trl limited published project report ppr161 …published project report version final trl limited 2...

TRL Limited

PUBLISHED PROJECT REPORT PPR161

ACCIDENTS INVOLVING POWERED TWO WHEELER VEHICLES ON THE TRUNK ROAD NETWORK Version: 1

by J Scoons and L Crinson (TRL Limited)

Prepared for:Project Record: 3/272 R31 Client: Highways Agency

(D Brown)

Copyright TRL Limited March 2006

This report has been prepared for the Highways Agency is unpublished and should not be referred to in any other document or publication without the permission of the Highways Agency. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Highways Agency

Published Project Reports are written primarily for the Customer rather than for a general audience and are published with the Customer’s approval.

Approvals

Project Manager

Quality Reviewed

This report has been produced by TRL Limited, under/as part of a Contract placed by the Highways Agency. Any views expressed are not necessarily those of the Highways Agency.

TRL is committed to optimising energy efficiency, reducing waste and promoting recycling and re-use. In support of these environmental goals, this report has been printed on recycled paper, comprising 100% post-consumer waste, manufactured using a TCF (totally chlorine free) process.

TRL Limited PPR 161

CONTENTS

Executive summary i

1 Introduction 2

2 Background 3

3 1994-2003 Trends 6

3.1 Traffic 6 3.2 Number of accidents 7

4 Comparison of motorcycle accidents to non-motorcycle accidents 9

4.1 Accident location 9 4.2 Casualty types 11 4.3 Skidding 11 4.4 Conditions at time of accident 12 4.5 Size of PTW 12

5 Single Vehicle PTW accidents 13

5.1 Summary 13 5.2 Accident location 13 5.3 Skidding 15 5.4 Conditions at time of accident 15 5.5 Casualty types 15 5.6 Manoeuvre at time of accident 17

6 Accidents involving a PTW and another road user 18

6.1 Accidents involving a PTW and a Vulnerable Road User 18 6.2 Accidents involving one PTW and one car 18 6.3 Accidents involving one PTW and another vehicle (non-car) 18 6.4 Accidents involving three or more vehicles (including a PTW) 19

7 Routes/sites for further study 19

7.1 Assessment of the A52 area 7 20 7.1.1 Accidents 20 7.1.2 Video observations on A52 20 7.1.3 Discussion 21

7.2 Assessment of the A12 area 6 21 7.2.1 Accidents 21 7.2.2 Commentary ride A12 22 7.2.3 Discussion 23

7.3 Assessment of the A5 area 8 24 7.3.1 Accidents 24 7.3.2 Commentary ride A5 24 7.3.3 Discussion 25

8 Conclusions and discussion 26

Acknowledgements 27

TRL Limited PPR 161

References 27

Appendix A. Trends 28

Appendix B. Comparison between non-PTW accidents and PTW accidents 29

Appendix C. Single PTW only accidents 33

Appendix D. Accidents involving two PTWs only 35

Appendix E. Single PTW and pedestrian accidents 39

Appendix F. Accidents involving one PTW, one car 42

Appendix G. Accidents involving one PTW, one LGV 48

Appendix H. Accidents involving one PTW, one HGV 53

Appendix I. Accidents involving one PTW, one other vehicle 57

Appendix J. Accidents involving one PTW and two cars 60

Appendix K. Other 3 vehicle PTW accidents 63

Appendix L. PTW accidents involving more than 3 vehicles 66

GIS Maps 67

TRL Limited i PPR 161

Published Project Report Version Final

Executive summary

Accidents involving Powered Two Wheeler vehicles (PTWs) are an increasing problem on trunk roads, and have a significant associated cost. Currently, they are involved in 9% of accidents on trunk roads and are the only casualty class to have shown an increase in the numbers of killed or seriously injured casualties over the last decade. Also, unlike most other mode type casualties, the accident rates (per vehicle-km travelled) have not declined over the same period. One in three accident-involved PTW rider casualties are killed or seriously injured, and this is an area of great concern.

This report looks at the accident situation for Powered Two Wheelers (PTWs) using the data to 2003. It also considers some specific routes to investigate accident clusters. Recommendations are made for training and publicity.

Powered two wheelers (PTWs) form 0.6% of the trunk road traffic but accidents involving PTWs made up 8.9% of all trunk road accidents between 2001 and 2003. In accidents involving a PTW and another vehicle the PTW rider and passenger (where present) are the most likely to be injured.

In general PTW accidents occur on all road types on the trunk road network but, compared to the length of roads, they are more likely occur on single carriageway parts of the network. Most (87%) of those involved are male, and the 30-40 age group have the highest number of accidents. Fridays are the worst day for accidents overall, but for single vehicle accidents the worst day is Sunday. Most accidents are in the summer, and most accidents occur in daylight, in fine weather, on dry roads.

The increase in PTW registrations has been greatest for large bikes (500cc and over). Almost half (49%) of PTW accidents between 2001 and 2003 involved a bike over 500cc. Accidents involving larger machines are more likely to be fatal or serious. It might be expected that large bikes would be over-represented in single vehicle accidents. However, overall about 22% of accidents to all sizes of PTW are single vehicle accidents and this percentage is fairly constant over all sizes of bike.

Single vehicle PTW accidents are seen as a particular problem. The PTW was most likely to be ‘going ahead other’ (50%), going ahead left hand bend (18%) and going ahead right hand bend (13%). Single vehicle accidents were less likely to occur at junctions than accidents which also involved other vehicles. The accidents involving manoeuvring around bends were very high severity; over half of these accidents were fatal or serious. A high proportion (85%) of fatal single PTW accidents involved the PTW leaving the carriageway.

Over half the PTWs involved in single vehicle accidents have skidded, though only a very small number of these accidents are at sites where the police reported that the road surface was defective. This suggests that the skid may be a result of rider error rather than external conditions. It should be noted that PTWs are more sensitive to road surface conditions than other vehicles and if the police officer is not a motorcyclist there may be under-reporting of the surface problems which could affect PTWs. However, the incidence of skidding in single vehicle accidents is still high, and education/training for motorcyclists to avoid this could have significant benefits.

In 25% of accidents involving a car and a PTW the PTW struck a car which was turning right or waiting to turn right, and in 16% of these accidents the PTW was overtaking the car it struck.

The observation studies (routes ridden by an experienced rider) have shown that while there may be some specific problems for PTW drivers on trunk roads these are limited in extent. The accident ‘hot spots’ are probably related more to higher numbers of PTWs in particular areas than to road design features. This suggests that engineering measures, while important, may not provide the reduction in casualties required to meet the DfT 2010 casualty reduction targets. However on one route complex signing may have played a part in causing problems for PTW riders, who would have difficulty in interpreting signs while negotiating traffic.


TRL Limited 2 PPR 161

1 Introduction Accidents involving Powered Two Wheeler vehicles (PTWs) are an increasing problem on trunk roads, and have a significant associated cost. Currently, they are involved in 9% of accidents on trunk roads and are the only casualty class to have shown an increase in the numbers of killed or seriously injured casualties over the last decade. Also, unlike most other mode type casualties, the accident rates (per vehicle-km travelled) have not declined over the same period. One in three accident-involved PTW rider casualties are killed or seriously injured, and this is an area of great concern.

In 2000 the Government set a target to reduce road accident casualties on all roads by the year 2010. The target consists of three separate targets:

• A 40% reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured in road accidents;

• A 50% reduction in the number of children killed or seriously injured;

• A 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate, expressed as the number of people slightly injured per 100 million vehicle kilometres.

In July 2002 a fourth target was added to address the significantly higher number of road accident casualties that occur in disadvantaged areas. It is:

• to secure a greater reduction in the overall number of road casualties in the 88 Neighbourhood Renewal Fund Areas in England designated by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, than for England as a whole, comparing the figure for 2005 with the average for 1999 to 2001 (see the DfTs ‘Tomorrows roads – safer for everyone – the first 3 year review’ - 2004, for details).

The Highways Agency will contribute to the new 2010 targets and will instigate measures to deliver, on the Trunk road network, reductions in fatal and serious casualties. The Agency has set its own targets for casualty reductions:

• a one-third reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured on trunk roads;

• a 10% reduction in the slight casualty rate;

• and will contribute to the child casualty reduction target and to tackling the significantly higher incidence of road casualties in disadvantaged communities than elsewhere.

The KSI target is lower than the national target because of the already low accident rates and the relatively greater increases in traffic on the trunk road network, compared with those on other roads

PTWs have a role to play in a national strategy to achieve these targets. PTWs account for only 0.6% of trunk road traffic, but were involved in 9% of accidents. They account for 4.4% of all accident-involved vehicles. And the problem is worsening; in 2003 there was a 7% increase in the number of fatal or serious accidents involving PTWs on trunk roads (from 669 in 2002 to 717 in 2003).

The 2003 percentage change from the 1994-1998 baseline is shown graphically in Figure 1-1, where the dotted line at -9% indicates a reduction that is on course to the target reduction of a third. Note that the user groups are not exclusive, for example, a 16-19 year old is also likely to be a car occupant. Overall, the number of those killed or seriously injured (KSI) in 2003 had reduced by 16% from the baseline. In 2003, PTWs were the only user group where the KSIs have increased since baseline, with an increase of 28%. All of the other user groups apart from 16-19 year olds were below the 9% line.



Figure 1-1: 2003 % change in KSI casualties from baseline by user group

Ped

estri

ans

Peda

lcyc

lists

PTW

Car

Bus

/Coa

ch

Goo

dsVe

hicl

e

1-15

16-1

9

70+

-80%

-60%

-40%

-20%

0%

20%

40%20

03%

diffe

renc

efro

mba

selin

e

An increase in accidents to PTW riders and passengers is expected because the numbers of PTWs registered has been increasing. In 2000 there were 825,000 but in 2003 this had risen to over one million (1,005,000), an increase of 22%. Of this the greatest increase (31%) was in PTWs of over 500cc capacity. These more powerful bikes may well be involved in higher speed crashes with increased severity injuries.

Section 2 of this report looks at the background to the PTW accident problem. Section 3 considers recent trends in accidents and casualties and Section 4 looks at some comparisons between PTW accidents and other road accidents. In Sections 5 and 6 specific types of accidents are considered. Section 7 describes the routes selected for further study and Section 8 discusses the conclusions and recommendations from the project.

2 Background Powered two wheelers (PTWs) form 0.6% of the trunk road traffic but accidents involving PTWs made up 8.9% of all trunk road accidents between 2001 and 2003. The PTW casualty rate in 2003 was 239 casualties per 108 vehicle km, which was 10 times higher than for cars. The PTW KSI casualty rate in 2003 was 83.9 casualties per 108 vehicle km, which was 35 times higher than for cars.

They are spread across the network as shown in Figure 2-1.



Figure 2-1 – Map showing distribution of all motorcycle accidents on the trunk network

● Fatal ● Serious ● Slight

The accidents involving PTWs between 1994 and 2003 were split into eleven categories:

• Single PTW only

• One PTW, one car



• Single PTW and a pedestrian

• One PTW, one pedal cycle

• Two PTWs

• One PTW, one bus

• One PTW, one LGV

• One PTW, one HGV

• One PTW, one other vehicle

• Other 3 vehicle PTW accident

• PTW accident involving more than 3 vehicles

These different user groups are discussed in more detail in later sections.

9% of accidents on the trunk road network involved at least one PTW, with 35% being fatal or serious compared with 14% for non PTW accidents. The largest categories of PTW accident were ‘one PTW, one car’, which accounted for 54% of PTW accidents, and ‘single PTW only’, which accounted for 22%. The latter category includes very high severity accidents, with 44% being fatal or serious (KSI accidents), accounting for 28% of KSI PTW accidents. Accidents involving one PTW and one HGV were also very high severity, with a severity ratio of 45%. These accounted for 4% of PTW accidents. PTW riders are predominantly male (over 92% on average), while passenger casualties are more likely to be female (over 70% on average)

Table 2-1 shows that 76% of PTW user casualties on trunk roads were involved in accidents with another road user, of these, 53% were from PTW/car accidents (this was 24% of all PTW rider and passenger fatalities). 24% of PTW user casualties were from accidents involving a single PTW only.

Table 2-1 also shows similar information for PTW accidents on all roads in Great Britain (DfT, 2003). PTWs were involved in 13% of accidents in Great Britain in 2003, which is higher than for trunk roads (9%). Single PTW only accidents accounted for fewer PTW casualties in Great Britain; 17% compared with 24% for trunk roads.

Table 2-1: Motorcycle accident type by network and casualty injury 2001-2003

(motorcycle riders and passengers only)

Network PTW accident type % Killed % KSI Total % of network

Single PTW only 4.6% 42.2% 1412 23.5% Trunk network

2001 - 2003 Other PTW accident 3.4% 31.4% 4602 76.5%

Single PTW only 3.4% 36.4% 4910 17.3% All GB roads

2003 Other PTW accident 2.2% 25.0% 23497 82.7%

GB Source: Road Casualties Great Britain: 2003, Annual Report



3 1994-2003 Trends

3.1 Traffic

Figure 3-1 below shows the number of PTWs licensed in Great Britain, compared with the population of Great Britain. On the whole, both groups show a large increase, however there was a reduction in the number of PTWs licensed between 1994 and 1995 which does not reflect the change in population at that time.

Figure 3-1 – PTWs currently licensed and population 1994 – 2003

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Date

Num

bero

fLic

ence

s('0

00s)

56

56.5

57

57.5

58

58.5

59

PTWs Currently Licensed ('000s) Population

Source: Road Casualties Great Britain: 2003, Annual Report Changes to the taxation system have meant that there are some discontinuities in the PTWs currently licensed series between 1994 and 1995.

