factors that increase and decrease motorcyclist crash risk...• 55% of these 53 single-vehicle...
TRANSCRIPT
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Factors that Increase and Decrease Motorcyclist Crash RiskVicki Williams, Shane McLaughlin, and Jon AtwoodVirginia Tech Transportation InstituteTim BucheMotorcycle Safety Foundation
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Organizational Mission• Virginia Tech Transportation Institute
– Conducts research to save lives, save time, save money, and protect the environment
– Develops the techniques and technologies to solve transportation challenges from vehicular, driver, infrastructure, and environmental perspectives
– Specifically for motorcycle safety, uses the collection of real-world driving/riding data and analysis/data mining to improve safety, with a focus on the user
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Organizational Mission• Motorcycle Safety Foundation
– Mission: To make motorcycling safer and more enjoyable by ensuring access to lifelong quality education and training for current and prospective riders, and by advocating a safer riding environment.
– Vision: The MSF is an internationally recognized not-for-profit foundation, supported by motorcycle manufacturers, that provides leadership to the motorcycle safety community through its expertise, tools, and partnerships.
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Understanding Crash Risk• Traditional methods to understand crash risk rely on
post-event analyses• Other methods include simulators and controlled
experimentation• Observance of crash events via naturalistic study
reveals conditions that would otherwise remain unknown
• In addition, near-crash events (surrogates for crashes) are observed as never before
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Training Systems Development
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
The Study
• Sponsored by MSF, who assisted with day-to-day operations
• Instrumentation of 100 riders’ personal motorcycles (riding as they normally do)
• Recorded video and kinematic data (collected 366,667 miles)
• First large-scale naturalistic motorcycle study to provide this type of unique and complex data
The MSF 100 Motorcyclists Naturalistic Study
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
MSF 100 Motorcyclists Naturalistic Study
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
• GPS• Machinevisionlane
tracker• Accelerometers(3axes)• Gyro(3axes)• Forwardradar
• TurnSignals• Brakeleverinputs• Continuouscollection• 8-12mocapacity• Cellular
communicationfrombikesbacktoVTTI
• Fivecolorcameras• forward• rear• lefthand• righthand• ridertorso
MSF 100 Motorcyclists Naturalistic Study
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Frequency
Female 22
Male 78
Cruiser 41Sport 21
Touring 38
MSF 100 Motorcyclists Naturalistic Study
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Collected Data• Studyparticipation
• Range:2monthsto2years• Totalof30,844trips• Totalof366,667miles• Totalinstalledtimeof100.6years
• Collectedevents• 30crashes• 122near-crashes• Eventsperriderrangedfrom0to13• 55ridersexperiencedatleastoneevent
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Descriptive Statistics for CNCsCNC Mean Median Std.Dev. Minimum Maximum
CountperParticipant 1.54 1 2.18 0 13Rateper1000Miles
perParticipant 0.87 0.18 2.85 0 27.03
• Sampleparticipantsaveraged1.5CNCeventsperrider• Whenexpressedasarate,theaverageparticipantnoticedaCNC
rateof0.87per1,000milestraveled• 34%oftheridersinthestudyaccountedfor86%ofthecrashes
andnear-crashes
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Crash Descriptions• “Crash,”asdefinedbythisstudy,includes:
• Anycontactthatthesubjectvehiclehaswithanobject,eithermovingorfixed,atanyspeed.
• Non-premeditateddeparturesoftheroadwaywhereatleastonetireleavesthepavedorintendedtravelsurfaceoftheroad.
• Anycontactbetweenthegroundandthebike(otherthantires/stands)orgroundandrider(otherthanfoot).
• 57%ofthe30crasheswerelow-speed“capsizes”• Othercrasheswereofvarioustypes,asindicatedinthenextslide
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Crash Descriptions
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
• ExampleofGroundImpact– LowSpeed(“capsize”)Crash Descriptions
Towatchvideo:https://youtu.be/C6r3vnebK5k
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
• ExampleofOtherVehicleTurnAcrossPath
Crash Descriptions
Towatchvideo:https://youtu.be/I0AvOgciHD8
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Single-Vehicle Crash and Near-Crash Descriptions
• Thenextslideprovidesanindicationofthetypesofcrashesandnear-crashes(wherearapid,evasivemaneuverisrequired)thatinvolvedonlytheparticipantbike(noothervehicles,objects,orpedestrianswereinfluentialintheevent)
• Therewere53casesofthesesingle-vehicleevents(involving29differentriders)
• 55%ofthese53single-vehicle(motorcycle)eventsinvolvedtheparticipantnegotiatingacurveleadingintothecrashornear-crash
• Theremainderoftheseeventsinvolvedvariousscenarios,asindicatedinthefollowingtable
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Single-Vehicle Crashes(SVCs)
&Near-
Crashes
PrecipitatingEvent Pre-incidentManeuver NumberofEvents
PercentageofSVCs
Subjectoverleftlaneline Negotiatingacurve 18 34.0%Subjectoverleftedgeofroad Turningright 1 1.9%
