Motorcycle Advisory Committee Meeting Summary –by subject

Meeting: May 9-10, 2007

Full transcript: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/fulltranscript05091007.htm

MAC-FHWA website: http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/mac/index.htm

Participants:

Fran Bents, moderator

Carol Tan, FHWA

Jeffrey Lindley, FHWA

Michael Halladay, FHWA

Mark Bloschock, TXDOT

Mel Stahl, MSF

Jeff Hennie, MRF

Ken Kiphart, NASMSA

Ed Moreland, AMA

Darrel Killion, ABATE, SD

Steven Zimmer, formerly with ABATE, OH.

Gerald Salontai, Kleinfelder, Inc.

Robert McClune, Potters Industries

Morris Oliver, FHWA

Kathy Van Kleeck, MSF –second day

Part I

Subject: Web-based Survey

Recommendation: Web-based survey to identify rider safety issues and to notify and include these groups, and let them know that this survey is being set up.  Reason: The survey will help the council members prioritize motorcyclists’ safety issues.  The main groups will be notified.

Committee was formed to look into the number of questions, type of questions and server: Jeff Hennie, Ed Moreland, Darrel Killion, and Steve Zimmer. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part II

Subject of discussion: Painted Road Markings and Signage. 

Presentation made by Robert McClune, Executive Vice President of Potters Industries, Valley Forge, PA

The presentation given was on making the pavement markings on roadways wider and brighter. Wider and brighter lines will help motorist remain on the road and will allow you to see the line farther down the road. This is considered a safety factor –visual impact.  The Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, MUTCD, says that pavement markings shall be no less than 4 inches. Council members were concerned that the wider painted edge lines would increase the vulnerability of motorcycles. It was stated that most motorcycle crashes are “run off the road” and the question was asked if the painted lines contributed to these crashes.  No data is available on these types of crashes. It was mentioned that law enforcement and investigators do not receive training in motorcycle crashes so they would not be able to determine if the edge lines were a factor.

The main concern and focus of the council members was the thermo-plastic intersection lines/stop bars, the large arrows indicating the direction of traffic, center lines, the turn letters, and school crossing bars. .These lines are put down in layers – paint, beads and then skid-resistance material which means the skid resistance material is worn off first.  Council members would like a skid resistance material mixed in with the paint for even wear but in doing this, it will lower the reflectivity of the paint. 

Concerns:

• Thermo-plastic is more durable and brighter and is used most often. Individuals in charge of thermo-plastic markings are not aware it’s a hazard to motorcyclists.  Repainting the lines causes build up.  Awareness to the industry is needed. 
• In paint road marking studies, motorcycles are not mentioned. Council members would like future studies to include motorcycles.
• Recommendations are usually data-driven and there is no data to support the skid resistant recommendation the council wants to make.  Hoping “common sense” will work. Accident reports only show the worse-case scenarios. Motorcyclists who slip on road markings do not file a report.
• Council members’ recommendations are only considered as “advice” to the agencies that are making the regulations/guidelines.  Each recommendation needs to go to the proper committees: AASHTO, FHWA, etc. There are no federal laws on regulations –only consequences for not following the regulations. The “liability” factor for the government and the cost to the states were discussed.
• Council members want recommendations in writing and sent to all agencies that are involved in making the regulations/guidelines.

Other things discussed:

• Road surface: materials that mimic stone or brick that are used in crosswalks – these materials are also preformed thermo-plastic. This is at the manufacturing level.

 Recommendations:

• Recommendations made after a second discussion prior to the second presentation:
  • Pavement markings and pavement should include skid-resistance at all junctions and crosswalk areas.
  • Research should be conducted on pavement markings with regard to line-width, retro-reflectivity, and skid-resistance.  Motorcycles should be considered in all active research regarding pavement markings.
  • Motorcycles should be included with all bicycle and pedestrian safety issues.
  • We support improved pavement markings, with regard to line-width, retro-reflectivity and skid-resistance where necessary.

