INFORMATION TO USERS This reproduction was made from a copy o f a docum ent sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this docum ent, the quality o f the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality o f the material subm itted. The following explanation o f techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction. 1.The sign or “ target” fo r pages apparently lacking from the docum ent photographed is “ Missing Page(s)” . I f it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) o r section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication o f either blurred copy because o f movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials th a t should n o t have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image o f the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part o f the material being photographed, a definite m ethod o f “ sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand com er o f a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Departm ent. 5. Some pages in any docum ent may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed. Uni International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 8503285 Taylor, S tev en D w ight AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS RELATED TO 1981-1982 MOPED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Michigan State University University Microfilms Internationa! PH.D. 1984 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106 Copyright 1984 by Taylor, Steven Dwight All Rights Reserved PLEASE NOTE: In all c a s e s this material h as been filmed in the best possible way from th e available copy. Problems encountered with this docu m en t have been identified here with a check m ark V 1. G lossy photographs or p a g e s ______ 2. Colored illustrations, paper o r prin t______ 3. P hotographs with dark b ackground 4. Illustrations a re poor co p y _______ 5. P ag es with black marks, not original copy_______ 6. Print show s through a s th e re is text on both s id e s of p ag e_____ 7. Indistinct, broken or small print on several p a g e s 8. Print ex ceed s margin req u irem en ts_____ 9. Tightly bound co p y with print lost in spine______ 10. C om puter printout p ag es with indistinct prin t______ 11. 12. Page(s) author. ' . ^ lacking w hen material received, and not available from school or P a g e (s)____________seem to b e missing in numbering only a s text follows. 13. Two p ages n u m b e re d ____________ . Text follows. 14. Curling and wrinkled p a g e s ______ 15. Other_____________________________________________________________________ University Microfilms International AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS RELATED TO 1981-19 82 MOPED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By Steven Dwight Taylor A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Educational Administration and Curriculum © Copyright by STEVEN DWIGHT TAYLOR 19 84 ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF FACTORS RELATED TO 19 81-1982 MOPED TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN By Steven Dwight Taylor The central purpose of this descriptive study was to identify those factors which proved to be of greater or lesser frequency in moped traffic accidents which occurred within the State of Michigan during the years 1981-1982. Design and Methodology The population for this study was the 79 7 repor­ ted moped "traffic" accidents which occurred within the State of Michigan during the years 1981-1982. A random sample of 400 non-fatal moped traffic accidents were taken from the population of 797 officially filed with the Michigan State Police. These were studied relative to those variables listed on the UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report. dents were studied separately. Fatal acci­ A total of 100 drivers were randomly selected from the sample of 400 in order to study their automobile driving records. From the driving records, 30 drivers were randomly selected to personally Steven Dwight Taylor respond to a questionnaire developed to obtain a profile of the moped driver. A questionnaire was developed and administered to 20 dealers to assess their concerns about the moped consumer. Variables relative to all persons in­ volved in these accidents, i.e., drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, were also studied. Major Findings 1. Fifteen year old moped drivers were involved in 66 or 16.5 percent of the accidents. 2. A majority of the moped drivers, 252 or 6 3.0 percent, suffered either incapacitating or non-incapacitating injuries. 3. A majority of the moped drivers, 240 or 60.0 percent, committed some type of hazardous action which led to, or caused the resultant accidents. 4. Almost one-fourth of the moped drivers, 9 3 or 23.3 percent, were following another ve­ hicle too closely in these accidents. 5. A protective helmet was not worn by 320 or 80.0 percent of the moped drivers. 6. In 26 5 or 66.2 percent of the accidents, a moped collided with a motor vehicle. 7. Most accidents, 283 or 71.0 percent, were intersection related. 8. The day of the week, month of the year, and Steven Dwight Taylor time of the day when most accidents occurred were Friday (70 or 17.5 percent), July (93 or 23.3 percent), and 4:01-5:00 p.m. (43 or 10.8 percent). Of the 100 moped driver automobile driving records studied, 30 or 30.0 percent of the moped drivers had previously recorded vio­ lations and accidents. DEDICATION This study is dedicated to the writer's parents— Hoover and Marie Taylor. Their love, support, encourage­ ment, and patience in helping their son grow educationally and professionally, will be forever appreciated. A poem given to the writer by his parents upon entering graduate school has served to sustain him through­ out the doctoral program. The poem reads: FOLLOW YOUR DREAM Follow your Dream . . . take one step at a time and don't settle for less, just continue to climb. Follow your dream . . . if you stumble, don't stop and lose sight of your goal, press on to the top. For only on top can we see the whole view, can we see what w e 've done and what we can do, can we then have the vision to seek something new . . . Press on, and follow your dream. Amanda Bradley Thanks for helping me to follow my dream. Love, Steven ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer wishes to express sincere appreciation to Dr. Donald L. Smith for serving as his doctoral committee chairman. His guidance, encouragement, support, patience, and willingness to serve unselfishly, contributed to the successful completion of the program. The professionalism and dedication to traffic safety education exhibited by Professor Smith forever leaves a lasting impression on the writer. The writer also wishes to thank Dr. Joseph Dzenowagis, Dr. Kenneth L. Harding, and Dr. Robert 0. Nolan, for their encouragement and assistance as members of the writer's guidance committee. Much appreciation is expressed to Mr. John Abbruzzee, a Data Systems Analyst VI, with the Michigan State Police, for providing the accident data essential to this study. Special thanks to John for his patience, unselfish aid, and time consuming efforts in preparing and collecting the data. Appreciation is also expressed to Mr. Gilbert Apps, Traffic Safety Coordinator with the Michigan Department of State, for his assistance with this study. Much gratitude is expressed to Mr. Mark Picciotto, Research Consultant, Office of Research Consultation, College iii of Education, Michigan State University, for his sincere interest, patience, and assistance with the statistical analysis and computer programming essential for this study. Special thanks to Mark for going the "extra mile" for the writer on many occasions. Much thanks is also expressed to Dr. Richard Houang, Assistant Professor, College of Education, Michigan State University, for his technical assistance with computer pro­ gramming. A very special thank you is extended to Mr. R. L. Wright, for serving as navigator for the writer in visiting moped drivers and dealers throughout the state. The "fun times" shared on these trips will not soon be forgotten. The writer would also like to extend a special note of appreciation to Dr. Alfred S. King, Dr. Joe S. Shrader, and Mr. Odell Welborn, for initially encouraging and direc­ ting the writer into a career involved in the field of traffic safety education. Last, but not least, the writer expresses much praise and gratitude to his Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ for pro­ viding the knowledge, strength, patience, and motivation needed to complete the doctoral program. "I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me." 4:13). iv (Philippans TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES........................................ ix LIST OF F I G U R E S .........................................xvii Chapter I. II. III. THE PROBLEM.................................... 1 Background ..................... Statement of the P r o b l e m ..................... Purpose of the S t u d y ......................... The H y p o t h e s i s ................................ Importance of the Study....................... Basic Assumptions Related to the Study . . . . Delimitations of the Study . ............... Definition of Terms U s e d .......... Organization of the Study..................... 2 10 11 12 12 13 15 15 17 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE ................. 18 Foreign Studies on Moped Accident Types, Causes and Injuries......................... U.S. Studies on Moped Accident Types, Causes and I n j u r i e s ................................ Educational Programs for Moped Drivers . . . . Michigan Laws Concerning Mopeds............... Other State Laws Concerning Mopeds . . . . c . Summary........................................ 31 37 44 46 48 DESIGN AND M E T H O D O L O G Y ....................... 54 P o p u l a t i o n .................................... S a m p l e ........................................ The Nature of the Variables................... Development of Personal Interview Questionnaire................................ Development of Dealer Questionnaire........... The Procedures for Data C o l l e c t i o n .......... The Procedures for Data A n a l y s i s ............. Summary........................................ 55 55 57 v 18 61 62 63 67 73 Page IV. ANALYSIS OF THE DATA........................... 75 Organization of Data for Presentation......... Moped Registration by County. ............... Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ............. Age of Drivers................................ Sex of Drivers................................ Driver Degree of Injury ..................... County and State Residence of Drivers As Compared to Site of A c c i d e n t . ............. Hazardous Action by Driver in Accident. . . . Police Written Citations in Accident........ Drinking and/or Drugs in Accident ........... Driver Intentions Before Accident ........... Helmet Use by Driver......................... Hit and Run D r i v e r s ......................... Vehicle (Moped) Defective Equipment ........ Collision of the Moped.......................... Collision Type in Accident................... Objects H i t ........................... Vehicle (Moped) Impact A r e a Vehicle (Moped) Damage/Drivability/ Fuel Leaks.................................. Accident Location By City or Township Population Categories ..................... Highway Class Location.......... Highway Area and M e asurements ............... Located Traffic Control Devices ............. Investigator T y p e ........................... Day of Week Accidents Occurred............... Time of Day Accidents Occurred............... Month of Year Accidents Occurred............. Weather at the Time of the A c c i d e n t ........ Light Conditions at the Time of the Accident.................................... Road Surface Conditions at the Time of the Accident................... ............ Accident Location Road Alignment............. Road Defect Related Accidents ............... Construction Zone Related Accidents ......... Visual Obstruction Related Accidents........ Fatal Accidents ................... Number and County of Fatal Accidents......... Age and Sex of Drivers....................... Residence of Drivers......................... Hazardous Action by Driver and Police Written Citations in Accident ............. Drinking or Drugs in A c c i d e n t ............... Driver Intentions Before Accident ........... Helmet Use by Driver......................... Moped Collision and Damage Characteristics. . 76 79 83 86 80 90 vi 93 93 96 97 98 100 100 101 10 2 102 105 10 7 10 7 110 H 2 H 2 116 HO 119 119 I22 i20 I28 I29 130 130 132 133 134 134 136 137 138 139 140 142 142 Page Accident Location By City or Township 14 7 Population Categories ..................... Highway Class Location........ .............. 14 8 Highway Area/Measurements/Traffic Control D e v i c e s ............................149 Investigator T y p e ................... .. 151 Day of Week and Time of Day Accidents Occurred.................................... 152 Month of Year Accidents Occurred............. 154 Weather/Road/Light Conditions at Time of Accident..................... .............. 154 Accident Location Road Alignment.............15 7 Construction Zone Related Accidents . . . . . 157 158 Automobile Operator's Driving Records ........ Residence of Drivers......................... 158 Drivers by Age Group. ............... 158 Driver Previous Violation and Accident I n v o l v e m e nt................................ 161 Driver Previous Accident and Violation Involvement by Age Group. . • .............164 Previous Driving Record Violations...........164 Warning/Correspondence Letters and Hearing R e f e r r a l s ......................... 16 7 Variable Correlations ..................... . 16 8 Personal Interview Questionnaire............... 170 Driver Residence..............................170 Age of Drivers................................ 170 Driver E x p o s u r e ............. ................ 172 Driver E x p e r i e n c e ........................... 175 Educational Aspects of the Driver ........... 177 Safety Equipment Use by Drivers ............. 180 Feelings and Reactions to Accident...........182 Accounts of the A c c i d e n t s ............... .. 185 Accident Location Distance From Residence . . 210 Dealer Questionnaire............................210 County Location of Dealers................ 212 Educational Concerns............................ 212 Safety Equipment Concerns . . . ............. 215 Moped Retailing Concerns........................ 217 Concerns Toward Michigan's Moped Laws . . . . 217 All Persons Involved (Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, Bicyclists)........................ 223 Sex of All Persons Injured.......... 223 Age and Sex of All Persons Injured............. 224 Injuries of All Persons Involved in 19 81-82 Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ............. 224 Residence of All Moped and Automobile D r i v e r s .................................... 227 Drinking Condition of Moped and Automobile D r i v e r s .................................... 228 Hazardous Actions by All Drivers. ........ 228 S u m m a r y ................... ..................... 2 30 vii Page V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, RECOM­ MENDATIONS .................................. Summary of the S t u d y .................. ; . . . Findings ................. .................. Moped Registration.................... 238 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents.. . . . . 243 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents......... Automobile Operator's Driving Records. . . . Personal Interview Questionnaire .......... Dealer Questionnaire ....................... All Persons Involved (Drivers, Passengers Pedestrians, and Bicyclists) ............. Conclusions.................................. Recommendations.............................. Recommendations for Further Research . . . . D i s c u s s i o n .................................. APPENDICES............................................ A. B. C. D. 234 234 237 238 246 248 251 253 253 254 259 260 266 UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report.............................. 267 Act No. 4 39 of the Public Acts (Michigan) of 1976...................................... 269 19 83 Michigan Vehicle Code (Moped Related Laws)............................. 274 Act No. 91 of the.Public Acts of 1983................... 286 (Michigan) E. 19 80-1981 State Moped L a w s .................... 289 F. Personal Interview Questionnaire ............. 296 G. Personal Interview Questionnaire According to Content Areas of Interest................... 300 H. Dealer Questionnaire . . . . . • • 304 I. Dealer Questionnaire According to Content Areas of Interest............................ 30 7 J. Warning Letter . . . . . . . . . ............. 310 K. Correspondence Letter.......................... 313 BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................................... 316 viii ........... LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1. Injury Pattern - Motor Scooter Drivers.............. 22 2. Percentage Distribution of Injuries to Moped and Motorcycle Riders ......................... 23 3. Proportion of Moped Riders Among Motor Vehicle Drivers During One Year According to Age and S e x ........................................... 25 4. Deaths-Per 100,000 Vehicles in Nine Countries . . 27 5. Road Deaths by Age Group for each Category of Vehicle in Eleven Countries (Federal Repub­ lic of Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom, and Switzerland . . . 28 Michigan's 1983-1985 Moped Registrations by County................ 80 Non-Fatal Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Moped Traffic Accidents by County ................... 