L .. tr: . .R‘ v: .1?! x V $.51, a? L. if. 1.. .91.. 32. y :23? . a .1 19,15 §..}...;:!:H?. 3.327%..23... .2 2.33:3)»; um, ...3..i...v » 1.33)»).7! it; a 1 3;”...3 3 $§§§ m? Th'iz'siséo'oertifythattm thesis entitled A Study of the Effectiveness of a Motorcycle Driver Education Film ‘ Loop Program for Reducing Fatal Crash Involvement presented by Louis R. De Carolis has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph .D . day“. in Education a Majox pry-tease: . I Date July-19, 1974 0-7639 A I‘— A ABSTRACT A STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MOTORCYCLE DRIVER EDUCATION FILM LOOP PROGRAM FOR REDUCING FATAL CRASH INVOLVEMENT By Louis R. De Carolis Statement of the Problem The purpose of this study was to investigate (l) the effective- ness of the New Jersey Motorcycle Film Loop Program and Supporting manual in reducing fatal crashes, and (2) the effectiveness of the New Jersey Motorcycle Film Loop Program and supporting manual in sub- stituting for riding experience. Methods of Procedure The problem was investigated by reviewing the motorcycle fatal crash experience in New Jersey. Based on the findings of this investi- gation, five motorcycle driver education film loops were developed. A seventeen page supporting manual was also developed to supplement the film loops. In order to reach one hundred per cent of the new motorcycle licensees, permission was sought and gained from the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles to incorporate the educational pro- gram into the existing pre-licensing procedures. In addition, approval was received from the New Jersey Department of Education to offer the program to all public and private high schools who were willing to Louis R. De Carolis include motorcycle driver education in their curriculum. In order to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the new materials in reducing fatalities, approval was sought and received from the New Jersey Department of Transportation to review all motorcycle fatality records that occurred during the period of January l, l97l, to December 31, 1973. This review necessitated surveying 3,988 motor vehicle fatality cases in order to extract only the motorcycle fatalities. The 87 pertinent motorcycle fatality cases were entered into the matrix along with the number of new motorcycle licenses issued for the corresponding periods. From this data, a motorcycle licensee fatality crash rate was calculated. The pre—treatment rates were then compared with the post-treatment rates using four approaches to determine the effective- ness of the new materials. These comparisons were tested for statistical significance. In addition, other factors outside of the introduction of the treatment materials were reviewed for possible change that could have contributed to the reduction in motorcycle fatality rates. The Major Findings The major findings of this study were as follows: 1. A reduction of 40.4% was found in the overall 18 month comparison of the motorcyclist fatality rates during the post—treatment period as compared to the pre-treatment period. This reduction was found be statistically significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was accepted. 2. A reduction of 39.3%, for the post-treatment period, was found in the seasonally identical 12 month comparison of the motorcycle Louis R. De Carolis fatality rates. This reduction was found to be statistically signifi- cant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis la was accepted. 3. A reduction of 49.4% was calculated for motorcyclists holding their licenses from l-3 months during the post—treatment period as compared to the motorcyclists in the pre-treatment period holding licenses for a similar period. This result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis lb, for the 1-3 months group, was rejected. 4. A reduction of 35% was calculated for motorcyclists hold- ing their licenses from 4-6 months during the post—treatment period, . as compared to the motorcyclists in the pre-treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis lb, for the 4-6 months group, was rejected. 5. A reduction of 100% was calculated for motorcyclists holding their licenses from 7-9 months during the post-treatment period, as compared to the motorcyclists in the pre-treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis lb, for the 7—9 months group, was rejected. 6. A reduction of l00% was calculated for motorcyclists holding their licenses from 10-12 months during the post—treatment period as compared to the motorcyclists in the pre-treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis lb, for the 10-12 months group, was rejected. Louis R. De Carolis 7. The introduction of the treatment reduced, by 25%, the effect of rider experience on the motorcycle fatality rate. The result was found not significant at the .05 level of confidence. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was rejected. 8. Twenty-one variables were reviewed for possible influence on the fatality rates reduction; none were found to have varied over the study period. It was determined that no significance was found at the .05 level of confidence for the 1—3 month, 4-6 month, 7—9 month, and l0-l2 month groups because of the limited data which was available for statistical analysis. If the data were available in greater quantity, it was anticipated that significance at the .05 level of confidence would be achieved. A STUDY OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A MOTORCYCLE DRIVER EDUCATION FILM LOOP PROGRAM FOR REDUCING FATAL CRASH INVOLVEMENT By Louis RI De Carolis A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Secondary Education and Curriculum 1974 Copyright by LOUIS R. DE CAROLIS 1974 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS After completing a work, such as a dissertation, the tendency to look back and review the many situations and people that made it possible, is quite natural. The encouragement and generosity of so many friends, colleagues, and family are involved that a true acknowledgment would consume many pages, although without that support extended all along the way, such a task might never have reached fruition. Therefore, I would like the mention the following people in special gratitude. To my committee for their contributions to the shaping of this final document and for sharpening my ability to do more critical thinking in the area of research. I especially want to thank my chairman, Dr. Robert E. Gustafson, for the additional support he has so generously supplied. I am indebted to the faculty of Michigan State University and especially to both the Highway Traffic Safety Center and the School of Criminal Justice for their high level of instruction. Appreciation is also expressed to my staff, the New Jersey Office of Highway Safety, for their understanding and support. Special thanks goes to my secretary, Mrs. Claire Greenberg, for her untiring assistance. I am also indebted to the support given to me by New Jersey's Governor's Representative for Highway Safety, and Director of Motor Vehicles, Mr. John A. Naddington. Special thanks are also extended to Mr. J. Grey Jones, Jr., President of Film Loops, Incorporated, for his assistance, encourage- ment, and friendship. Lastly, I must thank my family: my son, Jay, who has borne all the inconveniences of an often preoccupied father, and my wife, Fran, whose love, emotional strength, and consideration have made my life happy and fulfilled. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES Chapter I. III. INTRODUCTION . > The Problem Importance of the Study Assumptions of Study Hypotheses . Delimitations . . Definition of Terms . . Organization of the Remaining Chapters REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE . Introduction The Societal Emergence of the Motorcycle and its Acceptance . . . . Overview of Motorcycle Training Programs . Novice Motorcycle Training Programs Instructor Motorcycle Training Programs Summary . . DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY Hypotheses . . Program Initiation Medium Selection . Supportive Manual Program Goals . Selection of the Experimental Design Procedure for Data Collection Treatment of Data . Hypotheses . Study of Variables Summary . Page vi viii —J LOWNQU'IU'I-h Chapter Page IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Resulting Summary Data Based on the Collection of A11 Motorcycle Fatalities for 1971,1972, and 1973 . . . . . 67 Data Used to Identify Those Motorcycle Fatalities Occurring During 1971, 1972, and 1973 Where Motorcycle Licenses Were Granted During the Same Years . . . 68 The Number of New Motorcycle Licenses Issued During Each of the Twelve Quarters of the Study Period . . 68 Placement of Data Within the Matrix . . . . 68 Development of the Fatality Rates . . . 71 Comparison of the Data for Hypothesis l Over the 18 Months Before and After Treatment . . 71 Comparison of the Data for Subordinate Hypothesis la Over Seasonally Identical 12 Month Pre- and Post- Periods . . 74 Comparison of the Data for Subordinate Hypothesis 1b Showing Average Rates for Motorcyclists Receiving Licenses During Identical Time Periods . . . . . 76 Review of the Variables . . . . . . . . . . 84 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . 94 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 Implications . . . . . . . . 100 Recommendations for Further Research . . . . . . 101 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 Table 3.1. 3.2. 4.9. LIST OF TABLES Six- -quarter summary comparison of pre- and .post- treatment data . . Four- -quarter summary comparison of pre- and .post- treatment data . . The number of new motorcycle licenses issued during each of the twelve quarters of the study period Eighteen month summary comparison of 'pre- and post- treatment data . . Twelve month summary comparison of pre- and post— treatment data . . Comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis lb showing average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of time for 1-3 months . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis lb showing average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of 4-6 months Comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis lb showing average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of time for 7—9 months . . . . . . . . . Comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis lb showing average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of time for lO-12 months . . . . . . . . . Introduction of new motorcycle driver education materials . . . . . . . . . . Change in the New Jersey motorcycle operator popula- tion between the pre-treatment and the post- treatment group by age . . . . . Page 56 59 69 73 74 78 79 8O 81 85 85 Table 4.10. 4.11. 4.12. App. A. App. B. Change in the ratio of male/female licensees in the pre-treatment group compared to the post-treatment group . . . . Changes in New Jersey motor vehicle legal physical requirements to operate a motorcycle between the pre— —treatment groups and the post- -treatment groups . . . . . . Comparison of the data for Hypothesis 2 showing average rates for motorcyclists receiving and holding licenses during identical time period . Resulting summary data based on the collection of all motorcycle fatalities for 1971, 1972, and 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . Data used to identify those motorcycle fatalities occurring during 1971,1972, and 1973 where motorcycle licenses were granted during. the same years . . Page 86 87 90 112 121 Figure 3. 3. 1. N aw LIST OF FIGURES Raw data form Matrix . Corresponding quarters matrix Seasonally identical quarters matrix Calculated rates graph List of variables Placement of data within matrix Calculated rates matrix 18 months pre— and post-treatment outlined matrix 12 months seasonally identical pre- and post- treatment outlined matrix . . Pre-/post-treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees receiving and holding their licenses during identical time periods Pre— /post- treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees holding their licenses for l— 3 months Pre-/post-treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees holding their licenses for 4-6 months . . . . . . . Pre—/post—treatment fatality rate comparison for motor— cycle licensees holding their licenses for 7-9 months . . . . . . . . . viii Page 52 53 57 60 61 65 70 72 75 77 92 138 139 140 Figure Page E.4. Pre-/post treatment fatality rate comparison for motor- cycle licensees holding their licenses for 10-12 months . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141 F.l. Pre-/post-treatment fatality rate comparison for motor- cycle licensees receiving and holding their licenses during identical time periods . . . . . . . . 147 Appendix A. Resulting Summary Data Based on the Collection of All Motorcycle Fatalities for 1971, 1972, and 1973 B. Data Used to Identify Those Motorcycle Fatalities Occurring During 1971, 1972, and 1973 where Motorcycle Licenses Were Granted During the Same Years . . . . . . . . C. Statistical Significance Test for 18 Month Comparison . 0. Statistical Significance Test for 12 Month Comparison of Seasonally Identical Periods . . . E. Statistical Significance Test for Comparison of 1— 3 Months, 4- 6 Months, 7— 9 Months and 10- 12 Months Periods F. LIST OF APPENDICES Statistical Significance Test for Licensees Holding Licenses for Equal Lengths of Time . . Page 111 120 126 129 132 142 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION As a means of transportation, the motorcycle has the highest motor vehicle death rate based on 100 mi1lion miles traveled. In addition, the number of minor injuries, serious injuries, property damage, and economic loss due to disabilities, caused by motorcycle crashes, is inestimable. Thus, while medical science has conquered the ravages of many diseases, motor vehicle crashes and, more specifically, motorcycle crashes, have risen to become a nearly uncontrollable epi- demic, calling for traffic safety prevention programs to harness this public tragedy. Within the state of New Jersey little effort has been made to assist the motorcyclist to experience a safer riding career. Rather, it has become commonplace to merely suggest motorcycles be banned from the road. For example, the New Jersey Garden State Parkway, stretching the entire length of the state, prohibits motorcycle operation at all times. Another major roadway, however, has a different approach. The New Jersey Turnpike Authority does not allow motorcycle use on its roads during unsafe weather conditions or at times when it is con- sidered in the best interest of the motorcyclist. One organization which has promoted safer riding is the Motor— cycle Industry Council of New Jersey. It has urged its member dealers to offer training on basic riding skills with each sale. However, little evidence of any compliance exists. Ray J. Marini, former Governor's Representative for Highway Safety in New Jersey, feels the dramatic increase in New Jersey's motorcycle fatalities is due to the growing number of motorcycles on our roadways and the lack of comprehensive motorcycle driver educa— tion} Another proponent of this position, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, has conducted a survey which suggests that the education and training of new motorcyclists can substantially affect their subsequent crash experience.2 As an avid motorcyclist as well as an official in the field of traffic safety, the disproportionate fatality rate per 100 million miles of vehicle travel evoked an interest, on the part of the writer, that resulted in the writer's teaching, testing, and developing a motorcycle driver education program. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration urges each state to evaluate the training and educational opportunities available to motorcyclists both within, and outside of, their highway safety driver education programs. Further, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration strongly encourages the states to develop a statewide motorcycle safety education and training plan.3 1New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles' Motorcycle Operator's Handbook, p. 11. 2Airborne Instrument Laboratory, ”Motorcycle Safety” (a report prepared for the National Highway Safety Bureau, 1968). 3Highway Safety Program Standard Supplement 1 to Vol. 3 (Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, November 19, 1971), p. l. To review numerically the rapid growth in the number and crash experience of motorcyclists is quite alarming. The number of registered motorcycles in the United States has increased from 575,000 in 1960 to about 980,000 in 1964 and to nearly 4,000,000 in 1972. Since 1960, motorcycle deaths have increased from 731 that year to 2,700 in 1972, an increase of 270%. In the single year between 1971 and 1972, fatali- ties rose by 16.2%. Presently, in the United States, the motorcycle mileage death rate for 1972 is estimated to be approximately 17 lives lost per 100,000,000 miles of motorcycle travel. This rate compares with the overall motor vehicle death rate of 4.5 lives lost per 100,000,000 miles, which includes pedestrian, nonoccupant, and occupant deaths.4 A possible explanation of this disproportionately high death rate for motorcyclists is suggested by the Motorcycle Safety Founda— tion. In a recent Audio Advisory Service tape from the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, the Foundation reported that, ”While death or injury is involved in only 10 per cent of automobile mishaps, a comparable figure for motorcycles is 80 per cent.“ State- wide studies in New Jersey,5 Kentucky,6 Kansas7 and 4National Safety Council, Accident Facts (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1973), p. 56. 5New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, Summary of Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents—-Motorcycles Only (Trenton: State of New Jersey, 1966). 6Kentucky State Police, Standard Summary of Motor Vehicle Acci- dents in Kentucky for 1968 Involving Motorcycles (Frankfort: Kentucky State Police, 1969). 