NOTES:

Pavement Markings –studies sited during presentation

ATSSA- American Traffic Safety Services Association www.atssa.com

Texas Transportation Institute Pavement Markings study 2002: www.atssa.com/galleries/default-file/pvmtmrk.pdf

MUTCD –Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devises: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part III

Subject of Discussion: Motorcycle Travel Symposium

Presentation made by Dave Winter, Office of Highway Policy Information, division is in charge of Highway Performance Monitoring System, HPMS [guest]

Winter distributed a handout about a symposium to look at motorcycle travel and the issues surrounding the collection of travel information.

Purpose:

• Improve and enrich the quality of the existing data that they are getting right now
• Look into better ways to estimate motorcycle travel on a state basis and national level.
• Considering incorporating information taken from surveys requesting possible solutions

People wanted at the meeting: states, traffic, collection technology groups, academia, motorcycle vendors, and motorcycle maintenance people.

HPMS will be a Geospatial database – this would put all data on the same network and will allow a more advanced analysis.  Some states are currently using the Geospatial format.  Target date: 2010

Winter would like the council members’ feedback and input into setting up the agenda, possible speakers, and people who will be attending the conference.

Concerns:

• Council member asked if law enforcement would be included in with the people attending.  Reason: to improve the collection of motorcycle accident data –reasons for accidents- so future issues could be addressed.  Answer: law enforcement may be included but not for that reason. Accident data is not the focus of the symposium, just VMT and exposure.
• Who will be on the Steering Committee? Should be both private and government. Currently working with NHTSA, NTSB is interested.

Other things discussed:

• Model Uniform Crash Criteria, MUCC, the data gathering guide that every state is asked to adopt, is currently being reanalyzed. This gets adopted at various levels within the state DOTs, then law enforcement officers get the training on the characteristics of the crash for accident reports.

Recommendations: None at this time

NOTES:

Motorcycle Travel Symposium –October 10-12.  All info: www.fhwa.dot.gov/motorcycles

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part IV

Subject of Discussion: Pavement Traction

Presentation made by Mark Bloschock, TXDOT- Bridge Division

Mark use data from 2005 FARS and NAMS in his presentation. Used registrations, VMT, ended with “motorcyclists are 34 times more likely to die in a crash than the occupant of a passenger vehicle”.

Cable barriers:  Texas has 600-700 miles of cable barrier, either under construction or in place.  Used cross-over/median barriers data.  In one year, went from 52 deaths to 1. Feels it will be hard to have cable-barriers removed.  Mentioned: Any barrier is bad, cable barriers are the lesser of the evils. Wants to concentrate on issues that can be changed. : milled and grooved surfaces, rumble strips, bridge and pavement joints, open bridge deck surfaces, shoulder edge drop-offs and steel plates.

Shoulder drop-off: pavement is overlaid for the ride quality, preserving the pavement structure, and not allowing you to get wet –which causes an edge.  Motor vehicles are able to get back on the road, but motorcycles are not.  Doesn’t feel anything can be done.

Steel Plates: In Austin, plates are ramped to the left and right.  Expanded metal mesh is tacked down to make the plates skid resistant.  Products that increase skid-resistance: Slip Knot: a coating that can be put on almost anything.  Tyre Grip (pavement markings): colored grit. Used in bus lanes, toll ways.

Motorcycle–specific signage: showed signs saying “Uneven lanes –attention motorcyclists”.  Doesn’t clarify the road condition enough.  Don Vaughn developed some motorcycle-focused placards (motorcycle logo) that will be considered by the Regulatory and Warning sign subcommittee for inclusion in the MUTCD at their June meeting. [MUTCD: Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices –FHWA].  Vaughn would like the Motorcycle Advisory Council to send a letter of endorsement supporting the idea. McClune will be at the meeting and will take the letter.

Vaughn is also recommending a resolution from Motorcycle Advisory Council be sent to AASHTO recommending motorcycle awareness be an essential element in the design, construction, and maintenance of roadways.  [AASHTO – American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials]

[Discussion with Don Vaughn about letters that will be sent: need to be specific to MUTCD on motorcycle hazards: milled or grooved pavement, pavement and bridge joints, and surface friction. Send a resolution for ASSSHTO to design a guideline on motorcycles, similar to bicycles and pedestrians guidelines. MAC will send letter and endorsement. ]

• NOTE: “In 1987, there was a Federal Registry notice put in on motorcycle logos.  Likewise in 1997, they put another Federal Registry notice in that has 7 different concepts that could be used.  They said that result was, when people looked at them, they couldn’t really tell what they meant.” Since none of the concepts were acceptable, the issue was dropped.  Unknown who the focus groups were for the testing but did say it wasn’t motorcyclists.