84 6. 7. 8. Moped Drivers by Age Group Involved in Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ......................................... 87 9. Age of Moped Drivers Involved in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ......................................... 89 10. 11. Sex of Moped Drivers in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents . . . 91 The Degree of Injury Suffered by Moped Drivers in Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ....................... 92 12. County and State Residence of Moped Drivers Involved in Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents as Compared to Site of A c c i d e n t .............................. 94 13. Moped Driver Hazardous Actions in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s .........................................95 ix Table 14. 15. 16. 17. Page Frequency of Moped Drivers Receiving Police Written Citations in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped TrafficAccidents . . . 96 Drinking or Drug Involvement By Moped Drivers in Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ....................... 97 Drinking Test Results of Moped Drivers in Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ............................. 98 Frequency of Moped Driver Intentions Before Occurrence of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ............. 99 18. Frequency of Helmet Use by Moped Drivers in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ................. ............ 100 19. Frequency of Involvement of Mopeds With Defec­ tive Equipment in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ............. 101 20. Frequency of Randomly Selected 19 81-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents in Which the Moped Overturned or Collided with a Moving or Parked(Motor Vehicle, Pedestrian, Fixed Object, Animal, or Bicyclist................... 10 3 21. Frequency of Selected Collision Types Exper­ ienced in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents ................. 10 4 Frequency of Special Accident Types Involved in Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ............................. 10 5 Frequency of Selected Objects Hit by Mopedalist in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents . . . ....................... 106 Frequency of Damage to Impacted Areas of Mopeds Involved in Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents ................. 10 8 22. 23. 24. 25. Frequency of Damaged Mopeds in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ....................................... 109 x Table Page 26. Frequency of Mopeds Drivable After Collision in Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 0 9 27. Frequency of Fuel Leaks by Mopeds Damaged in Randomly Selected 1981-82 Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ..................................... . 1 1 0 28. Frequency of Randomly Selected 19 81-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents According to Location Population Size......................... Ill 29. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents on Selected Highway Classifications ................................ 113 30. Highway Area, and Measurements in Feet from the Center of Intersection Where Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurred.......................................... 114 31. Frequency of Traffic Control Devices Located at the Scene of Randomly Selected 19 81-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents ................. 117 Frequency of Law Enforcement Agencies Investi­ gating Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ....................... 118 32. 33. Frequency of Randomly Selected 19 81-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents Investigated at the Scene......................................118 34. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Day of Week. . 120 35. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Time of Day. . 121 36. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Month of Year.............................................. 124 37. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Weather Conditions at Time of Accident................ 12 8 38. Frequency of Varying Light Conditions at the Time of Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ...................... xi 129 Table 39. Page Frequency of Varying Road Surface Conditions at the Time of Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents . . . . . . . 130 40. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents Which Occurred on Straight or Curved Roadways. .............. 131 41. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents Involving Varying Road Defects. ................... . . . 1 3 1 42. Frequency of Randomly Selected 19 81-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurring Within a Construction Zone....................... 132 43. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents Related to a Visual Obstruction............................... 133 44. Fatal 19 81-82 Moped Traffic Accidents by County............................................ 134 45. Age of Moped Drivers Killed in 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ....................... 136 Sex of Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ....................... 137 46. 47. County and State Residence of Moped Drivers Killed in 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Acci­ dents as Compared toSite of A c c i d e n t ........... 137 48. Frequency of Hazardous Actions by Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ........................................138 49. Frequency of Police Written Citations to Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ........................................139 50. Frequency of Drinking or Drug Involvement by Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents .............................. 140 51. Drinking Test Results of Moped Drivers Killed in 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents. . . . 52. 141 Intentions of Moped Drivers Killed Before Oc­ currence of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ........................................141 xii Table 53. 54. Page Frequency of Helmet Use by Moped Drivers Killed in 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ........................... . . 142 Frequency of Motor Vehicles or Objects Which Collided with the Moped in 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ................... . 143 55. Frequency of Varying Collision Types Experienced in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents. . . .. 144 56. Frequency of Damage to Impacted Areas of Mopeds Involved in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s .............................. .. . 144 Frequency of Damaged Mopeds in 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ................... . 145 Frequency of Mopeds Drivable After Collision in 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents. . . 146 Frequency of Fuel Leaks by Mopeds Damaged in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents . . . . 146 Frequency of Defective Equipment of Mopeds in 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents . . . , 14 7 Frequency of 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Acci­ dents According to Location Population Size , 148 Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Acci­ dents by Highway Classification ........... . 149 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66 . Highway Area, and Measurements in Feet From the Center of Intersections Where 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurred. . 150 Frequency of Stop Signs Located at the Scene of 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents. . , 150 Frequency of Law Enforcement Agencies Investi­ gating 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents. 151 Frequency of 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Investigated at Scene ........... 152 , Frequency of 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Day of Week............... 153 68 . Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Time of Day............... 153 67. xiii Page Table 69. Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Month of Year. .............. 154 70. Weather Conditions at the Time of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents... ............... 155 Road Surface Conditions at the Time of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents ............... 156 Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents By Light Conditions ............... 156 71. 72. 73. Road Alignment of Roads Upon Which 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurred........... 157 74. Frequency of 19 81-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurrence Within a Construction Zone........................... 158 Moped Drivers by Age Group Selected for Auto­ mobile Operator's Driving Records . . ......... 160 Frequency Within Categories of Previous Auto­ mobile Operator's Driving Record Violation and Accident Involvement by Moped Drivers . . . 162 75. 76. 77. Moped Driver Previous Automobile Operator's Driving Record Accident and Violation In­ volvement by Age Group........................... 165 78. Frequency of Moped Driver Previous Automobile Operator Driving RecordViolations............... 166 79. Frequency of Previous Automobile Operator's Driving Record Warning/Correspondence Letters and Hearing Referrals Sent to Moped D r i v e r s ............ ......................16 8 80. Correlations Between 10 0 Moped Drivers' Previous Automobile Operator's Driving Violations and Related Variables in Moped Traffic Accidents. . 169 81. Frequency of Moped Drivers Interviewed by Age G r o u p ........................................172 82. Moped Driver Responses Relative to Driving Exposure.......................................... 173 83. Moped Driver Responses Relative to Driving Experience........................................176 xiv Table Page 84. Moped Driver Responses Relative to Educational Aspects of the D r i v e r ........................... 178 85. Moped Driver Responses Relative to Their Use and Feelings Toward Safety Equipment............ 181 86. Moped Driver Responses Relative to Their Emotional and Physical State Before the Occurrence of Their Moped Traffic Accident. . . 18 3 87. Moped Traffic Accident Location Distance From the Moped Driver's Residence.................... 211 88. Moped Dealers' Responses Toward Educational Concerns......................................... 214 89. Moped Dealers' Responses Toward Safety Equipment Concerns............................... 216 90. Moped Dealers' Responses Toward Moped Retail­ ing Concerns.......... 218 91. Moped Dealers' Responses Toward Michigan Moped Laws....................................... 219 92. Moped Dealers' Responses Relative to the Changes They Would Like to See in Michigan's Current Moped Laws............................... 220 93. Moped Dealers' Responses Relative to Whom They Feel Should be Responsible for Educating the Moped Driver..................................... 222 94. Sex of All Moped Drivers, Other Motor Vehicle Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bi­ cyclists Injured in 1981-82 Moped Traffic A c c i d e n t s ...................................... 22 3 95. Sex and Age of All Moped Drivers, Other Motor Vehicle Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists Injured in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents .............................. 225 96. Frequency of Injuries to All Persons Involved in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents.............. 226 9 7. Residence of All Moped and Automobile Drivers Involved in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents . . 227 xv Table 98. 99. Page Drinking Condition of All Moped and Auto­ mobile Drivers Involved in 19 81-82 Moped Traffic Accidents ........................... . 228 Reported Hazardous Actions by All Drivers In­ volved in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents . . . 229 100 . Frequency Summary of Variables in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Moped Traffic Accidents. . . . 231 xvi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. 2. 3. Page Michigan's 1983-85 Moped Registrations by County........................................ 82 Michigan's Randomly Selected 19 81-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents by County . . . 85 Moped Drivers By Age Group Involved in Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Non-Fatal Moped TrafficAccidents ...................... 88 4. Non-Fatal Randomly Selected 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accident Intersection Area Measurements................................ 115 5. Non-Fatal Randomly Selected 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents By Four Hour Time Blocks. .................................... 12 3 6. Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 NonFatal Moped Traffic Accidents By Month Of Year........................................ 125 7. Non-Fatal Randomly Selected 19 81-82 Moped Traffic Accidents By Seasons of theYear. . . 8. Michigan's 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents By C o u n t y ....................... 135 9. Residence of Moped Drivers According to Automobile Operator's Driving Records . . . . 10. Moped Driver Previous Violation and Accident I nvolvement................................ 16 3 11. Residence of Moped Drivers Personally Inter­ viewed By County............................171 12. Legend for Symbols Used in Individual Moped Traffic Accident Diagrams ................... 127 159 184 13. CASE A— Moped Traffic Accident.................... 185 14. CASE B— Moped Traffic Accident.................... 186 15. CASE C— Moped Traffic Accident.................... 187 xvii Figure Page 16. CASE D— Moped Traffic Accident....................188 17. CASE E— Moped Traffic Accident....................189 18. CASE F--Moped Traffic Accident....................190 19. CASE G— Moped Traffic Accident....................191 20. CASE H— Moped Traffic Accident....................192 21. CASE 22. CASE J— Moped Traffic Accident....................194 23. CASE K— Moped Traffic Accident....................195 24. CASE L— Moped Traffic Accident.................... 196 25. CASE M— Moped Traffic Accident................. 19 7 26. CASE N— Moped Traffic Accident................. 19 8 27. CASE O— Moped Traffic Accident................. 199 28. CASE P— Moped Traffic Accident................. 200 29. CASE 201 30. CASE R— Moped Traffic Accident.............. 202 31. CASE~"s— Moped Traffic Accident................ 20 3 32. CASE T— Moped Traffic Accident................. 20 4 33. CASE U— Moped Traffic Accident................. 205 34. CASE V— Moped Traffic Accident................. 206 35. CASE W — Moped Traffic Accident................. 20 7 36. CASE X— Moped Traffic Accident................. 20 8 37. CASE Y— Moped Traffic Accident................. 209 38. County Location of Motorcycle/Moped Dealers I n t e r v i e w e d .................................. 213 I— Moped Traffic Accident................. 19 3 Q— Moped Traffic Accident................. xviii Chapter I THE PROBLEM The use of mopeds on American streets and highways is a fairly recent occurrence when compared to such vehicles as cars, trucks, motorcycles, and bicycles, which have been a part of the highway transportation system for many years. According to a 19 79 University of North Carolina study spon­ sored by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the number of mopeds used on the streets and high­ ways will increase to 2.5 million by 1984.^ The NHTSA study goes on to project that between 1.5 and 4 percent of all mo­ peds will be involved in crashes each year and that 11 per­ cent of those crashes will result in serious injury to the 2 moped driver while 1.2 percent will be fatal. Kaywood, et al., observes: rate each year. increased. "People are buying mopeds at an increasing Sadly, moped deaths and injuries have also Young riders are the ones most frequently hurt." 3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "Moped Accident Rate Predicted to Soar," National Traffic Safety Newsletter, (November-December, 1979) , pi lTI 2 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, "Study Pre­ dicts Accelerating Crash Toll of Moped Riders," Status Report Vol. 14, No. 16, (October, 1979), p. 1. 3 Richard Kaywood et al., Drive Right (Glenview, Il­ linois: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 1982), p. 201. 1 Background The moped, the newest and latest vehicle to join the ranks of cars, trucks, motorcycles, and bicycles, is more than well on its way to becoming a very fixed, permanent, and common appearance as part of the-highly complex highway transportatxon system. Webster 4 defines the vehicle as a "bicycle propelled by a small motor." the vehicle states: Licht, 5 in his evaluation of "It looks like the offspring of a mis­ alliance between a Schwinn and a Honda. busy but pusillanimous bee. It pedals like a bike but gets its primary push from petroleum. . . . on a gallon of gas. It buzzes like a It'll run almost forever It's shiftless, slow, . . . and simpler to handle than a bike, some claim. And it's cheap . . . About the range of a really good 10-speed bike." The genesis in coinage of the word 'moped' is derived from a g combination of the words motor and pedals. Characteristi­ cally, as shown by these definitions, the moped seems to be a mutation of sorts between a bicycle and a motorcycle. Bicycles and motorcycles have been an integral part 4 Webster's New World Dictionary, s.v. "Moped." Edited by David B. Guralnik, (New York: William Collins World Pub­ lishing Co., Inc., 1974), p. 924. ^Kenneth F. Licht, "The Mopeds Are Coming," Traffic Safety, Vol. 77, No. 4, (April, 1977), p. 12. g Moped Association of America, Learn the Big 5^ of Moped Safety and Pleasure, A Pamphlet, (Montvale, New Jersey: The Association, 1978), p. 3. of our mobile society for many years. However, the concept for the original motorcycle seems to be closer to the present day moped. Caunter 7 points out that the first motorized cycle made its appearance in France in 1869, referred to as the Michaux-Perreaux steam motor bicycle. The vehicle was a pedal bicycle which had a single-cylinder steam engine unit installed on the frame. It was known as a 'boneshaker.' Almost contemporary with this vehicle was S. H. Roper's steam driven 'boneshaker' of the United States. Caunter goes on to stress the importance of the Michaux-Perreaux for it served to be historically the prototype of the many and various motor driven cycles that followed. The moped, as known today, has been a popular means of transportation in Europe following the end of World War II where it represented a substantial step up from the big cycle. 