Figure 3-2 shows the rise in all traffic and the rise in PTW traffic relative to 1994 between 1994 and 2003. The amount of all traffic has increased fairly consistently between 1994 and 2003, with total increase of 22%; however the amount of motorcycle traffic has varied a lot more, initially dropping below the 1994 level and not increasing past this until 1997. From 1996 until 2003 the PTW traffic increased quite rapidly, although not evenly, giving an overall increase since 1994 of 40%.

Motorcycle traffic remained much the same between 1994 and 1996, but has increased rapidly since. By 2003, motorcycle traffic on all road types had increased by a larger percentage of 1994 traffic than the fastest growing all traffic category, Motorway traffic. PTW traffic on rural A-roads has increased by 46% since 1994, PTW traffic on urban A-roads by 33% and PTW traffic on motorways has increased by 34%, compared with a 23% increase in all motorway traffic.



Figure 3-2 – All traffic and PTW traffic 1994 – 2003 relative to 1994

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Date

Traf

fic,r

elat

ive

to19

94

PTW traffic All traffic

3.2 Number of accidents

Figure 3-3 shows the number of non PTW accidents compared with the number of accidents involving at least one PTW from 1994 to 2003 relative to 1994.

Non PTW accidents show a far more consistent line, particularly since 1997. Both categories show an overall increase, PTW accidents have increased by 30% since 1994 and non PTW accidents have increased by 6% in that time. However, since 1997, the non PTW accidents show an overall reduction whereas the PTW accidents have continued to increase.

Figure 3-3 – Number of PTW accidents compared with non PTW accidents

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

125

130

135

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Date

Acc

iden

ts,r

elat

ive

to19

94

Non PTW accident PTW accident



Figure 3-4 – PTW accident rates 1994 – 2003 relative to 1994

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Date

PTW

acci

dent

rate

Fatal Serious Slight

Figure 3-4 looks separately at the rates of fatal, serious and slight PTW accidents since 1994. It shows that the most inconsistent accident rate is that of the fatal PTW accidents. This shows an overall increase between 1994 and 2003 and a particularly high increase between 2001 and 2003 as in 2001 the fatal PTW accident rate was the lowest it had been since 1994 and in 2003 the fatal PTW accident rate was at its highest. The serious and slight PTW accident rate shows a similar pattern to the all PTW accidents rate, a decrease between 1994 and 1999 and an overall increase since then.

Figure 3-5 – PTW accident rates since 1994

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Year

PTW

Acci

dent

Rat

e

Motorway Single A-road Dual A-Road

Figure 3-5 shows the PTW accident rates since1994 for the three different road types. There was a small drop in the PTW accident rate on single carriageway A-roads between 1998 and 1999, and since then the PTW accident rate on single A-roads has been slightly more irregular although not again reaching the 1998 accident rate.



4 Comparison of motorcycle accidents to non-motorcycle accidents

4.1 Accident location

Table 4-1 shows that PTW accidents are more likely than non PTW accidents to occur on A Roads. When the length of each type of road on the network is considered it can be seen that PTW accidents are over-represented on Dual A roads and under-represented on motorways. 16% of car / PTW accidents occurred on Motorways but 46% of PTW accidents involving more than three vehicles took place on Motorways (see Table B. 1) .

Single carriageway A-roads have the highest percentage of severe PTW accidents (ie those involving fatal or serious injury), and dual carriageway A-roads have the lowest. PTW accidents involving more than three vehicles were the most likely to be severe with 58% of accidents on single carriageway A-roads this category involving fatal or serious injury. PTW/car accidents have the lowest KSI percentage, 22% of PTW/car accidents on dual carriageway A-roads were accidents involving at least one KSI casualty.

Table 4-1: Accident type by road class

Road Class Motorways Dual A roads Single A roads Total

Accident type % % KSI % % KSI % % KSI No. %

No PTWs involved in accident 39% 12% 36% 13% 25% 19% 59147 100%

PTW accident 20% 35% 42% 30% 38% 39% 5749 100%

Percentage of network length (1999 network) 29% 32% 39% 100%

Total includes accidents on A-roads with unknown carriageway type. Dual carriageway includes roundabout and one-way. Table 4-2 shows the PTW accident types by junction detail. A higher percentage of PTW accidents occurred at junctions; 54%, compared with 36% for non PTW accidents. 58% of single vehicle PTW accidents occurred away from a junction and only 36% of one PTW, one car accidents. 27% of one PTW, one car accidents occurred at a roundabout.

Table 4-2: PTW accident type by junction detail

Total includes accidents with unknown junction type

Junction Detail No PTWs involved in accident PTW accident All accidents

Not at or within 20m of junction 93.3% 6.7% 39673 100%

Roundabout 85.8% 14.2% 8879 100%

T/staggered junction 86.7% 13.3% 6532 100%

Slip road 92.2% 7.8% 4869 100%

Crossroads 90.4% 9.6% 2151 100%

Multiple junction 92.4% 7.6% 407 100%

Private drive 84.3% 15.7% 1450 100%

Other junction 87.0% 13.0% 917 100%

Total 91.1% 8.9% 64896 100%

% non-junction 63% 46% 61%



Table 4-3 shows number of accidents and PTW accident rates by Highways Agency area and by Government Office Region. The pattern of data is complex and dependant on which comparison is made. The areas with the highest number of PTW accidents as a proportion of all accidents were Areas 1 and 4. The area with most PTW accidents per amount of PTW traffic was Area 7, and the area with the most PTW accidents per length of road was Area 5. The worst region for PTW accidents compared with non PTW accidents was London and the South East, the worst region for PTW accidents per PTW traffic was the Midlands and the worst region for PTW accidents per length of road was London and the South East.

Table 4-3: PTW accidents and accident rates by Area and Region

Area No PTWs involved

in accident PTW accident Total

PTW accs / PTW traffic

(PTW accs / 108 PTW km) PTW accs /

km

1 88% 12% 1727 208 0.13

2 92% 8% 3615 161 0.13

3 90% 10% 5965 178 0.27

4 88% 12% 4089 255 0.34

5 91% 9% 7185 179 0.49

6 89% 11% 4050 226 0.17

7 89% 11% 6054 396 0.23

8 92% 8% 5019 214 0.18

9 92% 8% 4365 244 0.14

10 93% 7% 7967 251 0.19

11 92% 8% 4838 276 0.20

12 93% 7% 7290 253 0.14

13 93% 7% 1250 170 0.07

14 94% 6% 1259 201 0.08

Unknown 94% 6% 223 - -

South West 91% 9% 5342 178 0.13

London and South East 90% 10% 17239 195 0.35

East 91% 9% 9069 220 0.18

Midlands 91% 9% 15257 310 0.19

North West 93% 7% 9217 236 0.15

North East 93% 7% 8549 245 0.13

Unknown 94% 6% 223 - -

Total 91% 9% 64896 228 0.19

Area 14 had a high proportion of accidents involving a PTW and 2 cars (14.1% of accidents in that compared with 5.4% overall). Area 14 also had the lowest percentage of one PTW/one car accidents, (46.5% compared with 53.6% overall). Area 13 has the highest proportion of one PTW/one car accidents and also has the lowest percentage of single PTW accidents.



4.2 Casualty types

PTW riders and passengers made up 5.9% of all casualties 2001 – 2003. In accidents involving a motorcyclist 87.4% of the casualties were PTW riders or passengers, showing their relative vulnerability compared to the people in the other vehicles in the accident

85% of motorcycle user casualties were male motorcycle drivers, but only 2% were male motorcycle passengers.

Table 4-4 displays the ages of PTW riders who were involved in accidents by casualty injury. This table does not include PTW passengers or any pedestrians. Not all the riders included were casualties, as shown in the ‘uninjured’ column, but they were all drivers in accidents where at least one person (perhaps from another involved vehicle) was injured. The PTW driver age groups with the largest number of accidents were 31-35 and 36-40. Each of these age groups accounted for 16% of accident involved PTW drivers.

Table 4-4: PTW rider age by casualty injury

Age group Killed Seriously injured

Slightly injured

Total Injured

% of Injured Uninjured

Total riders

% of total

1 - 15 3 3 >1% 3 0%

16 - 20 11 159 536 706 13% 34 740 13%

21 - 25 19 137 385 541 10% 31 572 10%

26 - 30 25 244 462 731 13% 47 778 13%

31 - 35 34 296 581 911 17% 58 969 16%

36 - 40 45 293 547 885 16% 58 943 16%

41 - 45 27 195 424 646 12% 40 686 12%

46 - 50 21 159 260 440 8% 28 468 8%

51 - 55 11 93 189 293 5% 21 314 5%

56 - 60 7 47 100 154 3% 10 164 3%

61 - 85 4 31 91 126 2% 9 135 2%

Unknown 2 26 53 81 1% 55 136 2%

Total 206 1680 3631 5517 100% 391 5908 100%

2% of all drivers involved in accidents failed breath tests. 1% of PTW drivers involved in accidents failed the breath test.

4.3 Skidding

The STATS19 report combines the categories of skidding, jack knifing and overturning, making direct comparisons difficult in some circumstances. However overall 36% of PTW accidents fell into this category, while 53% of accidents without a PTW did so. Single vehicle accidents were the most likely to involve skidding, with 52% reported to have involved skidding compared with 24% accidents with a PTW and one car (see Table 4-5).

Only 2% of single vehicle PTW accidents occurred when, in the opinion of the police officer who filed the report, the road surface was defective.



Table 4-5: PTW accident type by skidding of PTW

Skidding No skidding, jack-

knifing, overturning Some skidding, jack

knifing or overturning Unknown Total

PTW accident type % % % No. %

Single PTW only 48% 52% 1290 100%

Single PTW and a pedestrian 74% 26% 42 100%

One PTW, one pedal cycle 68% 32% 19 100%

Two PTWs 75% 25% 130 100%

One PTW, one car 75% 24% >1% 3079 100%

One PTW, one bus 85% 15% 13 100%

One PTW, one LGV 69% 31% 214 100%

One PTW, one HGV 70% 30% >1% 222 100%

One PTW, one other vehicle 58% 40% 2% 62 100%

2 cars and a PTW 69% 31% 313 100%

Other 3 vehicle PTW accident 63% 37% 298 100%

PTW accident involving >3 vehs 69% 31% 226 100%

Total 68% 32% >1% 5908 100%

4.4 Conditions at time of accident

Slightly more PTW accidents happen at the weekend with 29% of PTW accidents compared with 25% for non PTW accidents. For single PTW accidents the proportion is higher. Time of day for PTW accidents follows the same pattern as for accidents involving other vehicles. However, as would be expected, most PTW accidents occur during the summer months and in daylight conditions, when the weather is was fine and road conditions dry.

4.5 Size of PTW

The increase in PTW registrations is greatest for large bikes (500cc and over). Almost half (49%) of PTW accidents between 2001 and 2003 involved a bike over 500cc

Accidents involving larger machines are more likely to be fatal or serious. It might be expected that large bikes would be over-represented in single vehicle accidents. However, overall about 22% of accidents to all sizes of PTW are single vehicle accidents and this percentage is fairly constant over all sizes of bike. More PTW accidents occur on A-roads than motorways but the pattern is the same for large and small bikes.



5 Single Vehicle PTW accidents

5.1 Summary

Single vehicle accidents accounted for 22% of all motorcycle accidents (1290 accidents in three years), and 2.0% of all accidents. This type of accident has a high severity; 44% of these accidents were fatal or serious. Additional details can be found in Appendix C.

Single PTW only accidents of all severities were most common on Dual carriageway A-roads

12% of those injured were passengers. 37% of PTW passengers were killed or seriously injured compared with 43% of riders.

18% of PTW driver casualties were aged 31-35 and 17% were aged 36-40

In 83% of single PTW accidents the PTW concerned was a motorcycle over 125cc. Motorcycles over 125cc also formed a higher percentage of the more severe accidents.

The PTW was most likely to be ‘going ahead other’ (50%), going ahead left hand bend (18%) and going ahead right hand bend (13%). The accidents involving manoeuvring around bends were very high severity; over half of these accidents were fatal or serious.

85% of fatal single PTW accident involved the PTW leaving the carriageway.

75% of single PTW only accidents occurred on dry roads, mostly in summer. However, 52% involved the PTW skidding.

Fatal PTW accidents were more likely away from a junction.

5.2 Accident location

Single PTW accidents, like all PTW accidents are distributed across the network. However they are more likely to occur on Dual A-roads while PTW accidents involving another road user are more likely to occur on Single A-roads.

Motorways have the highest percentage of KSI single PTW accidents, and single carriageway A-roads have the highest number of KSI other PTW accidents (see Table 5-1). Overall 5% of these accidents involved a fatality.

Table 5-1: Accident type by road class

Road Class Motorways Dual A roads Single A roads Total

Accident type % % KSI % % KSI % % KSI No. %

Single PTW accident 25% 48% 48% 42% 27% 43% 1290 100%

Other PTW accident 18% 30% 40% 26% 42% 38% 4459 100%

Total includes accidents on A-roads with unknown carriageway type. Dual carriageway includes roundabout and one-way.

Motorways have the highest severity ratio, with 48% of motorway single PTW accidents involving a KSI casualty.

Table 5-2 shows PTW accident type by junction detail. It shows that single vehicle accidents were less likely to be at junctions and more likely to be fatal or serious.