Concerns Motorcycle Signage:

• Question: do you think a universal motorcycle warning sign should be used or do we need signs that explain the road problems ahead? Answer: has to be looked into – studies, what’s being done internationally and nationally.  Europe has acknowledged there is a sign problem and would like things uniform- country to country and state to state.  Universal signs might be more effective - quicker way to get it accomplished.

Suggested: add a motorcycle logo sign to the signs already available –“Uneven Pavement”, “Grooved Pavement”.  More flexibility.  Show the motorcycle side view. 

• Question: Why is MUTCD resistant to motorcycle-specific signs? Answer: engineers are resistant to change.  They also feel too many signs are bad and drivers are going to tend to ignore them.
• Need to have a MUTCD expert to answer council members concerns.

Raised Pavement/raised medians: pertaining to the regular and a merge lane.  Some are not marked with paint.  They need to be and is being looked into.  Reasons for raised pavement: to deny access for left-hand turns, as a pedestrian refuge, and keep people from merging early. They were put in those areas because motorists would not stay out of the marked area. If raised medians are painted, the skid-resistance issue needs to address. 

Other things discussed:

• TXDOT Traffic Ops website: future link for specific motorcycle information and file complaints. Complaints/issues could be sent to the specific district for faster results.  Concerns from lawyers that it will create a written record of the problems –could be an issue if the problems aren’t addressed quickly.

• TXDOT donates leftover retro-reflective sample sheets to motorcycle and bicycle shops. The shops give pieces to individuals to put on their helmets.

Recommendations:

• Should increase the conspicuity of raised medians.
• MUTCD at the next meeting

NOTES:

MUTCD: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/

AASHTO: www.transportation.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part V 

Subject of Discussion: Motorcycle Fatalities

Presentation made by Umesh Shankar, statistician with NHTSA

Used 2005 fatality data and Industry Council numbers.  Highlights:

Stats:

• 1997: 5% motorcycle rider fatalities, 2005: 10.5% motorcycle rider fatalities. Stated that “the increases in all highway fatalities have been accounted for by increases in motorcycle rider fatalities.”  “And to some level, that has nullified the effect of the decline in the passenger vehicle occupant fatalities that we’ve seen in the last 10 years.”

• Total registrations is 0.23 million –about a 16% increase since 1997.  Fatalities – 400%.
• Feels VMT would be a better measure of crash risk than registration.  Used registrations in presentation.
• Fatality increases in all age groups. The largest fatality increase is in the 40+ and 50+ age group but doesn’t know how many riders in those age groups are in the population to look at the risks.  Industry Council data suggest that the 40+ and 50+ age group riders are buying new motorcycles.
• Two-thirds of the riders in the 40+ age group own the larger motorcycles but does not have the data to see how many of these motorcycles are there to compare crashes among 40+ age group riders. 
• Did not have the registration numbers by age groups.
• Affordability for the larger bikes was mentioned –younger riders can’t afford them.
• Fatalities were more on the weekends than weekdays. Did not have the data on percentage of motorcyclists on the roads weekends and weekdays.

Speed:

• Speed is more of a problem among the younger riders. Older age group: 1 in 5.
• How speed becomes a factor for data: crash investigator can mark “speeding” in accident report based on the observation of witnesses or if the investigation seems to indicate speed was a factor –skid marks. Speeding can also mean “too fast for conditions”.  NOTE: when speeding is marked, it does not mean it was the cause of the crash, just a factor. 

Alcohol involvement:

• Stated motorcyclists have the highest alcohol involvement. More than 1/3 of the motorcycle operators had alcohol at the time of the crash; compared to about 25% in passengers cars and light trucks. Also stated that motorcyclists’ alcohol involvement is higher in the 40-49 age group. [NOTES] Alcohol involvement does not mean it was the cause of the crash, just a factor.