1940's, The economic climate of postwar Europe in the g with shortages of gasoline, rubber, and steel, gave impetus and birth to the moped as a viable and necessary means 7 C. cycles (London: pp. 1-2. F. Caunter, The History and Development of Motor­ Her Majesty's Stationery Office, T955), O Lynn Langway, "The Moped Moment," Newsweek (May 23, 1977), p. 56. g National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Moped Report, by Ohio State Department of Education (Washing­ ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1978), p. 4. and mode of transportation."^ The popularity of the vehicle has continued to grow in Europe as evidenced by the fact in 19 77, there was one moped for every nine inhabitants in France.^ This ratio is assumed to be even higher today, not only in France but in other European countries as well. The year of the moped, as far as making its debut 12 13 within the United States, is cited by Graybill, Licht, 14 15 Johnson, and Buchanan, as being 19 75. Buchanan points out that twenty years prior to 1975, fewer than 20,000 mo­ peds were estimated to have been sold within the United States. The springboard for this sudden surge in sales proved to be NHTSA's relaxing of certain requirements of the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards. 16 Motorcycle manufacturing ^Charles B. Stoke, Mopeds - Bicycle or Motorcycle? (Charlottesville, Virginia: Highway Safety Division of Virginia, 1978), p. 1. i:LLicht, p. 12. 12 Margie B. Graybill, "The Moped Report," Journal of Traffic Safety Education, Vol. 27, No. 2, (January, 1980), pT 10 . "^Licht, p. 12. 14 Adam G. Johnson, "What's Ahead for Mopeds and Motor­ cycles," Traffic Safety, Vol. 80, No. 3, (March, 1980), p. 28. 15 Lewis S. Buchanan, "Moped Safety: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Program Development & Research," Journal of Traffic Safety Education, Vol. 26, No. 1, (Octo­ ber, 1978), p. 23. 16 Michael L. Evans, "How Safe Are Mopeds?" Journal of Traffic Safety Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, (October, 1977), p. 6. and performance standards imposed on mopeds before this relaxation had been a limiting factor in U.S. sales. 17 The modifications were made on April 12, 1974 according to a De18 partment of Transportation (DOT) study, included the following: 1. Exemption from the requirement for turn signals. 2. Reduction of required stop-lamp photometric out­ put to one-half. 3. Exemption from the brake-fade requirements and inclusion of maximum stopping distance from 15, 20, and 25 miles per hour. 4. Permissible placement of the rear brake control on the left handlebar rather than at the right foot. The DOT study goes on to say: The modifications in the safety standards took effect October 14, 19 74, and opened up the American import market to European manufacturers (at that time the only manufacturers) of mopeds. With the energy crises, accompanying high cost of fuel, and other environmental problems coming to fore in the United States at the same time, the popularity of the moped was growing and the moped 'boom' began. A dramatic increase in moped sales has certainly been realized since these modifications were instigated in 17 Johnson, p. 28. 18 Ohio State Department of Education, p. 5. 6 1974. The Moped Association of America (MAA),19 estimates during 19 76, 75,000 mopeds were put in use; during 19 77, more than 150,000 mopeds were sold; during 1978, more than 200,000 mopeds were bought; during 1979, more than 300,000 mopeds were operational; and at the beginning of 1980, more than 800,000 mopeds were being used within the United States. According to MAA, over 1,000,000 mopeds will be bought and put to use within the United States by the end of 1980. These figures indicate an exceptionally high increase in light of the relatively few years used to accomplish these sales estimates. Moped sales have increased since the modifications of certain standards. However, other reasons have also been given to explain the instant popularity of this vehicle. Johnson 20 cites a spokesman for the moped industry which suggested: . . . that full use of the moped (with its 120-150 miles per gallon) for low-speed, short-haul personal transportation as is now done in Europe, would re­ sult in a reduction of the annual gasoline consump­ tion in the United States by 5 billion gallons— reducing oil imports by 28 3 million barrels and improving our balance of trade by $4.1 billion. 21 Stoke, a research analyst, who conducted a study 19 Moped Association of America, What is a Moped? A Pamphlet, (Montvale, New Jersey: The Association, 19 80), p. 2. ^Johnson, p. 28. 21 Stoke, p. 1. 7 dealing with the definition basically of the vehicle states: Mopeds provide a viable alternative to conventional forms of transportation. In this era of high costs of automobiles and rising prices for gasoline, in­ surance, and vehicle maintenance, the moped has a relatively low initial cost, can travel up to 75 kilometers on a liter of fuel (175 miles per gallon) and typically, the maintenance is minor in nature and is performed by the owner/rider. Graybill, 22 a state supervisor in the Ohio Depart­ ment of Education, offers the following reasons: The moped's growing popularity with operators of all ages can be ascribed to three main factors: simplicity, economy, and environmental desira­ bility. An article on mopeds which appeared in Consumer Reports 23 states: The moped, a little motorcycle-bicycle hybrid that can run all over town on a teacup of gasoline, thrives where fuel is scarce and expensive. That's why they're commonplace in Europe, and that's why their popularity is growing here too. Hartford, 24 an auto editor observes: Mopeds are gas-stingy, produce little noise and emis­ sion, don't cause traffic jams, and park in bicycle racks. They make sense. 25 Finally, Licht sums up the reasons expressed by the aforementioned people in explaining the increased growth 22Graybill, p. 10. 23 Consumer Reports, "Mopeds," Vol. 43, No. 6, (June, 1978) , p. 3191 24 Bill Hartford, "How To Stay Alive On A Motorized Bicycle," Popular Mechanics, Vol. 144, No. 6, (December, 1975), p. 56. 25Licht, p. 12. 8 of the moped population while stating his personal feelings concerning this matter: The reasons for the sudden influx of mopeds in this country are many, but legislation and the energy crunch are certainly major factors. Also, the moped offers an important economical alternative to a second car. But in my opinion, the real reason for the moped's popularity is that it's just plain fun! . . . Whatever their motivation, people are buying mopeds at an ever-increasing rate. Michigan residents seem to be following the trend of other states in the increased purchasing and use of mo­ peds. In fact, the MAA lists Michigan along with seven other states, i.e., California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana, as being the states 2g with the largest numbers of mopeds. According to the Michigan Department of State, moped registrations from all 27 eighty-three counties totaled 12,865 for 1983. Since mopeds are registered for a three-year period in Michigan, 28 there are a total of 25,319 mopeds registered for the years 1983-1985. 29 Registrations by county were not available for 26 The Department of Energy, Regional Analysis of Highway Energy Use (Washington, D.C.: The Department, 1980),p p . 3-129. 2 7Michigan Department of State, Michigan1s Moped Registration, A Report (Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1983) . 28 Michigan Department of State, Motorcycles and Mo­ peds, A Handbook, (Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1 9 7 6 ), p. 3. 29 Michigan Department of State, Michigan1s Moped Registration. any years prior to 198 3. In 1976, the Michigan Legislature eliminated the term "motor-driven cycle" which included motorized bi­ cycles, minibikes, and motor scooters, labeling two-wheeled motor vehicles as two distinct types: (2) mopeds.30 (1) motorcycles, and As a result, in 1978, the Michigan State Police began totaling statistics for mopeds as a separate vehicle. 31 Moped accidents have increased each year, and in alarming numbers. The following comparisons reflect this fact:33 Year Total Accidents 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 146 267 288 311 486 These statistics show that moped accidents more than tripled in 1982 from the base year of 1978. With 311 re­ ported accidents in 1981, along with 486 reported accidents in 1982, a total of 79 7 reported accidents occurred between 19 81-1982. The most disturbing statistics involved are the number of resulting injuries that have occurred as compared to the number of accidents. There were 6 fatalities and 785 30Michigan Department of State, Motorcycles and Mo­ peds, p. 1, 31 Michigan Department of State Police, Moped Acci­ dents, A Report, (East Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1978) . 32 . Michigan Department of State Police, Moped Acci­ dents, Five Reports, (East Lansing, Michigan: The Depart­ ment, 1978-1982). 10 injuries among the 79 7 reported accidents during the years 1981-1982.33 The background presented concerning mopeds show the tremendous growth the vehicle has experienced within the United States. This growth has become very evident in the State of Michigan and is reflected by increased accidents and injuries. Because the moped is used primarily for meet­ ing both recreational and basic transportation needs, as well as its appeal to all age groups, the use of the vehicle should be controlled in a manner which would facilitate maximum efficiency and safety as a part of the highway transportation system. Statement of the Problem Moped accidents and resulting injuries are continu­ ing to increase in the State of Michigan as well as in other states. This is due to increased purchasing and use of the vehicle. To aid in offsetting this negative trend, those factors most prominent in these accidents must be identified. The State of Michigan has not conducted an investigation in order to identify these factors. This study attempted to identify those factors which have an effect on moped traffic accidents occurring within the State of Michigan. 33 Michigan Department of State Police, Moped Accidents, Two Reports, (East Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1981-1982) . 11 Purpose of the Study The purpose of this study was to find and identify those factors which were shown to be of greater or lesser frequency in moped traffic accidents which occurred with­ in the State of Michigan during the years 1981-1982. Recommendations were made in the following seven areas upon completion of collection, summarization, and analysis of the data. 1. Moped Manufacturers a. b. c. d. 2. Minimum consumer age limit Consumer education information materials Limited dealer assisted instruction Education Needs of Moped Drivers a. b. c. d. 5. Age limit Licensing examination Learner's permit Safety equipment Insurance Moped Dealers a. b. c. 4. Design and equipment Consumer education information materials Advertisement Financial support of moped rider courses Moped Driver ■a. b. c. d. e. 3. They were: Middle and High school activities Community college activities University activities Local and State police activities Public Information Needs a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Radio Television Newspaper Magazine Displays Michigan's driver handbook Michigan's driver licensing examination 12 6. Traffic Engineering Needs a. 7. Street and highway modifications Enforcement Needs a. Selective enforcement activities The Hypothesis This study, in light of the research methodology utilized, was descriptive in nature. sis was tested. However, one hypothe­ In its null form, it states: Ho^ There is no relationship between the automobile driving records of moped drivers and those fac­ tors involved in moped traffic accidents. It was not the intent of this study through this test to establish a cause-and-effeet relationship, but ra­ ther to determine if a common thread or similarity tended to exist among the convictions as recorded on the automobile driving records of moped drivers and those factors involved in moped traffic accidents which occurred within the State of Michigan during the years 19 81-1982. Importance of the Study The moped traffic accident problem in the State of Michigan as well as across the nation has not been analyzed to as great an extent as have other vehicles when consider­ ing traffic accidents and the resulting injuries. To date, there has not been a comprehensive study undertaken in the State of Michigan concerned specifically with 13 moped traffic related accidents. In fact, very few studies have been conducted nationwide. In order to make proper management decisions via public policy concerning mopeds and their controlled use within the State of Michigan, a sufficient data base is required. This study was an attempt to meet a part of that need by addressing relevant selected variables. Basic Assumptions Related to the Study Eight basic assumptions were made concerning this study: 1. The UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report was accepted as being a valid, objective, form upon which to record the events of a "traffic" accident (Appendix A ) . 2. The information derived from the UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report was assumed to be as true, factual, and objective as possible as recorded by the investigating of­ ficer. 3. The information obtained from the Michigan State Police concerning all drivers involved in moped traffic accidents during 1981-1982 was accepted as being true and factual. 4. The information collected from the individual driving records through the Secretary of State was accepted as being true, accurate, and factual. The questions developed for personal interview purposes were accepted as being appropriate for the kind of information being sought, i.e., aspects of the moped driver dealing with edu­ cation, experience, exposure, safety equipment, and feelings and reactions to his/her accident. The answers provided by the respondents of the interviews were accepted as being as true and accurate as possible according to their best knowledge and recollection. The questionnaire developed for dealer inter­ view purposes was accepted as being appropriate for the kind of information sought, i.e., whether dealer provides information relevant to moped driving, whether dealer provides instruc­ tion relevant to moped driving, dealer's moped purchasing trends, and dealer's concerns and feelings about Michigan's moped legislation, age of the moped consumer, moped insurance, safety equipment, and responsibility for edu­ cating the moped driver. The answers provided by the respondents of the dealer questionnaire were accepted as being as true and accurate as possible according to their best knowledge. Delimitations of the Study This study was limited by the following four factors 1. The sample was limited to only those moped ac­ cidents labeled "traffic" by the Michigan State Police. This meant they occurred on a public street or highway or on the right-of-way of a public street or highway. Non-traffic moped accidents were not considered. 2. The police officers who recorded the variables depicted in this study had varying degrees of training in the area of professional traffic accident investigation. 3. An indepth measure of the psychological, physio­ logical, and sociological aspects of the moped driver was not undertaken as part of this study. 4. The data was limited to the State of Michigan. Definition of Terms Used Moped Any two- or three-wheeled vehicle which has a motor with not more than 50 cc piston displacement; no more than 1.5 brake horsepower; a bicycle-type pedaling system; and 34 a top speed of no more than 25 mph on level surfaces. 34 Michigan Department of State, Motorcycles and Mopeds, p. 3. 16 (This study was based on mopeds involved in accidents which were classified according to the aforementioned definition during the years 1981-1982. As of June 1983, a moped in the State of Michigan was redefined as a two- or three­ wheeled vehicle which has a motor with no more than 50 cc piston displacement; no more than 2.0 brake horsepower; a power driven system which does not require the operator to shift gears; and a top speed of no more than 30 mph on level surfaces.) Moped Registration All mopeds registered for a three year period which are used on public roads as required by the Secretary of State's office. UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report The accident report required by Michigan law to be filled out and completed by an investigating officer at the scene of a "traffic" accident. Moped Traffic Accident Any accident involving a moped which occurs on a public street or highway or on the right-of-way of a public street or highway and labeled "traffic" by the Michigan 35 Michigan Department of State, What Every Motorcycle and Moped Operator Must Know . . .. A Handbook, (Lansing, Michigan; The Department^ 1983) , p. 4. 