Table 5-2: PTW accident type by junction detail

Single PTW accident Other PTW accident

Junction Detail number % %ksi number % %ksi

Not at or within 20m of junction 754 58% 47% 1902 43% 38%

Roundabout 252 20% 37% 1007 23% 16%

T/staggered junction 91 7% 40% 779 17% 34%

Slip road 152 12% 36% 227 5% 34%

Crossroads 11 1% 45% 195 4% 42%

Multiple junction 2 0% 0% 29 1% 17%

Private drive 9 1% 67% 219 5% 37%

Other junction 19 1% 53% 101 2% 37%

Total 1290 100% 44% 4459 100% 32%

Total includes accidents with unknown junction type Table 5-4 shows number of accidents and PTW accident rates by area. The area with the highest number of multiple user PTW accidents compared with the number of single PTW accidents was Area 13. The area with the highest number of single PTW accidents compared with multi user PTW accidents was area 4.

London and the South East show the highest proportion of single PTW accidents compared with multi user PTW accidents.



Table 5-4: PTW accidents and accident rates by Area and Region

Area Single PTW accs Other PTW accident Total PTW accs

1 21% 80% 200

2 20% 80% 293

3 26% 74% 592

4 28% 72% 500

5 24% 76% 640

6 25% 75% 434

7 24% 76% 672

8 18% 82% 410

9 21% 79% 357

10 20% 80% 560

11 21% 79% 397

12 19% 81% 524

13 16% 84% 86

14 23% 77% 71

Unknown 23% 77% 13

South West 20% 80% 493

London and South East 26% 74% 1732

East 21% 79% 844

Midlands 23% 77% 1426

North West 20% 80% 646

North East 20% 80% 595

Unknown 23% 77% 13

Total 78% 22% 5749

5.3 Skidding

Just over half of single PTW only accidents involved the PTW skidding, compared with 27% of multi user PTW accidents (see Table 4-5 in section 4), but only 2% of these accidents occurred when, in the opinion of the police officer who filed the report, the road surface was defective.

5.4 Conditions at time of accident

Single vehicle accidents followed the same pattern as all PTW accidents in occurring in daylight, good conditions and in summer.

5.5 Casualty types

Casualties in single PTW accidents made up 23% of all PTW user casualties 2001-2003. . Male riders are more likely than female riders to be killed or seriously injured (45% compared to 24%: see Table 5-5 ). Riders were more likely to be killed or seriously injured in single vehicle accidents than



passengers (43% of riders; 37% of passengers) and only 12% of those injured in single PTW accidents were passengers. This may be due to a number of reasons, for example, riders being more careful when they have passengers.

Table 5-5: Casualty class / sex by injury of PTW riders and passengers (single PTW accidents)

Casualty injury Total

Casualty class Sex Killed Seriously

injured Slightly injured Number %

Female 4% 20% 75% 114 100%

Male 5% 40% 55% 1126 100% Rider

Unknown 100% 2 100%

Rider Total 5% 38% 57% 1242 100%

Female 3% 35% 62% 117 100% Pillion passenger

Male 2% 30% 68% 53 100%

Pillion passenger Total 3% 34% 64% 170 100%

Figure 5-1 shows the percentage of PTW rider casualties involved in single vehicle accidents by age group; the largest groups were in the 31-35 and 36-40 bands. These two age groups were also the largest age group categories for all PTW rider casualties.

Figure 5-1 – Percentage of rider casualties involved in single PTW accidents by age group

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

11-15

16- 20

21- 25

26- 30

31- 35

36- 40

41- 45

46- 50

51- 55

56- 60

61- 65

66- 70

71- 75

76- 80

81- 85

Unkno

wn

Rider age

Perc

enta

geof

rider

sin

volv

edin

anac

cide

nt

In 83% of single PTW accidents the PTW concerned was a motorcycle over 125cc. Motorcycles over 125cc also formed a higher percentage of the more severe accidents. 94% of fatal accidents involved a motorcycle over 125cc whereas they made up 79% of slight accidents (see Table 5-6)1 .

1 More information about the relationships between size of PTW and accidents was given in section 4.5



Table 5-6: PTW type by casualty injury

Casualty injury Killed Seriously injured Slightly injured Total

Moped 2% 4% 47 3%

Motor cycle 125cc and under 6% 10% 16% 188 13%

Motor cycle over 125cc 94% 88% 79% 1177 83%

Total 100% 100% 100% 1412 100%

5.6 Manoeuvre at time of accident

Table 5-7 shows the manoeuvres of the PTWs in single vehicle accidents. The most common manoeuvres were ‘going ahead other’ (50%), going ahead left hand bend (18%) and going ahead right hand bend (13%). The accidents involving PTWs manoeuvring around bends were very high severity; over half of these accidents were fatal or serious.

Table 5-7: Vehicle manoeuvre by severity of single PTW accident

Accident severity Fatal Serious Slight Total % KSI

Changing lane 3% 3% 4% 43 3% 35%

Going ahead - LH bend 37% 19% 16% 231 18% 51%

Going ahead - other 38% 51% 51% 648 50% 43%

Going ahead - RH bend 12% 16% 11% 166 13% 52%

Overtaking vehicle on o/s 6% 3% 3% 43 3% 44%

Overtaking on nearside 0% 0% 1% 8 1% 13%

Starting 0% 0% 0% 3 0% 67%

Stopping 2% 4% 6% 65 5% 31%

Turning left 2% 2% 4% 45 3% 29%

Turning right + waiting to turn right 0% 2% 3% 34 3% 26%

U-turn 0% 0% 0% 3 0% 33%

Waiting to go ahead, held up 0% 0% 0% 1 0% 100%

Number 65 498 727 1290 - 563 Total

Percentage 100% 100% 100% - 100% 44%

85% of fatal single PTW accident involved the PTW leaving the carriageway, but this occurred in only 34% of slight accidents.

For this accident type 22% of fatal accidents and 13% of serious accidents involved the PTW hitting a kerb (hit object in carriageway). If the PTW left the carriageway the most likely object for it to hit was a crash barrier.



6 Accidents involving a PTW and another road user

6.1 Accidents involving a PTW and a Vulnerable Road User

These are accidents involving another PTW, a pedestrian or a pedal cycle. They make up a small minority of PTW accidents (65 were two PTW, 68 involved a pedestrian and 19 involved a pedal cycle). Most were on A roads with the majority of accidents occurring at junctions. Extra information about these accidents are given in Appendix D and Appendix E

6.2 Accidents involving one PTW and one car

This is the largest category of PTW accidents, accounting for 3,079 accidents (53.6% of all PTW accidents). This is 4.7% of all accidents. PTW/car accident casualties make up 7.0% of all accident KSI casualties, of which 97.2% are motorcycle riders or passengers. 56% of PTW rider casualties involved in these accidents were aged 26-45. 15 of the 49 killed motorcycle riders were aged 36-40. Tables giving more detail are given in Appendix F.

25% of these accidents involved a PTW striking a car which was turning right or waiting to turn right, and in 16% of these accidents the PTW was overtaking the car it struck.

A high proportion (52%) of KSI accidents occurred on a single carriageway trunk A-road, compared with 15% on Motorways. Severity of accidents was highest on single carriageway A roads

Roundabouts may be problematical for PTWs. 27% of PTW/car accidents occurred at roundabouts (this is 42% of junction accidents of this type). However accidents at crossroads were the most severe of the junction accidents with 39% resulting in a killed or serious injured casualty

Accidents where the PTW was going ahead, left hand bend were among the most severe with 50% involving at least one killed or seriously injured casualty. However severity when the car was going ahead on a right hand bend was also high (44% KSI)

55% of PTW/car accidents involved the motorcycle’s first point of impact being the front of the motorcycle. 566 of the 3079 accidents involved the motorcycle’s first point of impact being front and the car’s first point of impact being its offside. Of this 566, 73% were at junctions and 40% involved the car turning right.

For the 542 shunt-type interactions, where the front of the PTW hit the rear of the car, 45% occurred at junctions, compared with 71% at junctions where the front of the car hit the rear of the PTW. For the latter type, 49% occurred within 20m of a roundabout. For the head-on collisions, 43% involved the car turning right and 69% were within 20m of a junction.

Most accidents occurred in summer, in daylight and on dry roads. Only 24% involved skidding

6.3 Accidents involving one PTW and another vehicle (non-car)

Between 2001 and 2003 here were 13 accidents involving a PTW and a bus, 214 involving a PTW and an LGV, and 222 involving a PTW and an HGV. Tables relating to these accidents can be found in Appendix G and Appendix H. There were 62 accidents involving a PTW and an ‘other’ vehicle. These include, ridden horses, agricultural vehicles, tram/light rail, other non-motorised vehicle and other motorised vehicles. Tables relating to these accidents can be found in Appendix I. Like the accidents involving cars the majority of these took place in daylight and in dry conditions.

Unlike the car accidents, those involving HGVs were more likely to occur on weekdays than at weekends. These accidents were also slightly more likely than accidents involving cars to occur in autumn and winter.

Accidents involving HGVs and LGVs were slightly less likely than those involving cars to occur at junctions (PTW/car – 64%; PTW/LGV – 56%; PTW/HGV – 49%)



While most accidents in all categories involved both vehicles ‘going ahead – other’ levels of overtaking and right turn accidents were similar to the situation in car accidents. 14% of PTWs involved in HGV accidents were overtaking moving vehicles on the offside and 14% of HGVs were turning right.

6.4 Accidents involving three or more vehicles (including a PTW)

There were 313 PTW/2 car accidents 2001-2003 and 230 accidents involving a PTW and two other vehicles, not both cars (tables relating to these accidents can be found in Appendix K). a further 200 accidents involved more than 3 vehicles as well as the PTW (see Appendix L) These are 5.4%, 4% and 3% respectively of all PTW accidents.

They mostly took place on single carriageway A roads. Accidents involving the PTW overtaking and accidents at junctions were the most likely to result in severe injury.

Like other PTW accidents these took place largely in dry conditions in daylight.

7 Routes/sites for further study The basic analyses described in Section 4 to Section 6 were supplemented by further analysis to identify routes where more detailed analyses using contributory factors data could be undertaken.

Appendix M shows maps generated using GIS software. Maps have been produced based on accident data 1999 – 2003 showing:-

Percentage of accidents involving at least one PTW

Percentage of KSI accidents involving at least one PTW

PTW accidents per km

KSI PTW accidents per km

PTW accidents per PTW traffic

KSI PTW accidents per PTW traffic

Non junction PTW accidents per km

The GIS maps show that each route scores differently depending on which indicator is used. For example, the section of M1 between junction 7 and junction 9, is in the worst (black) category on the “Non-junction KSI PTW accidents per km 1999 – 2003” map, yet is in the yellow (second from top category) on the “Percentage of accidents involving a PTW” map. Also, the A63 from the A1(M) to Selby is highlighted as being one of the bottom (black) routes when PTW accidents per PTW traffic is used, but comes out as one of the top (yellow) routes if the number of non-junction KSI PTW accidents per km of road is looked at.

Routes with clusters of PTW accidents were identified using MAAP, with accidents weighted according to severity. The analysis was used to find junction and non-junction clusters with the highest scores. The findings from the cluster analysis were combined with the information from the geoconcept maps to find routes that consistently scored high.

The final routes selected for further analysis are shown in Table 7-1.



Table 7-1: Routes for further analysis

Route No. accs No. PTW accs

A19 Thisk to Tyne Tunnel 1305 57

A52 area 7 977 113

A12 area 6 1476 154

A5 area 8 722 146

M2 + A2 area 4 1270 157

A26 area 4 74 17

A27 area 4 1666 205

Agents for the Areas in which these routes fell were requested to supply accident data which included the contributory factors information. On road observations were also undertaken by an experienced motorcycle rider using the TRL DataBike. This allowed a video record to be obtained on the A52 and audio commentary on the A12 and A5.

7.1 Assessment of the A52 area 7

7.1.1 Accidents

The A52 between Derby and Grantham was chosen because it scored poorly in the PTW junction accident cluster analysis and the categories PTW accidents per km, KSI PTW accidents per km, KSI PTW accidents per PTW traffic, non junction KSI PTW accidents per km and percentage of KSI accidents that involve a PTW.

The A52 has a higher percentage of PTW accidents happening at roundabouts than the country as a whole. Clusters are particularly at the A453 junction near Willford and a large number of the A52 PTW accidents occur between this junction and the A52 / A6007 / Derby Road roundabout near Bramcote. Monday is the most frequent day for accidents on this route.

The most common precipitating factor was found to be “failed to avoid vehicle / object”. The most common contributory factors were: wrong course positioning; slippery roads; changing lanes negligently and losing control.

7.1.2 Video observations on A52

The TRL Databike was ridden along the A52 between Derby and Grantham. The route was ridden several times in each direction, and always at around midday in dry conditions. It was noted that the speed limit along the route varies from 40–70mph and there are several multi-junctions, roundabouts and traffic lights.

One thing that stood out on the Eastern stretch of the route was the volume of farm traffic, which caused long tailbacks. Although this can cause frustration in car drivers there were plenty of opportunities for motorcycles to pass safely, as the road was generally quite wide.

Figure 7-1: Single carriageway heading east into Nottingham



The A52 passes through the counties of Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire, Lincolnshire and Derbyshire, however there were no obvious differences in road environment as county boundaries were crossed.

Particular attention was paid to the roundabout between the A52 and the A6007 at Bramcote. This roundabout is a light controlled ‘hamburger’ roundabout which has a huge number of signs on the approach. These signs could be confusing, particularly to people unfamiliar to the area. Large tailbacks were present and caused problems for the circulating traffic. This would also cause problems for those drivers unfamiliar to the area.

The junction between the A52 and the A453 was also looked at in detail. It was found to be offset, busy and complicated. Traffic levels were high due to Nottingham City Centre, West Midlands Airport and the M1 all being nearby. It was noted that there were particular dangers for the eastbound traffic as this encounters a fast, downhill, right hand bend, passing under the main carriageway immediately after a number of lane changes. The route under the carriageway is between concrete walls and has a speed limit of 70mph.

