Motorcycles and Safety

This page forms part of a draft article about plans to permit motorcycles in bus lanes.

Synopsis

The British Motorcyclists Federation (BMF) suggests that powered two wheelers (PTWs) are not a serious danger to vulnerable road users. Yet Department for Transport (DfT) road accident data shows clearly that PTW use is almost twice as hazardous to pedal cyclists as car use, and at least 3 times as dangerous to pedestrians. The BMF also suggests that PTW users are as much victims of pedestrian and cyclist behaviour as vice versa. Yet, once again, DfT road accident data shows clearly that the risks are in fact extremely one-sided...

Motorcycles and cyclist safety

The DfT publishes annual data for road use by vehicle type (Transport Statistics 2005 31st edition, table 7.1), and casualties by severity and combination of vehicle type (DfT Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2004 Annual Report, table 23). From these we can easily compare the risk to pedal cyclists from PTWs relative to that from cars:

Looking at serious and fatal collisions only, the relative dangers are even starker. A motorcycle or moped journey is more than twice as likely to kill or seriously injure a pedal cyclist as the same journey by car:

Motorcycles and pedestrian safety

Although motorcycles in bus lanes may not affect pedestrians as directly as pedal cyclists, any measure likely to encourage a shift towards PTW use is bad news for pedestrian safety. With regards to PTW use of bus lanes, it might also be considered that positioning in the lane adjacent to the footpath, further increases the risk to pedestrians. Making a journey by motorcycle or moped is more than 3 times as likely to harm a pedestrian as the same journey made by car. The same DfT sources used previously (to examine risks to cyclists) also provide pedestrian data:

When considering serious and fatal collisions only, a motorcycle or moped journey is nearly 4 times as likely to kill or seriously injure a pedestrian as the same journey by car:

Motorcyclist safety

The BMF likes to imply that PTW users as equal or greater victims of collisions with vulnerable road users (pedal cyclists and pedestrians). Obviously individual cases will vary, but in terms of the overall picture this argument is bogus. The table below shows the number of casualties, and severity, from the 338 recorded accidents between PTWs and pedal cyclists in 2004 (source DfT Road Casualties in Great Britain: 2004 Annual Report, table 23):

Casualty	All	Serious	Fatal
Pedal cyclist	294	49	1
PTW user	143	22	1

As can be seen, in collisions between PTWs and pedal cyclists, the pedal cyclist is about twice as likely to be a casualty as the motorcyclist.

The same source, for 1297 accidents involving PTW users and pedestrians in the same year, shows an even greater imbalance:

Casualty	All	Serious	Fatal
Pedestrian	1349	266	23
PTW user	341	51	0

This shows that overall, in collisions between PTWs and pedestrians, the pedestrian is about 4 times as likely to be a casualty as the motorcyclist; but that the imbalance is far greater for serious injuries and and fatalities.

Comment

In advancing its case for motorcycles to be allowed to use bus lanes, the BMF portrays motorcyclists as victims (in two meetings we attended, Leon Mannings, the chair of the BMF, described a single incident in which a motorcyclist was killed by a pedestrian, and went on to suggest that people who oppose PTW use of bus lanes are callous), and dismisses PTW risk to vulnerable road users by implying that pedestrian and cyclist injuries may often be "self-inflicted", perhaps due to alcohol consumption. (See item 032/04 in Croydon Road User Forum minutes of October 2004 meeting. The italicized paragraph minutes arguments advanced by Leon Mannings during this part of the meeting.). Such arguments fail because the data above shows clearly that:

1. A journey made by a PTW poses a much higher risk of injury to vulnerable road users than the same journey by car. If the BMF seriously believes that its theory of "self-inflicted" injuries to pedestrians and cyclists should be considered significant and credible, it first needs to explain why those pedestrians and cyclists disproportionately opt to "self-inflict" injuries by getting hit by a motorcycle, instead of the rather more obvious choice of a car.
2. The danger to pedestrians and cyclists from PTW users is far higher than the danger to PTW users from pedestrians and cyclists. In this "food chain", PTWs are dangerous predators, not prey.

Although it is true that per mile risk to PTW users is much higher than other forms of transport (despite protective equipment), it is also true that the per mile risk to vulnerable road users is much higher. It should be considered that these two facts may be connected. Rather than accepting the dubious BMF proposition that this is not a zero sum game, and casualties for "all road users" can somehow be reduced by allowing PTWs in bus lanes, we would suggest that the clear evidence to the contrary should be heeded. Moreover, we suggest that a much more obvious explanation for the excessive number of collisions involving PTWs is excessive speed. As such, significant reductions in collisions involving PTWs could be achieved by persuading or forcing motorcyclists to slow down, wihout recourse to counterproductive measures such as allowing use of bus lanes.

Page updated: 29/08/2006