36Michigan Department of State, Motorcycles and Mo­ peds , p. 3. 17 State Police. Injuries Only those caused by, or a result of, moped traffic accidents. D r i v e r X Degree of Injury a. 37 Incapacitating - Any injury other than fatal which prevents normal activities and generally requires hospitalization. b. Non-incapacitating - Any injury not incapacitat­ ing but evident to others at the scene. 3. Possible Injury - No visible injury but com­ plaint of pain or momentary unconsciousness. Organization of the Study Chapter I defined the problem for this study. remaining chapters will be organized as follows: II will be a review of related literature. The Chapter Chapter III will contain the design and methodology utilized for this study. Chapter IV will present an analysis of the data. Lastly, Chapter V will summarize the study as well as give discus­ sion, conclusions, and recommendations derived from the study. 37 Michigan State Police, Moped Accidents, 1982). (19 81 Chapter II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE This chapter presents a review of the literature concerning mopeds pertinent to this study. Studies dealing with moped accident types, causes, and injuries, are scarce within the United States. McKnight, et al., points out that only three moped studies were done within the United States by the end of 1980.1 The review in this chapter is divided into five areas: foreign studies on moped accident types, causes, and injuries; U.S. studies on moped accident types, causes, and injuries; educational programs for moped driver; Michigan laws concerning mopeds; and other state laws concerning mopeds. Foreign Studies on Moped Accident Types, Causes, and Injuries A search of the literature by the writer revealed that foreign research on mopeds was much more prevalent than what had been done within the United States. A United States Department of Transportation study National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Moped Task Analysis, by A. James McKnight, et al. (Washing­ ton, D.C.; U.S. Department of Transportation, 1980), p. 3. 18 19 cited a German study 2 in which moped and motorcycle accident involvement was investigated. A total of 1,206 accidents in­ volving these two type vehicles were analyzed. The results of this effort according to the data examined suggested: 1. Mopeds have a lower frequency of accidents than motorcycles; once involved in an accident, how­ ever, mopeds and motorcycles have almost identi­ cal risk of injury. That is, the lower speed of the moped does not reduce the injury risk. 2. Drivers of mopeds and motorcycles as a group have an injury risk 10 to 15 times greater than drivers of cars. 3. Passengers on two-wheeled vehicles have an in­ jury risk 1.5 times higher than drivers of these vehicles. 4. In lateral front-end collisions with cars, motor­ cycle drivers are likely to be thrown over the cars whereas moped drivers are thrown against or on top of the car. This increases the risk of fatal injury fourfold for moped drivers. 5. The efficiency of safety helmets is higher for motorcycle drivers than for moped drivers, probably because motorcyclists tend to wear better helmets and to fasten them properly. 3 A study by Wigan and Carter revealed that lack of conspicuity and incorrect use of brakes were major factors contributing to moped accidents in Australia. The most severe moped accidents were those in which a car either 2 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, The Moped Report, by Ohio State Department of Education (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1978), pp. 12-13. 3 M. R. Wigan and A. J. Carter, "Mopeds and the Australian User Profile," Proceedings Volume IV, Inter­ national Motorcycle Safety Conference (Washington, D.C.: n. p. 1980), pp. 1648-1652. 20 struck the rear or side of the moped. Of 178 moped driver and passenger injuries, 67 were a result of a rear or side collision. A car was more often than not found to be the conflicting vehicle with the moped in an accident, with the location of the collisions being usually urban area inter­ sections. Alcohol involvement of moped drivers was not given, but the authors felt similar patterns probably existed between moped, motorcycle, and car drivers. Fifty percent of car drivers killed and twenty-five percent of motor­ cyclists killed reportedly had blood alcohol concentrations of 0.05 percent or greater. The authors rated a moped second to a motorcycle as far as increasing the potential of a fatality occurring to the driver. The age groups of 15-24 and 65 and over had the highest accident and fatality rates. Since helmets are re­ quired in Australia, this protective equipment was viewed as an important countermeasure against serious injuries and fatalities. A Swedish study 4 was undertaken in order to assess the death rates of motor vehicles of different types. In looking at moped data, the age group 15-19 proved to be a problem area for fatalities. Also, most fatal moped acci­ dents usually involved a collision with another motor ve­ hicle. 4 Be til Aldman and Jan Thorson, "Motorization and Traffic Mortality in Sweden," Accident Analysis and -Pre­ vention, Vol. 3, No. 3, (October, 1971), p. 221. 21 Jamieson and Tait,5 in an Australian study of dif­ ferent vehicle types, included motor scooter collisions. A motor scooter is characteristically similar to a moped. Specifically, thirty-three motor scooter accidents were studied. The age group 15-19 was shown to be the peak age range as far as accident involvement was concerned. Males were shown to be the more common driver of the motor scooter, i.e., 87.5 percent of the time. The authors divided the causes of these accidents into three major categories, i.e., environmental, vehicular, and human failure. Seven accidents were attributed to re­ duced visibility caused by either inclement weather or streets with no street lighting. Forty-eight percent of the accidents occurred at intersections, with the majority in­ volving a collision with a moving vehicle. Six of the ac­ cidents happened on a curve, while five happened on wet roads. Seventeen of the motor scooter drivers were cited for a hazardous action. These included one at excessive speed, four for right-of-way violations, four for improper passing, one for following too closely, one for disobeying a stop sign, and one for improper lane placement. The re­ maining hazardous actions were not given. In looking at the injuries sustained from these 5K. G. Jamieson and I. A. Tait, Traffic Injury in Brisbane (Brisbane, Australia: Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery Royal Brisbane Hospital, 1966), pp. 119-227 and 175-176. 22 accidents, the researchers found the patterns to be very similar to those of motorcyclists. Two of the motor scooter drivers died resulting from major head, chest, abdominal, and lower limb injuries. Table 1 shows by type the inju­ ries sustained by these drivers. Head injuries were shown to represent a higher percentage of involvement than other parts of the body listed. TABLE 1— Injury Pattern - Motor Scooter Drivers Type of Injury 33 Riders Percent* 8 25.0 19 59.4 Chest 5 15.6 Abdomen or Pelvis 3 9.4 16 50.0 0 0 Major Head All Head One or more limb Spine Source: K.G. Jamieson and I .A. Tait, Traffic In­ jury in Brisbane (Brisbane, Australia: Department of Neurology and Neurosurgery Royal Brisbane Hospital, 1966), p. 125. A Dutch study cited by Hunter and Stutts examined injury characteristics related specifically to moped and motorcycle drivers.® A great deal of similarity existed Dutch Records, "cited by" National Highway Traf­ fic Safety Administration, An Analysis of Mopeds as a Po­ tential Safety Problem in the United States, Volume I_: Review of the Literature and Data Search, by William Hunter and June C. Stutts (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979), p. 7/12. 23 among the injuries experienced by both moped and motorcycle drivers in these accidents. Head and neck injuries ranked first among both groups of drivers. The lower extremities were shown to be the second most injury prone area of the body. Table 2 denotes the type of injury sustained using comparisons between moped and motorcycle drivers. TABLE 2— Percentage Distribution of Injuries to Moped and Motorcycle Riders Moped Riders Motorcycle Riders 54.5 48.0 Chest 3.0 4.5 Stomach/Pelvic Girdle 4.0 4.0 Upper extremities 10.5 12.5 Lower extremities 24.0 26.0 3.5 4.5 Type of Injury Head Neck Miscellaneous Sources Dutch Records, "cited by" National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, An, Analysis of Mopeds as a Potential Safety problem in the United States. Volume Is Review of the Literature and Data Search, by William Hunter and Jane C. Stutts (Washington, D.C.s U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979), p. 7/12. A statistical comparison of pedestrian, bicyclist, and moped road traffic fatalities in the Netherlands by the Institute for Road Safety Research 7 indicated that more 7 Institute for Road Safety Research, "Pedestrians, Two-Wheelers, and Road Safety, A Statistical Comparison of Pedestrian, Cyclist, and Moped-Rider Road Traffic Fatalities in the Netherlands from 1968-1972," Perceptual and Motor Skills, Vol. 45, (August-December, 1977), p. 339. 24 males than females were involved in fatal moped accidents. The age group most affected was between 10-19 years of age. The study reported a larger number of fatalities in smaller municipalities due to greater proportions of pedestrians, bicyclists, and moped drivers living in these areas. Straight roads and intersections were the locations where most fatal moped accidents occurred. Head injuries accoun­ ted for most of the injuries in these accidents. g Bygren, through the Karolinska Institute in Stock­ holm, Sweden, investigated accident risk factors for vehicle drivers. Moped drivers were studied along with drivers of other vehicle types. Male drivers were shown to drive mo­ peds more than females in various population groups. The youngest age group, along with the oldest age group, proved to be the majority of the moped drivers among the various population groups, as seen in Table 3. Bygren further suggested that the moped in itself was a risky vehicle. This was based on his findings that the moped was the least safe when compared to motorcycles and cars. A European Council of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) study 9 cited by Hunter and Stutts compared accidents in­ volving mopeds, bicycles, and motorcycles in the countries of the Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Q Lars Olov Bygren, "The Driver's Exposure to Risk of Accident," Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, Vol. 2, No. 2, (October, 19 74), pp. 60-64. g European Council of Ministers of Transport "cited by" Hunter and Stutts, pp. 4/1-4/3. 25 TABLE 3— Proportion of Moped Riders Among Motor Vehicle Drivers During One Year, According to Age and Sex Age City Suburb Country Male 15-17 18-20 21-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64 65-88 .98 .34 .13 .06 .07 .10 .12 .20 .96 .29 .11 .08 .12 .15 .27 .46 .97 .49 .22 .18 .20 .28 .33 .50 .15 .01 .04 .04 .11 .22 .03 .07 .14 .25 .31 .10 .18 .32 .52 Female 15-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-88 Source: Lars Olov Bygren, "The Driver's Exposure to Risk of Accident," Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine, vol. 2, No. 2, (October, 1974) , p . 61. 26 Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom, and Switzer­ land. Germany, Belgium, and France were shown to have more moped fatalities than any of the other countries listed in Table 4. The report went on to say: Although accounting for only 17 percent of the two­ wheeled vehicles represented in the participating nations, mopeds accounted for 50 percent of the in­ juries and 4 3 percent of the fatalities in accidents involving either mopeds, bicycles, or motorcycles. Based on death and injury rates per number of ve­ hicles, mopeds were seven to nine times more danger­ ous than bicycles but only one-third as dangerous as motorcycles. As part of the same ECMT study, fatalities by age group among bicycle, moped, and motorcycle drivers were examined.10 Eleven countries were used for comparison pur­ poses which included the Federal Republic of Germany, Belguim, Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Nether­ lands, Portugal, United Kingdom, and Switzerland. As shown in Table 5, moped accidents accounted for almost 26 percent of the fatalities for the 0-20 age groups while motorcycle fatalities accounted for almost 51 percent within the same age group. It was noted that the age groups of 15-20 ac­ counted for a majority of the moped fatalities in the 0-20 age group. In the over 20 age group, moped fatalities were at 74 percent. Bicycle fatalities in this age group almost reached 6 7 percent. The location of moped accidents was examined in the 10Ibid., pp. 5/1-5/5. TABLE 4— Deaths per 100,000 Vehicles in Nine Countries Bicycles Not Motor Assisted Country Germany (FRG) Belgium Denmark France Norway Netherlands Portugal United Kingdom Switzerland Total1 6.93 14.22 6.00 8.02 Mopeds 9.15 13.39 33.35 215.41 29.52 91.03 330.29 103.36 117.28 116.26 116.26 123.72 7.71 51.36 170.81 --- 7.84 ----- 66.64 61.52 48.50 59.35 24.09 28.67 Light Motorcycles & Other Motorcycles --- All TwoWheelers Combines 12.54 20.89 13.04 28.43 17.65 --- 13.57 ----- 23.81 *Germany (FRG), Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands, and Switzerland Source: European Council of Ministers of Transport "cited by" National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, An Analysis of Mopeds as a Potential Safety Problem, in, the__Dnited States. Volume I : Review of the Literature and Data Search, by William Hunter and Jane C. Stutts (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart­ ment of Transportation, 1979), p. 4/3. 28 TABLE 5— Road Deaths by Age Group for each Category of Vehicle in Eleven Countries (Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, Norway, Netherlands, Portugal, United Kingdom, and Switzerland) Vehicle Type 0-14 15-20 0-20 Bicycles 26.2 7.1 33.3 66.7 100.0 Mopeds 2.2 23.5 25.7 74.3 100.0 Light Motorcycles and Other Motorcycles 0.8 50.9 51.7 48.3 100.0 10.4 23.5 33.9 66.1 100.0 All Two-wheeled Vehicles Combined Total 20 plus Source: European Council of Ministers of Transport National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, An Analysis of Mopeds as a Potential Safety Problem in the United States, Volume I; Review of the Literature and Data Search, by William Hunter and Jane C. Stutts (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979), p. 5/5. Netherlands by Kraay,11 cited by Hunter and Stutts. Inter­ sections proved to be the location for most moped accidents in urban areas while straight roads were the high accident involvement areas in rural settings. In reporting on characteristics of Swedish moped accidents involving 15-17 year old drivers by Alexanderson, 12 et al., cited by Hunter and Stutts, variables which ^ Kraay "cited by" Hunter and Stutts, p. 5/49. 12 Alexanderson, et al., "cited by" Hunter and Stutts, ppT 5/64-5/65. 29 included day of week, time of day, light conditions, and road conditions, were investigated in both urban and rural areas. Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays, were the days when most moped accidents occurred both in urban and rural settings. The hours of 12 noon to 8 p.m. contained the highest accident involvement, both in urban and rural areas. Most accidents occurred during daylight on dry roads within both urban and rural sections of Sweden. Collision characteristics of moped accidents were 13 included in a study by Joergensen, et al., cited by Hunter and Stutts. The sample used for this analysis was personal injury moped accidents occurring in Copenhagen, Denmark. Turning into side streets and lateral collisions accounted for the majority of the accidents. The collision patterns which emerged from this study are listed below: Collision Pattern Percent Single Vehicle Rear-end Head-on Turning into side street Lateral Turning in from side street Parking (parked vehicle) Pedestrian Miscellaneous 12.7 11.9 2.5 30.1 15.6 9.6 6.2 10.3 1.1 loo.o Vehicle defects, as they relate to moped accidents, 13 Joergensen, et al., "cited by" Hunter and Stutts, pp. 6/6-6/7. 30 were investigated in a Danish study Stutts. 14 cited by Hunter and This study compared vehicle defects among mopeds, motorcycles, and private automobiles, in determining the extent these contributed to or caused the resultant acci­ dents. The defects listed included those involving steer­ ing, brakes, lights/turn signals, tires, chassis/body, and a miscellaneous category named other apparatus. Each of the aforementioned defects were categorized under the label of technical and significant defects. The percentage of involvement for those under technical defects demonstrated exactly which vehicle defects were involved in the acci­ dents. Under the label of significant defects, these same defects were judged as to how significant they were in terms of either contributing to the cause of the accident or making the accident worse. According to the researchers, 74 percent of the mopeds involved in these accidents had some type of tech­ nical defect. In comparison, 36 percent of these same de­ fects were determined to be a significant factor in causing or making the resultant accidents worse. The study went on to suggest that significant defective equipment on the moped contributed to at least six percent of the fatal and serious moped accidents. ^ Dutch Accident Survey "cited by" Hunter and Stutts, pp^ 5/71-5/72. 