7.1.3 Discussion

Accident clusters at one of the roundabouts on this route would appear to be associated with provision of complex signing. For a PTW rider the need to take in complex sign information at the same time as maintaining awareness of surrounding traffic and possibly weaving through slower moving vehicles may add to the likelihood of collision. The other main junction accident site was associated with another complex junction, which also requires lane changes on the approach.


The A12 is trunk between Brentwood and Ipswich and Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. The section between Ipswich and Lowestoft is not trunk.

7.2.1 Accidents

Brentwood to Ipswich The A12 between Brentwood and Ipswich was one of the worst sections when PTW accidents per PTW traffic was considered.

This section of the A12 has a high number of PTW accidents involving HGVs. There was a jump in the number of PTW accidents between 2001 and 2002. Contributory factors found to be most common on this route were: poor judgement of other vehicles; poor lane discipline and skidding / losing control.

Lowestoft to Great Yarmouth This section of A12 was chosen for further study because it scored poorly in PTW accidents per km, KSI PTW accidents per km, KSI PTW accidents per PTW traffic, non junction KSI PTW accidents per km and percentage of KSI accidents that involve a PTW. It was also one of the worst routes found from the PTW junction accidents cluster analysis.

The A12 between Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth has a large number of PTW accidents involving young riders (16-20 years old) happening on it. Saturday and Sunday had the fewest PTW accidents.

Figure 7-2: Travelling east towards A52/A6007 roundabout



Contributory factors found to be common on this route were: changing lane without due care; inattentive or attention diverted; losing control and turning right injudiciously.

7.2.2 Commentary ride A12

Brentwood to Ipswich The route was ridden in both directions and at least twice.

The whole route has a speed limit of 70mph and is mostly unlit 2 lane dual carriageway, although there are some stretches of 3 lane dual carriageway. Where the carriageway changes from 2 lane to 3 lane and back again there were inevitable lane changes and one of these was on top of a junction access. This could cause problems for the unwary or those unfamiliar with the area.

The road surface was mostly concrete, which was in good condition but it was noted that the condition of the tarmac sections was often below the standard acceptable to motorcyclists.

There was a high proportion of HGV and LGV traffic along this route, and it was observed that traffic flows were busy even at midday. The weather was warm and dry throughout the survey, but there were strong winds.

The route was virtually all through open countryside, with long flowing curves and unexpectedly long hills. The hills were steep enough to have an effect on the heavier lorries.

There are many slip roads along this road, both accessing and exiting. These were all signed well in advance and all entry slips had long acceleration lanes.

Lesser side turnings had poor vision and no acceleration facility but were very narrow and appeared insignificant.

There are many Gatso calibration stripes in the road which frequently resulted in late and firm braking, often down to 60mph. This then caused bunching of the traffic. However, no cameras were seen.

Numerous slippery road warning signs and the occasional pedestrian warning sign were seen, although no pedestrians were spotted and there was no clear reason for the slippery road signs. People familiar with the area may dismiss these signs.

Two lower powered two wheelers were noticed by the Databike rider and these appeared to be very vulnerable. They were travelling at around 45mph, slower than the lorries.

A large number of drivers were not observing the two second rule. This bunching appears to have been exaggerated by the recent strict enforcement of speed limits.



Lowestoft to Great Yarmouth The section of A12 between Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth was ridden in dry conditions with little wind. It is a mix of urban, rural and open road, some single, some dual, with sections covering every speed limit from 30mph to 70mph. Some of this route was lit, some was not. There are numerous side

turnings, entrances and crossing points, although all were signed well.

Through Lowestoft the, single carriageway, A12 has a speed limit of 30mph as it is in a built up area with pedestrian crossings and numerous side turnings. The route then heads North out of Lowestoft where the speed limit increases to 40mph. Shortly after leaving Lowestoft the road widens to dual carriageway and the national speed limit applies.

The single carriageway was wide enough for lorries to pass each other, but not wide enough for two vehicles to pass each other should a third vehicle be parked at the side of the road.

Traffic levels were found to be high, although congestion was not encountered.

There was a lot of commuter traffic around both Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth although this did not seem to be the case on the A12 between them. Local journeys seemed more common as many vehicles emerged from side turnings. A significant number of small motorcycles and scooters were observed around the two towns, possibly being used for short commuter journies.

There are several roundabout on this stretch of A12 and all were found to be potentially high speed as they were wide and well surfaced. The roundabouts were very well sign posted, both on the approach and at the point of entry. No major roads were crossed so the cross traffic at these roundabouts was light.

A number of the roundabouts on the outskirts of Lowestoft had pedestrian operated lights in the vicinity of the roundabout which looked as if they could give the impression that the roundabout was light controlled.

There were many crossing points through the dual carriageway which appear to be intended for gaining access to farmland. No-one was seen using these crossing points during the trial, however they may be a potential danger.

7.2.3 Discussion

On the Brentwood to Ipswich section of this route the relatively high incidence of accidents involving a PTW and an HGV would appear to reflect the high HGV flows, rather than any specific road features.

On the Lowestoft to Great Yarmouth section, some of which was travelled during the morning peak, the use of smaller PTWs (small motorcycles and scooters) was evident. These may be used for commuting, explaining in part why accident levels on this stretch, unlike other areas of the network, were at lower levels at weekends.



For both these stretches of the A12 it would seem that accident levels may be high because of exposure issues (more HGVs, and commuting using PTWs) rather than because of road environment features.


7.3.1 Accidents

The A5 between M1 junction 9 and Rugby has a large percentage of accidents involving PTWs it also scored poorly in the PTW junction accidents cluster analysis.

Most of the accident clusters on this route lie on the stretch between the M1 (junction 9) and slightly to the north of Dunstable. A large percentage of the PTW accidents on this route take place at T-junctions

7.3.2 Commentary ride A5

The A5 between M1 junction 9 and Rugby was ridden in the dry on a cold, windy morning. It is mostly single carriageway with a stretch of dual running past Milton Keynes. The A5 runs through Dunstable and Towester as well as several less built up areas. Since the route parallels the M1 it is likely that much of the traffic for which it was initially designed now uses the M1. However, the route is clearly an alternative to the M1 and may be used differentially by PTWs. It could also be a route to the Donnington and Mallory racing circuits.

The two way sections were all very wide so overtaking between lines of traffic was possible for PTWs but this practice has been discouraged by cross-hatching. The road surface was of an acceptable condition throughout and all junctions offered good vision for both inward and outward traffic, as did the slip roads on the dual carriageway. However speeding is likely to be an issue with the straight road and good surface.

The open country sections were not lit but all road edges were well defined and much of the surface was new. Many lay-bys were located on fast, open stretches of road and these were often preceded by heavy brake marks on the road.

There were multiple slippery road signs, for which there appeared to be no specific reason, as well as signs warning of farm machinery, wild animals, pedestrians and schools.

Travelling at the speed limit this route should cause no problems, however, the width of the road and the fact that it is virtually straight mean that some people may be tempted to speed. This may be the reason for the level of T junction accidents, as drivers emerging from side roads may misjudge the speed of approaching traffic, especially PTW.

At the southern end of the routes, close to the M1, traffic levels were higher and there was significant pedestrian activity, with a mix of traffic signalled junctions and pedestrian lights in the built up area. Wide roads here may also encourage speeding and weaving by PTWs

Overall, despite the fact that the observations were carried out largely out of the peak periods, a number of PTWs were seen on the route.



7.3.3 Discussion

This route had a high junction accident rate which may be related to the potential for high speeds on much of it. Changes to behaviour is needed to encourage better observation by road users on the major road and those emerging from side roads. Vehicles emerging from the side road may fail to see a PTW in the distance, and even where the PTW is seen its speed may not be recognised. This is a matter for training in observation skills for drivers and understanding of the need for defensive driving by riders of PTWs.

The traffic levels when the route was ridden were generally low (except at the southern end), but several PTWs were seen, suggesting that they may choose to use the A5 here rather than the parallel M1. This may also be a reason for the fact that the overall level of PTW accidents is high relative to

other routes.

At the southern end of the route the accident clusters are likely to be related to the overall higher traffic levels and mixed traffic and pedestrians. However, the potential for conflict will be increased if PTWs take the opportunities available to weave through traffic. With the higher level of traffic it is possible that such behaviour could increase the risk of conflicts and collisions.



8 Conclusions and discussion PTW accidents are increasing, against a downward trend for accidents involving other road users. This is partly due to the increasing number of PTWs on the roads. Riders and passengers of PTWs are particularly vulnerable and the injury severity is high for these people. The analysis has shown that 9% of all accidents on the network between 1994 and 2003 involved a PTW. Of these 35% sere fatal or serious compared with 14% of non-PTW accidents over the same period. 23.5% of PTW accidents were single vehicle accidents and 42% of these were fatal or serious. Of the PTW accidents involving other vehicles 32% were KSI.

In general PTW accidents occur on all road types on the trunk road network but, compared to the length of roads, they are more likely occur on single carriageway parts of the network. Most (87%) of those involved are male, and the 30-40 age group have the highest number of accidents. Fridays are the worst day for accidents overall, but for single vehicle accidents the worst day is Sunday, suggesting that recreational riding is a factor here. Most accidents are in the summer, and most accidents occur in daylight, in fine weather, on dry roads.

Over half the PTWs involved in single vehicle accidents have skidded, though only a very small number of these accidents are at sites where the police reported that the road surface was defective. This suggests that the skid may be a result of rider error rather than external conditions. It should be noted that PTWs are more sensitive to road surface conditions than other vehicles and if the police officer is not a motorcyclist there may be under-reporting of the surface problems which could affect PTWs. However, the incidence of skidding in single vehicle accidents is still high, and education/training for motorcyclists to avoid this could have significant benefits.

The increase in PTW registrations has been greatest for large bikes (500cc and over). Almost half (49%) of PTW accidents between 2001 and 2003 involved a bike over 500cc. Accidents involving larger machines are more likely to be fatal or serious. It might be expected that large bikes would be over-represented in single vehicle accidents. However, overall about 22% of accidents to all sizes of PTW are single vehicle accidents and this percentage is fairly constant over all sizes of bike.

In 25% of accidents involving a car and a PTW the PTW struck a car which was turning right or waiting to turn right, and in 16% of these accidents the PTW was overtaking the car it struck.

The observation studies have shown that while there may be some specific problems for PTW drivers on trunk roads these are limited in extent. The accident ‘hot spots’ are probably related more to higher numbers of PTWs in particular areas than to road design features. This suggests that engineering measures, while important, may not provide the reduction in casualties required to meet the DfT 2010 casualty reduction targets.

However the observation studies suggest that some elements of the road environment may be more problematical for PTW riders than for other road users. The effort of reading complex signs on the approach to a junction may distract the rider from the requirement to observe surrounding traffic. This, together with the PTW’s common practice of weaving through slower moving traffic may result in collisions. It was also noted that speed limit changes and safety cameras which cause other vehicles to brake firmly when they are spotted may also have more effect on PTWs than on other vehicles.

Training for PTW riders focuses on the early riding requirements, and the only requirement is for CBT (Compulsory Basic Training) for all new riders2. Newly qualified riders are restricted to a motorcycle up to 125cc capacity for the first two years of riding. However, for riders who are least 21 years old it is possible to take a Direct Access or Accelerated Access course to proceed straight to a larger bike. In this case all riding on the larger bike is under supervision by a certified instructor.

CBT is the main method available to influence riders as the start of their riding careers. In this training the focus has to be on the basic skills required to allow a rider to drive on the roads. However the Direct Access and Accelerated Access courses which allow riders to move straight to larger machines

2 Those who obtained a full car licence before 1 February, 2001 can ride a moped, but not a motorcycle, as a learner without taking CBT.



will include the opportunity to cover many more issues relating to riding, including a greater focus on the sort of situations which may arise when riding on higher speed roads such as those which form most of the HA network. At present these courses are used only by those who wish to proceed immediately to a large PTW (over 125cc. However, one potential training opportunity would be to offer similar courses to those who do not necessarily require them into order to ride on the road.

Current training is generally taken early in a rider’s career. In order to highlight the risks of motorcycling at a later stage, publicity materials such as posters, leaflets and displays at motorcycle events are likely to be more effective.

Acknowledgements The work described in this report was carried out in the Safety Group of TRL Limited. The authors are grateful to Pat Wells who carried out the quality review and auditing of this report.

References DfT (2003). Road Casualties Great Britain: 2003 Annual Report. The Stationery Office, London



Appendix A. Trends Table A. 1: PTW traffic and accident data 1994-2003

Year Traffic (108

vehicle-km) PTW fatal accidents

PTW serious accidents

PTW slight accidents

Total PTW accidents

PTW accident rate

1994 6.34 52 481 1008 1541 243

1995 6.18 61 517 1047 1625 263

1996 6.31 58 449 1022 1529 242

1997 6.94 60 522 1128 1710 246

1998 7.43 69 517 1137 1723 232

1999 8.16 80 557 1117 1754 215

2000 8.01 74 577 1249 1900 237

2001 8.21 68 533 1145 1746 213

2002 8.22 73 596 1335 2004 244

2003 8.85 93 624 1282 1999 226

Publ

ishe

dPr

ojec

tRep

ort

Ver

sion

Fina

l

TRL

Lim

ited

29PP

R16

1

App

endi

xB

.C

ompa

riso

nbe

twee

nno

n-PT

Wac

cide

ntsa

ndPT

Wac

cide

nts

Tabl

eB

.1:P

TWac

cide

ntty

peby

road

clas

sand

seve

rity

Roa

dcl

ass

Mot

orw

ayA

-dua

lA

-sin

gle

Acc

iden

ttyp

eFa

tal

Seri

ous

Slig

htFa

tal

Seri

ous

Slig

htFa

tal

Seri

ous

Slig

htTo

tal

No

PTW

sinv

olve

din

acci

dent

0.7%

4.1%

34.3

%0.