7Traffic and Safety Department, Summary of Motor Vehicle Acci- dents Involving Motorcycles, 1966 (Topeka: State Highway Commission, 1967). Vermont8 suggest that 90.8 per cent, 87.9 per cent, 88.6 per cent, and 80.1 per cent, respectively, of all motorcycle crashes resulted in death or injury. In the midst of what appears to be an upward spiralling of both motorcycle travel, and attendant fatalities, the National Highway‘ Traffic Safety Administration indicated only a few states have ini- tiated motorcycle driver safety education programs. One such program, the only example given, is the New Jersey Office of Highway Safety's Motorcycle Driver Education Film Loop Series. This program consists of five motorcycle film loops and a seventeen page supporting handbook. These materials are used in 320 of the 467 secondary driver education programs in New Jersey and at all nineteen driver licensing stations.9 It is this program which is the focus of this study. The Problem There has been a rapid increase in the number of fatalities in New Jersey. Between the years 1968 and 1970, motorcyclist fatalities increased by 68%. During the comparable period, motorist fatalities declined by 6%. In spite of this rapidly increasing motorcycle fatality picture, little or no motorcycle driver education was con— ducted in New Jersey high schools, in commercial driver education pro- grams, or at motor vehicle licensing stations. 8Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles, Motorc cle Accidents in Vermont, Year 1966 (Montpelier: State of Vermont, 1967). 9Traffic Safety Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin- istration Activities and Accomplishments in Conformity with the Highway Safety Act of 1966, 1973, p. 25. Recently, however, a motorcycle driver education program for all motorcycle license applicants in New Jersey was implemented during the treatment period of July 1, 1972 through December 31, 1973 to reduce the number of motorcycle fatalities. The motorcycle driver edu- cation program that was used consisted of five film loops and a seventeen page supporting handbook. Importance of the Study If the Motorcycle Driver Education Film Loop Series program is effective in reducing the fatality rate in New Jersey, then these edu- cational materials can be used to reach the entire motorcyclist popu- lation in the state, including the motorcyclist who has had his license for more than eighteen months (the motorcyclists in New Jersey who are not covered as part of this current project). Additionally, the pro— gram can be utilized by other states in a manner similar to New Jersey's usage. The method for disseminating these materials to the total motorcyclist population in New Jersey might include educational television, dealer orientation programs, driver re-examination pro— grams, and driver improvement schools. The study will also investigate the effect of motorcycle driving experience on the fatal crash rate as compared to the effect of introducing the educational materials to determine if training can be effectively substituted for experience. Assumptions of Study One assumption of this study was that these materials will, in fact, be used by each and every motor vehicle licensing station in New Jersey as a prerequisite to issuing motorcycle drivers' licenses. It was reasonable to make such an assumption because use of the mate- rials by all motorcycle license applicants is required by the State of New Jersey. However, the administration of this requirement will be confirmed by spot checking each motor vehicle station to verify its utilization. An educational assumption of this study was that the concepts and knowledge taught through the use of these program materials will affect the driving behavior of the motorcyclist, and will, as a direct result, reduce the motorcyclist's chances of having a fatal crash. Hypotheses The hypotheses for this study were: Hypothesis 1 The viewing of the motorcycle film loops and the studying of the corresponding supporting manual by all New Jersey appli- cants for a motorcycle driver license will significantly reduce the rate of motorcycle fatalities in the experimental group over an eighteen month study period. Subordinate Hypothesis la The viewing of the motorcycle film loops and the studying of the corresponding supporting manual by all New Jersey appli- cants for a motorcycle driver license will significantly reduce the rate of motorcycle fatalities in the experimental group over a seasonally identical twelve month study period. Subordinate Hypothesis lb The viewing of the motorcycle film loops and the studying of the corresponding supporting manual by all New Jersey appli- cants for a motorcycle driver license will significantly reduce the rate of motorcycle fatalities in the experimental, groups holding their licenses for 1-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-9 months, and 10-12 months during the study period from January 1, 1971 through December 31, 1973. Hypothesis 2 The introduction of the educational materials will reduce the effect of experience on the fatality rate by resulting in fatality rates for beginning motorcyclists which are equal to those for more experienced motorcyclists who did not receive the training. Delimitations This study was intended to show that providing the new motor- cycle licensee with an educational program designed to illustrate and present countering concepts for the most frequent fatality-producing situations would cause a decrease in motorcycle fatalities. The motor- cycle traffic fatalities of riders not licensed in New Jersey during the three year study period were not included as a part of this study because they were not affected by the treatment nor were they a part of the pre-treatment group. All motorcyclists selected for this study had to have been licensed in New Jersey during the period of January 1, 1971 and December 31, 1973 (inclusive), therefore the results of the study apply only to New Jersey motorcyclists during the study period. Because all data was extracted from the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles records, no fatal motorcycle crash which did not occur on a public street or highway within New Jersey was included. The entire study encompassed two time periods of eighteen months each, for a total of three years; the first eighteen month period was considered as the pre-treatment group, while the second eighteen month period was considered as the post—treatment group. Another delimitation of this- study which must be understood is that one of the controls of the study was time license held, not riding exposure, i.e. the number of miles traveled, place of travel, speed of travel, type of motorcycle used and time of day of travel. It should be emphasized that time license held and exposure are not the same; therefore it cannot be assumed that even though the time the license held for the pre- and post-treatment groups were identical, exp05ure may have been different. Definition of Terms Fatal Crash: An incident involving a motorcycle which results in one or more deaths within the calendar year of occurrence. Motorcycle; A motorized vehicle having two wheels propelled by a five brake-horsepower engine or larger and which is capable of carrying one or two riders. Accident Reports: A statewide law enforcement standardized form used to record 112 factors relating to the fatal crash. Film Loop: A short continuous visual color film without sound, not exceeding four minutes. Driver Re-examination: A method used to re-educate and re- examine each motorcycle license holder once every four years. Driver Improvement School: A school intended to rehabilitate any driver who has accumulated six or more points on his New Jersey- held license. Time-Series Experiment: The time series design is based on periodic measurements on a group both before and after the introduction of an experimental change. The results are indicated by a comparison of the pre-treatment and post—treatment measurements. Special Study: An independent measurement of the effect of a variable through inquiries, interviews, or mathematical analysis. Organization of the Remaining Chapters This study was designed to test the effectiveness of a motor- cycle driver education program on newly licensed operators. Conse— quently, the content was structured in a manner developed to fulfill the designated purpose. In Chapter II, the pertinent literature relating to motorcycle driver education programs is given special emphasis. Chapter III contains the development of the film loops and supporting guide. The data collection method is presented along with the experimental design of the study. Chapter IV presents the analysis of the data. This data is presented in matrix and graph form. In addition, a test of statisti- cal significance is included. Chapter V contains a summary, the conclusions, implications, recommendation for further research, and a discussion. CHAPTER II A REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Introduction In this chapter, the review of literature is presented. The review is divided into four sections: (1) the Societal Emergence of the Motorcycle and its Acceptance, (2) Overview of Motorcycle Training Programs, (3) Novice Motorcycle Training Programs, and (4) Instructor Motorcycle Training Programs. In order to fully disclose the pertinent background informa- tion relevant to this study, an exhaustive review of the motorcycle literature was conducted. During the review of literature, numerous readings were conducted which were determined to be beyond the purpose and scope of this study. The available literature concentrated on vehicle operation, operator protection, vehicle safety equipment, crash and driver char— acteristics, severity of motorcycle crashes, and the history of vehicle development. The information found in the aforementioned categories was contained most often in journals, pamphlets, manuals, speeches, and news articles rather than in published books. Through- out the review of literature, it was very apparent that single writ- ings did not deal comprehensively with one subject matter. What was most prevalent was a constant mix of motorcycle topics within each piece of literature. 11 There was little evidence in the literature of a scientific investigation on the effectiveness of a motorcycle safety training pro— gram. Nor did the literature reveal any attempt to substitute a motor- cycle safety training program for operator motorcycling experience. The following pages present as background information, a resume of literature reviewed as part of this study. The Societal Emergence of the Motorcycle and its Acceptance The first motorcycle emerged in 1869, more than one hundred years ago.10 Since that time, intense vehicle development, large pro- duction, and wide use has provided riders of all nations with a con- venient, economical, and reliable means of transportation. By the middle of the twentieth century, the two-wheel vehicle had found a permanent and acceptable position in the United States' social 11 structure. In 1960, there were 575,497 registered motorcycles, while, only seven years later, nearly two million vehicles were recorded registered.12 The rapid growth in popularity of two-wheel vehicles in this nation can be attributed to many factors, with low initial cost and 10Cyril F. Caunter, Motor Cycles: A Technical History (London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970). HAmerican Automobile Association, Guide to Safe Motorcyclipg (Washington, D.C.: American Automobile Association, 1970), p. 5. 12 National Safety Council, op. cit., p. 56. 12 13 economy of operation being significant factors. In addition, a great deal of pleasure is derived from riding a motorcycle, which accounts for many purchases.14 However, while many advantages can be cited for the popularity of the motorcycle, there does exist profound evidence that motorcycling is more hazardous when compared to automobiles on a registration basis.15 On a mile-for-mile basis, when compared to automobiles, a motorcyclist's chances of being killed are about four times as great.16 It is quite obvious that once a motorcycle crash occurs, the operator has far less protection that his automobile counterpart and is more likely to be fatally injured. It has been estimated that motorcycle injuries could amount to between 100,000-300,000 a year, with the greater majority being serious.17 The annual toll of motorcycle crashes increased to approxi- mately 2700 riders killed per year by 1972. This represented a 13Frank C. Young, "A Study of Selected Factors Related to Acci- dent Involvement of Motorcycles in Ingham County, Michigan in 1971" (unpublished Ph D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973). 14American Automobile Association, op. cit., p. 9. 15Duane R. Johnson, ”A Case Study of Motorcycle Accidents in Three Illinois Counties“ (unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968). 16Fred Potenza, ”A Defensive Motorcycle Driver“ (paper pre- sented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Auto- motive Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973). 17John J. O'Mara, ”Contributory Factors in Motorcycle Casualty Accidents” (paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automobile Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973). 13 feverish surge of more than 138 per cent over the preceding three—year period.18 Despite the fact that motorcycling has a burgeoning incidence of fatalities and injuries, motorcycle registration increased on an average of 18 per cent for the years 1971-1972. Furthermore, in 1967, Yamaha motorcycle dealers were told that each year there is potential for three million motorcycle purchases in the United States.19 Overview of Motorcycle Training Programs Sixty-five per cent of the eligible public school students in 1967-1968 received a driver education course meeting minimum require— ments. However, thousands of young people buying motorcycles are on their own when it comes to motorcycle instruction. This factor accounts for a large number of motorcycle operators experiencing crashes during their first few months of riding exposure.20 Although two-thirds of the eligible students receive a minimum regular driver education program across the nation, only 5,442 schools, as reported by twenty-five state departments of education, conduct some 18National Safety Council, op. cit., p. 56. 19Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, “Facts on Cycle Safety that can Help You Sell“ (speech delivered at Yamaha Dealer Schools, Kansas City, Missouri, 1967), p. 1 20American Automobile Association, Motorcycling and Their Operation (Washington, D.C.: American Automobile Association, 1972), p. 1; Letter, Jack Casey (Program Administrator for Yamaha Learn to Ride Safety Program, Yamaha International Corporation) to Ray J. Marini (New Jersey Director of Motor Vehicles), March 8, 1974; Charles Hartman, "Motorcycles in the Schools," oncepts, VI, No. 2 (1973), 4. 14 type of motorcycle safety instruction within the driver education cur- riculum.21 In a national study conducted for the Motorcycle Industry Council Safety and Education Foundation by the American Driver and Traffic Safety Education Association, it was revealed that laboratory or actual vehicle instructional programs were offered in only one hundred seven schools. It was presumed that, in each of the one hundred-plus school programs, classroom instruction was a part of the total program. A major finding of the Foundation's study indicated that the lack of qualified teachers contributed to the limited growth of motorcycle instruction in the schools.22 An additional difficulty faced by educators wishing to supple- ment a motorcycle instructional course is the limited amount of audio- visual materials or other media for teaching motorcycle safety. Mr. J. C. Parkhurst, publisher of Cycle World magazine, was charged with the task of itemizing any and all types of teaching materials for safe motorcycling. He concluded his research by stating, ”I have done “23 as much research as possible and there isn't any. McDole found in his research that, although there was a great deal of literature 21American Driver and Traffic Safety Education, Motorcycle Safety Education Programs (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association), p. 7. 22 Ibid., p. 4. 23d. C. Parkhurst, ”Safety Promotion Helps” (speech delivered at the Air Force Industry Two-Wheel Motor Vehicle Safety Seminar, Norton Air Force Base, California, November, 1966). 15 on the automobile, motorcycle literature falls very short in compari- 24 son. The most sophisticated piece of teaching apparatus employed within motorcycle training programs surveyed was the motorcycle simu- lator. First invented by Mr. Bernard G. Nelson, it simulates the feel of a motorcycle in a stationary position.25 A second simulator, pro- duced by the Hartzell Corporation of St. Paul, Minnesota, teaches basic skills of motorcycling. Unfortunately, the literature did not reveal any scientific studies indicating whether motorcycle driver education is beneficial or detrimental to safe driving. However, a number of documents strongly supported the fact that there was no substitute for a combination of motorcycle education and training experience as a method of training safe drivers.26 One study conducted by the United States Navy pointed to three hundred motorcycle crashes involving Navy men, who were responsible 24Thomas L. McDole, ”Development of a General Knowledge Test for Use in Motorcycle Operator Education and Evaluation Programs" (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968). 25Bud Martin, ”The Nelson Trainer,“ Cycle World (April, 1968), 72. 26Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, Handbook of the Driver Education Program for Motorbike Operators (Kansas City: Uni— versal Underwriters Insurance Company, 1967), p. 14; Motorcycle Industry Council, Reading Before Riding (Washington, D.C.: Motor- cycle Industry Council), p. 1; Highway Safety Program Standards (Washington, D.C.: National Highway Safety Bureau, January, 1969), p. 2 16 for 75 per cent of the incidents. It was determined that the lack of operator training was the major causative factor.27 According to John J. O'Mara, there is little justification to infer that a motorcycle driver education program would reduce motor— 28 cycle rider deaths and injuries. In fact, O'Mara further elaborated on this point by indicating that the offering of motorcycle driver education programs in public schools would principally lead to further motorcycle vehicle registrations with the almost certain result of more deaths and injuries.29 Previously, it had been stated by Professor O'Mara that there were several ways of preventing injury and death on motorcycles, one of which is increased cyclist training.30 An Illinois study reported that in fatal motorcycle crashes, no single corrective solution could be found to apply to the crashes.31 27Naval Safety Center, Division of Motor Vehicles, Motorc cle Safety Course (Norfolk, Virginia: Naval Safety Center, 1972), p. 11. 