31 U.S. Studies on Moped Accident Types, Causes, and Injuries U.S. studies point to the increased use of the ve­ hicle as well as certain factors involved in moped acci­ dents . Hodge and McIntosh 15 investigated 111 moped acci­ dents which occurred in two beach cities and four inland communities during 1976-1977 in the State of California. Their study identified four major collision types, moped driver characteristics, and peak accident periods. Follow­ ing, are the results of their study under each of the three aforementioned categories: 1. Four Major Collision Types a. b. c. d. 2. The predominant accident type that emerged was the single vehicle collision. That is, the moped operator either collided with a fixed object (i.e., curb, traffic sign), or simply overturned his/her vehicle in the roadway rather than colliding with another vehicle. A second major accident type was character­ ized by another vehicle, in the process of turning right, colliding with a moped pro­ ceeding straight ahead. A third major accident pattern consisted of a moped colliding with the rear of another vehicle slowing or stopping traffic. A fourth category was comprised of accidents in which the motorist made an improper left turn into the path of an oncoming moped. Moped Driver Characteristics a. . . . Males were found to be more involved in moped accidents than females. Laurie J. McIntosh, "Moped Accident Analysis Yields Preliminary Data," Journal of Traffic Safety Edu­ cation , Vol. 26, No. 2, (January, T979), pp. 25-26. 32 b. c. d. e. f. g. 3. Moped operators under age 21 . . . accounted for more than three-fourths of all accident victims. Almost half were 16 or 17 years old, while about 1 out of every 10 drivers had not reached the legal age (16) for ob­ taining a California driver's license. Examining the license status of drivers in­ dicated that 4 out of every 10 involved dri­ vers were illegally operating their vehicles at the time of the collision. Injury data . . . showed that almost 9 out of every 10 moped drivers were injured in the collision. . . . Three-fourths of the accident-involved drivers received medical treatment. Nearly 8 out of every 10 moped operators owned the vehicles they were driving at the time of the accident. Generally, moped accident victims were dri­ ving their vehicles in the city in which they resided at the time of the collision. Only slightly more than one-third of the involved mopeds were properly licensed by the city in which the owner resided. Peak Accident Periods a. By defining commuting periods as 6 to 10 a.m. and 3 to 7 p.m. for weekdays only, it was found that slightly more than one-third (37 percent) of the collisions occurred during commuting periods, with the remainder occurring on weekends and during noncommut­ ing times. In reporting on moped accidents in North Carolina, Hunter and S t u t t s ^ examined three years of moped accident data covering the years 19 76-19 78. Comparisons were made in this investigation among moped, bicycle, motorcycle, and passenger car accidents. Their findings concerning moped accidents were: 16 William W. Hunter and Jane C. Stutts, Mopeds: An Analysis of 1976-1978 North Carolina Accidents (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, 1979), p. 1. 33 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Most accidents take place in seasons of good riding conditions and in good weather. One-third of the accidents occur on weekends and about one-half between 2-7 p.m. Accidents are almost equally divided between business, residential, and open country areas, although there has been a shift away from residential areas and toward business areas in the last three years. Slightly over half are intersection-related. While half the accidents take place on city streets, North Carolina has a high percentage of rural accidents when compared to other states. Over 9 0 percent of the accident-involved oper­ ators are male, and the accidents are roughly equally divided among those under 25 years old, 25-49 years of age, and greater than 50 years old. About 75 percent of the operators are white and 20 percent black. Over 26 percent of the operators are drinking and impaired at the time of the accident, with another 12 percent driving with impairment un­ known . Violations typically noted include safe move­ ment violations, driving under the influence, and failure to yield. Reportable moped accidents are severe, with four percent fatal and 22 percent resulting in a ser­ ious (Class A) injury. (A Class A injury is defined as an incapacitating injury obviously serious enough to prevent carrying on normal activities for at least 2 4 hours.) In collisions with mopeds, 92 percent of the drivers of other vehicles are uninjured. About 30 percent of the moped crashes are single vehicle. In two-vehicle crashes, angle and turning acci­ dents account for about half the total, and many of these occur at intersections where both vehicles are traveling straight ahead and at right angles to each other. Only 7 percent of the collisions take place at estimated speeds prior to impact in excess of 20 miles per hour. A study by the California Highway Patrol 17 al., p. 3. 17 (CHP), California Highway Patrol "cited by” McKnight et 34 cited by McKnight et al.f undertook to identify and list specific casual factors involved in moped accidents. A total of 1,119 moped accidents which occurred in the State of California during 19 77 were analyzed. They found the casual factors to be: 1. 2. 3. 4. Failure to yield right-of-way (19.8 percent). Improper turning (16.3 percent). Other improper driving (11.4 percent). Moped operators were at fault in just under half of the accidents. Stoke presented a comparison between Virginia moped accidents during 19 75-19 77 and a ECMT study conducted in 1974 comparing bicycle, moped, and motorcycle accidents. 18 Much of the information needed for this comparison from Virginia accident reports was not available because of the reporting system used at that time. However, Stoke went on to compare the available data. In the comparisons made, the deaths per 100,000 ve­ hicles were shown for mopeds, while to be 170.8 for motorcyclesand 51.4 bicycle deaths were at 7.7.The injuries sustained per 100,000 vehicles also proved to be smaller for bicycles at 161 with mopeds being more at 1,516 and motorcycles even higher at 4,659. The age groups 15 to 20 and 21-65 were problem areas as far as fatalities for moped and motorcycle accidents were concerned. Crash involvement was highest in urban areas for all three vehicle types. 18 Charles B. Stoke, Mopeds-Bicycle or Motorcycle? (Charlottesville, Virginia: Highway Safety Division of Virginia, 1978), pp. 12-14. 35 According to this comparison, Stoke concluded: . . it appears that mopeds more closely resemble motorcycles than they do bicycles in their accident characteristics." Evans, 19 through information collected on a six month survey, examined the safety aspects and related pro­ blems of moped use in the Los Angeles and Orange county areas of California. A total of 100 owner-operators were randomly selected for this purpose. Through this effort, Evans found: 1. . . . Moped riders were mostly 17 year old male students with automobile driver's licenses or instruction permits. 2. Seventy-seven percent of the respondents indi­ cated that the moped was their primary means of transportation. 3. . . . Nearly all of the respondents (97 percent), were quite satisfied with the performance of the vehicle. 4. Protective clothing and safety helmets were worn by few of the respondents except when the weather required the use of a jacket. 5. . . . Riding on sidewalks was practiced by 27 percent of the group. 6 . . . . Riding against the flow of traffic was practiced by only 6 percent. 7. The moped rider . . . does not have a great deal of motorcycle knowledge, understanding of traf­ fic situations, or driving experience. 20 Evans further discovered: 1. . . . that only 8 percent of the survey group had a class 4 (motorcycle endorsement) on their licenses. 19 Michael L. Evans, "How Safe Are Mopeds?" Journal of Traffic Safety Education, Vol. 25, No. 1, (October, 1977) , p. 6 . 20 Michael L. Evans, "Improving the Moped's Status and Safety," Journal of Traffic Safety Education, Vol. 25, No. 3, (April^ 1978) , p. 10. 36 2. 3. 4. The average total number of borrowers per moped was about 10.3 (of these 4.1 were younger than the owner and 6.2 were older than the owner). Many of those surveyed had, at one time or other, carried passengers on their vehicles. . . . Ninety-seven percent of those surveyed admitted that they did not regularly wear helmets. Motorcycle and bicycle accidents have been shown to be attributed many times to conspicuity problems through the research data available. Mopeds also have conspicuity 21 problems. Olson, et al., made comparisons between an untreated (control) moped and one with an orange bicycle flag attached to it. From the comparisons tested, the re­ searchers concluded: The results of the moped study suggest that the use of a visibility aid such as the fluorescent flag may be beneficial. Indeed, our riders reported they felt much safer with the flag in place and experienced much less trouble with cars. Aerodynamic disturbance test procedures were used m a study by Klein and Hogue 22 in which motorcycles, mopeds, and bicycles, were observed for control in varying mile per hour crosswinds. A motorcycle was shown to have little difficulty in a 35 mile per hour crosswind while both the 21 National Highway Development and Testing of Conspicuity of Motorcycles et al. (Washington, D.C.: 1979), pp. 104-114. 22 . Traffic Safety Administration, Techniques for Increasing the and Motorcycle Drivers, by Olson, U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Development of Aerodynamic Disturbance Test Procedures, Volume I : Executive Summary, by Richard H. Klein and Jeffrey R. Hogue (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 19 79), p. 21. 37 moped and bicycle were difficult to control in a 25 mile per hour crosswind. The researchers pointed out that the steering tests conducted using the moped and bicycle were impossible because both vehicles kept overturning. It seems, from the results of this study, wind gusts may play a part in some moped accidents. Because a moped is light­ weight in comparison to a motorcycle, this undoubtedly made it more vulnerable to the negative effects of crosswinds . Educational Programs for Moped Drivers An examination of the literature revealed isolated activities directed toward better education of the moped driver. Kaywood, 23 in a presentation to the First National Moped Conference held in California during 1978, offered the following observation concerning the role of education as a countermeasure in moped accidents. He stated: We have witnessed over the past thirty years the wide-spread acceptance of education as a means of preparing our youth as motor vehicle operators. More recently, schools have begun to accept re­ sponsibility to teach motorcycle safety and to expand their safety education functions at all grade levels to include pedestrian, bicycle, and passenger aspects of traffic safety. The concept of safety education from kindergarten through twelfth grade has taken hold in many school sys­ tems around the country, and some teacher 23 Richard Kaywood, "The Role of Education in Pre venting Moped Accidents," Journal of Traffic Safety Edu­ cation, Vol. 25, No. 4, (July, 197‘ST, pp. 33-34. 38 preparation institutions have begun to make this a specialized function. Where a societal problem becomes apparent that cannot readily be solved by other means, society inevitably turns to education. . . . With expectations of sky-rocketing sales of mopeds projected for years to come, along with expected increases in numbers of deaths and in­ juries, every day's delay assures the outcome of the destructive potential. A moped course was offered at Saddleback College, California, as early as 1977. 24 This was interesting in light of the fact that 19 78, as reported earlier, was the year of the moped as far as its great influx into the U.S. traffic scene. This course consisted of both classroom and range instruction. range purposes. A parking lot was utilized for The college catalog description of the course was as follows: 1. Catalog Description Ten hour non-credit course designed to instruct the student in the mechanical operation of the vehicle; safety awareness as related to traf­ fic, structured on a totally defensive attitude; general maintenance of the machine. 2. Expected Outcomes For Students: in letters e and f). (Add your own The student will be able to: a. b. c. d. e. f Operate all controls Pass all state two-wheel vehicle knowledge tests Perform general maintenance as required Compete with contemporary traffic problem . 24 Ohio Department of Education, p. 113. 39 3. Course Content: One hour lecture covering maintenance and traf­ fic awareness. One hour on-cycle instruction, performing exercises designed to create confi­ dence and a defensive attitude. Included will be complete understanding of California traffic laws as related to moped operation. 4. Methods of Presentation Instructional films and maintenance texts and brochures as provided by the Moped industry. On-cycle instruction utilizing six Puch mopeds provided by the manufacturer. 5. Methods of Evaluating Student Progress: Written examination covering state traffic laws and maintenance procedures. On-cycle riding test upon completion of course. 6. Minimum Student Materials: Valid California driver's license or instruc­ tion permit. All other materials provided to the student. 25 In 1980, McKnight, et al., undertook to identify those tasks needed by moped drivers to perform safely within the traffic mix. The general objectives of this project were to: 1. 2. Identify tasks presented to moped operators and the behaviors which were needed to cope safely with these tasks. Develop instructional objectives capable of guiding development of moped safety education programs. Experienced bicycle drivers were used to determine if a quick transfer of learning would result from bicycle to moped operation. 25 Moped drivers were also observed in McKnight, et al., pp. 4-98. 40 different type driving environments. The researchers found that a quick transfer of learning did occur from bicycle to moped operation. Some of the major errors observed in the different driving environments were those related to vehicle control, observation, signaling, speed adjustment, and positioning. Rider preparation before entering the traffic scene showed little or no use of protective equip­ ment. Upon completion of the study, the researchers con­ cluded that a formal moped instructional program such as a motorcycle rider course was not necessary. They based this on their finding that an easy transfer took place between bicycle and moped operation, and the assumption that most people would probably not enroll in such a course even if it was offered. They did, however, go on to point out the importance of making educational materials available to the moped driver with special emphasis targeted at teen­ agers. A slide/cassette program which included a pamphlet was developed based on the project findings. It was sug­ gested that a knowledge test be given in order to obtain a moped license, but stressed that a skill test, unless de­ veloped to assess specifically those skills needed in traf­ fic, was not necessary. The prospects of developing an adequate performance test was viewed with much skepticism. In 19 81, Iowa began mandating moped education pro­ grams for those persons under sixteen years of age who 41 desired to operate this vehicle on Iowan streets and high26 ways. The law stated: After July 1, 1981, persons under the age of six­ teen applying for a moped license shall also be required to successfully complete a moped education course as established by the Department of Public Instruction or successfully complete an approved moped education course at a private or commercial driver education school licensed by the Department. A public school district may charge a student a fee which shall not exceed the actual cost of in­ struction. The moped education course developed was recommen­ ded to be six hours in duration and included classroom in­ struction only. Following are a list of the five major components which were required to be taught as part of an 27 approved course. These included: 1. Operator and Moped Preparation a. b. c. d. e. f. 2. Knowledge of Iowa driving laws Knowledge of Iowa vehicle registration requirements Vehicle Inspection Protective clothing and devices Risk assessment Route selection Basic Control Skills a. b. c. Starting procedures Speed control Turning 26 Dwight R. Carlson, "Motorcycle and Moped Educa­ tion Programs Mandated in Iowa," Journal of Traffic Safety Education, Vol. 28, No. 2, (January, 19 817T pT 23. 27 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Moped Education For Iowans, by Iowa Department of Public Instruction (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Trans­ portation, 1981), p. 7. 42 d. 3. Safe Driving Practices a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 1. 4. Use of lights and warning devices Signalling Maintaining directional control Perception skills and seeing Use of mirrors Hazards recognition Speed control Lane positioning Intersection concerns and conflicts Following distances Lateral separation Overtaking and passing techniques Complex Situations a. b. c. d. 5. Stopping Limited visibility Adverse weather Critical situations Malfunctions Moped Care a. b. Inspection Maintenance Most of the educational materials to date dealing with the safe and proper operation of mopeds were in the form of safety tips offered in newspapers or periodical articles, along with pamphlets and individual state moped handbooks. An example of a periodical article appeared in BusinessWeek in 19 77. 