7%3.

9%31

.3%

0.9%

3.8%

20.2

%59

147

100.

0%

Sing

lePT

Won

ly1.

4%10

.5%

12.8

%2.

6%17

.5%

28.1

%0.

9%10

.6%

15.5

%12

9010

0.0%

Sing

lePT

Wan

dpe

dest

rian

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

7.1%

9.5%

19.0

%7.

1%7.

1%50

.0%

4210

0.0%

PTW

/ped

alcy

cle

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

0.0%

21.1

%26

.3%

5.3%

15.8

%31

.6%

1910

0.0%

Two

PTW

s1.

5%9.

2%6.

2%0.

0%13

.8%

23.1

%1.

5%18

.5%

26.2

%65

100.

0%

PTW

/Car

0.4%

4.0%

11.7

%0.

4%8.

7%32

.5%

1.0%

13.7

%27

.2%

3079

100.

0%

PTW

/Bus

0.0%

0.0%

7.7%

0.0%

0.0%

23.1

%0.

0%15

.4%

53.8

%13

100.

0%

PTW

/LG

V1.

4%5.

6%11

.7%

1.9%

7.9%

30.4

%2.

8%10

.7%

27.6

%21

410

0.0%

PTW

/HG

V1.

4%4.

1%13

.1%

1.8%

21.6

%22

.5%

2.7%

14.0

%18

.9%

222

100.

0%

PTW

/oth

erve

hicl

e0.

0%4.

8%4.

8%1.

6%8.

1%27

.4%

1.6%

21.0

%30

.6%

6210

0.0%

PTW

/2ca

rs1.

0%7.

3%17

.6%

1.0%

7.7%

23.6

%5.

1%14

.1%

22.7

%31

310

0.0%

Oth

er3

veh

PTW

acc

1.7%

5.2%

13.5

%1.

3%11

.3%

20.9

%7.

4%19

.1%

19.6

%23

010

0.0%

PTW

/2or

mor

eot

herv

ehs

6.0%

11.5

%28

.5%

2.5%

10.5

%12

.5%

6.0%

10.5

%12

.0%

200

100.

0%

All

acci

dent

s0.

7%4.

2%32

.4%

0.8%

4.5%

31.1

%1.

0%4.

6%20

.5%

6489

610

0.0%

Publ

ishe

dPr

ojec

tRep

ort

Ver

sion

Fina

l

TRL

Lim

ited

30PP

R16

1

Tabl

eB

.2:A

rea

byPT

Wac

cide

ntty

pe,l

arge

rca

tego

ries

only

PTW

acc

type

Sing

lePT

Won

lyPT

W/C

arPT

W/L

GV

PTW

/HG

VPT

W/2

Car

sO

ther

3ve

hicl

ePT

Wac

cide

ntPT

W/2

orm

ore

othe

rve

hicl

esTo

tal

Are

aN

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%N

o.%

No.

%

141

20.5

%11

859

.0%

31.

5%9

4.5%

84.

0%4

2.0%

52.

5%20

010

0%

259

20.1

%15

853

.9%

175.

8%14

4.8%

186.

1%13

4.4%

93.

1%29

310

0%

315

225

.7%

299

50.5

%20

3.4%

183.

0%46

7.8%

111.

9%34

5.7%

592

100%

413

927

.8%

240

48.0

%22

4.4%

204.

0%20

4.0%

255.

0%16

3.2%

500

100%

515

223

.8%

310

48.4

%23

3.6%

253.

9%53

8.3%

284.

4%29

4.5%

640

100%

610

724

.7%

230

53.0

%14

3.2%

153.

5%21

4.8%

204.

6%10

2.3%

434

100%

716

424

.4%

359

53.4

%21

3.1%

182.

7%20

3.0%

416.

1%12

1.8%

672

100%

872

17.6

%24

259

.0%

225.

4%19

4.6%

194.

6%10

2.4%

112.

7%41

010

0%

975

21.0

%20

958

.5%

133.

6%12

3.4%

154.

2%9

2.5%

143.

9%35

710

0%

1011

220

.0%

314

56.1

%24

4.3%

132.

3%35

6.3%

223.

9%22

3.9%

560

100%

1182

20.7

%21

353

.7%

184.

5%27

6.8%

123.

0%17

4.3%

143.

5%39

710

0%

1210

219

.5%

298

56.9

%14

2.7%

254.

8%30

5.7%

203.

8%19

3.6%

524

100%

1314

16.3

%51

59.3

%2

2.3%

67.

0%3

3.5%

55.

8%1

1.2%

8610

0%

1416

22.5

%33

46.5

%1

1.4%

11.

4%10

14.1

%4

5.6%

45.

6%71

100%

Unk

now

n3

23.1

%5

38.5

%0.

0%0.

0%3

23.1

%1

7.7%

0.0%

1310

0%

Tota

l12

9022

.4%

3079

53.6

%21

43.

7%22

23.

9%31

35.

4%23

04.

0%20

03.

5%57

4910

0%



Figure B. 1: Percentage of PTWs involved in KSI accidents by engine size

19.3%

26.4%

35.7% 36.4%

40.8% 39.5%

31.2%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

< 51 51 - 125 126 - 500 501 - 700 701 - 1000 1000+ UnknownPTW engine size

%of

vehi

cles

invo

lved

ina

KS

Iacc

iden

t

Table B.3: PTW accident type by PTW engine size (percentages)

Engine size of PTW <51 51 - 125 126 - 500 501 - 700 701 - 1000 >1000 Unknown Total

Single PTW only 3% 12% 11% 24% 27% 12% 11% 1290 100%

Single PTW and pedestrian 17% 12% 19% 17% 12% 2% 21% 42 100%

PTW / pedal cycle 16% 11% 5% 32% 5% 5% 26% 19 100%

2 PTWs 8% 8% 9% 20% 32% 11% 13% 130 100%

PTW / Car 8% 13% 10% 23% 24% 11% 10% 3079 100%

PTW / Bus 31% 8% 8% 23% 23% 8% 0% 13 100%

PTW / LGV 9% 14% 5% 27% 23% 11% 11% 214 100%

PTW / HGV 7% 13% 12% 23% 22% 10% 13% 222 100%

PTW / other vehicle 11% 16% 5% 16% 24% 21% 6% 62 100%

PTW / 2 cars 5% 9% 8% 30% 23% 13% 12% 313 100%

Other 3 veh PTW 6% 5% 9% 28% 26% 12% 15% 298 100%

PTW / 2 or more other vehs 4% 6% 8% 21% 23% 23% 15% 226 100%



Table B. 4: Casualty class and injury (PTW riders and passengers) by engine size of PTW

Casualty Class PTW engine size <51 51 - 125 126 - 500 501 - 700 701 - 1000 >1000 Unknown

Killed 2% 2% 3% 4% 4% 4% 3%

Seriously injured 17% 23% 29% 29% 32% 29% 25% Rider

Slightly injured 79% 72% 61% 60% 54% 51% 62%

Killed 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 0%

Seriously injured 1% 1% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% Passenger

Slightly injured 2% 2% 5% 5% 7% 11% 7%

All casualties 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%

Table B. 5: PTW engine size by road class

PTW engine size Motorway A - dual A - single Total

< 51 1% 48% 51% 398 100%

51 - 125 5% 50% 45% 707 100%

126 - 500 23% 42% 35% 582 100%

501 - 700 24% 40% 35% 1409 100%

701 - 1000 23% 39% 38% 1458 100%

1000+ 24% 38% 38% 697 100%

Unknown 21% 41% 37% 657 100%

All engine sizes 20% 41% 39% 5908 100%

Table B. 6: PTW engine size by junction detail

PTW engine size < 51 51 - 125 126 - 500 501 - 700 701 - 1000 1000+ Unknown Total

Not at or within 20m of a junction 32% 36% 52% 50% 47% 51% 49% 47%

Roundabout 28% 24% 19% 21% 22% 20% 19% 22%

T / Staggered 24% 20% 12% 13% 13% 14% 15% 15%

Slip road 4% 6% 7% 6% 7% 7% 7% 7%

Crossroads 5% 6% 3% 3% 3% 3% 3% 4%

Multiple junction 1% 1% 1% 0% 0% 1% 1% 1%

Private drive 4% 5% 4% 3% 5% 4% 3% 4%

Other / Unknown 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 2%

398 707 582 1409 1458 697 657 5908

Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%



Appendix C. Single PTW only accidents

Figure C. 1: Map showing distribution of single PTW only accidents on the trunk network




Table C. 1: PTW driver/rider age by casualty injury

Age group Killed Seriously Injured Slightly Injured Total % of total

11-15 1 1 0%

16 - 20 2 42 96 140 11%

21 - 25 8 34 83 125 10%

26 - 30 9 75 90 174 14%

31 - 35 12 95 120 227 18%

36 - 40 13 86 118 217 17%

41 - 45 7 50 76 133 11%

46 - 50 2 43 45 90 7%

51 - 55 3 22 34 59 5%

56 - 60 2 13 21 36 3%

61 - 65 1 6 9 16 1%

66 - 70 1 3 4 8 1%

71 - 75 2 2 0%

76 - 80 1 1 0%

81 - 85 1 1 2 0%

Unknown 3 8 11 1%

Total 60 474 708 1242 100%



Appendix D. Accidents involving two PTWs only Table D. 1: Accident severity by road class for accidents involving two PTWs

Road class A

Accident severity Motorway Dual Single Total

Fatal 1 1 2

Serious 6 9 12 27

Slight 4 15 17 36

Table D. 2: Junction detail by accident severity, accidents involving two PTWs

Junction detail Fatal Serious Slight Total

Not at or within 20m of junction 2 18 15 35

Roundabout 0 5 9 14

T/staggered junction 0 1 8 9

Slip road 0 2 1 3

Crossroads 0 0 1 1

Other junction 0 1 2 3

Total 2 27 36 65

Table D. 3: Casualty age by Injury for PTW rider casualties, accidents involving two PTWs

Age group Killed Seriously Injured Slightly Injured % KSI Total % of total

16 - 20 2 15 12% 17 18%

21 - 25 2 4 33% 6 6%

26 - 30 1 4 7 42% 12 13%

31 - 35 4 10 29% 14 15%

36 - 40 3 6 33% 9 10%

41 - 45 7 7 50% 14 15%

46 - 50 3 6 33% 9 10%

51 - 55 1 3 25% 4 4%

56 - 60 3 2 60% 5 5%

61 - 65 1 0% 1 1%

> 70 1 100% 1 1%

Unknown 1 1 50% 2 2%

Total 3 29 62 34% 94 100%



Table D. 4: Casualty class by casualty injury, accidents involving two PTWs

Casualty injury Killed Seriously Injured Slightly Injured Total

Casualty class Number % Number % Number % Number %

Driver/rider 3 100% 29 94% 62 93% 94 93%

Pedestrian 1 3% 1 1%

Vehicle/pillion passenger 1 3% 5 7% 6 6%

Total 3 100% 31 100% 67 100% 101 100%

Table E. 5: Casualty class by casualty sex for casualties from accidents involving two PTWs

Casualty sex Female Male Unknown Total


Driver/rider 6 6% 88 94% 94 100%


Vehicle/pillion passenger 4 67% 1 17% 1 17% 6 100%

Total 10 10% 90 89% 1 1% 101 100%

Table D. 6: Accident severity by day of week for accidents involving two PTWs only

Accident severity Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

Fatal 0 0 0 1 0 1 0

Serious 6 8 2 3 1 2 5

Slight 9 6 2 7 4 6 2

Total 15 14 4 11 5 9 7

Table D. 7: Accident severity by season for accidents involving two PTWs only

Accident severity Winter Spring Summer Autumn

Fatal 1 1

Serious 13 6 8

Slight 2 17 8 9



Table D. 8: Accident severity by weather conditions for accidents involving two PTWs only

Accident severity Fatal Serious Slight Total

Weather conditions Number % Number % Number % Number %

Fine, no high winds 2 100% 24 89% 34 94% 60 92%

Rain/hail, no high winds 1 4% 2 6% 3 5%

Other 1 4% 1 2%

Unknown 1 4% 1 2%

Total 2 100% 27 100% 36 100% 65 100%

Table D. 9: Accident severity by light conditions for accidents involving two PTWs only


Light conditions Number % Number % Number % Number %

Darkness, street lights lit 2 7% 4 11% 6 9%

Darkness, no street lights 2 100% 3 11% 3 8% 8 12%

Daylight 22 81% 29 81% 51 78%

Total 2 100% 27 100% 36 100% 65 100%

Table D. 10: Accident severity by vehicle manoeuvre for accidents involving two PTWs only


Manoeuvre Number % Number % Number % Number %

Changing Lane 3 6% 1 1% 4 3%

Going ahead - LH bend 2 50% 3 6% 4 6% 9 7%

Going ahead - other 2 50% 32 59% 33 46% 67 52%

Going ahead - RH bend 4 7% 4 6% 8 6%

O’taking moving veh. on o/s 4 6% 4 3%

Starting 1 2% 1 1% 2 2%

Stopping 5 9% 12 17% 17 13%

Turning left and waiting to turn left 3 6% 2 3% 5 4%

Turning right and waiting to turn right 2 4% 6 8% 8 6%

U-turn 1 2% 1 1% 2 2%

Waiting to go ahead, held up 4 6% 4 3%

Total 4 100% 54 100% 72 100% 130 100%



Table D. 11: Motorcycle manoeuvres for accidents involving two PTWs only

Going ahead LH bend 4 4

Going ahead other 26 1 2 23

Going ahead RH bend 3 3

Overtaking moving veh on its o/s 3 1 1 1

Starting 1 1

Stopping 10 5 5

Turning left 2 1 1

Turning right 7 1 4 1 1

U-turn 2 2

Waiting to go ahead, held up 4 2 2

Waiting to turn left 1 1

Waiting to turn right 2 2

Mov

emen

tofm

otor

cycl

e1

Total 65 2 2 5 41 5 1 6 2 1

Tota

l

Cha

ngin

gla

neto

left

Cha

ngin

gla

neto

righ

t

Goi

ngah

ead

LHbe

nd

Goi

ngah

ead

othe

r

Goi

ngah

ead

RH

bend

Ove

rtak

ing

mov

ing

veh

onits

o/s

Star

ting

Stop

ping

Turn

ing

left

Movement of motorcycle 2



Appendix E. Single PTW and pedestrian accidents Table E. 1: PTW driver/rider age by casualty injury