28John J. O'Mara, ”Contributory Factors in Motorcycle Casualty Accidents” (paper presented at the meeting of the Second Inter— national Congress on Automotive Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973). 291bid. 30New York Times, February 27, 1967, p. 25. 31Francis S. Lorenz, "Fatal Motorcycle Accidents” (unpub- lished report delivered to the Governor's Official Traffic Safety Coordinating Committee, Springfield, Illinois, November 16, 1966), p. 2. 17 32 Everest and Johnson33 recognized that an inexperienced or untrained operator can be a hazard to himself and others on the road. Investigations by the National Safety Council have indicated that the danger associated with a motorcycle are not inherent in the machine 34 itself. The Council stressed that inexperienced motorcycle drivers find themselves more often in unsafe situations than does the mature or professional driver.35 A two-county Michigan study of motorcycle owners by Schlick recommended that, within motorcycle driver education programs, instruc- tional methodologies be developed and implemented to help new riders develop personality traits which lead to accident—free motorcycle operation. Schlick concluded that a significant difference did exist between the accident and non-accident-involved male motorcycle owners in biographical characteristics.36 In a report resulting from a survey conducted by Airborne Instruments Laboratory for the National Highway Safety Bureau, 32Frank K. Everest, Brigadier General, ”A Call for Action" (opening remarks at the Air Force Industry Two-Wheel Motor Vehicle Safety Seminar, Norton Air Force Base, California, November, 1966). 33Duane R. Johnson, ”What are you Doing about Motorcycle Education,” Safety (May-June, 1969). 34Jay Peake, ”Those Wild, Wild, Wheels,“ This Week, March 31, 1968, p. 4. 351b1d. 36John E. Schlick, ”A Comparison of Personality Factors and Selected Characteristics of Accident and Non Accident Involved Male Motorcycle Owners in Two Michigan Counties” (unpublished Ph.D. dis- sertation, Michigan State University, 1973). 18 education and training of all motorcycle operators were recommended. The survey indicated that no large statewide motorcycle education and training programs were being conducted for the novice to gain the proper instruction and riding experience.37 The survey reported that most motorcyclists are self—taught, taught by a friend, or given mini- mal riding instruction by the motorcycle dealer. A statistical summary of motorcycle fatalities occurring to both riders and passengers in the United States clearly pointed out that younger people, those in the age group of 15-24, were involved in two-thirds of the motorcycle fatalities. Both inexperience and the lack of skill were cited as being of greater importance in avoiding motorcycle crashes than in avoiding automobile crashes.38 There have been a number of small and varied motorcycle courses 39 The most developed, printed, and implemented within our nation. extensive program development appears to be occurring either at the university level or within state departments of education. More recently, the non-governmental and non—educational agencies have developed motorcycle program guides. Extensive course instructional manuals have been compiled by the University of Wisconsin,40 37Airborne Instrument Laboratory, op. cit., p. 6. 38Metropolitan Life, “Motorcycle Accident Fatalities," Statis- tical Bulletin, LIV (August, 1973), 9—10. 39American Driver and Traffic Safety Education, op. cit., 40Frazier Damron, ed., A Programmed Instruction Series for Motorcycle Riders and Instructors and Other Motorist Drivers, I-V (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1972). 19 West Virginia Department of Education,41 National Safety Council,42 Explorer Scouts,43, and the American Automobile Association.44 These courses, and others, all appear to contain primarily the same information, with differences appearing in the treatment of the content and breadth of coverage on specific topics. The Motorcycle Safety Foundation has recently developed a motorcycle course, assisted by experienced curriculum specialists and experienced motorcycle operators. The course contains what is presently 45 known about motorcycle operation. The Foundation is now developing a research-based curriculum package for motorcycle riders, with the final program being performance-based for safe motorcycle operations.46 Novice Motorcycle Training Programs A junior high school motorcycle safety rider course was offered to all thirteen and fourteen year olds. This was the lowest grade level motorcycle course found offered within a school system. The 41Milton L. Bennett, Motorcycle Safety Education (Charleston: West Virginia Department of Education Press, 1971). 42National Safety Council, Motorcycle Supplement--Student Workbook and Defensive Driver's Manual (Chicago: National Safety Council, 1972). 43Stuart A. Wilkinson, Explorer Motorcycle Safety Training Program (La Mirada, California, 1969). 44 op. cit. 45Motorcycle Safety Foundation, The Beginner Rider Course (Washington, D.C.: Motorcycle Safety Foundation, 1974), p. 3. 46 American Automobile Association, Guide to Safe Motorcycling Ibid. 20 course entailed fifteen hours of classroom instruction and ten hours of practical instruction. As part of the program, student assistants, who were licensed motorcycle operators, aided in the instruction. These assistants provided the learners with traffic situations found in normal traffic patterns and accomplished their task on a driving range facility within Dallas County School System.47 In a study and analysis of motorcycle accident data based on Japan's crash experiences, motorcycle driver training is credited as an effective means in the prevention of motorcycle accidents. The Japanese government recognized that increased rider skill resultingfromnmtorcycle training programs was acontributing factor in the substantial decrease in motorcycle crashes in 1972. As a result, the driver licensing procedure was revised to make the examination more comprehensive. Concurrently, enrollmentin the formal eight-hour instruction given ata driver training school before a rider receives his license increased by 15 per cent.48 Promotion of motorcycle rider training programs increased sharply during 1972 in Japan's Niigata Prefecture. This increased activity was the result of two prior years of explosive increases in motorcycle crashes. Primarily involved in these crashes were older teenagers riding large engine motorcycles. It was stated by Mr. Hoshikazu Imatake of the Japan Traffic Safety Association that the causes of these crashes were due to insufficiencies in motorcycle 47Motorcycle Safety Course in Dallas County, ”Traffic Safety Newsletter of Alabama“ (January-February, 1974), p. 3. 48Hiroshi Inayoshi, ”Characteristics of Motorcycle Accidents in Japan” (paper presented at the Second International Congress on Auto: motive Safety, San Francisco, California, July , l973). 21 operators' acquiring basic knowledge, techniques, and patterns for the safe operation of a motorcycle. At the end of 1972, motorcycle fatali- ties and crashes decreased. Although it was recognized that the motorcycle educational programs were not the sole factor in bringing about a decrease, they were cited as making a considerable contribu— tion. Other factors, which were also cited as contributing to the decrease, were revision of the motorcycle license examination pro- cedure and the helmet use campaigns.49 Mr. Yoshinao Sugie, an instructor at an all-male Japanese high school, conducted a motorcycle driver education program with startling results. His program, entailing printed instructional material, audio-visual supportive materials, and actual rider training, reached approximately three hundred students the first year. In 1965, and in previous years before the first year of the program, there were an average of sixty-five motorcycle creashes each year, which included two fatalities. During the next five years, as the program proceeded, crashes were reduced remarkably downward to twenty—nine in 1970. During the last four years of the program, there were no fatalities. In 1971, Mr. Sugie left the Hamamotsu High School of Technology, and the program ceased. Since the program has ended, the motorcycle crash and fatal experience has returned to the level at which the motorcycle driver education program was first inaugurated.50 As a result of 49Yoshikazu Imatake, “Promotion of Safety Riding Education Activities for Motorcyclists“ (paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automotive Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973). 50Yoshinao Sugie, “Motorcycle Safety Driving Education at a High School and itsResults” (paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automotive Safety, San Francisco, California. July, 1973). 22 Mr. Sugie's motorcycle educational program, data was collected which indicated that the number of motorcycle crashes and traffic viola- tions were reduced by 50 per cent. This reduction, according to Mr. Sugie, was attained by imparting correct knowledge and technology to high school students.51 Yamaha, one of the leaders in the motorcycle industry, developed a national learn-to-ride program in response to an alarming rise in motorcycle fatality figures. This program was designed to increase rider knowledge of safe riding skills and techniques. Partici— pating students who had never operated motorcycles comprised 65 per cent 52 of the enrollees. One essential part of the program materials was a rider safety manual which each participant received.53 A series of five motorcycle instruction units has been developed, based on the programmed instruction learning method used by the University of Wisconsin. The methodology used throughout the five- part series was designed to offer the student information in small, simple segments, progressing to more complex segments. Reinforcement, both positive and negative, was offered immediately after performance of either a skill exercise or written exercise. As the developers of this program cite, the immediate knowledge of a mistake has been proven 5'Ib1d. 52Terry Tiernan, ”The Yamaha Learn to Ride Safety Program" (paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automotive Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973). 53Yamaha, Inc. Rider Safety Manual (Yamaha, Incorporated, 1973), 23 to be an effective way to learn. The entire programmed series was designed to assist the student in learning and, especially, to aid in the retaining of all the learning material, including behaviors which will foster safe riding practices.54 One of the most comprehensive programs reviewed, one which lasted fifty hours, was the Explorer Motorcycle Safety Training Pro- gram. The program was considered so successful that a pilot course was developed for and implemented in the Los Angeles City Schools. As lengthy as the program was it was pointed out that the program should not be condensed. Each learning session entailed three hours, a time period proven to be appropriate for maximum learning without introducing fatigue.55 The United States Navy has felt obligated to include motor- cycle safety into its overall safety program because of carefully studied motorcycle crashes. Of three hundred motorcycle crashes involving Navy men, it was concluded that the cyclists were responsible for 75 per cent of them. Furthermore, the lack of operator training was found to be the major causative factor.56 The Navy program, utiliz- ing several references and instructional aids, included four hours of . . . . . 5 classroom 1nstruct1on and three hours of dr1v1ng range exper1ence. 7 54Damron, op. cit., p. iii. 55Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 1. 56Naval Safety Center. OE~ Clt., p. 11. 57Ibid., p. 7. 24 Instructor Motorcycle Training Programs A Motorbike Driver Education Instructor's Kit has been developed by the Universal Underwriters Insurance Company for the use of driver education teachers in conducting a supplemental driver education course for motorcycle operators. Within the kit is an instructor's guide, a student handbook, completion certificate card, safety quiz, and prac- tice driving evaluation forms. It is pointed out in the kit that the qualifications of an instructor should be the same as those of a certified driver education teacher, with the understanding of theory and operations of motorcycling being understood.58 Recently, the Canadian Safety Council viewed an alarming accel- eration of deaths, injuries, and crashes involving motorcyclists. The statistics in Canada showed that novice riders, in their first few months of riding, were vastly more prone to crashes. As a result of these figures pointing to the need for motorcycle training programs, the Canadian Safety Council inaugurated a three—phase training effort. The first phase was to train chief instructors from each province. They, in turn, would train course instructors. Finally, the course instructors would then be immediately available to work with local groups of novice riders. A National Advisory Committee, representing industry and governments, with input from various provincial safety councils, developed these two—instructor training programs.59 58Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, Motorbike Driver Education Program Instructor's Kit (Kansas City: Universal Under- writers Insurance Company, 1966). 59 Safety Canada, Ottawa, March, 1973, p. 6, col. 1. 25 A motorcycle instructor program, conducted during the summer of 1973, was sponsored by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. The Founda- tion held eight separate graduate workshops primarily for higher educa- tion instructors involved in traffic safety. Many of the 120 indi- viduals completing the graduate workshop were employed as State Edu- cation Department specialists, traffic safety educators, and military safety officers. All participants who did complete the workshop were expected to qualify a minimum of 20 teachers during the next school year. The eight workshops had two main objectives: to develop or improve motorcycle instructional capabilities and generate a cadre of instructors willing to teach and qualify other instructors as motor- cycle teachers. The workshops covered the following areas: basic instruction in motorcycling, educational programming and curriculum development, and problem identification involving various vehicle mixes on the roadway.60 TheYamaha International Corporation offered on March 30 and 31 of 1974 an inaugural motorcycle driver education instructor training program. The program was held at Keene State College, Keene, New Hampshire. The intent of the program was to teach the one hundred participating driver education instructors the following: 60Hartman, op. cit., p. 5. 26 1. How to ride a motorcycle safely. 2. How to use the Yamaha twelve-hour Motorcycle Rider Edu- cation Curriculum. 3. How to work with the motorcycle dealers and local civic groups to establish the support needed to initiate and carry through the Yamaha Rider Education Curriculum. After the instructors' workshop, it was expected that each participant, returning to his community as a certified instructor, would initiate a motorcycle safety program.61 Summary The review of the literature has presented some degree of unanimity relative to the present status of motorcycle safety educa- tion. Although motorcycling is a hazardous means of travel when com- pared to other modes of movement, few comprehensive motorcycle safety education programs are being conducted nationwide. Presently some educators, the private motorcycle industry, and some researchers feel motorcycle safety education is the best possible means of curbing the high recurring motorcycle crash incidents. Furthermore, there is an apparent lack of motorcycle instructor preparatory programs presently available. The literature also disclosed that no scientific evaluation of a motorcycle safety education program was ever conducted. Hence, the need, purpose and methodology for this study was apparent. 61 Yamaha International Corporation, Yamaha Motorc cle Rider Education Course (Buena Park, California, 1974), p. 1. 27 Presented in the following chapter is a description of the design and methodology used to conduct the study, procedure for data collection, and treatment of data. CHAPTER III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The purposes of this study were to investigate: (l) the effectiveness of the New Jersey Motorcycle Film Loop Program and sup- porting manual in reducing fatal crashes, and (2) the effectiveness of the New Jersey Motorcycle Film Loop Program and supporting manual in substituting for riding experience. Hypotheses The hypotheses for this study were: Hypothesis 1 The viewing of the motorcycle film loops and the studying of the corresponding supporting manual by all New Jersey appli- cants for a motorcycle driver license will significantly reduce the rate of motorcycle fatalities in the experimental group over an eighteen month study period. Subordinate Hypothesis la The viewing of the motorcycle film loops and the studying of the corresponding supporting manual by all New Jersey appli- cants for a motorcycle driver license will significantly reduce the rate of motorcycle fatalities in the experimental group over a seasonally identical twelve month study period. Subordinate Hypothesis lb The viewing of the motorcycle film loops and the studying of the corresponding supporting manual by all New Jersey appli- cants for a motorcycle driver license will significantly _ reduce the rate of motorcycle fatalities in the experimental 28 29 groups holding their licenses for 1-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-9 months, and 10-12 months during the study period from January 1, 1971 through December 31, 1973. Hypothesis 2 The introduction of the educational materials will reduce the effect of experience on the fatality rate by resulting in fatality rates for beginning motorcyclists which are equal to those for more experienced motorcyclists who did not receive the training. Program Initiation In 1971, the New Jersey Office of Highway Safety, in conjunc- tion with the Department of Education, initiated a study of the motor- cycle situation in the state of New Jersey, under the direction of the writer. A preliminary investigation showed that not only were the number of licensed motorcycle operators growing at a rapid rate, but in New Jersey, during the period from 1968 to 1970, motorcycle fatali- ties increased by 68 per cent. Over the same period, passenger car fatalities declined by 6 per cent. Based on the evident need for motorcycle safety education, the writer began the tasks of designing, supervising the preparation of, and, finally, implementing a motorcycle safety program suitable to New Jersey's needs. Medium Selection The selection of the instructional medium, the film loop, was based on an analysis of the tasks to be taught and the anticipated types of utilization requirements in classrooms and driver qualifica- tion centers. 