crashes (N/A)

Strategy 11.1 H2—Include Motorcycle Attributes in Vehicle Exposure Data Collection Programs (N/A)

Strategy 11.1 H3—Develop a Set of Analysis Tools for Motorcycle Crashes (N/A)

Strategy 11.1 F2—Increase Awareness of the Consequences of Aggressive
Riding, Riding While Fatigued or Impaired, Unsafe Riding, and Poor Traffic Strategies (T)