European Handbook on Good Practices in Safety for Motorcyclists

Interpretation of the information (“PROBLEMS” and “GOOD PRACTICES” shown in ROSA): In ROSA Project, the information of the problems to be solved has been detailed though the so-called “Dossier type 1”. This dossier has different gaps to be fulfilled depending on the type of problems and the information available. As follows, this “Dossier type 1” is shown, explaining which type of information should be detailed with the aim of characterising this problem to be solved by specific good practices (with the aim of explaining better this dossier, a specific problem related to Human Factor problems is given). Problem 3.1.1 Tendency of the young rider to break the law and to violate the rules Epigraph This field will identify the epigraph to which this problem belongs to. Example: 3. Human Factor Subject This field will identify the specific subject to which this problem belongs to. Example: 3.1. Socio-demographic aspects of riders: age, gender, experience. Problem to solve and justification In this field, the problem is detailed as well as justified (showing and giving data-figures that justify this problem and the necessity to be solved). Example: People involved in road traffic accidents with mopeds and motorcycles differ according to gender and age. The increased crash risk of the young riders may be attributed to the factors of inexperience and immaturity (Yeh and Chang, 2009). Rutter and Quine (1996) identified particular patterns of youth behaviours, such as a willingness to break the law and to violate the rules of safe riding, which had a much greater role in accident involvement than inexperience. Young and male were more likely to disobey traffic regulations and particularly young riders also had a higher tendency towards negligence of potential risk and motorcycle safety checks. Nevertheless, female riders were more injurius than male ones (Quddus et al., 2002, Keng 2005), despite the fact that young and male riders perceived themselves to be a greater risk of accidents (Mannering and Grodsky, 1995). In the United Kingdom, the effects of age and experience together showed that a 22 year old rider with 6 years experience has a crash risk 50% lower than a 17 years old rider with one year of experience (Sexton, Baughan, Elliot, & Maycock, 2004). The MAIDS studying Europe suggests that inexperience riders not as skilled at risk identification or anticipation of dangerous situation as are experience riders (ACEM, 2009). Riding experience seems more important for motorcyclists than for drivers of other vehicles categories. Limited experience and poor riding skills due to badly designed motorcycle licensing system are critical for young riders, and particularly for young female riders leading in increasing accident risk (Chang and Yen, 2007). Motorcyclists must also have cognitive skills for riding that can only be obtained through experience. Common crash contributory factors include failure to respond to hazard, ineffective braking and inappropriate road positioning (Haworth,, Smith,, Brumen, and Pronk, 1997) Moreover, rider behaviour regarding the probability of crash risk is also related to riding exposure (Harrison and Christie). A period of absence from riding “European Handbook on Good Practices in Safety for Motorcyclists” - Epigraph: HUMAN FACTOR - MARCH, 2011 PAGE 3/95 ROSA EUROPEAN PROJECT might result in a decline in safety-related motorcycle skills. Objective of the Group of Good Practices In this field, the objective of the Group of Solutions (good practices to be applied and to be detailed later) is given. Example: Avoiding the tendency of the young rider to break the law and to break the rules of safe riding negligence of potential risk and motorcycle safety checks. The same way as improving and developing the superior cognitive skills for riding that can only be obtained through experience, such as: perceptual ability to judge the radius, width and camber of a curve; hazard perception including detection, response choice and execution; etc. Code of the Group of Good Practices With the aim of identifying each Group of “Good Practice”, it os necessary to use a code. Example: 3.1.1. Effective Good Practices (Group A) It has to be taken that all the solutions (Good Practice) for this problem are effective (because it is known that have helped to solve the problem) or are possible solutions (because it is thought that they can be effective but there are not studies showing the effectiveness of this second type of solutions). In case of being effective, they will be included in this field (Type A) A brief text of this Good Practice is given in this field, using the respective code. Example: Good practice 3.1.1.A.1: The Graduated Licensing System for Motorcyclist (GLS) Good practice 3.1.1.A.2: Option to improve the graduated Licensing System for Motorcyclist. Other possible Solutions (Group B) Good Practices Example: Good practice 3.1.1.B.1: Initial rider training. Good practice 3.1.1.B.2: eMoto Café. Comments In this field, different sentences coming from Literature review or workshops carried out in ROSA are given with the aim of helping to understand the problem. Example: Sentence1: Option to improve the Graduated Licensing System for Motorcyclist (GLS). Once the problem has been detailed, the good practices (solutions) that are going surely or likely to solve the problem will be detailed in a new dossier (Dossier type 2), which is associated to the respective dossier where the problem has been detailed (Dossier type 1).

Read more : https://ec.europa.eu/transport/road_safety/sites/roadsafety/files/pdf/projects_sources/rosa_handbook_human_en.pdf