30 With respect to the tasks to be taught, the major objective in media selection was to simulate the actual application of the skills to be taught in the real world environment as closely as feasible. This objective was considered of paramount importance because it was felt that the closer the quality of the simulation, the greater the probability that the gained skills would be transferred to actual on-the-road behavior. Based on the closeness of the simulation, it was decided to use motion pictures, taken in the actual on-road environment. With respect to the utilization requirements, the film loop approach was selected for the following reasons: Classroom Utilization 1. The film loop format is silent while being used, thus allowing teacher/student interaction while the loop visually reinforces and directs the discussion. 2. The film loop format allows for continuous replaying of a particular skill or technique without requiring any rewinding or rethreading which would disrupt the dis— cussion. 3. The film loop format allows the motorcycle skills and techniques to be presented individually in learning modules, thus allowing the discussions to focus on one topic at a time without having extraneous visual material at the same time. 31 Individual and Driver Qualification Center Utilization l. The film loop format provides individual cassettes which require no initial film threading and which can be inserted 'into the film loop projector only in the proper manner. Thus, individuals unfamiliar with threading projectors can successfully operate the film loop approach. This ease of operation allows individual library study, remedial work, and utilization in driver qualification centers without constant supervision or aid. The silent approach also supports the ability of the loops to be utilized in libraries and driver qualification centers, since a sound track would prove too disrupting. Subtitles were added to the film to replace, to some extent, the need for explanations normally put on the sound track. The film loop format provides for individual differences in rate of learning by offering continuous repetition of motorcycling skills and techniques. This is important because only the individual viewer can truly indicate when he or she has learned the specific techniques and has understood their application. To determine 100p content, a review of the New Jersey motor— cycle fatality reports was conducted to determine the most frequent types of motorcycle fatal crashes and their associated causes. The review led the researcher to categorize New Jersey motorcycle fatal 32 crash report into the most frequently occurring causes. Thus the review showed that 60 per cent of all fatal motorcycle crashes in New Jersey occurred at intersections. The remaining 40 per cent were divided among lane position, passing (one and two motorcycles), following distance (two second rule), and special hazards (railroad tracks, gravel, returning to pavement, obstructed visibility, two riders). Therefore, one entire film loop was devoted to intersec- tions, while the remaining four film loops were a collective treatment of the other fatality-producing situations. An effort was made to limit the scope of the program by excluding skills and situations not related to fatalities in order to focus the program on fatality reduction. The entire program was filmed during the prime motorcycling months. The writer, having eleven years experience as a cyclist, was the primary motorcycle operator. The second motorcyclist, when neces- sary, was also an experienced rider. Each two—wheel vehicle was mechanically checked out for safe operating condition before each maneuver. Each loop required between 100 and 300 feet of film, of which collectively, less than 160 feet were used in the final production of the five loops. Before shooting at each location, police clearance was obtained. Several trial runs were conducted in order to provide the most explicit camera angles. After all the material was photographed, long hours of editing produced the original print for viewing and final approval prior to mass reproduction. 33 Supportive Manual The manual was designed and written to support these film- 1oop presentations by giving the reader an understanding of the importance of each skill and a more detailed statement of instructional points than possible in the limited space for subtitles. After film and manual preparation, both were reviewed and edited by selected New Jersey traffic safety officials who had motorcycle riding experi- ence. Film Loop and Manual Structure The following is a detailed description of the development of 'the final film loops and supporting manual. Film loop topics representing the highest fatal-crash— producing incidents included are: Intersections, Lane Positions, Following Distance--Two—second Rule,Passing and Special Hazards. The description of each topic includes General Comments, Tasks, Objectives, Instructional Points, Settings, Camera Positions, and Special Notations. Intersections General Comments In New Jersey, sixty per cent of all motorcycle crashes occur at intersections. In many of these incidents the cyclist thought he had the right of way and therefore proceeded, thinking that the motorist would stop. However, no matter who was right, the cyclist is the one who paid the greater penalty. Many motorists are guilty of trying to beat a red light, rolling through a stop sign, trying to beat another 34 driver through an intersection, or just plain not seeing a motorcycle (especially where there are parked cars to block the view). Whatever the reason for the crash, and whoever is responsible for the crash, the cyclist will always pay the greater penalty. On a motorcycle, the right of way is something never taken but always given, and the assumption is that the motorist does not see the cyclist. Even when the cyclist is able to establish eye contact with another driver, he must not assume the other driver will stop. Tasks 1. Single vehicle straight ahead at four way intersection. 2. Single vehicle left turn at four way intersection. 3. Single vehicle right turn at four way intersection. Objectives 1. Illustrate car turning left in front of motorcycle pro— ceeding straight ahead. 2. Demonstrate vehicle pulling in front of motorcycle turn- ing left. 3. Show proper right turn procedure, emphasizing body and cycle lean. 4. Demonstrate proper method for carrying a package. Instructional Points Proceeding straight ahead at intersection: 1. Reduce speed 3. 35 Check traffic, first on the left (the closest approach- ing vehicle), then on the right, and finally straight ahead. V Always be prepared to stop. Left turn at intersection: l. 5. 6. Check traffic and signal (hand signals improve visi— bility). Move to proper lane. Reduce speed, applying rear brake first for stability and activating the brake light. Look ahead for unusual road hazards (gravel, sand, leaves, manhole covers, painted intersection stripes that can be very slippery). Always be prepared to stop. Turn into proper lane position NOTE: Never carry anything on your lap, on the tank, or in your hands while operating a motorcycle (especially a young child). This cyclist has tied his packages on the back of the motorcycle. Right turn at intersection: l. 2. Check traffic and signal. Move into proper lane position. Look ahead for: a. pedestrians b. cars which could turn in front from cyclist's left. 36 c. unusual road hazards d. parked cars 4. Never turn inside the turning arc of a car turning right in front. 5. Do not pass cars on right which are stopped in front. 6. Swing wide enough to avoid hitting the curb with the foot rest. NOTE: The cyclist leans to turn rather than ”hard steer- ing” with his handlebars. In a 900 turn to either the left or right, perhaps 80 per cent of the turn is accomplished by shifting the body weight rather than hard steering with the handle bars, as one would steer with the wheel of a car. Setting 1. Four way intersection with traffic in country setting. 2. One automobile to perform driving errors. 3. Roadway clearly marked with traffic control indicators. 4. Wide shoulders on all roadways. 5. Speed under 20 miles per hour. Camera Positions 1. Stationary position on each scene. Special Notations 1. Police clearance needed. 2. Loud speaker to coordinate movements. 3. Zoom and wide—angle camera lenses. 37 Lane Positions General Comments The primary objective in selecting a normal riding position in a lane is to achieve maximum visibility (see) as well as be most vis- ible to other drivers (be seen). By riding in the left tire track, the cyclist is better able to see beyond the car in front of him to oncoming traffic and possible hazards, as well as beyond the car behind him when checking for cars moving up to pass. In addition, riding in the left tire track puts the operator away from hazardous activities along the side of the road and away from accumulated debris in the center of the lane. Two other suggestions to increase the cyclist's chances of being seen are to always ride with his headlights on and to put retro-reflective tape on the sides and rear of his helmet. Task 1. Single vehicle maintaining a safe lane position both within the country and city. Objectives 1. Demonstrate proper lane position. 2. Illustrate blind spots. 3. Show how to avoid hazards on the right. 4. Demonstrate how to avoid parked car dangers. 5. Show how a proper lane position urges vehicles not to pass when there is oncoming traffic. 38 Instructional Points Ride in the left tire track in order to: 1. Settings Avoid oil spills, glass, gravel, and other debris which tend to accumulate in the center of the lane. Stay out of the blind spots of the motorist in front of the cyclist. When the cyclist can see the driver's side view mirror and his rear view mirror through his rear window, the cyclist is not in the driver's blind spot. Avoid unexpected hazards on the right side of the lane where trees, disabled vehicles, and other obstructions can block the cyclist's view. Avoid the additional city hazards of motorists leaving their parked cars, pedestrians jaywalking, and child- ren playing beside the street. Urge motorists who are passing to treat a cycle as another car and therefore encourage them to use another whole lane to pass rather than trying to squeeze by, forcing the cycle and cyclist off the road to the right. 1. Two lane undivided country road. 2. Two lane city street with curve and heavy traffic. 3. Scene casting heavy shadows. 39 4. Speed--country, 25-35 mph; city, 15-25 mph. 5. Dry pavement. Camera Positions 1. Rear of vehicle--tailgate. 2. Roof of vehicle. Special Notations 1. One motorcycle and one vehicle off pavement. 2. Large parked vehicle dark in color. 3. Hidden driveway. 4. Wide—angle lens used to minimize apparent camera movement. 5. Headlight on for increased visibility. 6. Bright colored jacket. Following Distance—- Two-second Rule General Comments The two-second rule is a technique of setting the proper following distance which is usually more accurate than the one car length for each ten miles per hour method (since most people have difficulty in accurately estimating distances). The two-second rule is applied by selecting a fixed object on or by the road and then counting for a time period of two seconds, beginning as the vehicle in front passes the fixed object. If, by the end of the two—second interval, the second vehicle has not passed the fixed object, that vehicle is far enough behind the first vehicle to allow the safety margin needed to stop in an emergency. Note that if both vehicles 40 are traveling at thirty miles per hour (44 feet per second), two seconds would allow 88 feet or about 30 feet per 10 miles per hour. This interval rate (30 feet per 10 miles per hour) is maintained at all speeds. The two-second rule works just as well for cars as for motor- cycles. It is recommended that the time interval be increased to three or four seconds during bad weather conditions or for any other deterioration of road conditions. _It is important to emphasize to cyclists that they should not become overconfident at lower speeds because of possible braking advantages that motorcycles may hold over cars. They must remember that the vehicle behind them will not be able to stop as quickly as the motorcycle can stop. At higher speeds, it is very difficult to stop a motorcycle in an emergency because of the possible loss of control. By always allowing the safety margin provided by the two—second rule, the cyclist will have the time neces- sary to look ahead for unusual road hazards such as pot holes, slippery surfaces (oil, water, metal sewer lids, leaves, paint strips, ice, snow), pedestrians between parked cars, and road bumps. Tasks 1. Single vehicle following. Objectives 1. Demonstrate two-second following distance. 2. Illustrate safety margin. 41 Instructional Points 1. Select a fixed object on or by the road side--examples: road signs, tar marks, dash marks, changes in road color. CAUTION: Do not pick an object which forces the cyclist's eyes away from driving scene. 2. As vehicle in front passes the fixed object, begin counting for an interval of two seconds (saying the words one— thousand-one, one—thousand-two, representing approxi- mately two seconds. 3. If the cyclist is able to count two seconds before his motorcycle passes the fixed object, he has allowed enough distance for an emergency stop. Setting 1. Two lane undivided highway. 2. Obvious road color contrast. 3. Dry pavement. 4. Bright sun. 5. Speed-~20-25 mph. Camera Position 1. Front hood of a vehicle at motorcycle eye level. Special Notations 1. No motorcycle required. 2. Gyroscopic lens needed. 3. Police clearance needed for outside of vehicle riding. 42 4. Allow nearly three seconds for following distance to make instructional points apparent. 5. Select change in pavement color as fixed object because of lack of depth perception of camera lens. Passing One and Two Motorcycles General Comments Passing with a motorcycle is basically the same as passing with a car; however, the cyclist must realize that he is less visible than are other types of vehicles. Therefore he must always assume that he is not seen and be prepared for the vehicle in front to turn in his path (especially slow moving vehicles) or to drift over into his lane. These dangers are greatest when the cyclist is in the vehicle's blind spot, that point at which the cyclist is not able to see the car's rear view mirror through the rear window. The cyclist should not linger in this blind spot when passing. Cyclists must never pass slow moving cars by squeezing between two lanes of traffic or by riding on the shoulder of the road. The other drivers do not expect a motorcycle to be there and may uncon- sciously drift in front of the cyclist's path or make a right turn, leaving him without an escape path. In addition, when cars are stopped in a traffic jam, a motorist, at any time, might decide to get out of his car to look ahead to see what is holding up traffic, not expecting a motorcycle to be squeezing through. Under New Jersey law, these passing techniques are illegal, as well as being unsafe. 43 When two motorcycles are proceeding together, the motorcycle in the left tire track should always be slightly ahead of the motor- cycle in the right tire track. By riding in an offset position, the cyclists are avoiding possible contact with each other (often result- ing in interlocked handle bars) should there be a sudden gust of wind, an unexpected need for swerving to avoid a hazard, or a motorist who pulls over into the cyclists' lane too quickly, squeezing them to the right. When planning to pass, the two cyclists should switch tire track positions as part of the passing maneuver in order to minimize the passing time and distance required. The lead cyclist in the left tire track is the one to plan and initiate the pass, since he is better able to see ahead. Tasks 1. Single motorcycle passing. 2. Two motorcycles passing. Objectives 1. Demonstrate proper passing procedure. 2. Demonstrate passing vehicle blind spot. 3. Illustrate offset riding positions for two motorcyclists riding together. Instructional Points One Motorcycle: 1. Check traffic and signal (turn head to check blind spot sometimes created by poor mirror adjustment). 44 Proceed to pass, tapping the horn as you pass through the motorist's blind spot (only tap horn when in the country, as required by the New Jersey Motor Vehicles Law). For passing, use nearest tire track of passing lane, avoiding possible hazardous center strip. Check to left for possible escape paths should an emergency arise (defensive driving). After passing, signal to pull in. Before pulling in, the cyclist should turn his head to check that the passed vehicle is far enough behind to allow him to return to the lane without obstructing that vehicle's progress. Return to the left tire track and proceed. Two Motorcycles: 1. 2. Cycle #1 Check traffic and signal. Cycle #1 Proceed to pass. Cycle #2 Switch from right tire track to left tire track (better visibility). Cycle #1 Complete pass, returning to left tire track. Cycle #2 Proceed to pass (same procedure as Cycle #1). Cycle #1 Switch from left tire track to right tire track. 45 5. Cycle #2 Complete pass, returning to left tire track. 6. Cycle #2 Pull slightly ahead of Cycle #1, complet- ing the pass and reversal of positions. Setting 1. Four lane divided highway. 2. Dry pavement. 3. Sun shining. 4. Motorcycle lights on. 5. Small car to be passed. 6. Speed--40-55 mph. Camera Position 1. Tailgate of station wagon. Special Notations 1. Two motorcycles—-350 cc or larger. 2. Police clearance for film shooting on roadway. 3. Contrasting second motorcycle. 