License:

• 1 in 4 motorcycle operators involved in a fatal crash did not have a valid license, mostly in the younger age group. Valid license means they didn’t have any license.

Shankar’s summary:

• In order to change the trend, you should focus differently for each age group. Younger rider: speed and licensing. The 40+ and 50+: alcohol. One program will not work for the separate issues.

Concerns:

• Combining age groups.  NHSTA should not use the statement “40 and older age group”, “39 and younger” is never used.
• Years ago the highest number was the 20-30 year olds.  Now it’s 40-50 year olds.  Could be the same group of people getting older. Returning rider factor was also mentioned. The combination of these two factors could explain why 40-49 age group has the increases.
• Has NHTSA looked into the advancement of technologies in cars and small trucks as a contributing factor for fatalities declining? Concern: Motor vehicle fatalities have dropped creating the illusion that motorcycle fatalities are increasing the fatality figures.
• Should look into total crashes, not just fatalities. Motor vehicle fatalities may have gone down whereas the total number of crashes may not have changed.

Other things discussed: none.

Recommendations: none.

NOTES:

• FARS numbers are actual counts except for alcohol involvement numbers. Approximately 60 percent of the BAC test result values are missing or are unknown in FARS each year. If a police accident report states alcohol was involved and the alcohol test results were unknown, BAC values have been assigned to drivers and nonoccupants.[page 22] In 2001, NHTSA used the method of multiple imputation to fill in the missing data [DOT HS 809 403]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part VI

Subject of Discussion: Motorcycle Crash Causation Study [MCCS]

Presentation made by Carol Tan, FHWA’s Office of Safety Research and Development, program manager for the Motorcycle Crash Causation Study

Two studies: NHTSA has a pilot study going now –results will feed into the main study, Motorcycle Crash Causation Study.  Pilot study was to see if using OECM methodology would work but has decided to use the OECD methodology already for the MCCS study. Both studies have been combined for Office of Management and Budget approval –hoping to have the pilot study final report in October 2008.  The results of the pilot study will give them forms that they can use in the FHWA study.  Waiting for Oklahoma Transportation Center to provide the matching funds. [AMA has committed $100,000 to the project]

Stated they will be looking at risk factors for the riders and drivers of those involved in crashes, roadway geometrics and traffic characteristics. [FHWA is concerned with roadway, NHTSA concerned with vehicle, driver/operator]

Once the Office of Management and Budget approves the studies, the documents/questions/forms will be revised and then can be reviewed by the work group.

Pilot study should be finished in 2008, funded for NHTSA, has 35 cases [crashes] in the study, one site.

MCCS study should be finished 2012, study has no matching funds, hoping to get 900 cases [crashes] –depending on the funding. OECD methodology base number is 300; they don’t believe there is enough funding to do 1200, so they are estimating between 600 to 900 cases [crashes].  Feels they will only have enough funding for one site.

FHWA pick the site for the study. They will have an agreement with the police for them to notify the crash investigators to collect the data. Need a place with lots of crashes and may be using the same site as the pilot study because the contacts have been set with the police and emergency responders already. Would not be cost effective to try and cover motorcycle accidents across the U.S.  FHWA has data that shows where more crashes are occurring. The study will include all crashes –if they are notified.  If an accident is not reported to them, they can’t investigate it.

Concerns: none

Other things discussed: none

Recommendations: none

NOTES:

• Westat, Inc. is developing sampling and data collection methods for the NHTSA pilot study of motorcycle crash causes and outcomes. www.westat.com/westat/research_areas/transportation/transportation_safety.cfm
• Need to watch Pilot Study, found: http://rf-web.tamu.edu/funding/bulletins/June2005.pdf

TEXAS A&M RESEARCH FOUNDATION

FUNDING BULLETIN

June 2005

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Pilot Study, Motorcycle Crash Causes and Outcomes

 The Department of Transportation's National Highway Traffic Administration plans to issue a competitive contract solicitation for a pilot study to compile preliminary data to help shape a full-scale investigation of the causes of motorcycle crashes.

