5. Motorcycle Safety

Overview

A two-wheeled motorcycle is inherently more difficult to operate and more unstable than a four-wheeled passenger vehicle. A motorcycle offers riders almost no protection in a crash. Crash data confirms these observations. NHTSA estimates that 80 percent of motorcycle crashes injure or kill a motorcycle rider, while only 20 percent of passenger car crashes injure or kill an occupant (NHTSA, 2003, p. 3). For each mile of travel in 2003, motorcycle riders were more than six times more likely to be injured in a crash, and more than 31 times more likely to die, than passenger car occupants (NHTSA, 2005a, Tables 7 and 10). NHTSA's projections for 2004 estimate that the 3,927 motorcycle rider fatalities accounted for 9 percent of all traffic fatalities and the 76,000 motorcycle rider injuries were 3 percent of all traffic crash injuries (NHTSA, 2005b, slides 14 and 15).

Trends. Motorcycling has become increasingly popular over the last 30 years, but only somewhat less dangerous. Motorcycle mileage increased 69 percent from 1975 to 2003, compared to 56 percent for passenger cars (NHTSA, 2005a, tables 7 and 10). During this period, the motorcycle rider fatality rate per mile of travel decreased by 32 percent, while the passenger car occupant fatality rate decreased by 52 percent. Motorcycle safety has not kept pace with passenger car safety.

Trends over the last six years are especially discouraging. From 1997 to 2003, the number of registered motorcycles increased by 40 percent while motorcycle travel mileage decreased by 5 percent. Thus average annual mileage per motorcycle dropped by 33 percent, from 2,635 to 1,776. Motorcycle rider fatalities increased by 73 percent, from 2,116 to 3,661, and injuries increased by 26 percent, from 53,000 to 67,000. Motorcycle rider fatalities in 2003 reached a level not seen since 1988 (NHTSA, 2005a, Table 10). In the 2004 projections, motorcycle rider fatalities increased for the seventh consecutive year, up 7.3 percent over 2003 (NHTSA, 2005b, slide 14).

Source: NHTSA

Motorcycling today is not just a young person's activity. In 2003, 58 percent of the motorcycle operators involved in a fatal crash were 35 or older, and 33 percent were 45 or older (NHTSA, 2005a, Table 91). The change in only six years is striking: in 1997, only 46 percent were 35 or older and 22 percent were 45 or older (NHTSA 1998, Table 91). In the preliminary 2004 data, 47 percent of motorcyclist fatalities were aged 40 or older and 22 percent were 50 or older (NHTS, 2005b, slide 30).

Strategies to Increase Motorcycle Safety

Motorcycle operators should be properly trained and licensed. They should be alert and aware of the risks they face while riding; in particular, they should not be impaired by alcohol. All motorcycle riders should wear a motorcycle helmet that meets FMVSS 218 and clothing that provides both protection and visibility. These and other strategies are discussed in the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000a).

Unfortunately, many motorcyclists do not take these straightforward precautionary measures. In 2003, one-quarter of the motorcycle operators involved in a fatal crash did not have a valid motorcycle operator's license (NHTSA, 2005a, Table 91). More than one-third of the motorcycle operators killed in a crash had been drinking (NHTSA, 2005a, Table 80). Almost half of the motorcycle rider fatalities were not wearing a helmet (NHTSA, 2005a, Table 90).

The most important objectives for improving motorcycle safety are to increase helmet use, reduce alcohol impairment, and increase proper licensing and training. These all are difficult to accomplish. State helmet use laws are extremely effective in assuring virtually universal helmet use, but they also are politically difficult to enact and retain. Strategies using only communications and outreach to promote helmet use, reduce impaired motorcycling, and increase licensing and training appear to have been no more successful with motorcyclists than with other drivers. A fourth objective is to increase other drivers' awareness of motorcyclists by increasing the visibility of motorcyclists and by educating other drivers on the importance of sharing the road with motorcycles.