28 The topics discussed in this article included foreign and U.S. registrations of the moped, moped rules of the road, and comments concerning how 28 "The Risks in Moped Riding— and How to Avoid Them," Edited by Bradley Hitchings, BusinessWeek, No. 2494, (August 1, 1977), pp. 65-66. 43 other users of the highway see the moped. Some of the safety tips offered were: 1. 2. 3. 4. If you drive a moped, stay on quiet streets un­ til you gain experience with it. Never drive it on high-speed roads. To beseen better by car drivers, mount a bike flag on the back wheel. ... Wear light-colored clothing . . .and be sure your moped has adequate lights and re­ flectors for nighttime riding. Other tips offered by Kenneth Licht of the National Safety Council included: 1. 2. 3. . . . Keep as much distance as possible from cars. . . . Helmets are an absolute must on mopeds, even at slow speeds. . . . Until the minimum age is resolved, it's up to parents to be sure their youngsters are mature enough to drive a moped. 29 The Moped Association of America (MAA), which disseminates information to the public, has published a pamphlet entitled, Learn the Big 5 of Moped Safety and Pleasure. This is an example of a comprehensive pamphlet which goes into much detail in covering safety aspects relevant to moped driving. The Association addressed five critical areas seen as important to safe moped driving, i.e., the moped, road, operator, other persons, and the weather. All states which require persons of a minimum age to obtain a moped license in order to operate the vehicle 29 Moped Association of America, Learn the Big 5 of Moped Safety and Pleasure, A Pamphlet, (Montvale, New Jer­ sey: The Association, 19 78), p. 1. 44 within the state, make available information concerning use of the vehicle, state laws, rules, regulations, and safe driving tips. This information is usually made available through a moped handbook or is included in the motorcycle handbook. Michigan's latest two-wheeled vehicle handbook is entitled, What Every Motorcycle and Moped Operator Must Know . . . .30 The information contained in this handbook is similar to what would be found in other state handbooks. The major content areas addressed for Michigan moped drivers include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. What is a Moped? Registration and license requirements Laws you must know Before you ride Riding techniques Being seen Defensive driving Keeping your distance Driving on dangerous surfaces Emergencies Carrying passengers and cargo Group riding Michigan Laws Concerning Mopeds A moped was first defined and classified as a sep31 arate vehicle into Michigan law by Public Act 439 in 19 76 30 Michigan Department of State, What Every Motor­ cycle and Moped Operator Must Know . . ., A Handbook, (Lan­ sing, Michigan: The Department^ 1 9 8 3 ) , p. 1. ^Michigan, "Act No. 439 of the Public Acts of 1976," Public and Local Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan (Lansing, Michigan: Department of Management and Budget, 1976), p. 1470 and pp. 1484-1485. 45 (Appendix B ) . As part of this same act, the owner of a moped was required after May 1, 19 77, to register the ve­ hicle with the Secretary of State's office. The Michigan Vehicle Code contains all laws currently in force concerning the legal use of the moped on Michigan's streets and high32 ways (Appendix C ) . Normally, laws considered most important for the moped driver to know are stated in the various state motor­ cycle/moped handbooks. Michigan's motorcycle/moped hand­ book for the years 19 81-1982 was entitled, What Every Motorcyclist Must Know . . . And Mopeds.33 Some of the most important laws stated to the moped driver were: 1. 2. 3. 4. A moped is a two- or three-wheeled vehicle which has: a gasoline or an electric motor with no more than 50 cc piston displacement and 1.5 brake horsepower; a bicycle type pedaling system; and a top speed of no more than 2 5 mph on level surfaces. You must register your moped at any Secretary of State's office if you plan to drive it on public roads. Mopeds are registered for a three-year period. If you want to drive a moped on a public high­ way, you must carry a valid driver license. If you do not have a driver license and you are at least 15 years old, you may apply for a special moped license. To obtain a moped license, you must pass vision, knowledge and traffic sign tests. You do not have to pass a driver education course or take a road or skill test. 32 Michigan Department of State, 1983 Michigan Ve­ hicle Code (Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1983). 33Michigan Department of State, What Every Motor­ cyclist Must Know . . . And Mopeds, A Handbook (Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1981), pp. 4-6. 46 Some changes and modifications of moped laws have taken place since 1982. In June of 1983, Public Act 9134 was passed by the Legislature and signed by the Governor addressing changes in certain moped laws (Appendix D). The amendments added to the Michigan Vehicle Code concern­ ing mopeds as a result of this act did the following: 1. Increased the allowable horsepower from 1.5 to 2 .0 . Increased the maximum speed from 25 to 30 mph. Imposed a requirement that the drive system should not require shifting of gears by an operator. Eliminated the pedal requirement. Required the retail dealer to obtain the regis­ tration in the purchaser's name. Required helmet use by operators 18 years old or less. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Other State Laws Concerning Mopeds Special moped laws have been enacted in forty-five states, including the District of Columbia. This means ninety-six percent of the U.S. population is covered by such laws .33 36 The Moped Association of America (MAA), prepared 34 Michigan, "Act No. 91 of the Public Acts of 1983," Public and Local Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan (Lansing, Michigan: Department of Manage­ ment and Budget, 1983, 1983). 35 . Moped Association of America, What is a Moped? A Pamphlet, (Montvale, New Jersey: The Association, 1980), p. 2 . 36 Moped Association of America, State Moped Laws A Pamphlet, (Montvale, New Jersey: The Association, 19 83), pp. 1-3. 47 through January of 19 8 3 a list of all states having moped laws, which included the State of Michigan (Appendix E ) . The Michigan laws stated were those in force during 19811982, the focus years of this study. sed in the different states included: The categories addres­ minimum age limits, licensing rules, registration requirements, maximum speed limits, maximum engine limits, legal definitions of the ve­ hicle, mandatory insurance requirements, and mandatory helmet law requirements. According to this compilation of laws, the MAA summarized the moped*s legal status in the various states as follows: 37 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 37 pp. 2-3. About 45 percent of "moped states" have no registration fees for mopeds; the other states set fees from $3 for two years (Mass.) to $12 annually (Illinois). A majority of moped states - 25 of them - chose 16 as the minimum operator age; ten states set the age at 15. All but one of the 46 moped states requires a valid driver's license to operate a moped. Of these states, 20 allow a moped permit for those who do not possess a valid driver's license. Two states (Ga., Tenn.) of 46 require all moped riders to wear helmets. Two other states have some helmet restrictions on some mopeds and op­ erators. The other 42 states place no manda­ tory helmet rules on moped operators. Forty-one of the 46 moped states do not require mandatory liability insurance for mopeds, though about a third of these require proof of financial responsibility in the event of an accident. Moped Association of America, What is a Moped? 48 Summary A review of foreign studies revealed several simi­ larities in the findings concerning moped accidents. In general, the age groups 15-24 and 65 and over were shown to be involved in a disproportionate number of accidents with resulting injuries and fatalities. This fact from reports by Wigan and Carter, Jamieson and Tait, Bygren, an Institute for Road Safety Research study, a German study, and a European Council of Ministers of Transport study. Jamieson and Road Safety Research Tait, Bygren, and an Institute for study indicated that among all age groups and sexes, males were the more common driver of the moped and thus involved in more accidents with resulting injuries and fatalities. Of the injuries sustained in these accidents, head and neck were the most frequent according to Jamieson and Tait, and a Dutch study. Intersections were pointed out by Kraay, Wigan and Carter, Jamieson and Tait, Joergensen, et al., and an Institute for Road Safety Research study as being the lo­ cation on the streets and highways where most moped acci­ dents occurred. The vehicle shown to be in conflict with the moped at intersections and other locations more often than not was a car, according to Wigan and Carter. Jamieson and Tait, 49 as well as a Swedish study, identified more generally a moving vehicle as the source of conflict in moped accidents. An European Council of Ministers of Transport study compared bicycle, moped, and motorcycle deaths per 100,000 vehicles in nine different countries. The Federal Republic of Germany, Belgium, and France, had higher moped fatalities than those deaths attributed to motorcycle or bicycle ac­ cidents. Alexanderson, et al., studied four variables re­ lated to moped accidents, i.e., day of week, time of day, light conditions, and road conditions. Mondays, Tuesdays, and Fridays, were the days when most accidents occurred, both in urban and rural settings. The hours of 12 noon to 8 p.m. proved to have the highest accident involvement oc­ currence, both in urban and rural areas. Most accidents occurred during daylight on dry roads within both urban and rural sections. In a Danish study, moped defective equipment was investigated. The researchers suggested that defective equipment contributed to at least six percent of the fatal and serious moped accidents studied. Wigan and Carter, Bygren, and a German study, all agreed that a moped was the least safe when compared to a car as far as risk of injury to the driver was concerned. The German study cited drivers of mopeds and motorcycles as having injury risk 10 to 15 times greater than drivers of 50 cars. Wigan and Carter felt the injury risk was greater for motorcycle drivers with moped drivers being second. Bygren insisted that the moped was least safe when compared to motorcycles and cars. U.S. research on mopeds was not as extensive as foreign research on the vehicle. Hodge and McIntosh found single vehicle (moped) collisions as the predominant accident type, while vehicles turning left into the path of a moped was cited as being fourth in comparison. Moped operators under twenty-one and males were found to be more involved in accidents. Of those moped drivers involved in accidents, nine out of every ten were injured. Peak accident periods were between 6 and 10 a.m. and 3 and 7 p.m. on weekdays, which accounted for 37 percent of the accidents studied. Hunter and Stutts found intersections to be the lo­ cation for over 50 percent of all moped accidents. Male drivers accounted for 90 percent of those involved in acci­ dents. Of these males, the accident involvement in the age groups of under 25, 2 5-49, and 50 and over, showed accidents roughly evenly distributed. The moped drivers were found to be drinking 16 percent of the time in the accidents in­ vestigated. Fifty percent of the accidents occurred be­ tween 2 and 7 p.m. while one-third happened during weekends. A serious injury was sustained 22 percent of the time while fatalities occurred 4 percent of the time in the moped 51 accidents examined. A California Highway Patrol study revealed that the majority of moped accidents investigated were due to failure to yield right-of-way 19.8 percent of the time. Improper turning was cited as causing 16.3 percent of the accidents. Moped operators were at fault just under 50 percent of the time. Stoke compared Virginia bicycle, moped, and motor­ cycle accident data with a European Council of Ministers of Transport study on the same vehicles. He concluded that mopeds were characteristically more like motorcycles as far as accident involvement was concerned. Evans, through a survey, found that moped drivers violated traffic laws, were mostly seventeen years old and male, infrequently wore safety equipment, and allowed others to borrow their moped. A study by Olson, et al., indicated the use of an orange flag attached to the moped made it more conspicious to other vehicle drivers. Aerodynamic disturbance test procedures were con­ ducted in California using motorcycles, mopeds, and bi­ cycles. According to Klein and Hogue, a moped was demon­ strated to have stability problems in 25 mile per hour crosswinds. A review of literature on moped accidents showed few but various activities directed toward better education of the moped driver. 52 Kaywood, in a presentation to the First National Moped Conference, addressed the importance of education as a countermeasure against moped accidents. A moped rider course outline was found which was conducted in 19 77, the year before the great influx of the vehicle within the United States. This course consisted of both classroom and range instruction. In July of 1981, Iowa began mandating moped edu­ cation programs for those persons under sixteen years of age desiring to drive a moped on Iowa streets and highways. The suggested guidelines for this course included six hours of classroom instruction only. No range instruction was required. McKnight, et al., in 1980, undertook a study in order to develop objectives from which to develop a moped safety education program. Through this effort, it was con­ cluded that a moped rider course was not necessary because of easy transfer of learning from bicycle to moped driving. However, the researchers went on to suggest that educational materials be made available to the moped driver. In searching the literature, it was determined that the most accessible educational material for the moped driver was available within each state through motorcycle and moped handbooks. Occasional newspaper and periodical articles were also shown to offer safety tips for the moped driver. 53 Michigan and other state laws covering mopeds were found to show some similarities, while at the same time showing much variance. Up to January of 1983, only two states, i.e., Georgia and Tennessee, had mandatory helmet laws for moped drivers. Also, forty-five percent of the states were shown to have no registration laws. Mandatory liability insurance was not required in forty-one states. The next chapter will present the design and methodology utilized for completion of this study. Chapter III DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY This study was descriptive in nature. It was de­ signed with the major aim and purpose of showing those factors involved in moped traffic accidents as stated in the UD-10 which occurred within the State of Michigan during the years 19 81-1982. Michigan residents were following the trend of other states in the increased purchasing and use of mopeds. In fact, Michigan was listed along with seven other states, i.e., California, Florida, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Indiana as being the states with the largest numbers of mopeds.^ With this increased use came a surge in accidents and injuries. With a more than tripling of total moped traffic accidents from 146 in 1978, to 486 in 1982, the moped traffic accident number was becoming larger. After consulting with personnel from the Michigan State Police, and Secretary of State's office, it was found that no comprehensive study to date had been undertaken within the State of Michigan concerning moped traffic re­ lated accidents. Both agencies of the State were interested ^ h e Department of Energy, Regional Analysis of High' way Energy Use (Washington, D.C.: The Department, 1980), p. 3-129. 55 in such a study, and offered generously their cooperation and assistance. This chapter describes in detail the design and methodology utilized to conduct the study. Included are: the population, the sample, the nature of the variables, development of the Personal Interview Questionnaire, de­ velopment of the Dealer Questionnaire, the procedures for data collection, and the procedures for data analysis. Population The population for this study was the 79 7 reported moped traffic accidents which occurred within the State of Michigan during the years 1981-19 82. These accidents were labeled and .categorized by the Michigan State Police as "traffic." This meant they occurred on a public street or highway, or on the right-of-way of a public street or high­ way. Non-traffic moped accidents were not considered. Sample Moped Traffic Accident Sample The sample selected for this study consisted of 400 moped traffic accidents randomly selected from the population of the 79 7 which occurred during 19 81-19 82. The large and randomly selected sample group comprised approximately 50 percent of the population and was representative of the moped traffic accidents throughout the State of Michigan. 