The pilot study, with a 110 to 220 crash sample size, will provide a preparatory assessment of: factors associated with motorcycle crashes; types of motorcycle crashes; types and severity of motorcycle injuries and the nature of fatalities; and the effectiveness of protective gear, including helmets.

NHTSA expects to issue the solicitation soon, with a June 27 proposal due date. See http://www.fedbizopps.gov/ and select "Find Business Opportunities," "Search by Solicitation/Award Number" and enter the Sol. # DTNH22-05-R-05079.

• Carlo Tan, FHWA presentation www.ntsb.gov/Events/symp_motorcycle_safety/Trends%20and%20Safety%20Statistics%20Panel/Carol%20Tan%20-%20Federal%20Highway%20Administration.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part VII

Subject of Discussion: ITS –Intelligent Transportation Systems, VII-Vehicle Infrastructure and Integration

No presentations or speakers.  Open floor.

[ITS: focuses on intelligent vehicles, intelligent infrastructure and the creation of an intelligent transportation system through integration with and between these two components. Initiatives: VII, next generation 911, Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems, Integrated Vehicle Based Safety Systems, Integrated Corridor Management Systems, Clarus –Nationwide surface transportation weather observing and forecasting system, Emergency Transportation Operations, Mobility Services for All Americans, and Electronic Freight Management.

VII: deals with crash prevention and congestion relief through vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-roadside communication]

Language in TEA21 mandates that motorcycles will be considered in the development of all ITS but there hasn’t been conformation this is being done. Moreland has been to ITS conferences and has not seen a motorcycle displayed or anything specifically addressing the needs of motorcycles in presentations. Halladay agreed, mentioned the Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance System Study.  [notes] Limited information available but some manufacturers have ideas concerning motorcycles –vehicle to vehicle and crash avoidance. One thing that could benefit the motorcyclist is the curve warning system.

Should the council be involved with motor vehicle manufacturers implementing warning systems for blind spots, getting too close to other vehicles? Are motorcycles being considered in the development of these products? This can benefit motorcyclists.

Council should to look at the infrastructure side of things.

Statement made: “That’s an important distinction; that for this Council to be effective probably has to remember that as much as we have a wish list for raising motorcycles to the top of everyone’s wish list, we have to remember that this particular Council has to do with FHWA, and what they do, specifically for the benefit of motorcycle safety.  Any recommendations that we were to make, from this Council, should focus on construction, design, maintenance issues that FHWA and AASHTO would have some ability to influence”.

VII is centered in the Joint Program Office for ITS, which is housed administratively RITA-different organization than FHWA.  But solutions and the coordination needs to come from both sides - State DOTs are part of the leadership group that is engaged in the AASHTO community and involved with hardware on the roadside, and manufacturers to make it work.

Motorcycles should be included on the new technologies being done now- stop light triggers, toll booths and Easy Pass.

Mentioned: Implementation Guide for the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety –focuses more on drivers and vehicle operators.

Members feels that motorcycles should be included when roadway technologies are applied to all vehicles – toll lanes, access to certain roadways, video sensors - and not get into vehicle specific technologies, which are contained in the vehicle – collision avoidance systems.

Mentioned: Monash Report –potential activities in ITS and motorcycles.  Report was mentioned to members to use as information, not as a recommended program.

Members would like a presentation on what FHWA is doing to incorporate motorcycles into intelligent transportation systems and their development at the next meeting.

Does the council have any ability to influence ITS conferences, volunteer to do a presentation? Council may be able to when there is a “Call for papers/topics” for these conferences.

Concerns:

• Motor vehicles are having vehicle to vehicle, lane warning systems, rear/frontal/side collision, curve warning systems -motorcycles don’t seem to be included. This is on the manufacturer level.

• Motorcycles need to be in the ITS research and development.  Technologies are being built and implemented now –fear that motorcycles will not be permitted on roadways in the future.

Other things discussed: none

Recommendations: For FHWA to provide an update or some information to us on what’s happening in ITS, especially that would affect motorcycles, and present it at the next meeting.

