Chika Sakashita

Does an on-road motorcycle coaching program reduce crashes in novice riders? A randomised control trial

OBJECTIVES Motorcycle riding is increasing globally and confers a high risk of crash-related injury and death. There is community demand for investment in rider training programs but no high-quality evidence about its effectiveness in preventing crashes. This randomised trial of an on-road rider coaching program aimed to determine its effectiveness in reducing crashes in novice motorcycle riders. METHODS Between May 2010 and October 2012, 2399 newly-licensed provisional riders were recruited in Victoria, Australia and completed a telephone interview before randomisation to intervention or control groups. Riders in the intervention group were offered an on-road motorcycle rider coaching program which involved pre-program activities, 4h riding and facilitated discussion in small groups with a riding coach. Outcome measures were collected for all participants via telephone interviews at 3 and 12 months after program delivery (or equivalent for controls), and via linkage to police-recorded crash and offence data. The primary outcome was a composite measure of police-recorded and self-reported crashes; secondary outcomes included traffic offences, near crashes, riding exposure, and riding behaviours and motivations. RESULTS Follow-up was 89% at 3 months and 88% at 12 months; 60% of the intervention group completed the program. Intention-to-treat analyses conducted in 2014 indicated no effect on crash risk at 3 months (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.65-1.27) or 12 months (adjusted OR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.78-1.29). Riders in the intervention group reported increased riding exposure, speeding behaviours and rider confidence. CONCLUSIONS There was no evidence that this on-road motorcycle rider coaching program reduced the risk of crash, and we found an increase in crash-related risk factors.

Universal motorcycle helmet laws to reduce injuries: a community guide systematic review

CONTEXT Motorcycle crashes account for a disproportionate number of motor vehicle deaths and injuries in the U.S. Motorcycle helmet use can lead to an estimated 42% reduction in risk for fatal injuries and a 69% reduction in risk for head injuries. However, helmet use in the U.S. has been declining and was at 60% in 2013. The current review examines the effectiveness of motorcycle helmet laws in increasing helmet use and reducing motorcycle-related deaths and injuries. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION Databases relevant to health or transportation were searched from database inception to August 2012. Reference lists of reviews, reports, and gray literature were also searched. Analysis of the data was completed in 2014. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS A total of 60 U.S. studies qualified for inclusion in the review. Implementing universal helmet laws increased helmet use (median, 47 percentage points); reduced total deaths (median, -32%) and deaths per registered motorcycle (median, -29%); and reduced total injuries (median, -32%) and injuries per registered motorcycle (median, -24%). Repealing universal helmet laws decreased helmet use (median, -39 percentage points); increased total deaths (median, 42%) and deaths per registered motorcycle (median, 24%); and increased total injuries (median, 41%) and injuries per registered motorcycle (median, 8%). CONCLUSIONS Universal helmet laws are effective in increasing motorcycle helmet use and reducing deaths and injuries. These laws are effective for motorcyclists of all ages, including younger operators and passengers who would have already been covered by partial helmet laws. Repealing universal helmet laws decreased helmet use and increased deaths and injuries.

The use of self-report exposure measures among novice motorcyclists: appropriateness and best practice recommendations.

Objectives: While self-report methods to collect exposure information have large practical advantages in many research contexts, little research has specifically investigated the reliability and validity of motorcyclists’ self-reported exposure. The present study aimed to examine the reliability and validity of different self-report exposure measures and to provide recommendations on best practice self-report riding exposure questions. Methods: The reliability and validity of different self-report exposure measures were examined amongst novice motorcyclists through t-tests, Bland Altman plots, coefficients of variation, and correlations. Results: The most valid and reliable data was provided when riding exposure was asked for the current average week rather than earlier and longer periods, and in units of time rather than distance or number of trips. The greater reliability of riding exposure found amongst commuting and rural riders compared to recreational and metropolitan riders respectively and at the second interview compared to the first suggests that factors such as riding purposes, geographical locations, and riding experience can contribute to measurement error. Conclusions: If self-reported odometer readings are used, questions on whether the respondents share their own bike or ride more than one bike, and a built-in process to ensure respondents report the exact odometer reading on their bike are recommended. It is recommended that self-report riding exposure questions ask about the hours of riding for the current average week, and data on riding purposes, locations, and experience are also collected.

521 Does an on-road motorcycle coaching program reduce crashes in novice riders? A randomised control trial

Background There is community demand for investment in motorcycle rider training programs but little evidence of its effectiveness in preventing crashes. This randomised trial of an on-road rider coaching program commissioned by VicRoads, the road authority for the State of Victoria, Australia, aimed to determine its effectiveness in reducing crashes in novice motorcycle riders. Methods Between May 2010 and October 2012 2399 newly-licensed provisional riders were recruited in Victoria, Australia and completed a telephone interview before randomisation to intervention or control groups. Riders in the intervention group were offered an on-road motorcycle rider coaching program which involved pre-program activities, 4 hours riding and facilitated discussion in small groups with a riding coach. Outcome measures were collected for all participants via telephone interviews at 3 and 12 months after program delivery (or equivalent for controls), and via linkage to police-recorded crash and offence data. The primary outcome was a composite measure of police-recorded and self-reported crashes; secondary outcomes included traffic offences, near crashes, riding exposure, and riding behaviours and motivations. Results Follow-up was 89% at 3 months and 88% at 12 months; 60% of the intervention group completed the program. Intention-to-treat analyses conducted in 2014 indicated no effect on crash risk at 3 months (adjusted OR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.65–1.27) or 12 months (adjusted OR 1.00, 95% CI: 0.78–1.29). Riders in the intervention group reported increased riding exposure, speeding behaviours and rider confidence. Conclusions There was no evidence that this on-road motorcycle rider coaching program reduced the risk of crash, and we found an increase in crash-related risk factors. Given the absence of road safety benefits such programs should be considered a less promising strategy than other aspects of a safe system approach.

Perceived Value of a Motorcycle Training Program: The Influence of Crash History and Experience of the Training

Objective: Evidence that rider training reduces motorcycle-related injuries or crashes is currently lacking. However, significant community demand for training persists, which in turn can influence policy. The present study aims to contribute to the understanding of this demand via two objectives: to (1) offer a method, namely, contingent valuation, to measure the value motorcyclists place on training and (2) examine determinants of such value. Methods: Value was elicited through a willingness to question, using a bidding format, novice motorcyclists who were randomly assigned to groups either offered the training or not. Results: The group that was offered and subsequently received training provided a lower mean perceived value of the training than the group that was not. Perceived value increased with rider age and decreased with training participation and near-crash experiences, controlling for bidding order, income, education, and experience of other training. Conclusion: This study demonstrates the utility of contingent valuation in quantifying the perceived value of training, as well as the modifiability of perceived value, with age, training participation, and near-crash experiences as key determinants. This indicates that research to determine ways to align the perceived value with evidence on training effectiveness is worthwhile in order to facilitate more appropriate and justified allocation of road safety resources. Potential options to explore and evaluate may include community education on evidence of training effectiveness as well as alternative measures with demonstrated effectiveness in reducing crash risks.