SubjectoverrightedgeofroadNegotiatingacurve 4 7.5%Goingstraight,butwithunintentional"drifting"withinlaneoracrosslanes 1 1.9%
Subjectoverrightlaneline Negotiatingacurve 2 3.8%Thisvehiclelostcontrol-excessivespeed
Goingstraight,constantspeedordecelerating 4 7.5%Negotiatingacurve 3 5.7%
Thisvehiclelostcontrol-insufficientspeed
Entering/leavingaparkingposition,movingforward 3 5.7%Goingstraight,constantspeedordecelerating 3 5.7%Turningright 2 3.8%Turningleft 1 1.9%Backingup(otherthanforparkingpurposes) 1 1.9%MakingU-turn 1 1.9%Negotiatingacurve 1 1.9%Startingintrafficlane 1 1.9%Stoppedintrafficlane 1 1.9%
Thisvehiclelostcontrol- othercause
Backingup(otherthanforparkingpurposes) 1 1.9%Negotiatingacurve 1 1.9%
Thisvehiclelostcontrol- poorroadconditions
Goingstraight,constantspeedordecelerating 2 3.8%Turningright 2 3.8%
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Single-Vehicle Crash and Near-Crash Descriptions• Exampleofsubjectoverleftlanelinewhilenegotiatingacurve
Towatchvideo:https://youtu.be/xXnPQese0hU
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Crash and Near-Crash Descriptions Involving Other Vehicles or Objects• Theremainderofthecrashesandnear-crashesinvolvedat
leastoneothervehicleorobject(e.g.,pedestrian,animal,cyclist)
• Therewere99oftheseevents(involving44differentriders)• 35%ofthese99eventswerecasesofthesubjectbikerear-
endingaleadvehicle• Therestoftheeventsincluded13categoriesofIncidentType,
andareincludedinthefollowingtable
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Crash and Near-Crash
Descriptions Involving
Other Vehicles or
Objects
PrimaryIncidentType NumberofEvents
PercentageofMulti-VehicleConflicts
Rear-end,striking 35 35.4%Sideswipe,samedirection(leftorright) 21 21.2%Othervehicleturnacrosspath 8 8.1%Oppositedirection(head-onorsideswipe) 7 7.1%Animal-related 6 6.1%Othervehicleturnintopath(oppositedirection) 6 6.1%Othervehicleturnintopath(samedirection) 5 5.0%Pedestrian-related 3 3.0%Backingintotraffic 2 2.0%Rear-end,struck 2 2.0%Subjectvehicleturnintopath(samedirection) 1 1.0%Other 1 1.0%Pedalcyclist-related 1 1.0%Othervehiclestraight,crossingsubjectpath 1 1.0%
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Method of Evaluating Crash/Near-Crash (CNC) Risk
• Videoverificationofcrashandnear-crashevents• Videoanalysisusinga95-variabledatadictionary,VTTIdeveloped/tested
o 7,028baselineevents(“eventless”riding),randomlyselectedperrider,numberbasedonridermileage
o 152crashandnear-crashevents• Oddsofbeinginvolvedinacrashornear-crash(CNC)givenexposuretoa
factorarecalculatedo BasedonoddsofCNCoccurrencewhenexposedtofactor
comparedtooddswhennotexposedtofactoro Factorscanberelatedtotherider,environment,orroadway(these
arethedictionaryvariables)
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Results: Factors
that IncreaseCNC Risk
Variable Level Odds Ratio Reference
Exposure to this increases
risk by this many times
compared to:
Intersection Influence Yes, Uncontrolled 40.7 None
Intersection Influence Yes, Parking lot, driveway entrance/exit 8.5 None
Intersection Influence Yes, Traffic signal 2.9 None
Rider Behavior Aggressive riding (only) 17.9 None
Rider Behavior Lack of knowledge or skill/Inattention (only) 9.3 None
Rider Behavior Combination of behaviors 30.4 None
Pre-incident Maneuver Maneuvering to avoid object 11.8 Going straight, constant speed
Surface Type Gravel/Dirt road 9.4 Paved, smoothRoadway Grade Grade down 4.3 LevelRoadway Grade Grade up 1.9 LevelTraffic Density Unstable 3.6 StableRoadway Alignment Curve right 2.1 Straight
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Results: Factors that Decrease CNC Risk
Variable Level Odds Ratio Reference
Exposure to this is associated
with a risk that is this many times
the risk for:
Locality Urban 0.1 Open country/ Open residential
Locality Highway 0.2 Open country/ Open residential
Locality Miscellaneous/Other 0.2 Open country/ Open residential
Locality Moderate residential/ Business/Industrial 0.4 Open country/
Open residential
Pillion Riders 1 0.3 0
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Contribution to Motorcycle Safety Research
• Discovered12factorsthatincreasetheriskofCNCs• Discovered5factorsthatdecreasetheriskofCNCs• Provideddetailedguidancebasedonriskfactorsthatcanbeincorporatedintotrainingprograms
• Producedalarge,richdatabaseofnaturalisticridinginformationthatwillbeusedforyearstouncovercrashandnear-crashmechanismsandsupportsafety-relatedmotorcycleresearch
• Developedandtestedadatareductiondictionaryspecificallyfornaturalisticmotorcycleanalysisthatcanbeappliedconsistentlyacrossfuturestudies
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Contributions to Motorcycle Safety Research
• Observedsomegoodthings,too• Usefulinsupportingtheemphasisofpropertechniqueandexecution
Towatchvideo:https://youtu.be/-5Y0u_Hokhc
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Contact InfoVTTI Motorcycle Research Group http://www.motorcycle.vtti.vt.edu/
Motorcycle Safety Foundationhttp://www.msf-usa.org
TimBuchePresident&CEO(949)[email protected]
VickiWilliamsHumanFactorsEngineer(540)[email protected]
ShaneMcLaughlinGroupLeader(540)[email protected]
©2016MotorcycleSafetyFoundation
Descriptive Statistics for CNCs
R²=0.25933
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000 18000 20000
Num
bero
fCNCs
TotalMileage
NumberofCrashes/Near-CrashesbyTotalMileageperRider