4. Zoom lens. Special Hazards General Comments Any change in the road surface constitutes a potential hazard to the motorcyclist. Even going from a cement surface to a black top may momentarily cause the cyclist some uncertainty. Some examples of more hazardous changes in road surfaces include metal surfaces (railroad 46 tracks, sewer lids, bridge gratings), loose surfaces (broken pavement, gravel, sand, dirt), and slippery surfaces (wet, oily, snowy, icy, leaf covered). It is always best to avoid riding on these hazardous sur- faces, but not always possible. When the cyclist cannot avoid the hazard, he should slow down, try to meet the hazardous surface head-on (i.e., at 90° angle), try to keep his motorcycle as upright as pos- sible, and once on the hazard, try not to change direction or speed. When the hazard is a pot hole or a bump, the cyclist, if proceeding at low or moderate speeds, can reduce the impact of the initial contact by standing on the motorcycle pegs (thus raising slightly off the seat) and using his legs as shock absorbers. Another type of road condition which must be classified as a hazard is terrain that obstructs visibility, such as hills and curves. These road conditions are hazardous because they block the cyclist's view of the oncoming traffic. To minimize these hazards, the cyclist should switch his normal riding position from the left tire track to the right tire track to allow for oncoming traffic which might drift over into the cyclist‘s lane. This safety precaution should also be used during fog, rain, snow, and any other situation in which visibility is obstructed. NOTE: It is critical under these conditions to have your lights on to make the motorcycle more visible and to be extra alert for potential hazards on the right side of the road. Task 1. Single vehicle maneuvers involving potentially hazardous situations. Objectives 1. 2. 47 Demonstrate correct method of crossing railroad tracks. Illustrate the safe method of turning onto a slippery surface. Show danger of cornering. Illustrate proper procedure for returning to pavement with a significant lip at the road edge. Demonstrate appropriate procedure for riding up a hill or around a curve. Show proper method of carrying a second passenger. Instructional Points Railroad Tracks: 1. Check both vehicle and rail traffic (note cyclist turn- ing his head to check vehicle traffic). 2. Signal to slow down. 3. Prepare to cross the tracks as close to a right angle as the flow of traffic permits to minimize the effects of the slippery surface and to avoid having the wheels catch in the depression surrounding the rails. 4. Return to the left tire track after crossing. Gravel: 1. Check traffic and signal to slow down. 2. Approach the gravel in a straight line (and therefore with the motorcycle in an upright position). 48 Returning to Pavement: 1. When proceeding into the turn, glance ahead for unexpected pavement hazards such as dirt, sand and gravel. 2. If your motorcycle leaves the pavement: a. proceed off the road, slowing down gradually b. gain control c. check traffic and return to pavement, taking care not to catch the front wheel on the pavement edge. Obstructed Visibility: 1. Move from left tire track to right tire track. Two Riders: 1. Provide passengers with helmet, eye protection. and other protective gear in accordance with New Jersey law. 2. Require passenger to put feet on the footrests (no sidesaddle riding). 3. Require passenger to hold on and instruct passenger to lean with operator on curves. Setting 1. Railroad tracks not crossing roadway at ninety degrees. 2. Stone driveway. 3. Intersection with sand and gravel at turning point. Also, sharp shoulder onto which turn is to be made. 49 4. Steep hill offering no visibility beyond crest. 5. Sharp curve with very limited visibility ahead of motorcycle. mmumHMn 1. Front hodd of vehicle for railroad crossing, hill and curve. 2. Stationary for intersection and driveway turn. 3. Closing scene of two riders taken from the side at sta- tionary position. Special Notations 1. Two riders and protective gear. 2. Police clearance needed for roadside scenes. 3. Traffic spotter needed. 4. High boots to be worn. Program Goals When this program was instituted, the Governor's Representative for Highway Safety established two primary goals. These were: (1) reduce motorcycle fatalities, and (2) reach 100 per cent of the new motorcyclists. To implement these goals, the program was installed in three hundred twenty high schools and every Driver Qualification Center. High School Implementation It was decided to place the program in every New Jersey public and private high school which would agree to incorporate the materials into their driver education program. One hundred forty-seven secondary schools chose not to incorporate the program into their existing 50 driver education curriculum. Placement in the high schools' programs was made because it was felt that the driver education teacher holding a New Jersey driver education teaching endorsement was the only choice and most logical choice to most effectively teach the concepts and knowledge being presented. The attendant class discussions and sub-group inter- actions ensured a higher level of understanding and acceptance of the skills relevant to the reduction of motorcycle fatalities. A serious weakness in the high school implementation, however, was that some students were not taking driver education, and older motorcycle license applicants, who had already graduated from high school, would also not be exposed to the material. Driver Qualification Center Implementation As a result of the limitations in the high school implementa— tion, the program was installed at all nineteen Driver Qualification Centers across the state. Since New Jersey has a single license con- cept for motorcycle operators, the installation ensured the satisfac- tion of the second goal of 100 per cent coverage. It was felt that, although the program might not be as effective when viewed indi— vidually as when viewed during groups and having group discussions, nevertheless, for those who had not seen the material before, there would still be a substantial learning experience. For those who had seen the loops in the classroom, the second viewing would serve as additional reinforcement. Additionally, the seventeen page supporting manual was distributed at the Driver Qualification Centers. This manual provided another review for added long—term recall, and allowed 51 the license applicant to prepare for the written examination for his motorcycle permit. Further, the motorcycle license examination was rewritten to correspond to the film loop program.62 The total cost of the program, which included twenty-one projectors and cases, twenty- five film loop sets, and fifty thousand supporting manuals, amounted to $10,000. Toward the end of the first year in operation, additional costs of $500 were incurred to replace expended projector lamps. Selection of the Experimental Desigp The treatment of the data utilized a design known as one group time-series experiment. In essence, the time-series design methodology is the presence of a periodic and equivalent sample of the universe which would provide a baseline against which to compare the effects 63 of the experiment variables during a comparable period of time. The selection of the one group time-series design was made after consult— ing with a research consultant employed by Michigan State University, Office of Research Consultation. It was mutually determined that the selected experimental design offered the least threat of a non-valid . 6 conclus1on. 4 62Letter, William M. Fitzmaurice, Lt. (New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles Enforcement Bureau) to Louis R. De Carolis (Manager, New Jersey Office of Highway Safety), March 20, 1974. 63Donald T. Campbell and Julian C. Stanley, Ex erimental and Quasi—Experimental Designs for Research on Teaching (Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963), pp. 171—246. 64Letter, Robert A. Carr (Research Consultant with Michigan State University School for Advanced Studies) to Louis R. De Carolis, August 1, 1973. .52 Procedure for Data Collection The design of the study was to collect fatality data and numbers of new motorcycle licensees, by quarters, beginning January l, 1971, and ending on December 31, 1973. The data was gathered under the form headings as shown in Figure 3.1 below and was summarized in the matrix shown in Figure 3.2. . Time of Fatal1ty Birth Driver L1cense First Issued Motorcycl1st Date License No Number Month Day Year ' Month Day Year Figure 3.1.-—Raw data form. Each square of this matrix (Figure 3.2) contained the following information: 1. The number of fatalities in the quarter. 2. The number of new licensees in the quarter. 3. The fatality rate for each quarter calculated by dividing the number of fatal crashes by the number of one thousand new licenses issued for the quarter. The procedure for collecting and recording the data was con— ducted in the following manner. First, a manual search was performed on all New Jersey Motor Vehicles fatal crashes during the study time period. This involved the handling of approximately four thousand fatal 53 Q11 Q12 3 I Q 4 I Q 2 3 4 2 2 2 2 Q .I- Q ammzuuo >FH4 Qtr 9341 2209 1695 66,67 >- ' 0,21 0.45 1.18 9991 E5 1972 0.50 E 3rd 79102 711280 89,104 859091 57 81 19394 u. Qtr 9341 7376 2209 1695 87. 01 95 5 197; 0.21 0.41 0.91 1.77 105 7146 t. 3936 0.56 E 107 106110 112 111 D C’ 3:: 9341 7376 9991 1849 1972 0.11 0.27 0.10 0.54 lst 116 Qtr. 1849 1973 0-54 2 d 131 134,136 127 119 QZr 1855 138 9991 2329 39‘; 197; 0.54 7376 0.10 POST 0,43 956; 0.41 ’““ 0.63 164 163 150 145 149162 4214 3;: 7376 2209 1695 9991 7146 152 fi¥§1§g - 0.14 0.45 0.59 0.10 0.28 9509 5465 1973 0-32 0.77 4th 166 169 168 2332 Qtr. 9341 9991 '7146 0 00 1973 0.11 0.10 0,14 . Note: The first group of numbers are the individually numbered fatalities. The second line reports new motorcycle licenses issued for that quarter, while on the last line, developed motorcycle fatality rates are shown. Figure 4.4.--12 months seasonally identical pre- and post— treatment outlined matrix. TABLE 4.4.-—Comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis lb showing average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of time for 1-3 months. Period License Fatality Average Fatality Per Cent Change from Acquired Rate Rate for 6 Quarters Prior 6-Quarter Period lst Quarter 1971 1.62 2nd Quarter 1971 0.64 3rd Quarter 1971 0.27 4th Quarter 1971 1.36 lst Quarter 1972 0.59 2nd Quarter 1972 0.50 6-Quarter Average 0.83 —— Treatment Begins 3rd Quarter 1972 0.56 4th Quarter 1972 0.54 lst Quarter 1973 0.00 2nd Quarter 1973 0.63 3rd Quarter 1973 0.77 4th Quarter 1973 0.00 6-Quarter Average 0.41 49.4% 79 TABLE 4.5.--Comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis 1b showing average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of 4—6 months. Period License Fatality Average Fatality Per Cent Change from Acquired Rate Rate for 6 Quarters Prior 6-Quarter Period lst Quarter 1971 0.00 2nd Quarter 1971 0.64 3rd Quarter 1971 0.00 4th Quarter 1971 0.00 list Quarter 1971 1.18 2nd Quarter 1972 0.60 6-Quarter Average 0.40 -- Treatment Begins 3rd Quarter 1972 0.00 4th Quarter 1972 0.54 lst Quarter 1973 0.43 2nd Quarter 1973 0.32 3rd Quarter 1973 0.00 4th Quarter 1973 :— 6—Quarter Average 0.26 35% 80 TABLE 4.6.--Comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis lb showing average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of time for 7-9 months. Period License Fatality Average Fatality Per Cent Change from Acquired Rate Rate for 6 Quarters Prior 6—Quarter Period 1st Quarter 1971 0.00 2nd Quarter 1971 0.00 3rd Quarter 1971 0.14 4th Quarter 1971 0.45 1st Quarter 1972 1.77 2nd Quarter 1972 0.10 6-Quarter Average 0.41 -- Treatment Begins 3rd Quarter 1972 0.00 4th Quarter 1972 0.00 lst Quarter 1973 0.00 2nd Quarter 1973 0.00 3rd Quarter 1973 — 4th Quarter 1973 — 6—Quarter Average 0.00 100% 81 TABLE 4. 7. —-Comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis lb showing average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of time for 10- 12 months. Period License Fatality Average Fatality Per Cent Change from Acquired Rate Rate for 6 Quarters Prior 6-Quarter Period lst Quarter 1971 0.00 2nd Quarter 1971 0.00 3rd Quarter 1971 0.00 4th Quarter 1971 O .91 1st Quarter 1972 O .00 2nd Quarter 1972 0.00 6-Quarter Average 0.15 —— Treatment Begins 3rd Quarter 1972 0.00 4th Quarter 1972 0.00 1st Quarter 1973 0.00 2nd Quarter 1973 -— 3rd Quarter 1973 -- 4th Quarter 1973 -- 6-Quarter Average 0.00 100% 82 tables. The average fatality rates for each table were derived by taking the sum of the fatality rates for both the pre-treatment and post—treatment periods, dividing each period's summation by the total number of quarters. In addition, a percentage change in the average fatality rate was then calculated for the post-treatment period as compared to the pre-treatment period. The percentage change was developed for each table by subtracting the post-treatment from the pre-treatment rate and then dividing by the pre-treatment rate. Table 4.4 shows the average rates for motorcyclists holding licenses for an identical period of time for 1—3 months. This table indicates the pre-treatment average fer the motorcyclists who held their licenses for only 1-3 months was 0.83 fatalities per 1,000 licensees. For the post-treatment group, the average rate was 0.42. The per cent reduction was calculated to be 49.4% for motorcyclists holding their licenses from 1-3 months during the pre-treatment period as compared to the motorcyclists in the post—treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This reduction in the 1—3 month fatality rate comparison was tested at the .05 confidence level and the statistical test showed no significance at this level (see Appendix E). Thus, Hypothesis lb,for the 1—3 months group, was rejected. Presented in Table 4.5 (on page 79) are the fatality rates for licensees holding their licenses for 4—6 months during the six quarters before treatment and for the corresponding quarters after treatment. An average fatality rate for both periods is shown along with the fatality rate percentage change from the pre-treatment period as compared to the post-treatment period. 83 The pre-treatment average for the motorcyclists who held their licenses for 4-6 months was 0.40 fatalities per 1,000 licensees. . For the post-treatment group, the average rate was 0.26. A reduction of 35% was calculated for motorcyclists holding their licenses from 4—6 months during the pre-treatment period, as compared to the motor- cyclists in the post-treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This reduction in the 4-6 month fatality rate comparison was tested at the .05 confidence level and the statistical test showed no significance at this level (see Appendix E). Thus, Hypothesis 1b, for the 4—6 months group, was rejected. In Table 4.6 (on page 80) the fatality rates for licensees holding their licenses for 7—9 months are presented for the six quarters before treatment and for the corresponding quarters after treatment. An average fatality rate for both periods is shown. Also, the fatality rate percentage change from the pre-treatment period, as compared to the post-treatment period, is presented. The pre-treatment average for the motorcyclists who held their licenses for 7-9 months was 0.41 fatalities per 1,000 licensees. For the post-treatment group, the average rate was 0.00. The per cent reduction was calculated to be 100% for motorcyclists holding their licenses from 7-9 months during the pre-treatment period as compared to the motorcyclists in the post—treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. The reduction in the 7-9 month fatality rate comparison was tested at the .05 confidence level and the statistical test showed no significance at this level (see Appendix E). Thus, Hypothesis 1b, for the 7—9 months group, was rejected. 84 Presented in Table 4.7 (on page 81) are the fatality rates for licensees holding their licenses for 10-12 months during the six quarters before treatment and for the corresponding quarters after treatment. An average fatality rate for both periods is shown as well as the fatality rate percentage change from the pre-treatment period as compared to the post-treatment period. The pre-treatment average for the motorcyclists who held their licenses for 10—12 months was 0.15 fatalities per 1,000 licensees. For the post—treatment group, the average rate was 0.00. A reduction of 100% was calculated for motorcyclists holding their licenses from 10-12 months during the pre-treatment period as compared to the motor— cyclists in the post—treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This reduction in the 10-12 months fatality rate comparison was tested at the .05 confidence level and the statistical test showed no significance at this level (see Appendix E). Thus, Hypothesis lb, for the 10-12 months group, was rejected. Review of the Variables Introduction of New Motorcycle Driver Education Materials Listed in Table 4.8 are six groups in New Jersey that had the capability during the study period to introduce or utilize new motor— cycle driver education learning materials. Each group contacted, as indicated in Table 4.8, stated that, for their group, there were no changes in the statewide motorcycle driver education materials used during the study period. 85 TABLE 4.8.--Introduction of new motorcycle driver education materials. Variable Data Gathering Techniques Results Secondary classroom Contacted Dept. of Education No change Motorcycle dealers Cogzfifiged Motorcycle Industry No change Commercial driving schools Copggggegtgggving SChOO] No change Driver improvement Coagggtegefi%giegivision Of No change Adult driver ed. schools Contacted Dept. of Education No change Mass communication Contacted N.J. Office of High— No change way Safety Changes in the New Jersey Motorcycle Operator Popplation Between Pre- Treatment and Post-Treatment Groups by Age A numerical comparison of licensed motorcycle operators by groups was performed for the pre—treatment and post-treatment group. The results gathered from the N.J. Division of Motor Vehicles is indi- cated in Table 4.9. The table indicates a 2.4% decrease in motorcycle license holders from the pre- to the post—treatment group. TABLE 4.9.—-Change in the New Jersey motorcycle operator population between the pre-treatment and the post-treatment group by age. Pre-treatment Post—treatment Age Motorcycle License Holder Motorcycle License Holder Difference 17-24 15,327 60.1% 13,394 57.7% —2.4% 25+ 10,178 39.9% 9,827 42.3% -2.4% 86 Change in the Ratio of Male/Female Licensees in the Pre-Treatment Group Compared to the Post—Treatment Group Presented in Table 4.10 is a comparison of male/female licensees in the pre-treatment group and post-treatment group. Data gathered from the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles indicated a 1.6% decrease for male motorcycle licensees from the pre-treatment period to the post—treatment period. Female licensees increased 1.6% from the pre-treatment period to the post-treatment period. TABLE 4.10.