Road Class A

Accident Severity Dual Single

Total

Fatal 3 3 6

Serious 4 3 7

Slight 8 21 29

Total 15 27 42

Table E. 2: Accident severity by junction detail for accidents involving two PTWs only

Junction Detail Fatal Serious Slight Total % of total

Not at or within 20m of junction 3 4 18 25 60%

Crossroads 1 2 1 4 10%

Multiple junction 1 1 2%

Roundabout 1 1 2%

Slip road 1 1 2 5%

T/staggered junction 2 7 9 21%

Total 6 7 29 42 100%

Table E. 3: Casualty class by casualty injury for PTW and pedestrian accidents

Casualty injury Killed Seriously Injured Slightly Injured Total


Driver/rider 2 29% 5 38% 17 35% 24 35%

Pedestrian 5 71% 7 54% 31 65% 43 63%

Vehicle/pillion passenger 1 8% 1 1%

Total 7 100% 13 100% 48 100% 68 100%



Table E. 4: Casualty class by casualty sex for PTW and pedestrian accidents

Casualty sex Female Male Total

Casualty class Number % Number % Number %

Driver/rider 2 8% 22 92% 24 100%

Pedestrian 19 44% 24 56% 43 100%

Vehicle/pillion passenger 1 100% 1 100%

Table E. 5: Casualty age by injury for PTW riders involved in PTW/pedestrian accidents


16 - 20 1 6 7 29%

21 - 25 1 1 2 8%

26 - 30 3 3 13%

31 - 35 1 3 4 17%

36 - 40 1 2 3 13%

46 - 50 2 2 8%

51 - 55 3 3 13%

Total 2 5 17 24 100%

Table E. 6: Casualty age by casualty injury for pedestrians in PTW/pedestrian accidents


< 16 3 12 15 35%

16 - 20 4 4 9%

21 - 25 1 3 4 9%

26 - 30 1 1 2%

41 - 45 1 1 2%

46 - 50 1 1 2 5%

51 - 55 1 4 5 12%

56 - 60 1 1 2%

61 - 65 1 1 2%

66 - 70 1 1 2%

> 70 2 2 4 8 19%

Total 5 7 31 43 100%



Table E. 7: Vehicle manoeuvre by severity of single PTW and pedestrian accident


Vehicle Manoeuvre Number % Number % Number % Number %

Going ahead - LH bend 1 14% 1 2%



Overtaking on o/s 1 14% 6 21% 7 17%

Overtaking on nearside 1 3% 1 2%

Starting 1 3% 1 2%

Turning right 1 3% 1 2%

Total 6 100% 7 100% 29 100% 42 100%

Table E. 8: Season by severity of single PTW and pedestrian accident

Accident severity Winter Spring Summer Autumn Total

Fatal 1 2 2 1 6

Serious 2 2 3 7

Slight 4 9 6 10 29

Total 7 13 11 11 42

Table E. 9: Lighting conditions by severity of single PTW and pedestrian accident



Darkness, street lights lit 1 17% 1 14% 5 17% 7 17%

Darkness, no street lights 1 17% 1 2%

Daylight 4 67% 6 86% 24 83% 34 81%

Total 6 100% 7 100% 29 100% 42 100%

Table E. 10: Weather conditions by severity of single PTW and pedestrian accident



Fine 4 67% 6 86% 21 72% 31 74%

Fog or mist if hazard 1 14% 1 2%

Rain / Hail 2 33% 8 28% 10 24%

Total 6 100% 7 100% 29 100% 42 100%



Appendix F. Accidents involving one PTW, one car Figure F. 1: Map showing distribution of PTW and a car accidents




Table F. 1: Casualty class and vehicle type by casualty sex

Casualty sex Female Male Unknown Total


Driver/rider 126 46% 147 54% 273 100% Car


Driver/rider 224 8% 2727 92% 2 0% 2953 100%

Pedestrian 3 43% 4 57% 7 100%

PTW

Vehicle/pillion passenger 161 72% 61 27% 1 0% 223 100%

Table F. 2: Casualty age group by casualty injury for PTW rider casualties, PTW/car accidents


< 16 2 2 0%

16 - 20 3 81 334 418 14%

21 - 25 70 216 286 10%

26 - 30 4 92 270 366 12%

31 - 35 9 130 321 460 16%

36 - 40 15 140 314 469 16%

41 - 45 7 97 257 361 12%

46 - 50 5 68 146 219 7%

51 - 55 1 47 114 162 5%

56 - 60 4 26 59 89 3%

61 - 65 7 38 45 2%

66 - 70 1 4 11 16 1%

> 70 2 11 13 0%

Unknown 17 30 47 2%

Total 49 781 2123 2953 100%



Table F. 3: Casualty age group by casualty injury for car driver casualties, PTW / car accidents


16 - 20 1 23 24 9%

21 - 25 1 27 28 10%

26 - 30 1 3 36 40 15%

31 - 35 1 33 34 12%

36 - 40 2 29 31 11%

41 - 45 2 25 27 10%

46 - 50 2 21 23 8%

51 - 55 1 18 19 7%

56 - 60 1 9 10 4%

61 - 65 8 8 3%

66 - 70 11 11 4%

> 70 1 1 14 16 6%

Unknown 2 2 1%

Total 4 13 256 273 100%

Table F. 4: Accident severity by junction detail for PTWs in PTW/car accidents

Junction detail Fatal Serious Slight Total % of total

Not at or within 20m of junction 30 338 742 1110 36%

Roundabout 3 117 713 833 27%

Mini roundabout 0 0 4 4 0%

T/staggered junction 10 191 390 591 19%

Slip road 4 43 102 149 5%

Crossroads 4 50 86 140 5%

Multiple junction 0 2 17 19 1%

Private drive/entrance 3 48 111 162 5%

Other junction 3 24 44 71 2%

Total 57 813 2209 3079 100%



Table F. 5: Accident severity by manoeuvre for PTWs in PTW/car accidents


PTW manoeuvre Number % Number % Number % Number %

Changing lane 5 9% 42 5% 93 4% 140 5%



Going ahead - RH bend 4 7% 20 2% 63 3% 87 3%

Overtaking on o/s 6 11% 165 20% 311 14% 482 16%

Overtaking on nearside 0% 20 2% 49 2% 69 2%

Parked 0% 0% 5 0% 5 0%

Reversing 0% 0% 1 0% 1 0%

Starting 0% 1 0% 17 1% 18 1%

Stopping 0% 11 1% 76 3% 87 3%

Turning left & waiting to turn left 1 2% 15 2% 80 4% 96 3%

Turning right & waiting to turn right 0% 29 4% 112 5% 141 5%

U-turn 1 2% 3 0% 2 0% 6 0%

Waiting to go ahead, held up 0% 11 1% 125 6% 136 4%

Total 57 100% 813 100% 2209 100% 3079 100%



Table F. 6: Accident severity by manoeuvre for cars in PTW/car accidents


Car manoeuvre Number % Number % Number % Number %

Changing Lane 2 4% 118 15% 347 16% 467 15%




Overtaking on o/s 2 4% 22 3% 59 3% 83 3%

Overtaking on nearside 0% 3 0% 10 0% 13 0%

Parked 0% 5 1% 18 1% 23 1%

Reversing 1 2% 2 0% 8 0% 11 0%

Starting 0% 8 1% 64 3% 72 2%

Stopping 1 2% 28 3% 113 5% 142 5%

Turning left & waiting to turn left 0% 25 3% 93 4% 118 4%

Turning right & waiting to turn right 18 32% 272 33% 490 22% 780 25%

U-turn 5 9% 52 6% 99 4% 156 5%

Waiting to go ahead, held up 0% 26 3% 110 5% 136 4%

Unknown 0% 1 0% 2 0% 3 0%

Total 57 100% 813 100% 2209 100% 3079 100%

Publ

ishe

dPr

ojec

tRep

ort

Ver

sion

Fina

l

TRL

Lim

ited

47PP

R16

1

Tabl

eF.

7:M

otor

cycl

em

anoe

uvre

byca

rm

anoe

uvre

for

PTW

/car

acci

dent

s

Car

man

oeuv

re

Mot

orcy

cle

man

oeuv

re

Unknown

Changing lane to left

Changing lane to right

Going ahead - LH bend

Going ahead - other

Going ahead - RH bend

O’taking moving veh. on o/s

Overtaking on nearside

O’taking stat. veh. on io/s

Parked

Reversing

Starting

Stopping

Turning left

Turning right

U-turn

Waiting to go ahead, held up

Waiting to turn left

Waiting to turn right

Total

Cha

ngin

gla

neto

left

98

130

52

11

12

23

368

Cha

ngin

gla

neto

right

49

140

17

11

22

13

72

Goi

ngah

ead

-LH

bend

34

1213

461

21

23

17

34

210

4

Goi

ngah

ead

-oth

er2

135

148

152

913

345

214

630

6670

465

6582

238

1707

Goi

ngah

ead

-RH

bend

56

518

191

14

26

123

41

87

O’ta

king

mov

ing

veh.

ono/

s9

632

643

221

21

11

512

240

31

934

9

Ove

rtaki

ngon

near

side

315

123

11

13

62

13

69

O’ta

king

stat

.veh

.on

o/s

28

16

11

22

5342

72

613

3

Park

ed3

25

Rev

ersi

ng1

1

Star

ting

15

15

11

22

18

Stop

ping

13

121

441

412

87

Turn

ing

left

24

428

11

128

78

Turn

ing

right

22

714

32

11

31

524

12

112

3

U-tu

rn3

12

6

Wai

ting

togo

ahea

d,he

ldup

12

176

11

115

182

413

113

6

Wai

ting

totu

rnle

ft9

32

21

118

Wai

ting

totu

rnrig

ht9

11

23

218

Tota

l3

206

261

2495

110

074

139

2311

7214

211

171

815

613

67

6230

79



Appendix G. Accidents involving one PTW, one LGV Table G. 1: Accident severity by road class for accidents involving a PTW and a LGV

Road Class A

Accident Severity Motorway Dual Single Total

Fatal 3 4 6 13

Serious 12 17 23 52

Slight 25 65 59 149

Table G. 2: Accident severity by road class for accidents involving a PTW and a LGV

Road Class A

Accident Severity BU NBU Motorway Total

Fatal 2 8 3 13

Serious 9 31 12 52

Slight 45 79 25 149

Total 56 118 40 214

Table G. 3: Casualty injury by vehicle and casualty class for casualties in PTW / LGV accidents

Casualty Injury Killed Seriously Injured Slightly Injured Total

Casualty class No. % No. % No. % No. %

Driver/rider 1 8% 1 2% 12 7% 14 6% LGV


Driver/rider 11 85% 52 96% 143 84% 206 87%


PTW


Total 13 100% 54 100% 170 100% 237 100%



Table G. 4: Casualty sex by vehicle and casualty class for accidents involving a PTW and a LGV

Casualty Sex Female Male Total

Casualty Class Number % Number % Number %

Driver/rider 1 7% 13 93% 14 100%

LGV Vehicle/pillion passenger 2 33% 4 67% 6 100%

Driver/rider 21 10% 185 90% 206 100%

Pedestrian 1 100% 0% 1 100%

PTW Vehicle/pillion passenger 5 50% 5 50% 10 100%

Total 30 13% 207 87% 237 100%

Table G. 5: Casualty age group by injury for motorcycle rider casualties from PTW / LGV accidents


16 - 20 8 21 29 14%

21 - 25 1 4 12 17 8%

26 - 30 13 18 31 15%

31 - 35 2 7 22 31 15%

36 - 40 2 7 25 34 17%

41 - 45 3 4 19 26 13%

46 - 50 1 6 11 18 9%

51 - 55 1 3 7 11 5%

56 - 60 3 3 1%

61 - 65 1 1 0%

66 - 70 1 1 0%

Unknown 1 3 4 2%

Total 11 52 143 206 100%

Table G. 6: Accident severity by day of week for accidents involving a PTW and a LGV

Accident severity Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Fatal 2 1 4 2 3 1

Serious 8 6 8 10 6 8 6

Slight 31 23 26 20 29 13 7

Total 41 30 38 30 37 24 14



Table G. 7: Accident severity by season for accidents involving a PTW and a LGV


Fatal 3 3 4 3

Serious 5 17 19 11

Slight 27 36 36 50

Table G. 8: Accident severity by light conditions for accidents involving a PTW and a LGV