56 Automobile Operator's Driving Record Sample Of this sample, 100 moped driver automobile driving records were randomly selected to be investigated in detail. The driver records group selected, comprising 25 percent of the random sample, was determined to be sufficiently large enough to yield a representative sample of moped drivers, as automobile operators, throughout the State of Michigan. Personal Interview Questionnaire Sample A group of 30 moped drivers were randomly selected for personal interview purposes. These drivers were selec­ ted from the previously selected sample of 100 moped dri­ vers used for automobile driving record comparison purposes. It was determined that these moped drivers would be per­ sonally visited and interviewed. It was felt that this would facilitate more reliable responses. A review of re­ search studies employing mailed survey instruments revealed that a return rate of 25 to 30 percent could be expected. Therefore, 30 drivers or 30 percent of the sample, was selected. This sample was random and thus representative of the population. Dealer Questionnaire Sample A group of 20 motorcycle/moped dealers were selec­ ted for questionnaire purposes. This type instrument was used to access some of Michigan's dealers' concerns, feelings, and reactions, toward the moped consumer. The 57 sample size selected was based on the fact that each of these dealers was located within a 100 mile radius of Lansing, Michigan, the location of the study. Therefore, this sample was nonrandom. All Person Involvement Information (Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and BicyclistT The Michigan State Police prepares, summarizes, and reports yearly information concerning all reported traffic accidents within the State. A separate report is prepared for each different classification of vehicle based on those variables listed on the UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report. The information compiled for moped traffic accidents during 19 81-19 82 included all persons involved in these ac­ cidents. The data summarized included all 79 7 reported ac­ cidents during 1981-1982. The Nature of the Variables UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report The major focus of this descriptive study was based on the variables listed on the UD-10 State of Michigan Of­ ficial Traffic Accident Report. Each of these variables were officially recorded by an officer who personally in­ vestigated the moped traffic accident. The variables taken from the UD-10 and utilized for this study were divided and defined within five 58 general categories as follows: 1. Driver a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. 2. Vehicle a. b. c. d. e. 3. Age Sex Residence Actions 1. Hazardous 2. Intentions Before Accident Citation Charge 1. Hazardous Violation 2. Written Citations Drinking Condition 1. Drinking or Drugs 2. Drinking Test Results Helmet Used Moped Hit and Run Drivers Registration Defects 1. Brakes 2. Lights 3. Steering 4. Tires 5. Other Collision Characteristics 1. What Moped Collided With 2. Direction Type 3. Special Accident Types 4. Objects Hit Other Than Motor Vehicle Damage 1. Impact Point 2. Severity 3. Vehicle Drivable 4. Property Damage Fuel Leakage Accident Location, Time, and Date a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. County and Township Location Population Highway Classification Longitudinal and Latitudinal Measurements Erected Traffic Control Device Investigator Type Day of Week Time of Day Month of Year 59 4. Accident Conditions a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 1. m. n. o. p. q. r. 5. Clear or Cloudy Fog Raining Snowing Daylight Dawn or Dusk Darkness - Street Lights Darkness - No Street Lights Dry Wet Snowy Straight Road Curve Road Loose Material on Road Surface Holes, Ruts, and Bumps Physical Obstruction Glare Obstruction Construction Zone Driver's Degree of Injury a. b. c. d. e. Fatal Incapacitating Injury Non-Incapacitating Injury Possible Injury No Injury Automobile Operator's Driving Records The information contained on the individual automo­ bile driving records relative to violations and accidents used in this study, were officially recorded on a computer at the Secretary of State's office. The violations recorded were those which had been officially sent to the Secretary of State's office from the various courts within the State of Michigan. Also, any accident involvement of a driver was recorded on his/her driving record regardless of whether a citation was issued or not. This information was accurate and factual. One hypothesis was tested in this descriptive study 60 from these driving records. In its null form, it states: Ho^: There is no relationship between the automobile driving records of moped drivers and those fac­ tors involved in moped traffic accidents. Personal Interview and Dealer Questionnaire The questions developed for the personal interview and dealer questionnaires were strictly objective, except for two open-ended questions each. Therefore, the answers provided by the respondents were directly in response to the questions, without subjective opinion, except for the open-ended questions. All Person Involvement Information (Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists) The information obtained from the Michigan State Police concerning selected variables relative to all persons involved in moped traffic accidents during 19 81-1982 was a compilation of data annually prepared for public information purposes. This information was therefore considered depend­ able and reliable. The variables taken from these summary reports and analyzed for this study included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Age Sex Driver Residence Hazardous Action Drinking Condition Different Vehicle Driver Injuries 61 Development of Personal Interview Questionnaire A personal interview questionnaire was developed for the purpose of attaining a complete profile of the moped driver from their personal standpoint (Appendix F ) . It was determined that the particular information sought could best be attained through this type instrument. Following a search of the literature, a list of sug­ gested research data needs relative to the moped driver and moped traffic accidents was made for possible inclusion in this study. From this list, four content areas, i.e., ex­ posure, experience, education, and safety equipment, were selected from which to develop the questions. These content areas of interest were selected because they seemed most pertinent to this study. As a result, nineteen questions were developed by the writer and approved by the guidance committee for the study. These questions were simple and direct. Upon the recommendation of these experts, one con­ tent area, i.e., feelings and reactions to accident was added, along with four additional questions. Also, various other questions were modified as deemed necessary. There­ fore, a total of 2 3 questions were developed for use in this survey according to the following five content areas of in­ terest (Appendix G ) : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Exposure Experience Education Safety Equipment Feelings and Reactions to Accident 62 The first 22 questions were objective. The last two questions were subjective, in that the moped driver was allowed the opportunity to discuss freely his/her particular accident. Development of Dealer Questionnaire A dealer questionnaire was developed with the cen­ tral purpose of accessing some of Michigan's motorcycle/ moped dealers' concerns, feelings, and reactions, specific­ ally concerning the moped consumer (Appendix H ) . This type instrument was felt to be the most appropriate means of at­ taining the particular information sought. Content areas of interest were selected by the writer on the basis of their pertinence to this study. A review of the literature revealed that research data was lacking from the stand point of the motorcycle/moped dealer with respect to the moped consumer. As a result, 12 simple and direct questions were developed and approved by the guidance committee for the study. Upon the recommendation of these experts, one ad­ ditional question was added. Therefore, a total of 13 questions were developed for use in this survey according to the following four general content areas of interest (Appen­ dix I) : 1. 2. 3. 4. Education Safety Equipment Moped Retailing Michigan's Moped Laws 63 The first 11 questions were objective. The last two questions were subjective, in that the dealer was allowed to express his/her personal thoughts relative to Michigan's moped laws and place of responsibility for educating the moped driver. The Procedures for Data Collection UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report The UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Acci­ dent Reports (refer to Appendix A) were located with the Michigan State Police Records Identififation Traffic Ser­ vices Department. All variables on the UD-10 relative to each accident had been keypunched onto a computer. In order to extract only those moped traffic acci­ dents which occurred within the State of Michigan during 2 19 81-19 82, the Accident Analyzer Program, written by the Michigan State Police was utilized. This program probed into the entire population of all traffic accidents which occurred within the State during 19 81-19 82, extracting only those 79 7 accidents which were coded as moped traffic acci­ dents. These accidents, the population for this study, were then transferred to computer magnetic tapes, and given to the writer along with a copy of the Accident Master File 2 Michigan State Police, Accident Analyzer Program (Lansing, Michigan: The Department). 64 Tape Layout. 3 This provided the codes and character posi­ tions for each of the variables listed essential to subse­ quent data analysis. This population was later placed on a computer from which the sample was randomly selected. Automobile Operator's Driving Records The driving records needed for this study were lo­ cated at the Driver Records Section of the Michigan Depart­ ment of State. A formal letter of request was made explain­ ing the purpose of this study, along with the need for using the driving records. The request was approved and access to this information granted. The driving records of the six moped drivers killed during the 19 81-19 82 accidents could not be obtained. These had been purged from the files. A complete driving record was used. This showed violations, accidents in which the driver was assessed a violation, and all other accidents in which the driver was involved even if a violation was not assessed. It was de­ cided that the complete driving record would better serve the purposes of this study. From the initial sample of 400 drivers in moped traf­ fic accidents, 100 moped drivers were randomly selected. The operators' numbers, which consisted of a capital letter followed by a 12 digit number, were taken from these 3 . . Michigan State Police, Accident Master File Tape Layout (Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1976). 65 accident reports, and sent to the Driver Records Section of the Michigan Department of State. These numbers were sub­ sequently keypunched into their computer yielding the com­ plete driving records of the moped drivers selected. These were used for the analysis. The information that could be gathered from the driving records included: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Name Address Date of Birth Driver License Number Handicapped Driver (if applicable) Corrective Lens Requirement (if applicable) Violations (location, month/day/year) Points Assessed for Violations Reported Accidents (location, month/day/year) Restrictions (type) Suspensions (month/day/year to month/day/year) Revocations (month/day/year to month/day/year) Court Action (month/day/year) Re-Exam Referrals (month/day/year) Warning Letters sent (month/day/year) (Appendix J) Correspondence Letters sent (month/day/year) (Appendix K) Personal Interviews A prerequisite in interviewing selected moped dri­ vers was obtaining their addresses. Since the driving records contained this information, these were considered the most reliable source. Therefore, a random sample of 30 drivers was selected from the 100 used for driving record comparison purposes. Upon drawing the sample, each moped driver was categorized by county. After these drivers were grouped into the appropriate counties, the visitations took place. Upon finding the 66 appropriate address, the writer identified himself and ex­ plained the purpose of this study. The moped driver was then informed how his/her name was obtained, and asked per­ mission to administer the Personal Interview Questionnaire. After the interview was completed, the writer went to the accident location in order to verify the location infor­ mation given by the moped driver, and to draw a schematic of the accident. A total of five interviews, or approximately 17 percent, were not completed for various reasons. A moped driver in Wayne County expressed that she was too busy and did not have time. A second moped driver in Wayne County was presently involved in litigation concerning her ac­ cident, so refused to answer any questions. A moped driver in Kent County had moved and no forwarding address could be located. A moped driver in Macomb County was in the Air Force, and could not be contacted. Lastly, a moped driver in Oakland County agreed to be interviewed, but refused to answer the last four questions concerning his accident. Also, the father of the driver kept answering questions for his son. unreliable. Because of this, the responses were considered The questionnaire was therefore not used when analyzing the total responses. Dealer Questionnaire The dealers selected for the Dealer Questionnaire were chosen on the basis of being a retailer of mopeds, and 67 located within a 100 mile radius of Lansing, Michigan. A random selection was not employed. From a list of motorcycle dealers provided by the Michigan Motorcycle Dealers' Association, those counties within the 100 mile radius were initially noted. these, a group of 20 dealers were drawn. From Since some of these dealers did not sell mopeds, others were selected for replacements. Upon visiting the dealers, the writer identified himself and explained the purpose of this study. was then asked if he/she sold mopeds. The dealer If the dealer stated yes, then permission was asked to administer the question­ naire. If the dealer stated no, a replacement was selected. Of the 20 eventual motorcycle/moped dealers visited, all 2 0 , or 100 percent, agreed to answer the questions. All Person Involved Information (Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bicyclist¥) The 19 81-82 summary report accident data, relative to all persons involved, were located with the Michigan State Police Records Identification Traffic Services Depart­ ment. They were contacted and copies of the data were requested. Summary reports for both 19 81 and 1982 were given to the writer. The Procedures for Data Analysis UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Report 68 The computer magnetic tapes received from the Michi­ gan State Police B-6700 computer were transferred to a permanent file for use with Michigan State University CDC 3600 computer. The variables for each moped traffic accident filed on the Michigan State Police computer were categorized under four different records as applicable. were labeled either a (0) , (1), (2) , or (3). These records The (0) record contained all information relative to the location of the accident. The (1) record contained constant information such as month, date, time, etc., for each accident. The (2 ) record contained information relative to all vehicle drivers involved in the collisions. Finally, the (3) record contained injury information concerning all persons involved in these accidents. (All of the (3) record information was redundant with the (2 ) record concerning the moped driver). For each moped traffic accident, there was only one location record, only one constant information record, and at least one all vehicle driver record. In some cases, there could have been multiple all vehicle driver records, for each driver involved, and no all persons injured records, if no one was injured, or multiple all persons in­ jured records, if more than one person was injured. Since the focus of this study was on the moped driver specifically, all (2 ) records not pertaining to the moped driver, and (3) records pertaining to the injuries of every­ one involved in these accidents, had to be eliminated. This 69 avoided any possibility of mixing the data relative to the moped driver, with other drivers and persons involved in these accidents, when later analyzing the data. After consulting with personnel from the Michigan State University Computer Labotatory, the Fortran Version 5 4 computer program was selected to eliminate all extra (2 ) and (3) records. This program was therefore conducted on the data, which left only the (0 ) records, (1 ) records, and (2 ) records pertaining to the moped driver only. 5 The accident Master File Tape Layout , showing the codes and character positions for each of the variables listed on the UD-10 was utilized. Each of the variables with its particular code and position on the file, was key­ punched into the computer. Upon the recommendation of the Office of Research Consultation, College of Education, Michigan State Univer­ sity, the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences g (SPSS), computer program was selected for analysis. The capabilities of this program included yielding one-way fre­ quency distributions, crosstabulation distributions, means, 4 Control Data Corporation, Fortran Version 5 (Sun­ nyvale, California: Publications and Graphics Division, 1983) . 5 Michigan State Police, Accident Master File Tape Layout. 6Norman Nie et al., Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Second Edition (New York, New York: Mc­ Graw-Hill Book Company, 19 75). 