1 / 45

MCC Survey of Motorcyclists 2001 Presented by Liz de Rome LdeR Consulting

MCC Survey of Motorcyclists 2001 Presented by Liz de Rome LdeR Consulting. Road Safety Strategic Plan - Process. 1. Literature and data analysis 2. Stakeholder interviews 3. Survey of motorcyclists 4. Planning workshop. Stakeholder Consultation. 2 * Commercial rider trainers

wauna
Download Presentation

MCC Survey of Motorcyclists 2001 Presented by Liz de Rome LdeR Consulting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. MCC Survey of Motorcyclists2001Presented byLiz de RomeLdeR Consulting

  2. Road Safety Strategic Plan - Process • 1. Literature and data analysis • 2. Stakeholder interviews • 3. Survey of motorcyclists • 4. Planning workshop

  3. Stakeholder Consultation • 2 * Commercial rider trainers • 1 * Ambulance • 4 * Police • 3 * Forensic engineers • 6 * Road and transport safety authorities (RTA, ATSB) • 2 * Local Government • 3 * Road safety researchers • 2 * Industry (MTA, FCAI) • 1 * Motorcycle media • Note 15/ 24 interviewees were also motorcyclists

  4. Aim of interviews • Identify key road safety problems for motorcyclists • Identify measures to address them

  5. Issues • Novice and post license rider training • Crash investigation and reporting • Road condition as a factor in crashes • Speed that is inappropriate to conditions • Motorcyclist attitudes to personal safety • Motorcyclists externalising responsibility

  6. Objectives of the Survey • Identify the optimal means of reaching motorcyclists to seek or communicate information. • Seek further information in relation to issues raised in stakeholder interviews.

  7. Survey Methodology • 3170 survey forms distributed over 4 week period Oct/ Nov 2001 • Using Motorcycle Council and clubs network • Motorcycle magazines/ club newsletters • Motorcycle parking areas • Motorcycle industry

  8. Motorcycle Council/ club network Personal distribution 640 returned 440 = 69% • Pink Ribbon Ride 60% • Motorcycle Awareness Week 76% • Club meetings 100% • Through club network 59% • Mt White Café 100% • Other 54%

  9. Magazines/ NewslettersDistributed 2080/ returned 272 = 13% • Club newsletter 34% • Posted to clubs for distribution 43% • Two Wheels (1000 subscription) 20% • Two Wheels (1000 News agencies) 5% • Returned by fax or mail

  10. Motorcycle parking areasDistributed 250/ returned 67 = 27% • University/ TAFE 17% • CBD 33% Attached to handle bars to be returned by fax or mail

  11. Commercial /Industry (distributed 200/ returned 17) • Rider training centre 4% • Motorcycle shops 13%

  12. Overall response rate • 3170 distributed • 796 returned • Overall response rate 25% • If exclude those through the magazine distribution, response rate was 47% (n=554)

  13. Respondents

  14. Motorcycle capacity, respondents compared to registered owners

  15. Type of motorcycle by age group

  16. Who were they? • 86% Male (n=684) Average age 43 • 13% Females (n=101) Average age 39 • Sydney Region 72% • 92% had a full motorcycle licence • Held for average 19 years (Males 20 years, Females 9 years) • 61% ridden continuously • Average length of break – 7.8 years

  17. Riding patterns • 97% car licence • 60% car main form of transport • 56% put off in wet weather • Motorcycle used: • Mainly for recreation 47% • For both recreation and commuting 48% • Weekend main time for riding 65%

  18. Time of week – mainly ride

  19. Average distance travelled per week, 254 km

  20. Long trips (average 2,367 km)

  21. Club membership within each age group

  22. Time spent with other motorcyclists • Ride in groups 85% • Day trips 77% • Holidays, rallies & weekends away 44% • Track days 16% • Bike club 25%

  23. Use of Media • Motorcycle magazines 80% (females 59%) • Newspapers 70% • (motoring section - males 73% vs females 34%) • Internet access 79%, • Use to access motorcycle information 74% • Web sites 48% • E-mail 10% • Newsgroups 7% • Radio 83%

  24. Source of Road Safety Messages • Motorcycle safety message 59% • Motorcycle magazines 35% • Rider training 20% • Television 11% • Bike club (functions/ web site/ newsletters) 10% • Banners, stickers etc 5%

  25. Training experience

  26. Training experience by age group

  27. Perceived benefits of training

  28. Crash experience (66%)

  29. Crash experience within each age group

  30. Crash type and motorcycle type

  31. Injuries (n= 338, 65%)

  32. Protective clothing

  33. Do you carry a pillion

  34. Crash circumstances

  35. How could have been avoided

  36. Cause of crash by how to avoid

  37. Perceptions of crash responsibility by training experience

  38. Conclusion • Motorcyclists perspective • Clarified some points • Confirmed we need to do more to understand motorcycle crashes

  39. Communications • Motorcycle Council (20,000 members i.e. almost 1 in 4 ) • Club network (64%) • Motorcycle events and meeting places • Motorcycle magazines (80%) • Internet (79%)

  40. Training • 72% had some training • 31% had under post license training • High proportion perceived benefit 90% + • Link between training and acceptance of responsibility for crashes • Training also reported as a source of safety messages m (20%)

  41. Personal safety • Riders were far better protected than were pillions • Upper body was better protected than legs • 19% regularly carried a pillion • 56% occasionally • 23% never

  42. Road condition as a factor in crashes • Loss of traction • 56% of all crashed • 67% of single vehicle crashes • 44% of multi-vehicle crashes

  43. Excess speed in crashes • 13% reported speed as a factor • 14% of single vehicle crashes • 12% of multi-vehicle crashes

  44. Externalising responsibility • 33% - crash was “unavoidable” • (36% multi-vehicle/ 28% single vehicle ) • 24% - if had slowed down sooner • 23% - if had better observation skills • 6% - not ridden when impaired (fatigue, sick, alcohol etc)

  45. Conclusion • Crash investigation Speed, Road condition, Fatigue Other drivers Rider safety education and training Protective clothing

More Related