NOTES:

Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems (CICAS) Initiative

www.tfhrc.gov/its/pubs/04120.htm

The Cooperative Intersection Collision Avoidance Systems (CICAS) initiative is one of nine intelligent transportation systems (ITS) initiatives recently launched by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) ITS Management Council. In partnership with automotive manufacturers and State and local DOTs, the CICAS initiative will attempt to determine the optimal combination of infrastructure and in-vehicle systems needed to address the full range of intersection crash problems. The CICAS initiative will integrate two types of intersection collision avoidance systems—infrastructure-only and vehicle-based. Infrastructure-only systems use roadside sensors and processors to warn drivers of intersection hazards by sending critical information via signals or signage along a roadway. Vehicle-based systems warn drivers using sensors and processors housed within the vehicle. Infrastructure-vehicle cooperative systems, which comprise the bulk of the CICAS future research, unify the two types of systems to give drivers the best possible information to help avoid a collision. The initiative will culminate in a series of coordinated field operational tests, which will lead to an improved understanding by highway users of the CICAS initiative’s safety benefits. If these tests prove successful, the next phase would be to support the deployment of these systems at our Nation’s most hazardous intersections and within the U.S. vehicle fleet.

Joint Program Office for ITS: www.its.dot.gov/index.htm

Federal ITS program-about: www.its.dot.gov/about.htm

VII: www.its.dot.gov/vii

RITA- Research and Innovative Technology Administration: www.rita.dot.gov 

AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: www.transportation.org

Implementation Guide for the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety:

www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/pedbimot/motorcycle/00-NHT-212-motorcycle/toc.html

Monash University Accident Research Centre - Report #260 [2006], Intelligent Transport Systems and motorcycle safety: http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc260.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part VIII

Subject of Discussion:  International Barrier Designs – Motorcycles

Presentation made by Nick Artimovich, has dealt with roadside features with FHWA, specialist on roadside and median barriers.

A good roadside design begins with the removal of hazards. Concrete bridge column, rigid sign symbol, drainage pipes close to the road –should be extended and shaped to the roadside slope, and trees –which states do not like to do. If hazards are unable to be removed, barriers are put in.

W-beam, the cable guardrail, and the concrete safety shape barrier were designed for the motor vehicle and some truck impacts.  Motorcycle impacts have not been considered in the U.S. U.S. has had presentations from Europe but has not begun incorporating motorcycle impacts in their designs.

One of the most hazardous features of roadside barriers is the posts. Sharp corners cause the most severe injuries. In U.S., some areas use the Wye/I-beam post and other areas use Charlie posts which have rounded corners.

Tests: The Supplemental Protection for Motorcyclists, SPM, Spanish design, was tested. It is a thin sheet of steel below the rail that is flexible and redirects the motorcyclist away from the post. Two tests: A dummy is accelerated toward the barrier, sliding parallel to the barrier and projected head on. The dummy tests were done without the motorcycle because they assume the motorcyclist has left the bike and sliding toward the barrier. Speed: 60 KPH, about 38 MPH, and an angle of 30 degrees.  Stated the flexible steel plate system and polyester system tests are on YouTube.  [unable to find].

Systems: Protection systems are generally used on sharp curves.

• German system: flat plate similar to the Spanish system but affixed directly to the post.  Is not flexible and is like hitting a wall. This system just avoids impact with the post.
• Italian system: steel automobile rail’s lower portion is away from the face of the post.  Redirects the motorcyclists away.
• Austria and Germany: wraps the post with a plastic or polystyrene shield.
• Sweden: uses a French system. Protects the upper and lower part of the post. Redirects the motorcyclists away.

Standards: There is no European-wide standard for designing barriers for motorcyclists’ protection and there are no plans now to introduce motorcycle protection into the European standard. [EN-1317: roadside barriers/roadside containment devices].  Spain, Germany, and France do have their own standards but do not harmonize with each other. The English Transport Research Lab, TRL, is looking into developing a standard in for the U.K.