--Change in the ratio of male/female licensees in the pre— treatment group compared to the post-treatment group. Pre—treatment Post-treatment Difference Male 24,023 94.2% 21,305 92.6% -l.6% Female 1,381 5.8% 1,718 7.4% +1.6% Shift in the Marital Status Between the Pre—treatment and Post— treatment Groups An inquiry to the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles dis— closed that the marital status of motorcycle license applicants is not recorded. This is similarly true for all New Jersey licensed motor vehicle operators. 87 Changes in New Jersey Motor Vehicle Legal Physical Requirements to Operate a Motorcycle Between the Pre—treatment Groups and the Post—treatment Groups The Chief of Automotive Engineering Standards for the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles was requested to cite any changes in physical requirements and protective wearing apparel for the study period. Table 4.11 indicates no changes. TABLE 4.ll.-—Changes in New Jersey motor vehicle legal physical require- ments to operate a motorcycle between the pre—treatment groups and the post-treatment groups. Pre-treatment Post—treatment Physical requirements for motorcyclists No change No change Wearing apparel No change No change Changes in Motorcycle Driver License Examinations, Both Written and Oral, and the Driving Test An inquiry to the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles Enforcement Bureau indicated that there were no changes in the licensing requirements for motorcyclists during the study period except for the addition of the treatment. 88 Changes in Traffic Enforcement Emphasis Toward Motorcycle Operators by New Jersey Law Enforcement Agencies, Including Police Emphasis and Legal Penalty Range Under the Law The New Jersey Police Traffic Officers' Association indicated through their President that there were no policy changes in either the motorcycle enforcement efforts or legal penalties toward motorcyclists during the study period. Changes in the Physical CharacteriStics of the Motorcycle as Related to Safety Between the Pre-treatment and Post-treatment Groups An inquiry to the New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles revealed that although turn signals were never required on New Jersey registered motorcycles, as of January 1, 1973, all motorcycles sold in the United States were required to have functioning turn signals. Fur- ther discussion with the Division and subsequent calls to many New Jersey motorcycle dealers indicated that although turn signals were not required in New Jersey, substantially all vehicles were equipped with them. As a result, there does not appear to be any substantial change in turn signal equipped motorcycles during the study period. Changes in the Availability of Emergency Medical Services as It Relates to the Number of Rescue Squad Units and Equip— ment During the Pre-treatment Period as Compared to the Post-treatment Period The Office of Emergency Medical Services in the Department of Health responded to this inquiry by indicating that their records would not allow them to arrive at an accurate conclusion. Further I if. "_. . 2:11., ‘I. E .II E . .-.....'_.. _JI.- FL; I :41- .- 89 investigation, through the New Jersey First Aid Council, revealed minimal changes in these areas during the study period. Changes in Road Conditions During the Post-treatment Periods as Compared to the Pre-treatment Period The Chief of the Bureau of Traffic Engineering stated that there have been no substantive changes in the procedures used in highway maintenance by any jurisdiction in New Jersey. Changgs in Weather Conditions Between Pre—treatment and Post—treatment Periods An inquiry to the United States Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service Office in Trenton, New Jersey, through the meteorologist in charge, indicated little significant change in weather conditions during the pre-treatment period when compared to the post-treatment period. The information that was surveyed pertained to temperature, precipitation (including snow and ice pellets), relative humidity, wind, and sunshine. Changes in the Accident Reporting System During the Study Period New Jersey Traffic Records Task Force responded to this vari— able quite emphatically by indicating that there have been no changes in the New Jersey accident reporting system during the three year study period. 90 Comparison of the Data for Hypothesis 2 Showipg Average Rates for Motorcyclists Receiving and Holding Licenses During Identical Time Period To determine if the treatment reduced the fatality rate of new motorcyclists to rate levels achieved by the same group as riding experience was acquired, average rates for four pre-treatment periods were compared to the corresponding rates of the post-treatment periods. These average fatality rates were transferred from Tables 4.4, 4.5, 4.6, and 4.7 to Table 4.12. In addition, the table indicates the per cent increase or decrease for each group when compared to the immedi— ately preceding group. During the pre-treatment 4—6 month group, a 51% fatality rate decrease occurred from the prior 1-3 month group. An increase of 2.5% was noted during the 7-9 month group over the prior 4—6 month group. Further, a 63% fatality rate drop from the 7—9 month group was recorded for the lO-12 month group. TABLE 4.12.-—Comparison of the data for Hypothesis 2 showing average rates for motorcyclists receiving and holding licenses during identical time period. Pre-treatment Post-Treatment Quarterly A Groups % Drop From % Drop From varige Crashes Rate Prior Quarter Crashes Rate Prior Quarter a e of Experience of Experience 1- 3 months 20 .83 -- 16 .42 -- 4— 6 months 14 .40 —51.8% 5 .26 —38.1% 7- 9 months 6 .41 + 2.5% 0 .OO -lO0.0% 10-12 months 2 .15 -63.4% 0 .00 0.0% ‘I' It" . l-r'. , -. - “n.1, Il' ] 91 For the identical monthly groups of 4-6 months, 7-9 months, and 10-12 months in the post-treatment period, percentage fatality drops from the prior quarterly group were recorded at -38.1%, —100%, and —100%, respectively. The graph presented in Figure 4.5 illustrates that the slope of the line best fitting the post-treatment data is 25% less than the slope of the line best fitting the pre-treatment data. The lesser slope indicates that the pre-treatment motorcyclists reduced their fatality rates 25% faster than the post-treatment motorcyclists. This result was tested at the .05 confidence level. The statistical test showed no significance at the .05 confidence level (see Appendix F and Table 4.12). Thus, Hypothesis 2 was rejected. Summar The statistical comparison of the data for Hypothesis 1 over the 18 month periods before and after treatment was calculated and explained in detail in Appendix C. Based on this analysis, Hypothesis 1 was accepted. The statistical comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis la over seasonally identical 12 month pre— and post— treatment periods was calculated and explained in detail in Appendix 0. Based on this analysis, Subordinate Hypothesis la was accepted. The statistical comparison of the data for Subordinate Hypothesis 1b was calculated for licensees holding their licenses for 1-3 months, 4-6 months, 7—9 months, and 10-12 months. Based on these analyses, Subordinate Hypothesis lb was rejected. A review of the 21 variables was conducted. In addition, a statistical comparison of the data for_ 92 FATALITY RATE . 2.0 I co 1 r\.) O O N wt» ‘b"2: 5 6 TREATMENT QUARTER LICENSE ISSUED Pre-treatment equation: Xi = -.20 ET + .14 Post—treatment equation: X. = —.15 Z . + .55 % reduction in post—treatmedt slope: 55% STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TESTS For slopes: T - 1 — .7576578 Not significant t .05 level For intercepts: T2 = 2.5781967 Not a significant .05 level Figure 4.5 ——Pre-/post—treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees receiving and holding their licenses during idene tical time periods. 93 Hypothesis 2, showing average rates for motorcyclists receiving and holding licenses during identical time periods, was developed and explained in detail within Appendix F. Based on this analysis, Hypothesis 2 was rejected. An analysis of the data was presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V will contain the Summary, Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations for Further Research, and a Discussion. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS An analysis of the data was presented in the preceding chapter. The concluding chapter contains: (1) a summary, (2) conclusions, (3) implications, (4) recommendatidns for further research in closely related areas to the findings, and (5) a discussion. Summary The primary purpose of this study was to (1) determine if the motorcycle driver education film loop program and seventeen page sup- porting manual was effective in reducing the motorcycle fatal crashes occurring to New Jersey motorcycle licensees, and (2) investigate the effect of the motorcycle driver education film loop program on the inexperienced motorcyclists in order to see if the educational materi- als were an effective substitute for riding experience. The Methods of Procedure The problem was investigated by reviewing the motorcycle fatal crash experience in New Jersey. Based on the findings of this investi- gation, five motorcycle driver education film loops were developed. A supporting manual was also developed to supplement the film loops. In order to reach one hundred per cent of the motorcycle licensees, per— mission was sought and gained from the New Jersey Division of Motor 94 95 Vehicles to incorporate the educational program into the existing pre-licensing procedures. In addition, approval was received from the New Jersey Department of Education to offer the program to all public and private high schools who were willing to include motorcycle driver education in their curricula. In order to conduct a study of the effectiveness of the new materials in reducing fatalities, approval was sought and received from the New Jersey Department of Transportation to review all motorcycle fatality records that occurred during the period of January 1, 1971, to December 31, 1973. This review necessi— tated surveying 3,988 motor vehicle fatality cases in order to extract only the motorcycle fatalities. The 87 pertinent motorcycle fatality cases were entered into the matrix along with the number of new motor- cycle licenses issued for the corresponding periods. From this data, a motorcycle licensee fatality crash rate was calculated. The pre- treatment rates were then compared with the post—treatment rates using four approaches to determine the effectiveness of the new materials. These comparisons were tested for statistical significance. In addi— tion, other factors outside of the introduction of the treatment materials were reviewed for possible change that could have contributed to the reduction in motorcycle fatality rates. The Major Findings The major findings of this study are as follows: 1. A reduction of 40.4% was found in the overall 18 month comparison of the motorcyclist fatality rates during the post—treatment period as compared to the pre-treatment period. This reduction was 96 found to be statistically significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was accepted. 2. A reduction of 39.3%, for the post—treatment period, was found in the seasonally identical 12 month comparison of the motor- cycle fatality rates. This reduction was found to be statistically significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis la was accepted. 3. A reduction of 49.4% was calculated for motorcyclists holding their licenses from l-3 months during the post-treatment period as compared to the motorcyclists in the pre-treatment period holding licenses for a similar period. This result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus Hypothesis lb, for the 1-3 month group, was rejected. 4. A reduction of 35% was calculated for motorcyclists hold— ing their licenses from 4—6 months during the post—treatment period, as compared to the motorcyclists in the pre-treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis 1b, for the 4—6 months group, was rejected. 5. A reduction of 100% was calculated for motorcyclists holding their licenses from 7-9 months during the post-treatment period, as compared to the motorcyclists in the pre—treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis lb, for the 7-9 months group, was rejected. 97 6. A reduction of 100% was calculated for motorcyclists holding their licenses from 10-12 months during the post-treatment period as compared to the motorcyclists in the pre-treatment period, holding licenses for a similar period. This result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Thus, Hypothesis lb, for the 10—12 months group, was rejected. 7. The introduction of the treatment reduced, by 25%, the effect of rider experience on the motorcycle fatality rate. The result was found not significant at the .05 level of confidence. Thus, Hypothesis 2 was rejected. 8. Twenty-one variables were reviewed for possible influence on the fatality rates reduction; none were found to have varied over the study period. Conclusions This study presented four statistical analyses of pre—treatment and post-treatment data on the effect of a motorcycle driver education program on fatality reduction. The first analysis, utilizing the full range of post—treatment data available over the entire 18 months of the study, as called for by Hypothesis 1, demonstrated statistically, at the .05 confidence level, that the program was effective in reducing the fatality rate. This reduction was calculated to be 40.4%. It can be concluded, based on the findings, that a motorcycle traffic safety education program, as New Jersey Utilized in all 19 Driver Qualification Centers, can significantly decrease motorcycle fatal crashes. Further- more, it must be understood that a reduction of 40.4%, over the 18 month 98 treatment period, can only be realized by reaching 100% of all new motorcycle licensees during the pre-licensing interval. The second analysis, for Hypothesis la, utilizing 12 months of post-treatment data, and a seasonally identical 12 months of pre- treatment data, provided the most clearly identical comparison of the pre—treatment and post-treatment data, and demonstrated a 39.3% reduction in the fatality rate. The close proximity of the 39.3% reduction to the 40.4% reduction indicated the reasonableness of the two assumptions made in the first analysis: that the fatality rates for the first and fourth quarters were comparable, and that the fatality rates for the second and third quarters were comparable. The second analysis resulted in the acceptance of Hypothesis 1a for a seasonally identical 12 month study. This finding clearly demonstrated that New Jersey should continue the motorcycle film loop program. Additionally, through the analysis of the 12 month seasonally identical pre- and post-treatment data, it can be concluded that the program was indeed effective. The third analysis involved stratifying the population and the number of fatalities by amounts of experience, i.e., 1-3 months, 4-6 months, 7-9 months, and 10-12 months. In all four calculations, although substantial reductions of 49.4%, 35%, 100% and 100%, respec- tively, were demonstrated, the reductions were found to be not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The insignificance of these reductions appears to have resulted from the stratification of the data, which, in turn, reduced the numbers of fatalities per experience grouping. Specifically, what took place was that in the 99 1-3 month group 20 fatal crashes occurred in the pre-treatment period as compared to 16 in the post-treatment period. For the 4-6 month group, 14 fatal crashes occurred in the pre-treatment period as compared to 5 in the post-treatment period. In the 7—9 month group, 6 fatal crashes occurred during the pre-treatment period as compared to none in the post-treatment period. Finally, for the 10-12 month period, 2 fatal crashes occurred during the pre—treatment period as compared to no fatal crashes in the post—treatment period. Therefore, the study was not able to confirm that the materials were effective with specific experience groups where defined into less than 12 months units, and therefore, Hypothesis 1b was rejected. The analysis testing Hypothesis 2 involved comparing the rate of reduction of the fatality rates in order to determine if the program was successfully substituting for experience on the road. Although the analysis did indicate that the rate of decline in fatality rates was reduced by 25%, thus indicating the possibility that the program was indeed substituting for riding experience, the result was found not significant at the .05 confidence level. Therefore, Hypothesis 2 was rejected. The results of additional investigations of 21 other vari- ables, other than the introduction of the treatment, indicated that there were no other variables that changed during the 36 month study period. Based on this study, for the time period of January l, 1971, to December 31, 1973, within the statetrfNew Jersey, this investigation 100 indicated that the only factor that could have accounted for the sig— nificant 40.4% reduction in the fatality rate was the introduction of the treatment. Implications There are several implications of this study for traffic safety educators and traffic safety administrators both in their states as well as at the federal level. 1. Driver education can demonstrate meaningful fatal crash reductions if teachers and administrators are willing to study the effects of traffic safety education. In the face of rapidly increasing motorcycle fatality rates across the country, well designed and tightly focused educational materials such as this film loop program can reduce motorcycle fatality rates. Substantial emphasis should be placed in isolating the high-frequency—fatal-crash-producing situations when designing traffic safety programs in order to increase the probability of achieving reductions in fatality rates. Increased emphasis should be placed on more statewide motorcycle safety education programs. Additional effort should be made to broaden the means of disseminating motorcycle safety education to reach all new and experienced motorcycles. Federal and state monies should continue to be made available for funding the development and implementa— tion of traffic safety education programs directed toward fatality reduction. Traffic safety educators should seek to achieve the synergetic effects of bringing private industry and all possible governmental agencies together to combat traffic safety problems. 