70 and percentage analysis of the different variables taken from the UD-10. Hence, tables and graphs were constructed in order to show descriptively the frequency, number, and percentage of the following variables analyzed for both fatal and non-fatal accidents: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. Age Sex Residence Hazardous Action Driver Intent Citation Charge Drinking or Drugs in Accident Drinking Test Results Helmet Use Hit and Run Drivers Vehicle Defects Collision With Collision Type Special Accident Types Object(s) Hit Vehicle Impact Area Vehicle Damage Severity Vehicle Driveable Property Damage Fuel Leaks and Fire County and Township Location Population Highway Class Highway Area Measurements Traffic Control Accident Investigator Type Day Time Month Weather Light Road Surface Road Alignment Road Defect Visual Obstructions Construction Zone Driver's Degree of Injury Automobile Operator's Driving Records Data The automobile driving records of those 100 moped 71 drivers selected in this study were analyzed by determining frequencies and percentages. This analysis was done in order to depict descriptively the following variables: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Residence of Drivers Driver Age Previous Violations Previous Accidents No Violations/No Accidents No Violations/Accidents Violations/No Accidents Violations/Accidents The driving records were also used to study three correlations. These were done in order to determine the relationship of factors involved in 1981-19 82 non-fatal ac­ cidents to previous automobile driving violations of moped drivers. The computer was used for analyzing this data utilizing the statistical technique of Pearson's Correlation 7 Coefficient. Therefore, moped driver previous driving violations were correlated with the following variables for all 100 drivers in the driving record sample: 1. 2. 3. Age Hazardous Action Collision Type Personal Interview Questionnaire Data An analysis of the Personal Interview Questionnaire data for all 25 moped drivers interviewed was tabulated according to the percentage of the responses, except for the last two subjective questions. Upon completion of this 7 Howard B. Christensen, Statistics Step By Step (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1977), p. 595. 72 analysis, tables were constructed showing each question according to the five content areas addressed. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. They were: Exposure Education Experience Safety Equipment Feelings and Reactions to Accident The last two questions were open-ended and dealt specifically with the events which led to, or caused the re­ sultant accident for each moped driver interviewed. In order to better present this data, a short summary was written concerning these events as related by the moped dri­ ver, along with a diagram pictorially showing what had hap­ pened. The moped driver's known previous driving record was also presented. Additionally, a table was constructed to show the total average distance each accident occurred from the moped driver's place of residence. A map was pre­ sented showing the county of residence for each driver; however, each of the 25 cases discussed were identified by number to assure complete anonymity. Dealer Questionnaire Data The Dealer Questionnaire administered to 20 dealers was analyzed by tabulating the percentage for the first eleven questions of their frequency among the 20 dealers. The four general content areas used were: 1. 2. 3. 4. Education Safety Equipment Moped Retailing Michigan's Moped Laws 73 The last two questions were left open-ended. result, several different responses were given. As a These re­ sponses were therefore presented in a table of lists for each question. A map was also drawn showing the county locations for each of the dealers visited. All Drivers Involved Data (Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists) The summary data obtained from the Michigan State Police relative to all persons involved in 1981-1982 moped traffic accidents were compiled and analyzed by determining frequencies and percentages. the variables selected. The analysis was performed on Therefore, tables were constructed presenting the summary data according to the following seven variables: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Age Sex Driver Residence Hazardous Action Drinking Condition Different Vehicle Driver Injuries Summary This chapter described in detail the design and methodology used to conduct this descriptive study. cluded were: In­ the population, the sample, the nature of the variables, development of the Personal Interview Question­ naire, development of the Dealer Questionnaire, the proce­ dures for data collection, and the procedures for data analysis. 74 The next chapter will present an analysis of the Chapter IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA Chapter III described in detail the design and methodology used to conduct this descriptive study. Chapter IV will present an analysis of the data. This study was designed with the primary purpose of identifying those factors shown to be of greater or lesser frequency in moped traffic accidents which occurred within the State of Michigan during the years 1981-1982. A total of 79 7 reported moped traffic accidents occurring between 19 81-1982 were used as the population for this study. From these, a sample of 400 non-fatal accidents were randomly selected and analyzed according to the variables listed on the UD-10 State of Michigan Of­ ficial Traffic Accident Report. Six fatal accidents were analyzed separately. A group of 100 moped drivers was randomly selected from the sample of 400 moped traffic accidents in order to study their automobile operator's driving records. Pre­ vious violation and accident categories were studied. ped driver previous automobile driving violations were correlated with three variables, i.e., age, hazardous action, and collision type. 75 Mo­ 76 A Personal Interview Questionnaire was developed to obtain a more complete profile of the moped driver (Ap­ pendix F) . A Dealer Questionnaire was developed to obtain in­ formation relative to the dealer's concerns, feelings, and reactions, toward the moped consumer (Appendix H ) . Summary reports addressing variables including all persons involved in 1981-82 accidents were studied. This included moped drivers, drivers of other vehicles, passen­ gers, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Organization of Data for Presentation The data analyzed in this study were organized for presentation in the following manner: A. Moped Registrations Non'-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. Number of Accidents County Age Sex Degree of Injury Residence Registration Hazardous Action Citation Charge Drinking or Drugs in Accident Drinking Test Results Driver Intent Helmet Use Hit and Run Drivers Vehicle Defects Collision With Collision Type Special Accident Types Objects Hit Vehicle Impact Area 77 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. Vehicle Damage Severity Vehicle Drivability Fuel Leaks and Fire Location Population Highway Class Highway Area Measurements Traffic Control Accident Investigator Type Investigated at Scene Day of Week Time of Day Month of Year Weather Conditions Light Conditions Road Surface Road Alignment Road Defect Construction Zone Visual Obstructions Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. Number of Accidents County Age Sex Residence Regis tration Citation Charge Drinking or Drugs in Accident Drinking Test Results Driver Intent Helmet Use Collision With Objects Hit Collision Type Vehicle Impact Area Vehicle Damage Severity Vehicle Drivability Fuel Leaks and Fire Vehicle Defects Location Population Highway Class Highway Area Measurements Traffic Control Accident Investigator Type Investigated at Scene Day of Week Time of Day Month of Year Weather Conditions Light Conditions Road Surface 32. 33. 34. 35. Road Alignment Road Defect Visual Obstructions Construction Zone Automobile Operator's Driving Records 1. Variables a. b. c. d. e. f. g. 2. Residence of Driver Driver Age Groups Previous Number of Violations Previous Number of Accidents Previous Accident and Violation Involve­ ment by Age Group Previous Driving Record Violations Warning/Correspondence Letters and Hearing Referrals Variable Correlations a. b. c. Age Hazardous Action Collision Type Personal Interview Questionnaire 1. 2. 3. Driver Residence Age of Drivers Content Areas of Interest a. b. c. d. e. 4. Exposure Experience Education Safety Equipment Feelings and Reactions to Accident Individual Moped Driver Accidents a. b. c. d. Diagram of Accident Summary of Events in Accident Previous Driving Record Accident Location Distance from Residence Dealer Questionnaire 1. 2. County Location of Dealers Content Areas of Interest a. b. c. Education Safety Equipment Moped Retailing 79 d. Michigan's Moped Laws 1. 2. G. Dealer Preferred Changes in Laws Dealer Preferred Place of Respon­ sibility for Education of Moped Driver All Persons Involved (Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists) 1. Variables a. b. c. d. e. f. Sex of All Persons Injured Age and Sex of All Persons Injured Moped Drivers Injured versus All Other Persons Injured Residence of All Drivers Drinking Condition of All Drivers Hazardous Actions by All Drivers Data Analyses Moped Registration by County The number and percentages of 1983-1985 Michigan moped registrations by county are denoted in Table 6 . Figure 1 depicts the number of registrations for each county throughout the state. The counties containing or adjacent to the largest cities, i.e., Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Genesee, contained the largest numbers of moped registrations. These five counties accounted for over half (12,950 or 51.13 percent) of the total registrations. Wayne County headed the state in registrations at 4,820 or 19.0 3 percent. Michigan's upper peninsula 15 counties accounted for 805 or 3.18 percent of the total registrations. The lower peninsula counties contained 24,514 or 96.82 percent 80 TABLE 6 - - M i c h i g a n 's 1 9 8 3 - 8 5 County 1983 Regis­ trations Alcona Alger Alegan Alpena Antrim Arenac Baraga Barry Bay Benzie Berrien Branch Calhoun Cass Charlevoix Cheboygan Chippewa Clare Clinton Crawford Delta Dickinson Eaton Emme t Genesee Gladwin Gogebic Grand Traverse Gratiot Hillsdale Houghton Huron Ingham Ionia Iosco Iron Isabella Jackson Kalamazoo Kalkaska Kent Keweenaw Lake Lapeer Leelanau 22 14 129 50 45 18 7 88 144 22 344 115 347 89 74 28 58 26 69 5 75 46 73 90 602 33 21 97 77 57 44 49 339 76 51 9 56 132 276 15 1,260 2 6 54 17 Moped 1984 Regis­ trations 13 6 90 14 13 10 1 37 86 16 161 35 172 28 27 10 23 13 36 7 25 15 53 50 232 9 10 55 49 40 17 15 216 17 23 1 39 57 196 2 916 2 4 28 23 Registrations 1985 Regis­ trations 3 6 58 10 9 5 0 17 55 11 114 37 219 23 16 7 13 9 26 4 19 10 25 27 220 5 8 35 18 23 9 17 125 24 6 5 26 48 145 2 506 2 0 12 10 by C o u n t y Total 38 26 277 74 67 33 8 142 285 49 619 187 738 140 117 45 94 48 131 16 119 71 151 167 1,054 47 39 187 144 120 70 81 680 117 80 15 121 237 617 19 2,682 6 10 94 50 Percent* .15 .10 1.09 .29 .26 .13 .03 .56 1.12 .19 2.44 .73 2.91 .55 .46 .17 .37 .18 .51 .06 .47 .28 .59 .65 4.16 .18 .15 .73 .56 .47 .27 .31 2.68 .46 .31 .05 .47 .93 2.43 .07 10.59 .02 .03 .37 .19 81 TABLE 6 (Cont'd.) County 1983 Regis­ trations 1984 Regis­ trations 1985 Regis­ trations Total Livingston Luce Mackinac Macomb Manistee Marquette Mason Mecosta Menominee Midland Missaukee Monroe Montcalm Montmorency Muskegon Newaygo Oakland Oceana Ogemaw Ontonagon Osceola Oscoda Otsego Ottawa Presque Isle Roscommon Saginaw St. Clair St. Joseph Sanilac Schoolcraft Shiawassee Tuscola Van Buren Washtenaw Wayne Weyford Foreign Unknown County 178 84 11 1,061 17 128 23 47 51 108 16 196 147 53 183 54 1,078 46 15 13 32 7 9 277 15 36 280 194 164 35 9 102 48 94 255 2,320 29 10 172 76 31 5 544 5 29 16 29 30 69 7 150 36 12 107 17 585 21 9 3 15 4 5 261 23 17 120 117 22 21 6 55 19 37 122 1,171 24 14 86 55 19 3 3 522 22 17 9 16 45 8 150 31 10 86 17 604 5 9 4 3 4 4 214 7 11 99 60 25 8 2 30 17 25 90 1,329 3 13 90 309 134 19 25 179 2,127 56 85 97 222 31 496 214 75 376 88 2,267 72 33 20 50 15 18 752 35 64 499 371 211 64 17 187 84 156 467 4,820 56 37 348 Total Percent* 1.22 .52 .07 .09 8.40 .70 .22 .33 .38 .87 .12 1.95 .84 .29 1.48 .34 8.95 .28 .13 .07 .19 .05 .07 2.97 .13 .25 1.97 1.46 .83 .25 .02 .73 .33 .61 1.84 19.03 .22 .14 1.37 25,319 • May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Source: Michigan Department of State, Michigan»s Moped Registration. A Report, (Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1983). 82 l56 j 10 I SO 148 72 I 66 I85 47 h3>— ^ j— -i y f j121 1222 28V / j = . ~ I V 37t--j.JL— 1214 j144 |4 9 9 (__[.— w \ ~ |2682 r = ' t = i“trrfll054 I94 752 117 131 I 187 j J ____ L._._L. / 277 250,000 64 16.0 Township Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 112 townships, 93 or 23.3 percent of the accidents occurred. All of the other smaller cities ranging from less than 1.000 to 10,000 made up the remaining 29 or 7.2 percent. Highway Class Location— Sixty cases, of the 400 moped traffic accidents studied, reported the highway classification upon which the moped accidents occurred. The three leading highway classes represented are listed in Table 29. Thirty-eight accidents (9.5 percent) occurred on a Michigan Route. A U.S. Route was the location for 8 or 2.0 percent, while 7 or 1.7 percent were on an Interstate Business Route. Highway Area and Measurements— The highway area, and measurements in feet from the center of intersection where the moped traffic accidents occurred, are listed in Table 30. The accident occurrence areas relative to intersections specifically are illus­ trated in Figure 4. The data revealed that most collisions (152 or 38.0 percent) occurred within the confines of an intersection. This meant they occurred in the area where two or more roads crossed forming the intersection. All other accidents which occurred within 100 feet of the center of an inter­ section totaled 131 (33.0 percent). Altogether, 283 or 71.0 percent of the accidents were intersection related. 113 TABLE 29— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents on Selected Highway Clas­ sifications Highway Class Number U.S. Route 8 .2 o 1 . CM Interstate Route Percent* 38 9.5 Interstate Business 7 1.7 U.S. Business Route 2 .5 Michigan Business Route 3 .7 Connectors 1 .2 340 85.0 Michigan Route Not Known Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 114 TABLE 30— Highway Area, and Measurements in Feet from the Middle of Intersections Where Randomly Selected, 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurred Highway Area and Measurements Leave Exit Ramp Number Percent* 1 .2 152 38.0 Within 100 Ft. North of Intersection 34 8.5 Within 100 Ft. East of Intersection 19 4.7 Within 100 Ft. South of Intersection 26 6.5 1 .2 50 12.5 1 .2 Crossing Commercial Driveway 36 9.0 Other or Not Known 80 20.0 Within Intersection Within 100 Ft. Southwest of Intersection Within 100 Ft. West of Intersection Within 100 Ft. Northwest of Intersection Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 115 100 FT. NORTH 100 FT. NORTHWEST ACCIDENTS WITHIN 100 FT. OF INTERSECTION 3 3.0% ACCIDENTS 100 FT. WEST WITHIN 100 FT. EAST INTERSECTION 38.0% INTERSECTION RELATED ACCIDENTS 71.0% 100 FT. SOUTHWES1 100 FT. SOUTH FIGURE 4— Non-Fatal Randomly Selected 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accident Intersection Area Measurements 116 Thirty-six accidents (9.0 percent) happened within a com­ mercial driveway such as a store, shopping center, etc. One accident (.2 percent) occurred on an interstate exit ramp. Located Traffic Control Devices— The types of traffic control devices located at the scene of the accidents are listed in Table 31. Of the five different types listed, a stop sign was at the scene of a moped traffic accident 137 or 34.2 percent of the time. A stop signal (flashing red light) was at 53 or 13.2 per­ cent of the locations, while yield signs were at 21 or 5.3 percent. One warning sign and one railroad flasher (.2 percent each) were located at two different accident lo­ cations. Investigator Type— Enforcement agencies of the State which investigated the moped traffic accidents are listed in Table 32. City or Village Police investigated slightly over three-fourths (302 or 75.5 percent). County Sheriff personnel were in­ volved in 54 or 13.5 percent of the investigations. Town­ ship Police investigated 28 or 7.0 percent, while the State Police investigated 16 or 4.0 percent. 117 TABLE 31— Frequency of Traffic Control Devices Located at the Scene of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Number Percent 1 None 187 46.7 Stop Sign 137 34.2 53 13.2 1 .2 21 5.3 1 .2 Traffic Control Device Stop Signal Railroad Flasher Yield Sign Warning Sign Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. In Table 33, the number of moped traffic accidents investigated at the scene of occurrence is shown. One- hundred one or 25.3 percent of the accidents were not investigated at the scene. The majority (294 or 73.5 per­ cent) were investigated at the actual accident location. 118 TABLE 32--Frequency of Law Enforcement Agencies Investigat­ ing Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Law Enforcement Agency Number Percent* State Police 16 4.0 County Sheriff 54 13.5 Township Police 28 7.0 302 75.5 City or Village Police Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. TABLE 33— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Investigated at the Scene Number Percent* Accident Investigated at Scene 294 73.5 Accident Not Investigated at Scene 101 25.3 5 1.2 Investigation Not Known Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 119 Day of Week Accidents Occurred— Accident occurrence by day of the week is shown in Table 34. Generally, there was not a great deal of dis­ parity in accident occurrence among the seven days of the week. However, Friday was shown to be the day when most accidents occurred (70 or 17.5 percent). Thursdays claimed 61 or 15.3 percent, while Wednesday accidents were at 59 or 14.8 percent. Slightly less, were Monday accidents at 58 or 14.5 percent. Tuesday accidents accounted for 55 or 13.7 percent of the total. Saturdays ranked sixth with 50 or 12.5 percent, while Sunday accidents were the lowest at 47 or 11.7 percent. This data revealed that more accidents occurred on weekdays than on weekends. Weekend accidents, i.e., