Memorandum from The Motor Cycle Industry
Association (RS 37)
The UK motorcycle industry has an estimated
two million customers and employs approximately 15,000 people.
Turnover is estimated to be £3 billion per annum.
The Motor Cycle Industry Association (MCI) was
founded in 1910 and represents around 90% of the established UK
industry. MCI represents manufacturers and importers of motorcycles
and their related goods and services. MCI's annual International
Motorcycle Show attracts around 150,000 visitors each year. MCI
works closely with government departments and their agencies to
promote and develop the safety of motorcycle users. MCI also works
closely with other bodies representing UK motorcycling through
the National Motorcycle Council.
MCI welcomes the opportunity to provide a written
response to the specific questions set by the Transport Select
Committee; the following memorandum is confined to considerations
of motorcycle road safety as this is our core area of expertise.
1. To what extent have targets for casualty
reduction been a useful tool for focusing professional activity?
The 2000 and 2010 targets undoubtedly lead to
much closer working between people from disparate disciplines
in local and national agencies and the various stakeholder groups
representing public interests. However, they have weaknesses:
(a) Targets that adequately address the underlying
causes of road casualties are difficult to devise. Consequently,
targets can result in actions based on short-term or temporary
gains without solving underlying problems, or exclude difficult
cases. Restricting vulnerable road user activity to reduce their
exposure to risk does not address the causes of their vulnerability.
(b) Simplistic comparison of total casualties
in a target year against the average for earlier years does not
show whether using the road has become any safer, although this
is often the inference made. In 2006, number of motorcycle users
killed or seriously injured was just 0.1% different from the target
baseline years 1994-98, suggesting no change in risk. In the same
period the annual distance travelled by motorcycle grew 33% and
the number in use grew 95% indicating the activity became safer.
(c) Short-term comparisons and latest annual
figures might appear to illustrate current progress, but can be
highly misleading. Demands for policy change based on the latest
single years' figures make no sense when motorcycle casualties
and traffic levels vary greatly from one year to the next (eg;
rider deaths fell by 16% in 2004 immediately after a 14% rise
in 2003).
(d) The prospect of targeting reductions in the
major causes of collisions should be explored seriously. The apparent
contributory factors in individual collisions are now routinely
collected, this data and in-depth studies confirm the single largest
contributory factor for motorcycle-user casualties is another
drivers' failure to look properly and this seems an eminently
treatable problem.
(e) Professionals and policy makers are judged
and rewarded by their successful engagement with targets, but
it is far more difficult to engage the public in working toward
targets that appear to have little direct personal relevance to
them. Specific targets were set for individual road user groups
for the year 2000, but did little to inform the public, practitioners
or policy makers if their individual efforts made travel by road
any safer because the targets did not measure the effect of wider
changes in the operating environment. Rate-based measurements
relate casualties to changes in the number of road users or the
distance they travel and are more informative. Whilst the 2010
targets include of a reduction in the rate of all slight injuries
the exclusion of available rate data on deaths and severe injuries
does not help to focus on the overall level of risk.
2. What further measures need to be adopted
to reduce deaths and injuries arising from drinking and driving?
When casualty reduction targets were first set
in 1987, the number of people killed in drink-drive collisions
was 67% higher and the number seriously injured 201% higher than
currently. (1) However, since 1993 the overall rate of improvement
has slowed considerably. Different groups of road user appear
to have accepted the drink-drive message more readily than others;
the proportion of car drivers killed has remained steady at c
20% while the proportion of motorcycle riders killed has steadily
reduced and now stands at 11%. (2) This is not simply because
the most vulnerable are the most aware, the proportion of pedestrians
killed with alcohol levels over 80mg/100ml is estimated to be
the highest of all road users while motorcyclists and cyclists
are among the least likely to be killed when over the limit. (3)
Future measures might be best informed by analysis of why the
current strategy is far less effective with pedestrians and car
drivers than with motorcyclists.
3. How does Great Britain compare with other
EU countries in its approach to reducing deaths and injuries?
Looking specifically at reducing motorcycle
casualties, the British approach has concentrated on the rider/driver
licensing process (the imminent closure of around three-quarters
of DSA motorcycle rider testing centres is a particular cause
for concern) alongside advertising to raise driver awareness of
motorcycles. The Government's Motorcycling Strategy identifies
a range of actions to improve safety through "mainstreaming"
motorcycling, but many local and national agencies have been slow
to address the GMS.
By contrast, other EU countries have been more
positive toward motorcycling, designing highways for all types
of road user with active consideration for motorcycles. The risk
to individual riders appears lowest where social acceptance and
general awareness of motorcycle users is greater; the latest (2005)
data for European countries shows that the three largest motorcycle
markets (Italy, Germany and Spain) respectively account for 36%,
20% and 14% of motorcycles in use among the EU15 but generate
only 23%, 15% and 12% of rider fatalities—by comparison,
Great Britain accounts for 5% of motorcycles in use but 9% of
rider deaths. (4)
The fashion is to view road casualties as a
public-health issue, the principles of eradicating road casualties
said to be much the same as those for eradicating diseases. While
the EU figures illustrated above strongly suggest that increased
motorcycle awareness and acceptance will help to inoculate against
user casualties, there is a tendency in some quarters to misdiagnose
riders and other specific groups of road users as if they were
the disease itself.
4. How do approaches in reductions in risk
on the roads compare to those adopted in other modes of transport?
Casualty rates recorded for trip-stages on regulated
mass-transit modes on rail, sea or air are much lower than for
individual road users, yet all these trips require passengers
to start and finish their journey by road as mass-transit systems
cannot deliver the level of individual flexibility most travellers
require. Rail, sea and air transport works on a model of very
heavy direct regulation based around detailed risk assessment
requiring professional and corporate responsibility for passenger
safety. The lives of large numbers of passengers are entrusted
to relatively few licensed operators plying fixed routes dominated
by the need for carriers to generate commercial reward. Consequently,
the safety models applied to mass-transit modes are unlikely to
be appropriate to most of the personal transport options currently
on offer.