Concerns:

• Is there a major cost difference between US current barriers and these other techniques? Unknown costs but would think the costs would be fairly comparable.
• Is there an issue getting European designs into the US? Doesn’t think it would be an issue because it would be a safety device. US would have to look into motorcycle hazards more to present these other designs and the benefits.
• How long have these been employed? Research began in the mid-1990s and the implementation around 2000.
• How many miles/kilometers have these treatments? Some reports say a few hundred kilometers.  Europe-wide, a few thousand kilometers. Mostly curves and high crash locations.
• Is there anything about the nylon system maintenance, degradation over time, replacement due to a crash? Has not seen any discussion on the topic but some cases are simply bolted on the back of the existing barrier. After a crash, section that was damaged would be replaced.

Other things discussed: none

Recommendations: none

NOTES:

Motorcycle and Safety Barrier Crash-Testing: Feasibility Study. 2000 

Monash University: PDF: www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/atsb201.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Part IX

Subject of Discussion:  Follow up.  Open Floor.  

The draft brochure that will be accompanying the recommendation letters was reviewed:  Points covered: pavement surface, potholes, consider motorcycle safety when designing roadsides, pictures of motorcyclists need to be changed to properly show road hazards, and stats.  “For more information” contact for the brochure will be Morris Oliver, FHWA. Members will see the final before print. Draft may be sent with Don Vaughn’s letters to AASHTO if final isn’t done.

State and private websites reporting road hazards: NHTSA published proposed amendments for the Highway Safety Guidelines late last year, comment period ended in March.  One of the comments/recommendations was to develop a communication program for motorcyclists to report roadway hazards. FHWA is aware of the comment and is working with NHTSA on finalizing a way to identify roadway hazards.  May not be motorcycle specific, but will be for all motorists.

Emails MAC members had received:

• Thomas Day/Minnesota Motorcycle Monthly magazine: Minnesota Motorcycle Safety Advisory Council is concerned with the painted dots on roadways and suggested the dots be hollow.  Another concern was cable barriers being dangerous.  Stated they had studies that proved cable barriers/“cheese-graters” are deadly to motorcyclists but did not cite the studies.  They are suggesting to MNDOT to get rid of them.  MAC: will ask for studies.
• Mike Crow KDOT, director of operations: suggested that “NHTSA and FHWA should have a booth at motorcycle rallies promoting motorcycle safety. Both groups should be the premiere safety folks in this business. They should be forming a partnership with all the motorcycle magazines and motorcycle organizations. When you think about motorcycle safety, FHWA and NHTSA should come to mind.”  MAC: feels motorcycle rider groups should do motorcycle safety, not a government agency.
• Email about milled or grooved surfaces: dangerous to riders and if the road has a milled surface, it should have advanced warning for motorcyclists so they can slow down.  MAC: in recommendations.

Email suggestions received but MAC is not in a position to address:

• Improvement needed in wet conditions with visibility through helmet and face shields.
• Current riding gear is not conspicuous.
• Turn signals and parking lights should be spaced as widely as possible to increase visibility to other drivers.
• Motorcycle horns should be louder.

[Some of the above emails came from members of the American Traffic Safety Services Association www.atssa.com ]

• Steve Garets Oregon MSP, chair of the TRB Sub-Committee: National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP, did research on maintenance and construction practices to develop a motorcycle guide. It hasn’t been released yet, any updates? This in one in a series of twenty-some guides that AASHTO is doing and motorcycles is in the final draft. The guides are known as the Series 500; they are all implementation guidelines that AASHTO took on for implementing the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety plan. The group in charged with developing the guide gathered ideas from focus groups and are working on their own. Steve stated in his email, “As co-author, I spent the better part of a year researching issues central to motorcycles and highway departments. I’m told that some revisions are required before its release, but really know nothing more.” MAC: The final draft may be released in the fall.
• Email wanting special emphasis in states that have severe weather conditions.  Cleanup of sand and debris should be done after the season is done, not a year later. MAC: Could be considered as roadway hazard.
• Email recommending annual motor vehicle inspections for all states; fluid leaks.

Concerns: addressed.

Other things discussed: none

Recommendations: none

NOTES:

National Cooperative Highway Research Program Projects: www.trb.org/crp/nchrp/nchrpprojects.asp

AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: www.transportation.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~summary done by Karen Leonard, New York Freedom Rider.