2 . J 101 Recommendations for Further Research Based on the findings of this study, further research is recom- mended in the following areas: 1. A similar study should be conducted based on motorcycle crash experience. 2. A statewide study of motorcyclists should be conducted in order to determine if their driver license point accumulation for automobile operation can be used as an indicator of their safe or unsafe motorcycle operation. 3. A study to determine the effectiveness of different educa- tional approaches on safe motorcycle operation is needed. 4. A similar study should be undertaken to ascertain if a program geared to automobile operation would have a positive effect on motorcycle fatal crash involvement. 5. A study to determine the effectiveness of a New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles driver improvement program specifically designed for motorcyclists should be con— sidered. 6. A study should be conducted to determine if, after implementation of the motorcycle film loop educational program, a shift in the type of fatal crash has occurred. Such a movement might warrant additional film loop materials to cover these areas. 7. A survey of new motorcyclists should be conducted in order to disclose if there are additional film loop topics that would be helpful to a safe riding career beyond the highest fatal—crash-producing situations already covered. Discussion If traffic safety eduation is to play a meaningful role in the reduction of motorcycle fatal crashes, it is imperative that cur- ricula be developed based on fatal crash data or, better still, motor- cycle crash data. This type of information is the basic management tool that can consistently lead traffic safety educators and program 102 administrators to positively affect the escalation of two-wheel vehicle fatal mishaps. The results of this study have indicated that, even on a statewide basis, the introduction of a traffic safety education pro— gram can curb the upward spiral of motorcycle fatalities. It would seem desirable, in order to further confirm this study's findings, that a similar research project be conducted elsewhere in the United States. In addition to illustrating the power of motorcycle driver education to reduce fatality rates, the program illustrated the poten- tial effectiveness of statewide implications in attacking a major traffic safety problem. The combined efforts of private industry in supplying motor- cycles and filming capability, and government units in providing crash data (Department of Transportation), educational time in the classroom (Department of Education and local school systems), education time at licensing stations for 100% coverage of new motorcyclists (Division of Motor Vehicles), and funding to provide the materials (New Jersey Office of Highway Safety through funding by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) made a comprehensive traffic safety approach possible. The researcher was able to tailor the educational materials precisely around the fatal-crash-producing situations in New Jersey, and then was able to distribute and achieve implementation in all driver qualification centers in the state. Additionally, the researcher was able to follow the effects of theprogram over a significant period 103 of time--three years——and was able to gain access, because of the large scale of the study, to relevant, discrete information concerning other factors beside the educational program under study, which could have influenced the motorcycle fatality rate. The researcher found the undertaking of a statewide project was, in fact, a much larger effort than originally anticipated; and yet, as the results confirm, thelargenes$of the project was the only way to isolate the multitude of variables that affect traffic fatalities. In addition, the cooperation displayed by private industry in the develop- ment of professional grade materials built on traffic safety needs indicated to the researcher that other states should be more demanding that broad scope traffic safety education materials be uniquely designed to meet local fatal crash concept requirements, if their goal is fatality reduction. BIBLIOGRAPHY 104 BIBLIOGRAPHY Books American Automobile Association. Guide to Safe Motorcyclipg, Wash— ington, D.C.: American Automobile Association, 1970. Motorcycling and Their Operation. Washington, D.C.: American Automobile Association, 1972. American Driver and Traffic Safety Education. Motorcycle Safety Education Programs. Washington, D.C.: National Education Association. Bennett, Milton L. Motorcycle Safety Education. Charleston, West Virginia: West Virginia Department of Education Press, 1971. Campbell, Donald T., and Stanley, Julian C. Experimental and Quasi- Expgrimental Designs for Research on Teachipg, Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Caunter, Cyril F. Motorcycles: A Technical History. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1970. Damron, Frazier, ed. A Programmed Instruction Series for Motorcycle Riders and Instructors and Other Motorist Drivers. Vol. I—V. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1972. Freund, John E., ed. Modern Elementary Statistics. Englewood Cliffs, N ' Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1962 Gage, N. L. Handbook of Research and Teaching. Chicago: Rand McNally and Company, 1963. Motorcycle Industry Council. Reading Before Riding. Washington, D.C.: Motorcycle Industry Council. Motorcycle Safety Foundation. The Beginner Rider Course. Washington, D. ' National Safety Foundation, 1974. National Safety Council. Accident Facts. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1973. Motorcycle Supplement—-Student Workbook and Defensive Driver's Manual. Chicago: National Safety Council, 1972. 105 106 New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. Motorcycle Operator's Handbook. Trenton, N.J.: New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, 1973. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company. Handbook of the Driver Education Program for Motorbike Operators. Kansas City: Universal Underwriters Insurance Co., 1967. Motorbike Driver Education Program Instructor's Kit. Kansas City: Universal Underwriters Insurance Company, 1966. Wilkinson, Stuart A. Explorer Motorcycle Safety Training Program. La Mirada, California: 1969. Yamaha International Corporation. Yamaha Motorcycle Rider Education Course. Bueno Park, California: Yamaha International Corpora— tion, 1974. Periodicals Hartman, Charles. ”Motorcycles in the Schools." Concepts, VI, N0. 2 973). Johnson, Duane R. ”What are you Doing About Motorcycle Education?“ Safety (May—June, 1969). Martin, Bud. ”The Nelson Trainer." Cycle World, April, 1968. Metropolitan Life. "Motorcycle Accident Fatalities.” Statistical Bulletin, LIV (August, 1973). National Highway Safety Bureau. Highway Safety Program Standards. Washington, D.C.: National Highway Safety Bureau, January, 1969. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Hi hwa Safet Pro ram Standard Supplement, No. 1, Vol. 3 (November 19, 1971). O'Mara, John J. New York Times, New York, February 27, 1967. Peake, Jay. "Those Wild, Wild, Wheels.” This Week, March, 1968. Studies Airborne Instrument Laboratory. "Motorcycle Safety.‘ Report prepared 8 for the National Highway Safety Bureau, 196 . Kentucky State Police. Standard Summary of Motor Vehicle Accidents in Kentucky for 1968 Involving Motorcycles. Frankfort: Kentucky State Police, 1969. 107 New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles. Summary of Motor Vehicle Traffic ,Accidents——Motorcycles Only. Trenton: State of New Jersey, 1966. Traffic and Safety Department, Kansas. Summaryyof Motor Vehicle Acci- dents Involving Motorcycles, 1966. Topeka: State Highway Commission, 1967. Traffic Safety Programs. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Activities and Accomplishmen nts in Conformity with the Highway Safety Act of 1966.1973 Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles. ”Motorcycle Accidents in Vermont, Year 1966.” Montpelier, State of Vermont, 1967. Unpublished Materials Everest, Frank K. "A Call for Action.” Opening remarks at the Air Force Industry Two—Wheel Motor Vehicle Safety Seminar, Norton Air Force Base, California, November, 1966. Imatake, Yoshikazer. ”Promotion of Safety Riding Education Activities for Motorcyclists.“ Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automotive Safety, San Fran— cisco, California, July, 1973. Inayoshi, Hiroshi. ”Characteristics of Motorcycle Accidents in Japan.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automotive Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973. Johnson, Duane R. "A Case Study of Motorcycle Accidents in Three Illinois Counties.” Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Lorenz, Francis S. ”Fatal Motorcycle Accidents.” Unpublished report delivered to the Governor's Official Traffic Safety Coordina— ting Committee, Springfield, Illinois, November 16, 1966. McDole, Thomas L. ”Development of a General Knowledge Test for Use in Motorcycle Operator Education and Evaluation Programs." Unpub- lished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 1968. O'Mara, John J. “Contributory Factors in Motorcycle Casualty Accidents.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Con- gress on Automobile Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973. 108 Parkhurst, J. C. ”Safety Promotion Helps." Speech delivered at the Air Force Industry Two-Wheel Motor Vehicle Safety Seminar, Norton Air Force Base, California, November, 1966. Potenza, Fred. "A Defensive Motorcycle Driver.” Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automotive Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973. Schlick, John E. ”A Comparison of Personality Factors and Selected Characteristics of Accident and Non—Accident Involved Male Motorcycle Owners in Two Michigan Counties." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1973. Sugie, Yoshinao. ”Motorcycle Safety Driving Education at a High School and its Results." Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automotive Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973. Tiernan, Terry. ”The Yamaha Learn to Ride Safety Program." Paper presented at the meeting of the Second International Congress on Automotive Safety, San Francisco, California, July, 1973. Universal Underwriters Insurance Company. "Facts on Cycle Safety that can Help You Sell." Speech delivered at Yamaha Dealer Schools, Kansas City, Missouri, 1967. Young, Frank C. ”A Study of Selected Factors Related to Accident Involvement of Motorcycles in Ingham County, Michigan in 1971." Unpublished Ed.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1968. Other Sources Consulted Carr, Robert A., Research Consultant with Michigan State University School for Advanced Studies. Letter to Louis R. De Carolis, August 1, 1973. Casey, Jack, Program Administrator for Yamaha Learn to Ride Safety Program, Yamaha International Corporation. Letter to Ray J. Marini, New Jersey Director of Motor Vehicles, March 8, 1974. Fitzmaurice, William L. Letter to Louis R. De Carolis, New Jersey Division of Motor Vehicles, March 20, 1974. Motorcycle Safety Course in Dallas County. “Traffic Safety Newsletter of Alabama" (January-February, 1974). Naval Safety Center, Division of Motor Vehicles. Motorcycle Safety Course. Norfolk, Virginia: Naval Safety Center, 1972. 109 New Jersey Department of Law and Public Safety, Division of Motor Vehicles. Motor Vehicles and Traffic Regulations, Title 39 of the Revised Statutes. New Jersey Department of Law and Public Services, Trenton, October, 1971. Safety Canada. Ottawa, March, 1973. Yamaha, Incorporated. Rider Safety Manual. Yamaha, Incorporated, APPENDICES 110 APPENDIX A RESULTING SUMMARY DATA BASED ON THE COLLECTION OF ALL MOTORCYCLE FATALITIES FOR 1971, 1972, AND 1973 111 APPENDIX A RESULTING SUMMARY DATA BASED ON THE COLLECTION OF ALL MOTORCYCLE FATALITIES FOR 1971, 1972, AND 1973 Time of Mofipggygle Fatality Birth Date Age Driver's License Number Mo.-Day-Yr. Mo.-Day-Yr. l 2—4—71 lO—x-49 21 S8331-15173-10494 2 2-21-71 11-7-46 24 L151354-Permit 3 3-5—71 9-5-52 18 L811735-Permit 4 3—16-71 11—6-38 32 M9221—74065-11386 5 3—27-71 2-18—47 24 R4078-10079-02472 6 3-28—71 lO-24-35 35 L4720—6556l—10352 7 3—29-71 8—x-51 19 K0530—4lOOO-O8516 8 4—10—71 2—x—44 27 R4078-38386-02445 9 4-10-71 3-x—52 19 F4169-27886-03524 10 5-1-71 7—x-52 l8 K723455-Permit ll 5-1-71 12-x—49 21 K5061—74068-12495 12 5-15-71 6-x-36 33 B7142-40774-06374 13 5—25-71 3-x-42 29 L2932—27883-O3424 14 6—5-71 lO-x-50 20 14806-247 (Pennsylvania) 15 6—5-71 l-x-51 2O B9454—27865—01514 16 6-9—71 12-x-48 22 L225254—Permit 17 6-11-71 ll—l9-48 22 13584—167 (Pennsylvania) 112 113 Mofipggyple 1813111y Birthdate Age Driver's License Number Mo.-Day—Yr. Mo.—Day-Yr. l8 6-11-71 2-x-49 22 VO407-0756l-02494 19 6—13-71 3—3—51 20 L332488—Permit 20 6—20-71 1—25—52 19 L233921-Permit 21 6-24-71 3-19-47 24 J0450—15671—O3472 22 6-25-71 10-14-52 18 N2367-7l4l-0520 (Quebec) 23 6—27-71 8-7-50 20 L282340-Permit 24 7—2—71 8-x-48 22 L135956-Permit 25 7-4—71 6—x—38 33 09403-58200-06382 26 7-5-71 5-12-49 22 K990478-Permit 27 7-6—71 12-12—38 32 No license 28 7-15-71 1-x-52 l9 L382043-Permit 29 7—17-71 2-x-53 l8 T2759-78586-02534 30 7-28-71 4—x-51 20 P4525-78571-04514 31 8—3-71 lO-x-51 l9 B8680—68632-10515 32 8-8—71 l—x-48 23 33176-43361-01482 33 8—10-71 12—14-49 21 No license 34 8—12—71 3—29-47 24 B6686-19361-O3472 35 8-13—71 8—30—41 29 No license 36 8—18-71 lO-x—48 22 G7303—30285-10484 37 8—27-71 5—9—53 19 M6506-61963—05532 38 8-29-71 7-25-38 33 L386470-Permit 39 9—11-71 7-19-42 29 W2087-40765-O7428 4O 9-26-71 3-27—55 16 No license 114 Mofipggygle EQIETIEy Birthdate Age Driver's License Number Mo.-Day-Yr. Mo—Day-Yr. 41 9—29-71 5-2-48 23 L2514—43l74-05484 42 10-14-71 8-8-50 21 L72853l-Permit 43 10—16-71 ll-x-37 33 R6720—05300-11372 44 10-18-71 12-1-46 24 13001-416 (Pennsylvania) 45 10—26-71 12-x-45 25 D9021-l9277-12452 46 10-30—71 3-x-34 37 G2644-74077—O3342 47 11-9—71 3—x-42 29 L4018-17300-O3424 48 11-14-71 2-x—21 50 SOOO7-l7200—02212 49 11-30-71 7-27-54 17 CO763—17367-07544 50 12-9-71 8-23—53 18 L681437—Permit 51 1—20-72 4—x-54 17 K6393—7407l-O4542 52 1-21-72 3—12-50 21 M2432—77962—O3504 53 2—13—72 8-6—51 20 A9465—72263-08515 54 4-7-72 10-x—46 25 C7286-65571-10462 55 5-2—72 1—19-50 22 2184077 (N. Carolina) 56 5-4—72 6-3—52 l9 MO456-74071—06522 57 5-6-72 9—9-39 32 No license (Delaware resident) 58 5-10—72 11-27—51 20 B7154-43364-11514 59 5-11—72 3—12—33 39 L14994l—Permit 60 5—13-72 12-x-53 18 L4246—65562—12532 61 5—19-72 1—26-51 21 H6272-73373—01514 62 5—19—72 9-3-54 l7 K2407-27365—O9542 63 5-19072 9-3-54 17 K2407-27365-09542 115 Mofigggyple EQIETIIy Birthdate Age Driver's License Number Mo.-Day-Yr. Mo.—Day-Yr. 64 5—21-72 8-12—47 24 L694241-Permit 65 5-29-72 3—23-44 25 M1610-15686-03474 66 6-3-72 2-x-52 20 L757155—Permit 67 6-7-72 9-x-37 34 M0619-77562—09374 68 6-13—72 2-11-55 17 L722940-Permit 69 6-28—72 5-x-47 25 V0424-12079-05474 70 7—2-72 2-x-35 38 51716-27866-02352 71 7-3-72 9-x-42 29 W0637-65866-09425 72 7-4—72 2-23-47 25 H0477-15179-02475 73 7—7-72 4-23-49 23 P6256-27900—04492 74 7-9-72 8—15—52 19 C6180-66865—08522 75 7—10-72 3-x-55 17 G0917-65574-03552 76 7-15-72 3-18-47 25 W2832—27483—O3474 77 7—16-72 1-10—40 32 C01316-88870—130832-40 (Newark) 78 7—18-72 7-22-54 17 L725119—Permit 79 7-21-72 10—11—52 19 C643l—-3572-10524 80 7-21-72 6-9-37 35 K9146-41068—-6372 81 7-22-72 4-12—50 22 L758445-Permit 82 7—28-72 1—21-52 20 K2407—1537l-01522 83 8-1-72 ll-x-50 21 L21555-05041-7615 (Florida) 84 8-2-72 6—x—54 l8 84440-65866-06542 85 8—2-72 3-25—53 19 L63797-Permit 86 8-3—72 7-9-50 22 M6437-16479-07502 116 Motorcycle Time Of Birthdate Fatality Age Driver's License Number Number Mo.—Day—Yr. Mo.-Day-Yr. 87 8-4-72 lO-x-44 27 L843647—Permit 88 8—7-72 2-23-52 20 No license 89 8—7-72 12-x-49 22 84613-27900-12492 90 8—9—72 3-x-43 29 59580—19283—03434 91 8—10—72 5—x-54 18 L9665-15383—05542 92 8-11-72 lO-x-SO 21 G5271-23563-10502 93 8-11—72 lO-l6—46 25 N2196—74066-10464 94 8-12-72 11-27-53 18 VO450-3976l—11532 95 8-12-72 4-x—44 25 G2265-Ol767-04442 96 8—12-72 6-x-51 21 V6144-65866—O6515 97 8-12—72 2-x-51 20 VO942-48700-52512 98 8-19-72 9-2—41 30 092-807—794 (Connecticut) 99 8-24-72 Not reported 23 Not reported 100 8-25—72 10-25-29 43 06-581—471 (Pennsylvania) 101 8—25—72 2—x-55 l7 H0934—66474-02254 102 9—4-72 3-x—54 18 K6219-38379—03544 103 9-7—72 7-6-49 23 87507-09371-01542 104 9-23—72 3-x—54 l8 H9138-54477-O3542 105 9-26-72 8—x-46 26 TO964-38367-O8462 106 10—1-72 8—x—48 24 B0013-5447l-08484 107 10-8-72 3-11-47 25 BO808—63882-O3475 108 10—9-72 8—x—42 30 B6162—l9271—O8424 109 10-10—72 8—2153 19 10450—05375-08536 117 Time of Mofipggygle Fatality Birthdate Age Driver's License Number Mo.-Day-Yr. Mo.—Day-Yr. 110 10-15-72 8-21-48 24 F4734—O7564—O8486 111 10-19-72 lO-x-54 21 FO662-41061-10514 112 10-25-72 1-30-50 22 L987587—Permit 113 12-16-72 9-17-38 34 M015130—Permit 114 12-22-72 11—x—54 l8 06036-01982-11544 115 1-18-73 2-14-51 22 P6805-52566-02514 116 2-24—73 4-11-43 29 E4644-3166l-O4432 117 3—11-73 1-28-43 30 11843-633 (Pennsylvania) 118 3—29-73 l-x—44 29 17692—26700-01442 119 4-6—73 l-x-56 17 H6015-66861-01562 120 4-13-73 2-13-56 17 L792548—Permit 121 4—14—73 10-14-53 19 85778-65883-10534 122 4—19-73 9-3—32 42 U5487—69066-09304 123 4-22—73 4-14-50 23 V523—51531—929O (Michigan) 124 4—20-73 1—28-51 22 C2585-52171-01516 125 5-6-73 9—10-53 19 B6516—40777-09532 126 5-11-73 4-16-52 21 86846-54479-08512 127 5-14-73 12-15—49 23 R4778—40763-12494 128 5—20—73 12—23—52 20 M234998-Permit 129 5—26-73 12-25-52 20 T3495-60374-12522 130 6-1-73 9-27—55 17 L233-9l8-Permit 131 6-3—73 4-29-14 59 51744-12000-04142 132 6—5-73 3-22—49 24 13675091 (Pennsylvania) 118 Time of Mofigggyple Fatality Birthdate Age Driver's License Number Mo.-Day-Yr. Mo.