Accident Severity Fatal Serious Slight Total

Light conditions No. % No. % No. % No. %

Darkness, street lighting unknown 1 1% 1 0%


Darkness, no street lighting 3 23% 6 4% 9 4%

Daylight 10 77% 47 90% 124 83% 181 85%

Total 13 100% 52 100% 149 100% 214 100%

Table G. 9: Accident severity by weather for accidents involving a PTW and a LGV



Fine 13 100% 43 83% 130 87% 186 87%

Fog or mist if hazard 1 2% 1 1% 2 1%

Rain/hail, no high winds 7 13% 16 11% 23 11%

Other 1 2% 1 1% 2 1%

Unknown 1 1% 1 0%

Total 13 100% 52 100% 149 100% 214 100%



Table G. 10: Accident severity by manoeuvre for PTWs in PTW / LGV accidents


PTW manoeuvre No. % No. % No. % No. %

Changing lane 3 6% 6 4% 9 4%




Overtaking on o/s 1 8% 10 19% 30 20% 41 19%

Overtaking on nearside 2 4% 6 4% 8 4%

Starting 2 1% 2 1%

Stopping 1 2% 9 6% 10 5%


Turning right and waiting to turn right 7 5% 7 3%

U-turn 1 1% 1 0%


Total 13 100% 52 100% 149 100% 214 100%

Table G. 11: Accident severity by manoeuvre for LGVs in PTW / LGV accidents


LGV manoeuvre Number % Number % Number % Number %

Changing lane 2 15% 7 13% 21 14% 30 14%

Going ahead - LH bend 2 15% 1 1% 3 1%


Going ahead - RH bend 1 5 10% 0% 6 3%

Overtaking on o/s 2 4% 8 5% 10 5%

Parked 1 1% 1 0%

Reversing 1 1% 1 0%

Starting 4 3% 4 2%

Stopping 1 2% 10 7% 11 5%


Turning right and waiting to turn right 7 54% 15 29% 39 26% 61 29%

U-turn 2 4% 2 1% 4 2%

Waiting to go ahead, held up 3 6% 8 5% 11 5%

Total 13 100% 52 100% 149 100% 214 100%

Publ

ishe

dPr

ojec

tRep

ort

Ver

sion

Fina

l

TRL

Lim

ited

52PP

R16

1

Tabl

eG

.12:

LGV

man

oeuv

reby

PTW

man

oeuv

refo

rPT

W/L

GV

acci

dent

s

LGV manoeuvre

Changing lane to left Changing lane to

right Going ahead -LH

bend

Going ahead - other Going ahead-RH

bend O’taking moving veh.

on its o/s O’taking stationary

veh. on its o/s

Parked

Reversing

Starting

Stopping

Turning left

Turning right

U-turn Waiting to go ahead,

held up

Waiting to turn right

Total

Cha

ngin

gla

neto

left

21

14

Cha

ngin

gla

neto

right

41

5

Goi

ngah

ead

-LH

bend

11

32

18

Goi

ngah

ead

-oth

er8

121

341

31

12

24

321

54

111

Goi

ngah

ead

-RH

bend

11

2

Ove

rtaki

ngm

ovin

gve

h.on

itso/

s7

16

31

83

130

Ove

rtaki

ngon

near

side

12

32

8

Ove

rtaki

ngst

atio

nary

veh.

onits

o/s

110

11

Star

ting

11

2

Stop

ping

26

11

10

Turn

ing

left

21

3

Turn

ing

right

41

16

U-tu

rn1

1

Wai

ting

togo

ahea

d,he

ldup

61

31

11

Wai

ting

totu

rnle

ft1

1

Wai

ting

totu

rnrig

ht1

1

PTW manoeuvre

Tota

l11

193

646

91

11

411

856

411

521

4



Appendix H. Accidents involving one PTW, one HGV Table H. 1: Accident severity by road class for accidents involving a PTW and an HGV

Road Class A


Fatal 3 4 6 13

Serious 9 48 31 88

Slight 29 50 42 121

Table H. 2: Casualty sex by vehicle and casualty class for PTW / HGV accidents



Driver/rider 5 100% 5 100% HGV


Driver/rider 20 9% 197 91% 217 100% PTW


Table H. 3: Accident severity by junction detail for accidents involving a PTW and an HGV

Junction Detail Fatal Serious Slight Total


Roundabout 2 19 26 47

Crossroads 2 2 2 6


Multiple junction 2 2

Slip road 7 7 14

Private drive/entrance 5 4 9

Other junction 3 4 7

Total 13 88 121 222

Table H. 4: Accident severity by season for accidents involving a PTW and a HGV

Accident Severity Winter Spring Summer Autumn

Fatal 1 6 5 1

Serious 13 20 29 26

Slight 17 29 40 35



Table H. 5: Accident severity by day of week for accidents involving a PTW and a HGV

Accident severity Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Fatal 1 5 1 4 2

Serious 13 17 18 8 16 10 6

Slight 21 17 26 20 25 8 4

Total 35 39 45 32 43 18 10

Table H. 6: Casualty injury by vehicle and casualty class for PTW / HGV accidents



Driver/rider 5 4% 5 2% HGV


Driver/rider 13 100% 84 92% 120 89% 217 91% PTW

Vehicle/pillion

passenger 7 8% 9 7% 16 7%

Total 13 100% 91 100% 135 100% 239 100%

Table H. 7: Accident severity by manoeuvre for PTWs in PTW / HGV accidents



Changing lane 1 8% 3 3% 5 4% 9 4%




Overtaking on o/s 3 23% 14 16% 17 14% 34 15%

Overtaking on nearside 1 8% 2 2% 1 1% 4 2%

Parked 1 8% 1 0%

Starting 2 2% 2 2% 4 2%

Stopping 4 5% 4 3% 8 4%




Total 13 100% 88 100% 121 100% 222 100%



Table H. 8: Accident severity by manoeuvre for HGVs in PTW / HGV accidents


Manoeuvre No. % No. % No. % No. %

Changing lane 9 10% 19 16% 28 13%




Overtaking on o/s 1 8% 4 5% 9 7% 14 6%

Overtaking on nearside 0% 2 2% 2 1%

Parked 1 1% 3 2% 4 2%

Reversing 1 1% 1 1% 2 1%

Starting 1 1% 2 2% 3 1%

Stopping 3 3% 3 2% 6 3%



U-turn 2 2% 1 1% 3 1%


Total 13 100% 88 100% 121 100% 222 100%

Table H. 9: Accident severity by light conditions for accidents involving a PTW and a HGV


Light conditions No. % No. % No. % No. %



Darkness, no street lighting 1 8% 8 9% 13 11% 22 10%

Daylight 8 62% 70 80% 102 84% 180 81%

Total 13 100% 88 100% 121 100% 222 100%

Table H. 10: Accident severity by weather for accidents involving a PTW and a HGV



Fine 11 85% 74 84% 104 86% 189 85%


Rain/hail 2 15% 10 11% 12 10% 24 11%

Other 1 1% 1 1% 2 1%

Unknown 1 1% 1 0%

Total 13 100% 88 100% 121 100% 222 100%

Publ

ishe

dPr

ojec

tRep

ort

Ver

sion

Fina

l

TRL

Lim

ited

56PP

R16

1

Tabl

eH

.11:

Acc

iden

tsev

erity

bym

anoe

uvre

for

HG

Vsi

nPT

W/H

GV

acci

dent

s

HG

VM

anoe

uvre

Changing lane to left

Changing lane to right

Going ahead - LH bend

Going ahead - other

Going ahead - RH bend

O’taking moving veh. on o/s

Overtaking on nearside

O’taking stationary veh. on o/s

Parked

Reversing

Starting

Stopping

Turning left

Turning right

U-turn

Waiting to go ahead, held up Waiting to turn

right

Grand Total

Cha

ngin

gla

neto

left

12

14

Cha

ngin

gla

neto

right

13

15

Goi

ngah

ead

-LH

bend

18

51

217

Goi

ngah

ead

-oth

er9

91

577

12

33

215

25

111

7

Goi

ngah

ead

-RH

bend

12

11

5

O’ta

king

mov

ing

veh.

ono/

s5

111

31

81

30

Ove

rtaki

ngon

near

side

44

O’ta

king

stat

iona

ryve

h.on

o/s

11

24

Park

ed1

1

Star

ting

21

14

Stop

ping

21

31

18

Turn

ing

left

14

16

Turn

ing

right

41

21

8

Wai

ting

togo

ahea

d,he

ldup

12

11

11

7

Wai

ting

totu

rnle

ft1

1

Wai

ting

totu

rnrig

ht1

1

PTW Manoeuvre

Tota

l10

183

101

1111

23

42

36

530

39

122

2



Appendix I. Accidents involving one PTW, one other vehicle Table I. 1: Accident severity by road class for accidents involving a PTW and one other vehicle

Road Class A


Fatal 1 1 2

Serious 3 5 13 21

Slight 3 17 19 39

Table I. 2: Vehicle type by casualty injury and class for PTW / other vehicle accidents



Driver/rider 1 50% 18 82% 38 86% 57 84%

Pedestrian 1 50% 1 5% 1 2% 3 4% PTW


Driver/rider 1 5% 3 7% 4 6% Other Vehicle

Vehicle/pillion

passenger 1 2% 1 1%

Total 2 100% 22 100% 44 100% 68 100%

Table I. 3: Vehicle type by casualty sex and class for PTW / other vehicle accidents

Casualty Sex Female Male Unknown Total

Casualty Class Number % Number % Number % Number %

Driver/rider 4 50% 52 88% 1 100% 57 84%

Pedestrian 2 25% 1 2% 3 4% PTW


Driver/rider 4 7% 4 6% Other Vehicle

Vehicle/pillion

passenger 1 2% 1 1%

Total 8 100% 59 100% 1 100% 68 100%



Table I. 4: Accident severity by manoeuvre for PTWs in PTW / other vehicle accidents



Unknown 1 3% 1 2%

Changing lane 2 5% 2 3%



Overtaking on o/s 8 38% 5 13% 13 21%

Overtaking on nearside 2 5% 2 3%

Turning left 2 5% 2 3%

Turning right 1 5% 3 8% 4 6%

Total 2 100% 21 100% 39 100% 62 100%

Table I. 5: Accident severity by manoeuvre for other vehicles in PTW / other vehicle accidents



Unknown 1 3% 1 2%

Changing lane 2 10% 7 18% 9 15%


Going ahead - RH bend 2 5% 2 3%

Overtaking on o/s 1 3% 1 2%

Parked 1 50% 1 2%

Starting 1 3% 1 2%

Stopping 2 5% 2 3%

Turning left 1 3% 1 2%


U-turn 1 5% 1 2%


Total 2 100% 21 100% 39 100% 62 100%



Table I. 6: Accident severity by day for accidents involving a PTW and one other vehicle

Accident Severity Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Fatal 2

Serious 5 3 3 1 3 4 2

Slight 7 7 1 4 11 4 5

Total 12 10 4 5 14 10 7

Table I. 7: Accident severity by season for accidents involving a PTW and one other vehicle

Accident Severity Winter Spring Summer Autumn

Fatal 2

Serious 1 4 6 10

Slight 3 7 14 15

Table I. 8: Accident severity by light conditions for PTW / other vehicle accidents




Darkness, no street lights 1 5% 1 2%

Daylight 2 100% 18 86% 36 92% 56 90%

Total 2 100% 21 100% 39 100% 62 100%

Table I. 9: Accident severity by weather for accidents involving a PTW and one other vehicle


Weather Number % Number % Number % Number %


Rain/hail 2 10% 3 8% 5 8%

Unknown 1 3% 1 2%

Total 2 100% 21 100% 39 100% 62 100%



Appendix J. Accidents involving one PTW and two cars Table J. 1: Accident severity by road class for accidents involving a PTW and two cars

Road Class A


Fatal 3 3 16 22

Serious 23 24 44 91

Slight 55 74 71 200

Table J. 2: Casualty Injury by vehicle and casualty class for PTW / 2 car accidents


Casualty Class Number % Number % Number % Number %

Driver/rider 1 4% 14 13% 75 24% 90 20%

Pedestrian 2 8% 1 1% 3 1% Car

Vehicle/pillion

passenger 2 2% 34 11% 36 8%

Driver/rider 20 80% 81 78% 184 59% 285 65%

Pedestrian 1 0% 1 0% PTW

Vehicle/pillion

passenger 2 8% 6 6% 18 6% 26 6%

Total 25 100% 104 100% 312 100% 441 100%

Table J. 3: Casualty sex by vehicle and casualty class for accidents involving a PTW and 2 cars



Driver/rider 37 41% 53 59% 90 20%

Pedestrian 1 33% 2 67% 3 1%

Car


Driver/rider 14 5% 271 95% 285 65%

Pedestrian 1 100% 0% 1 0%

PTW


Total 95 22% 346 78% 441 100%



Table J. 4: Accident severity by manoeuvre for PTWs in PTW / two car accidents



Changing lane 2 2% 10 5% 12 4%




Overtaking on o/s 8 36% 19 21% 33 17% 60 19%

Overtaking on nearside 4 4% 8 4% 12 4%

Parked 1 1% 1 1% 2 1%

Reversing 1 1% 1 0%

Stopping 1 5% 5 5% 13 7% 19 6%

Turning left and waiting to turn left 1 1% 1 0%


U-turn 1 1% 1 0%


Total 22 100% 91 100% 200 100% 313 100%

Table J. 5: Accident severity by manoeuvre for cars in PTW / 2 car accidents



Changing lane 11 6% 46 12% 57 9%




Overtaking on o/s 3 7% 12 7% 13 3% 28 4%

Overtaking on nearside 1 2% 1 1% 0% 2 0%

Parked 4 2% 5 1% 9 1%

Reversing 1 1% 1 0% 2 0%

Starting 5 1% 5 1%

Stopping 2 5% 10 5% 28 7% 40 6%



U-turn 1 1% 2 1% 3 0%

Waiting to go ahead, held up 1 2% 16 9% 52 13% 69 11%

Total 44 100% 182 100% 400 100% 626 100%



Table J. 6: Accident severity by day of week for accidents involving a PTW and two cars