Many environmental measures can affect motorcycle safety. Slippery roadway surfaces and markings, surface irregularities, unpaved shoulders, and unforgiving roadway barriers all can be dangerous. These issues are not included in this guide because SHSOs have little or no authority or responsibility for them. See NCHRP (under review) for a thorough discussion. Daytime running lights for motorcycles, in the form of headlights that are always lighted, improve motorcycle conspicuity. Most motorcycles on the road have headlights that turn on automatically when the engines are started (NCHRP, under review, Strategy E2). In addition, 24 States require daytime headlight use for all motorcycles manufactured since 1980 (MSF, 2004). Modulating headlights, which cause the headlight to move from high- to low beam rapidly, also increase visibility but are not legal in many States.

Key terms Motorcycle operator, motorcyclist: a person operating or driving a motorcycle. Passenger: a person riding on but not operating a motorcycle. Motorcycle rider: any person on a motorcycle, both operators and passengers. National Agenda: the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (NHTSA, 2000a). FMVSS 218: the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard that sets performance requirements for motorcycle helmets. AMA: American Motorcyclist Association. BAC: Blood alcohol concentration in the body, expressed as grams of alcohol per deciliter of blood, and usually measured with a breath or blood test. MSF: Motorcycle Safety Foundation. SMSA: National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators.

Countermeasures That Work

Countermeasures to improve motorcycle safety are listed below and discussed individually in this chapter. The table is intended to give a rough estimate of each countermeasure's effectiveness, use, cost, and time required for implementation. The terms used are described below. Effectiveness, cost, and time to implement can vary substantially from State to State and community to community. Costs for many countermeasures are difficult to measure, so the summary terms are very approximate. See each countermeasure discussion for more information.

1. Motorcycle operator licensing and training

Countermeasure	Effectiveness	Use	Cost	Time
1.1 Operator education and training	Uncertain	High	Medium	Medium
1.2 Operator licensing	Uncertain	High	Low	Medium

2. Motorcycle helmets

Countermeasure	Effectiveness	Use	Cost	Time
2.1 State motorcycle helmet use laws	Proven	Medium	Low	Short
2.2 Helmet law enforcement; noncompliant helmets	Unknown	Unknown	Low	Medium
2.3 Helmet use promotion programs	Unknown	Low	Varies	Medium

3. Alcohol impairment

Countermeasure	Effectiveness	Use	Cost	Time
3.1 Alcohol impairment: detection, sanction	Unknown	Unknown	Varies	Varies
3.2 Alcohol impairment: communications	Unknown	Unknown	Medium	Medium

4. Communications and outreach

Countermeasure	Effectiveness	Use	Cost	Time
4.1 Protective and conspicuous clothing	Unknown	Unknown	Varies	Medium
4.2 Other driver awareness of motorcyclists	Unknown	Unknown	Varies	Medium

Effectiveness:

Proven: demonstrated by several high-quality evaluations with consistent results.
Likely: balance of evidence from high-quality evaluations or other sources.
Uncertain: limited and perhaps ambiguous evidence.
Unknown: no high-quality evaluation evidence.
Varies: different methods of implementing this countermeasure produce different results

Effectiveness is measured by reductions in crashes or injuries unless noted otherwise. See individual countermeasure descriptions for information on effectiveness size and how effectiveness is measured.

Use:

High: more than two-thirds of the States, or a substantial majority of communities.
Medium: between one-third and two-thirds of States or communities.
Low: fewer than one-third of the States or communities.
Unknown: data not available.

Cost to implement:

High: requires extensive new facilities, staff, equipment, or publicity, or makes heavy demands on current resources.
Medium: requires some additional staff time, equipment, facilities, and/or publicity.
Low: can be implemented with current staff, perhaps with training; limited costs for equipment or facilities.

These estimates do not include the costs of enacting legislation or establishing policies.

Time to implement:

Long: more than one year.
Medium: more than three months but less than one year.
Short: three months or less.

These estimates do not include the time required to enact legislation or establish policies.