-Day-Yr. 133 6-6-73 11—21—48 24 M347133-Permit 134 6—7~73 5—1-47 26 L0928-78555-05472 135 6—11-73 11-4-52 20 R6500—74000-11524 136 6-12—73 7-x-54 18 M4450-66473-07542 137 6-16-73 5-4—47 26 J01695-55764-813234 138 6—24-73 8-12-53 19 W0831-78565-08532 139 6-30-73 6-9-37 36 M408410-Perm1t 140 7-6-73 10-8-52 20 15098577 (Pennsylvania) 141 7-8-73 5-x-51 22 15735321 (Pennsylvania) 142 7-12—73 10-x-52 20 P0612—09683-10524 143 7-14-73 10—30-54 18 02604—30263-10545 144 7-15-73 11-X-45 27 85778-61368-11454 145 7-16-73 8—X-52 20 C6420—69473—08522 146 7-28-73 10-25-55 17 No license 147 7—28-73 6—x-53 20 M4227-74077-06535 148 7-29073 2-18-36 37 K9057-09400-02263 149 7-30-73 6-7—48 25 F7170—12086-06482 150 7-31-73 5-X-49 24 H4494—38371—05494 151 8—20-73 6—9—43 30 M475331-Permit 152 8-27—73 11-x-39 33 66236-01700-11392 153 8—29—73 9—X-54 18 89346—65861—09544 154 9-1-73 9-x-44 29 B7129-40771-09444 155 9—1—73 4-x—48 25 V4692-41065—04484 119 Mofipggyple Eggglgiy Birthdate Age Driver's License Number Mo.-Day—Yr. Mo.-Day-Yr. 156 9—1-73 6-23—54 19 51397-45977-06545 157 9-2-73 1—x-41 32 P6784—32975-01415 158 9-3-73 8-x-52 21 36368—29286-08524 159 9-3-73 2—16-49 24 M0901—1926l-02494 160 9—3-73 122—54 19 16297227 (Pennsylvania) 161 9-4—73 5—10-46 27 M525091—Permit 162 9-8—73 3—x-41 32 C6161-00168-53412 163 9-9-73 7—18—54 19 C3290-15671-07544 164 9—9-73 1-19-39 34 M6481—09371-01392 165 10—10-73 Not avail. 20 D2368—41071-09532 166 10-20-73 10-14-52 21 M9221-38366—10524 167 10-21—73 3-x-46 27 202—761—327 (Connecticut) 168 10—27-73 11—13-52 20 L2960—54477-11524 l69 11-4-73 l—x-49 24 R4255-68882-01495 APPENDIX B DATA USED TO IDENTIFY THOSE MOTORCYCLE FATALITIES OCCURRING DURING 1971, 1972, AND 1973 WHERE MOTORCYCLE LICENSES WERE GRANTED DURING THE SAME YEARS 120 APPENDIX B DATA USED TO IDENTIFY THOSE MOTORCYCLE FATALITIES OCCURRING DURING 1971, 1972, AND 1973 WHERE MOTORCYCLES LICENSES WERE GRANTED DURING THE SAME YEARS Motorcycle Time of Date License Birthdate Driver's License Fatality Fatality Age Number Issued Number Mo.-Day—Yr. Mo.-Day-Yr. Mo.-Day—Yr. 2 2-21-71 11-7-46 24 L151354-Permit 2-5-71 3 3-51-71 9-5-52 l8 L811735—Permit 2-20-71 6 3—28-71 10-24-35 35 L4720—6556l—10352 1-21—71 10 5—1-71 7—x-52 l8 K723455-Permit 5-1-71 l6 6-9-71 12-x—48 22 L225254-Permit 4—18-71 19 6-13-71 3-3—51 20 L332488—Permit 5-28-71 20 6—20-71 1—25—52 19 L233921-Permit 5-27-71 21 6-24-71 3-19-47 24 JO450-1567l—03472 6—3—71 23 6-27-71 8-7-50 20 L282340-Permit 6-21—71 24 7-2-71 8-x—48 22 Ll35956-Permit 5—8571 26 7-5—71 5-12-49 22 K990479—Permit 5—25-71 28 7—15—71 l-x-52 19 L382043-Permit 7-14—71 30 7—28-71 4—x—51 20 P4525—78571—O4514 4-27-71 32 8-8-71 l—x-48 23 53176-43361—01482 4—14-71 34 8—12—71 3-29—47 24 86686—19361—03472 6—30-71' 121 122 Motorcycle Time of Fatality Fatality Birthdate Age Drivefiégbticense Datgsglggnse Number Mo.—Day-Yr. Mo.-Day-Yr. MOL-Day-Yr. 37 8-27-71 5-9-53 19 M6506-61963-05532 4-3-71 38 8—29-71 7—25-38 33 L386470—Permit 7-30-71 42 10—14-71 8—8—50 21 L72853l-Permit 10-1-71 49 11-30-71 7-27—54 17 C0763—17367-07544 10-21—71 50 12—9-71 8-23-53 18 L681437LPermit 11—19-71 51 1-20-72 4—x-54 l7 K6393-74071—O4542 1-18-72 52 1-21-72 3—12-50 21 M2432—77962-O3504 7-28—71 56 5—4—72 6-3-52 l9 M0456-7407l-O6522 6—12—71 58 5-10-72 11-27-51 20 87154-43364-11514 6—24-71 59 5-11—72 3—12—33 39 L14994l-Permit 3-28-72 60 5-13-72 12-x-53 18 L4246-65562-12532 10-14-72 52 5—19—72 9-3-54 17 K2407—27365-09542 4—30-72 63 5-19-72 6-x-47 24 M1190-64383-06474 3-28-72 64 5-21-72 8—12—47 24 L694241—Permit 4-27—72 65 5-29—72 3-23-47 25 Ml610-15686-03474 4-12-72 66 6—3-72 2-x-52 20 L757155—Permit 4-22-72 67 6-7-72 9-x-37 34 M0619-77562-O9374 4—22-72 71 7—3-72 9-x-42 29 WO637-65866-09425 7-14-71 72 7-4-72 2-23-47 25 HO477-15179—02475 7—20-71 75 7-10-72 3-x-55 l7 GO917-65574-O3552 5-25-72 78 7—18-72 7-22-54 17 L725119—Permit 5-26—72 79 7-21-72 10—11-52 19 C6431—0357l-10524 4-3-71 80 7—21-72 6—9-37 35 K9146—41068-06372 7-29—71 123 Motorcycle Time of Birthdate Driver's License Date L1cense Ffififigety M55EgdyEYr. Mo.-Day-Yr. Age Number No.405333r. 81 7-22-72 4—12-50 22 L758445-Permit 4-28-72 85 8—2—72 3-25-53 19 L636797-Permit 3-6-72 87 8—4-72 10-x-44 27 L843647—Permit 6—25—72 89 8-7-72 12-x-49 22 B4613-27900-12492 12-7-71 90 8-9-72 3—x—43 29 59580-19283—03434 3-18-72 91 8-10-72 5-x-54 18 L9665-15383-05542 l—lO-72 92 8—11—72 10—x-50 21 65271-23563-10502 7-24-72 93 8-11-72 10-16-46 25 N2196—74066—10464 7-31-72 94 8-12-72 11-27—53 18 V0450—39761-11532 7—20—72 95 8-12-72 4-x-44 25 62265—01767-04442 7—28—72 lOl 8-25-72 2-x-55 17 H0934-66474-02254 6-23—72 102 9-4-72 3-x-54 18 K6219-38379—O3544 4-22-71 104 9—23-72 3-x-54 18 H9138-54477-03542 ll-12—71 105 9-26—72 8-x—46 26 T0964-38367—08462 6-30-72 106 10-1-72 8-x-48 24' BOOl3-54471—O8484 9—29-71 107 10-8-72 3-11-47 25 B0804-63882-03475 4—16-71 110 10-15-72 8-21-48 24 F4734-07564—08486 7-20-71 111 10-19-72 lO-x-54 21 FO662—41061—10514 10—10-72 112 10-25—72 1-30—50 22 L987587—Permit 6-30—72 116 2-24-73 4—11-43 29 E4644-31661-O4432 10-24-72 119 4-6-73 l-x—56 17 H6015—66861-01562 1-19—73 120 4-13—73 2—13-56 17 L792548—Permit 4-26-73 127 5-14—73 12—15—49 23 R4778—40763-12494 4—26—72 124 Motorcycle Time of Date License Fatality Fatality Blrthdate Age Drive§;;btlce”se Issued Number Mo.-Day-Yr. Mo.—Day-Yr. Mo.—Day-Yr. 129 5—26-73 12~25-52 20 T3495-60374-12522 4-23-73 130 6-1—73 9-27-55 17 L233918-Permit 4—19-73 131 6-3-73 4-29—14 59 51744—12000—04142 11-11-71 133 6—6-73 11—21-48 24 M347133—Permit 6-1-73 134 6—7—73 5—1-47 26 L0938-78565-05472 8-10—71 135 6-11-73 11-4-52 20 R6500-74000-11524 5-1-73 136 6-12-73 7-x-54 18 M4450—66473-07542 8-12-71 138 6—24—73 8-12-53 19 W083l-78565—08532 7-12-71 139 6-30-73 6-9-37 36 M408410-Permit 6—2-73 143 7-14-73 10-30-54 18 02604-30263—10545 7—9-73 145 7-16—73 8—x—52 20 C6420-69473—08522 6-7—72 147 7-28-73 6—x-53 20 M4227-74077-06535 6-11-73 148 7—29-73 2-18—36 37 K9057-09400-02263 7-12-72 149 7-30—73 6—7-48 25 F7170—12086-06482 7-12—72 150 7-31-73 5—x-49 24 H4494—3837l-05494 3—3-72 151 8-20—73 6-9—43 3O M475331—Permit 6-1-73 152 8-27-73 11-x-39 33 C6236—01700-ll392 4-11-73 153 8-29—73 9-x-54 l8 B9346-65861—O9544 8—31-73 156 9-1-73 6—23—54 19 31397-45977-06545 7-2-73 161 9—4—73 5—10-46 27 M525091—Permit 8-31—73 162 9-8-73 3-x—41 32 C616l-00168-53412 8—14—72 163 9-9-73 7—18-54 19 C3290—15671-07544 12-13-71 164 9-9-73 1-19-39 34 M6481-0937l—01392 7-14—71‘ Motorcycle Time of 125 Date License Fatality Fatality Birthdate Age DriveKJEbticense Issued Number Mo.-Day-Yr. Mo.—Day-Yr. 166 10-20-73 10-14-52 21 M9221-38366-10524 6-16-71 168 10-27-73 11-13—52 20 L2960-54477-11524 8-7-72 169 11-4-73 l—x—49 24 R4255-68882-Ol495 6-23—72 APPENDIX C STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR 18 MONTH COMPARISON 126 APPENDIX C STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR 18 MONTH COMPARISON To determine statistical significance of the comparisons between the 18 month pre-treatment and corresponding 18 month post- treatment fatality rates, at the .05 level of confidence, the "Z distribution” test for differences between proportions and a one-tailed test was used. The one—tailed test was sufficient for the purposes of this analysis since the researcher was only interested if a post— treatment reduction was significant. For the purposes of this analysis, 6] < P2 and P] = P2 are both not significant; where B] = the pre— treatment fatalities divided by the pre-treatment population, and P2 = the post—treatment fatalities divided by the post-treatment population. The statistical approach tests whether the post—treatment fatality rate is significantly less than the pre-treatment rate: and uses the following formula to determine the Z value: 127 128 6 - 6 2= 12 \//P](1 - 6,) + 62(1 - 62) N1 N2 where value N1 = the pre-treatment population, and N2 = the post-treatment population. For the purposes of the statistical calculations only, the H0 is the null hypothesis or P] = P2. The Z value formula was evaluated as follows: Z = .00136 - .00081 \J/(.00136) (1 - .00136) + (.00081) (1 - .00081) 32,467 3 Z = 2.092 This Z value was then checked against the Z values in the mathematical Z value tables for a normal distribution and a one—tailed test at the .05 confidence level (Z value of 1.645). Since the calculated Z value of 2.092 was geater than 1.645, the null hypothesis had to be rejected in favor of Hypothesis 1. APPENDIX D STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR 12 MONTH COMPARISON OF SEASONALLY IDENTICAL PERIODS 129 APPENDIX D STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR 12 MONTH COMPARISON OF SEASONALLY IDENTICAL PERIODS To determine statistical significance of the comparison between the 12 month pre-treatment and the seasonally identical 12 month post-treatment fatality rates, at the .05 level of confidence, the "Z distribution” test for differences between proportions and a one-tailed test was used. The one-tailed test was sufficient for the purposes of this analysis since the researcher was only interested if a post— treatment reduction was significant. For the purposes of this analysis, 8] < P2 and P1 = P2 are both not significant, where B] = the pre- treatment fatalities divided by the pre-treatment population, and P2 = the post-treatment fatalities divided by the post-treatment population. The statistical approach tests whether the post-treatment fatality rate is significantly less than the pre—treatment rate: Ho: P1 = P2 Ha: P1 > P2 and uses the following formula to determine the Z value: 130 131 where value N1 = the pre-treatment population, and N2 = the post—treatment population. For the purposes of the statistical calculations only, the H0 is the null hypothesis or P1 = P2. The Z value formula was evaluated as follows: 2 = .00150 — .00091 VLOOlSO) (1 — .00150) + (.00091) (1 — .00091) 3 21,271 2 = 1.747 This Z value was then checked against the Z values in the mathematical Z value tables for a normal distribution and a one-tailed test at the .05 confidence level (Z values of 1.645). Since the calculated Z value of 1.747 was greater than 1.645, the null hypothesis had to be rejected in favor of Hypothesis 1. APPENDIX E STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR COMPARISON OF 1-3 MONTHS, 4-6 MONTHS, 7-9 MONTHS AND 10-12 MONTHS PERIODS 132 APPENDIX E STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR COMPARISON OF 1-3 MONTHS, 4-6 MONTHS, 7-9 MONTHS AND 10-12 MONTHS PERIODS To determine statistical significance for the comparisons of pre- and post-treatment rates for the 1-3 month period, the 4-6 month period, the 7-9 month period, and the 10-12 month period, the first step was to plot the data for each set of quarter comparisons, and calculate and plot the straight lines that best fit each set of data. In order to facilitate the plotting of the data and the calcula- tion of the lines, the following notations assignments were made: Let first quarter 1971 (01]) = —5 second quarter 1971 (012) = -4 third quarter 1971 ( fourth quarter 1971 (014 first quarter 1972 (02] ) ) ) second quarter 1972 (022) = 0 third quarter 1972 (023) fourth quarter 1972 ( ) first quarter 1973 ( ) second quarter 1973 (032) = 4 third quarter 1973 (033) = 5 fourth quarter 1973 (Q34) = 6 134 For the pre-treatment, let Xi = the fatality rate, 21 = the time period, 6] = the slope of the line, and a] = the intercept of the line. For the post-treatment, let X. = the fatality rate, Z. = the time period, 82 = the slope of the line, and 32 = the intercept of the line. The equation for the pre-treatment line best fitting the data X1: B12110'1 ’ and the equation for the post-treatment line best fitting the data is Xj = BZZJ. +012 . The formulae to calculate the equation parameters (the slope and the intercept) utilize the ”criterion of the least square” approach and are: For pre-treatment: 'I .._.... E (X121) ‘ n1X121 A = 1—1 1 n _ 21(22.) - n (2,)2 135 2 Z _ _- A _ .=1(Xij) n2X222 82 n2 2 ~ 2 Z (Z.) - n (Z ) i=1 3 2 2 0‘2 X2 8272 For each of the quarter comparisons, the slopes and then the intercepts of the two lines were compared statistically to determine if, at the .05 confidence level, there were statistically significant differences. This statistical comparison was made using the “t distribution" with 111 + n2 - 4 degrees of freedom and a two-tailed test. This approach tests first whether the slopes of the two comparable lines are significantly different: and uses the following formula to determine the t] (t for testing slopes) value: I- 136 81'82 n1+n2"4 1': o n v. 1 + 1 1.2: _ _ 1: -x A 2 "2 x x The next test is whether the intercepts of the two comparable lines are significantly different: Ho: 8 = 8 1 2 Ha: a] f 02 and using the following formula to determine the t2 (t for testing intercepts) value: t2 = a] - 62 . /' n1 + n2 - 4 n l n \/ 1 " 2 " A 2 V 2‘0?) 22(22) [121” '0'1'8121) (+[Z1(x3'0'2'8221) i l=1 +31 3 n n n1Z](Z —Z])2 n222(Z.-Z )2 i=1 H J The t1 and t2 values were then checked against t values in the mathematical t value tables for n1 + n2 - 4 degrees of freedom and for a two—tailed test at the .05 confidence level. None of the calculated t values were equal to or greater than the table t values, and, therefore, the Ho hypotheses could not be rejected, indicating no statistical significance based on the statistical test utilized. 137 Figures E.l, E.2, E.3, and E,4 that follow present the summary graphs, best fit lines, and calculated t values for each quarter of analysis. 138 FATALITY RATE L 2.0 1.62. 0.77. 0.63. 0.27. 0.00 0.00 _6_'5-4—'3_'2—i312'§456 TREATMENT QUARTER LICENSE ISSUED Pre—treatment equation: Xi = -.13 2i + .50 Post-treatment equation: X\j = -.O4 23 + .56 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TESTS For slopes: T1 = .5891584 — Not significant at .05 level For intercepts: T2 = .1126042 - Not significant at .05 level Figure E.l.-—Pre-/post-treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees holding their licenses for 1—3 months. 139 FATALITY,RATE . 2.0 1.18, TREATMENT QUARTER LICENSE ISSUED Pre—treatment equation: Xi = .13 21 + .73 Post-treatment equation: Xj = —.02 Zj + .32 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TESTS For slopes: T1 = .6929796 - Not significant at .05 level For intercepts: T2 = .8035104 - Not significant at .05 level Figure E.2.--Pre-/post—treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees holding their licenses for 4—6 months. 140 FATALITY RATE 1.77. _ 0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 v —5 —4 ~3 -2 —'1 o 1 2 3 4 5 6 TREATMENT QUARTER LICENSE ISSUED Pre—treatment equation: Xi = .17 21 + .85 Post—treatment equation: Xj = O Zj + 0 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TESTS For slopes: T1 = .6081798 — Not significant a t .05 level For intercepts: T2 = 1.0839381 — Not significant at .05 level Figure E.3 -—Pre-/post—treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees holding their licenses for 7—9 mont s. , 141 FATALITY RATE . 2.0 _ 1.5 0.91 . "0 . 0.5 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 —6 —5 —4 —3 —2 -1 0 i 2 3 4 5 6 TREATMENT QUARTER LICENSE ISSUED Pre—treatment equation: Xi = .03 Zi + .22 Post-treatment equation: Xj = O Zj + O STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TESTS For slopes: T] = .1090816 — Not significant at .05 level For intercepts: 12 = .3532405 - Not significant at .05 level Figure E.4.--Pre-/post-treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees holding their licenses for 10-12 months. APPENDIX F STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR LICENSEES HOLDING LICENSES FOR EQUAL LENGTHS OF TIME 142 APPENDIX F STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TEST FOR LICENSEES HOLDING LICENSES FOR EQUAL LENGTHS OF TIME To determine statistical significance for the comparisons of pre- and post-treatment average fatality rates, the first step was to plot the average rates for licensees holding licenses for equal lengths of time, and then to calculate and plot the straight lines that best fit the data. In order to facilitate the plotting of the data and the calculation of the lines, the following notation assign- ments were made: Let pre-treatment 1-3 month period = -3 pre-treatment 4—6 month period = -2 pre-treatment 7-9 month period = -l pre-treatment lO—12 month period = 0 post—treatment 1-3 month period = 1 post—treatment 4-6 month period = 2 post-treatment 7-9 month period = 3 post—treatment 10-12 month period = 4 For the pre-treatment, let X. = the fatality rate, Z. = the time period, 143 For the 144 m _J l - the slope of the line, and a, = the intercept of the line. post-treatment, let X. = the fatality rate, Z = the time period, 82 = the slope of the line, and 82 = the intercept of the line. The equation for the pre-treatment line best fitting the data and the equation for the post-treatment line best fitting the data is Xi = BZZj + 02 . The formulae to calculate the equation parameters (the slope and the intercept) utilize the “criterion of least squares" approach and are: For pre—treatment: n] ___ .E (X121) ‘ n1X1‘7-1 A _ 1—1 8' _ n1 2 — 2 145 For post—treatment: n2 ___ l:______________ n 22( 2 - 2 j=1 Zj) ‘ "2(22) Q) no u >< 1v I no no The two lines were compared to determine if, at the .05 confidence level, there were statistically significant differences. This statis- tical comparison was made using the ”t distribution” with n1 + n2 - 4 degrees of freedom and a two-tailed test. The approach tests first whether the slopes of the two comparable lines are significantly different: Ho: 81 = 82 Ha: 6, 6 62 and using the following formula to determine the t1 (t for testing slopes) value: t = 8] ' 82 . n] + "2 ' 4 l n n 1 A A A A 1: (Ii—2,) z (2.72)2 1‘1 J=1 _] 3:1 J 146 The next test is whether the intercepts of the two comparable lines are significantly different: Ho: 1 Q) Q) N Ha: 01 f 02 and using the following formula to determine the t2 (t for testing intercepts) value: t2: 3.1-6.2 ./ n1+n2-4 1 n n \V/7 n1 3 c 2 n2 A A 2 V _z‘(z§) 22a?) [151(x1'o‘1‘8121) 1+[.§1(xj'°‘2'822j) l=1 +31 3' n n 1 — 2 2 — 2 n1: (z.-z ) n22 (z.-z ) i=1 ‘ ' i=1 J 2 The t 1 and t2 values were then tested against t values in the mathematical t value tables for n1 + n2 - 4 degrees of freedom and for a two-tailed test, at the .05 confidence level. Neither of the calcu- lated t values were equal to or greater than the table t values, and therefore the Ho hypothesis could not be rejected indicating no sta- tistical significance based on the statistical test utilized. Figure F.l that follows presents the summary graph, best fit lines, and calculated t values. 147 0.15.1.5 26. 0.00 0 00 l l r I f ‘1 f : f v —6 —5 —4 —3 —2 —l O l 2 3 4 5 6 TREATMENT QUARTER LICENSE ISSUED Pre-treatment equation: X1 = -.20 21 + .14 Post-treatment equation: Xj = -.15 21 + .55 STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE TESTS I For slopes: T1 = -.7576578 - Not significant at .05 level For intercepts: 12 = 2.5781967 - Not significant at .05 level Figure F.1.—-Pre-/post-treatment fatality rate comparison for motorcycle licensees receiving and holding their licenses during iden: tical time periods. ”11111111111111illllllllilllll“