Accident Severity Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday

Fatal 2 1 2 2 3 3 9

Serious 15 13 9 10 14 13 17

Slight 34 21 24 25 41 27 28

Total 51 35 35 37 58 43 54

Table J. 7: Accident severity by season for accidents involving a PTW and two cars


Fatal 3 8 4 7

Serious 9 31 28 23

Slight 36 54 53 57

Table J. 8: Accident severity by light conditions for accidents involving a PTW and two cars





Darkness, no street lighting 7 32% 7 8% 17 9% 31 10%

Daylight 13 59% 78 86% 166 83% 257 82%

Total 22 100% 91 100% 200 100% 313 100%

Table J. 9: Accident severity by weather for accidents involving a PTW and two cars





Rain/hail 5 23% 8 9% 28 14% 41 13%

Snow, no high winds 2 2% 2 1%

Other 2 1% 2 1%

Unknown 3 2% 3 1%

Total 22 100% 91 100% 200 100% 313 100%



Appendix K. Other 3 vehicle PTW accidents Table K. 1: Accident severity by road class for accidents involving a PTW and 2 other vehicles

Road Class A

Accident severity Dual Single

Motorway

Total

Fatal 3 17 4 24

Serious 26 44 12 82

Slight 48 45 31 124

Table K. 2: Accident severity by junction detail for PTW / 2 other vehicle accidents


Crossroads 5 3 8

Multiple junction 1 1


Other junction 1 1

Private drive/entrance 1 5 7 13

Roundabout 4 14 18

Slip road 2 6 10 18


Total 24 82 124 230

Table K. 3: Accident severity by season for PTW / 2 other vehicle accidents

Accident severity Winter Spring Summer Autumn Total

Fatal 2 7 10 5 24

Serious 13 15 30 24 82

Slight 13 32 40 39 124

Total 28 54 80 68 230

Table K. 4: Accident severity by light conditions for PTW / 2 other vehicle accidents

Light conditions Fatal Serious Slight Total

Darkness, street lights lit 8 7 15

Darkness, street lights unlit 1 1

Darkness, no street lights 6 3 5 14

Daylight 18 70 112 200

Total 24 82 124 230



Table K. 5: Vehicle type by casualty injury and class for PTW / 2 other vehicle accidents

Vehicle type Casualty class Killed Seriously injured Slightly injured Total

Pedal cycle Driver/rider 1 2 3

Driver/rider 21 87 135 243

Pedestrian 1 1 2

PTW

Vehicle/pillion passenger 2 1 17 20

Driver/rider 2 3 29 34 Car

Vehicle/pillion passenger 12 12

Driver/rider 5 5 LGV

Vehicle/pillion passenger 3 3

HGV Driver/rider 5 5

Total 26 92 209 327

Table K. 6: PTW manoeuvre by accident severity for PTW / 2 other vehicle accidents

Vehicle manoeuvre Fatal Serious Slight Total

Changing lane to left 5 6 11

Changing lane to right 1 1 4 6

Going ahead - LH bend 6 7 6 19

Going ahead - other 20 57 70 147

Going ahead - RH bend 3 5 5 13

Overtaking moving vehicle on its o/s 2 10 25 37

Overtaking on nearside 6 6 12

Overtaking stationary vehicle on its o/s 8 7 15

Parked 1 1

Starting 1 1

Stopping 3 8 11

Turning left 1 2 3

Turning right 1 3 4

Waiting to go ahead, held up 13 13

Waiting to turn left 2 2

Waiting to turn right 1 2 3

Total 32 106 160 298



Table K. 7: Other vehicle manoeuvre by accident severity for PTW / 2 other vehicle accidents

Vehicle manoeuvre Fatal Serious Slight Total

Changing lane to left 1 3 14 18

Changing lane to right 3 1 12 16

Going ahead - LH bend 5 2 7

Going ahead - other 19 68 84 171

Going ahead - RH bend 6 3 3 12

Overtaking moving vehicle on its o/s 2 7 15 24

Overtaking on nearside 1 1

Overtaking stationary vehicle on its o/s 3 5 8

Parked 5 7 12

Reversing 1 1

Starting 3 1 4

Stopping 1 7 16 24

Turning left 1 4 2 7

Turning right 15 19 34

U-turn 1 5 2 8

Waiting to go ahead, held up 1 11 23 35

Waiting to turn left 1 1 2

Waiting to turn right 1 4 5

Total 40 137 212 389



Appendix L. PTW accidents involving more than 3 vehicles Table L. 1: Accident severity by road class for PTW accidents involving more than 3 vehicles

Road Class A

Accident severity Dual Single Motorway Total

Fatal 5 12 12 29

Serious 21 21 23 65

Slight 25 24 57 106

Total 51 57 92 200

Table L. 2: Accident severity by road class for PTW accidents involving more than 3 vehicles



Roundabout 0 2 4 6


Slip road 1 5 4 10

Crossroads 2 4 1 7

Multiple junction 0 0 1 1

Private drive/entrance 0 4 1 5

Total 29 65 106 200

Table L. 2: Accident severity by road class for PTW accidents involving more than 3 vehicles

Vehicle type Casualty class Fatal Serious Slight Total


PTW Vehicle/pillion passenger 3 6 12 21


Vehicle/pillion passenger 1 4 49 54

Car Pedestrian 1 0 0 1

Bus / Coach Driver/rider 0 0 1 1


LGV Vehicle/pillion passenger 0 0 3 3

HGV Driver/rider 0 1 4 5

Total 34 86 268 388



GIS Maps



Figure M. 1: Percentage of accidents involving at least one PTW

A629

M4

M6

M62

A30

A303

M6

A1

A66

A49

M61

A38

A40

A46

A5

A69

A1

A523

A59

A646

M5

A696

A595

A31

A36

M5

A39

A30

A38

A50A41

A6

A65

A628

M55

A596

A66

A46

A5

A417M50

A449

Manchester

Exeter

Birmingham

Bristol

LiverpoolSheffield

Leeds

NewcastleCarlisle

Penzance

M2M3

M25

M11

A12

A3

M20

A27

M40

A5

A10

A14

A17

A16

M23

A64

A2

A23

A21

A41 A12

A14

A16

A47A47

A428

A1079

M180

A614

A15

A19A

1 (M)

A42

A52

A1

A1(M

)

A259

A6

A47

A1(M

)

Dover

Leicester

Cambridge

London

Southampton

Reading

Hull

Middlesbrough

Oxford

Norwich

Brighton

Nottingham

Percentage accidents involving PTW 1999-2003

Percentage accidents involving PTW0.00 - 5.00

5.00 - 10.0010.00 - 15.0015.00 - 20.00

20.00 - 30.0030.00 - 100.00



Figure M. 2: Percentage of KSI accidents involving at least one PTW

A629

M4

M6

M62

A30

A303

M6

A1

A66

A49

M61

A38

A40

A46

A5

A69

A1

A523

A59

A646

M5

A696

A595

A31

A36

M5

A39

A30

A38

A50A41

A6

A65

A628

M55

A596

A66

A46

A5

A417M50

A449

Manchester

Exeter

Birmingham

Bristol

LiverpoolSheffield

Leeds

NewcastleCarlisle

Penzance

M2M3

M25

M11

A12

A3

M20

A27

M40

A5

A10

A14

A17

A16

M23

A64

A2

A23

A21

A41 A12

A14

A16

A47A47

A428

A1079

M180

A614

A15

A19A

1 (M)

A42

A52

A1

A1(M

)

A259

A6

A47

A1(M

)

Dover

Leicester

Cambridge

London

Southampton

Reading

Hull

Middlesbrough

Oxford

Norwich

Brighton

Nottingham

Percentage KSI accidents involving PTW 1999-2003

Percentage KSI accidents involving PTW0.00 - 5.005.00 - 10.0010.00 - 15.00

15.00 - 20.0020.00 - 30.0030.00 - 100.00



Figure M. 3: PTW accidents per km

A629

M4

M6

M62

A30

A303

M6

A1

A66

A49

M61

A38

A40

A46

A5

A69

A1

A523

A59

A646

M5

A696

A595

A31

A36

M5

A39

A30

A38

A50A41

A6

A65

A628

M55

A596

A66

A46

A5

A417M50

A449

Manchester

Exeter

Birmingham

Bristol

LiverpoolSheffield

Leeds

NewcastleCarlisle

Penzance

M2M3

M25

M11

A12

A3

M20

A27

M40

A5

A10

A14

A17

A16

M23

A64

A2

A23

A21

A41 A12

A14

A16

A47A47

A428

A1079

M180

A614

A15

A19A

1 (M)

A42

A52

A1

A1(M

)

A259

A6

A47

A1(M

)

Dover

Leicester

Cambridge

London

Southampton

Reading

Hull

Middlesbrough

Oxford

Norwich

Brighton

Nottingham

PTW accidents per km 1999-2003

PTW accidents per km0.00 - 0.500.50 - 1.001.00 - 2.002.00 - 3.003.00 - 5.005.00 +



Figure M. 4: KSI PTW accidents per km

A629

M4

M6

M62

A30

A303

M6

A1

A66

A49

M61

A38

A40

A46

A5

A69

A1

A523

A59

A646

M5

A696

A595

A31

A36

M5

A39

A30

A38

A50A41

A6

A65

A628

M55

A596

A66

A46

A5

A417M50

A449

Manchester

Exeter

Birmingham

Bristol

LiverpoolSheffield

Leeds

NewcastleCarlisle

Penzance

M2M3

M25

M11

A12

A3

M20

A27

M40

A5

A10

A14

A17

A16

M23

A64

A2

A23

A21

A41 A12

A14

A16

A47A47

A428

A1079

M180

A614

A15

A19

A1 (M

)

A42

A52

A1

A1(M

)

A259

A6

A47

A1(M

)

Dover

Leicester

Cambridge

London

Southampton

Reading

Hull

Middlesbrough

Oxford

Norwich

Brighton

Nottingham

KSI PTW accidents per billion PTW km

KSI PTW accidents per billion PTW km0.00 - 250.00250.00 - 500.00500.00 - 1,000.001,000.00 - 2,000.002,000.00 - 5,000.005,000.00 +



Figure M. 5: PTW accidents per PTW traffic

A629

M4

M6

M62

A30

A303

M6

A1

A66

A49

M61

A38

A40

A46

A5

A69

A1

A523

A59

A646

M5

A696

A595

A31

A36

M5

A39

A30

A38

A50A41

A6

A65

A628

M55

A596

A66

A46

A5

A417M50

A449

Manchester

Exeter

Birmingham

Bristol

LiverpoolSheffield

Leeds

NewcastleCarlisle

Penzance

M2M3

M25

M11

A12

A3

M20

A27

M40

A5

A10

A14

A17

A16

M23

A64

A2

A23

A21

A41 A12

A14

A16

A47A47

A428

A1079

M180

A614

A15

A19

A1 (M

)

A42

A52

A1

A1(M

)

A259

A6

A47

A1(M

)

Dover

Leicester

Cambridge

London

Southampton

Reading

Hull

Middlesbrough

Oxford

Norwich

Brighton

Nottingham

PTW accidents per billion PTW km

PTW accidents per billion PTW km0.00 - 500.00500.00 - 1,000.001,000.00 - 2,000.002,000.00 - 5,000.005,000.00 - 10,000.0010,000.00 +



Figure M. 6: KSI PTW accidents per PTW traffic

A629

M4

M6

M62

A30

A303

M6

A1

A66

A49

M61

A38

A40

A46

A5

A69

A1

A523

A59

A646

M5

A696

A595

A31

A36

M5

A39

A30

A38

A50A41

A6

A65

A628

M55

A596

A66

A46

A5

A417M50

A449

Manchester

Exeter

Birmingham

Bristol

LiverpoolSheffield

Leeds

NewcastleCarlisle

Penzance

M2M3

M25

M11

A12

A3

M20

A27

M40

A5

A10

A14

A17

A16

M23

A64

A2

A23

A21

A41 A12

A14

A16

A47A47

A428

A1079

M180

A614

A15

A19

A1 (M

)

A42

A52

A1

A1(M

)

A259

A6

A47

A1(M

)

Dover

Leicester

Cambridge

London

Southampton

Reading

Hull

Middlesbrough

Oxford

Norwich

Brighton

Nottingham

KSI PTW accidents per billion PTW km

KSI PTW accidents per billion PTW km0.00 - 250.00250.00 - 500.00500.00 - 1,000.001,000.00 - 2,000.002,000.00 - 5,000.005,000.00 +



Figure M. 7: Non junction PTW accidents per km

A629

M4

M6

M62

A30

A303

M6

A1

A66

A49

M61

A38

A40

A46

A5

A69

A1

A523

A59

A646

M5

A696

A595

A31

A36

M5

A39

A30

A38

A50A41

A6

A65

A628

M55

A596

A66

A46

A5

A417M50

A449

Manchester

Exeter

Birmingham

Bristol

LiverpoolSheffield

Leeds

NewcastleCarlisle

Penzance

M2M3

M25

M11

A12

A3

M20

A27

M40

A5

A10

A14

A17

A16

M23

A64

A2

A23

A21

A41 A12

A14

A16

A47A47

A428

A1079

M180

A614

A15

A19

A1 (M

)

A42

A52

A1

A1(M

)

A259

A6

A47

A1(M

)

Dover

Leicester

Cambridge

London

Southampton

Reading

Hull

Middlesbrough

Oxford

Norwich

Brighton

Nottingham

Non-junction KSI PTW accidents per km 1999-2003

Non-junction KSI PTW accidents per km0.00 - 0.100.10 - 0.250.25 - 0.500.50 - 1.001.00 - 2.002.00 +

trl limited published project report ppr161 …published project report version final trl limited 2...

Documents