However, the safety improvements that have been
identified as both appropriate and effective for mass-transit
modes have arisen out of routine detailed investigation of collisions
or near misses. Road collisions are not investigated in detail
unless the random outcome looks likely to result in death or criminal
prosecution; a road collision investigation strategy where road
incidents become more routinely and thoroughly investigated would
allow the sort of cultural change that has reduced air, sea and
rail travel risks.
5. Are there specific blockages caused by
shortages of appropriately trained and skilled staff?
The knowledge and skills of trainee and practicing
highways engineers and planning staff needs considerable broadening
to ensure integration of all modes. For example, until recently
no general professional guidance or training was available to
equip highways staff to correctly understand how motorcycles differ
from other modes, (5) such training is scarce and few highways
staff have a working knowledge of the mode. This severely restricts
the ability of highways authorities to play their part in reducing
casualties when the road environment can been identified as a
contributory factor in around 15% of motorcycle casualties.
6. What further policies, not already widely
used, might be considered for adoption and what evidence there
is for their success?
(a) To minimise the risk of motorcycles suddenly
losing of control while turning, accelerating or braking, ensure
all road surfaces offer sufficient dry and wet grip across the
width of the road and that manhole covers, etc offer similar levels
of grip as the surrounding carriageway—loss of control is
given as one of the most common contributory factors in motorcycle
collisions. (6)
(b) Broaden the knowledge and skills of practicing
and trainee highways engineering and planning staff to correctly
understand how motorcycles differ from other modes and how to
incorporate these requirements into their work—IHIE training
courses have encountered a general lack of knowledge in critical
areas of motorcycle safety requirements among delegates.
(c) Revise highway infrastructure design standards
to ensure they do not cause or exacerbate PTW casualties—the
Highways Agency and several local authorities have started to
specify higher-grip surfaces and more forgiving crash-barrier
designs based on rider casualty records.
(d) Low-cost "WYLIWYG" (where-you-look-is-where-you-go)
treatment on rural bends to reduce incidence of vehicles running-off
the road through driver or rider error—around one-fifth
of motorcycle collisions on rural roads involve no other road
user, compared to around one-tenth in urban areas. (7)
(e) Encourage better visibility of motorcycles
in traffic, for example by local authorities allowing access to
bus lanes—experimental studies conducted in several cities
over last 10 years indicate reductions in casualties can be expected.
(f) Revise EuroNCAP car-safety testing to raise
the importance of giving a clear view to drivers, reducing obstructions
from windscreen pillars, etc—car driver failure to see is
the most common contributory factor recorded in motorcycle crashes.
7. What should be the priorities for government
in considering further targets for casualty reduction beyond 2010?
(a) Rate-based targets would offer a more useful
picture of any reduction in risk to individual travellers.
(b) Targets for reduction of driver inattention
would focus resources on the main cause behind road casualties
overall and motorcycle users in particular.
(c) Further action to mainstreaming motorcycling,
encouraging awareness and acceptance of the needs of riders among
other road users and highways decision-makers.
(d) Changes to training for highways and planning
professionals so that all modes are better understood and integrated.
(e) Measures to ensure road surfaces offer consistently
good grip across the whole width of the road and that road sides
are forgiving to all types of road user.
BACKGROUND NOTES
The Department for Transport Compendium of Motorcycling
Statistics (8) gives various useful indicators of motorcycle use,
some figures not contained in the latest edition have been updated
below:
— Most motorcycle use is for commuting,
work and education trips during the week, motorcycles are versatile,
multi-purpose vehicles and are used extensively for leisure journeys
at other times.
— The motorcycle vehicle population
(1,224,000 on the road at the end of 2006) is split roughly equally
between 50-600cc machines and those above 600cc.
— The new motorcycle market (145,000
in 2007) is split roughly equally between 50-125cc (learner specification)
machines and those above 125cc.
— Motorcycle rider casualties reflect
these points, although fatal injuries are less likely to occur
in built-up areas than on roads where traffic speeds for all vehicles
are higher.
— Around two-thirds of motorcycle casualties
are associated with junction collisions, typically where the driver
of a larger vehicle collides with a motorcycle travelling with
right of way.
— Motorcycle casualties are also associated
with bends, specifically loss of control due to sudden change
in tyre grip due to road surface conditions or rider error (although,
by comparison, the proportion of car drivers killed after leaving
the road is far higher than riders).
— To a far lesser extent, motorcycle
casualties are also associated with overtaking manoeuvres either
through the action of the rider or another road user.
REFERENCES
1 Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006 (and 1987
edition). Table 3a. Department for Transport 2007 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesgbar/roadcasualtiesgreatbritain2006
2 Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006. Table
3b. Department for Transport 2007.
3 Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006. Table
3h. Department for Transport 2007.
4 Figures derived from the EC "CARE"
database http://ec.europa.eu/transport/roadsafety/road_safety_observatory/care_en.htm
5 Guidelines for Motorcycling—improving
safety through engineering and integration. Institute of Highway
Incorporated Engineers 2006. http://www.ihie.org.uk/index3.asp?cat=8&d=2&pageid=370694
6 Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006. Article—Contributory
factors to road accidents. Department for Transport 2007.
7 Road Casualties Great Britain: 2006. Tables
23a, 23b. Department for Transport 2007.
8 Compendium of Motorcycling Statistics. Department
for Transport 2007 http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/vehicles/motorcycling/motorcyclingstats2007
February 2008
| 
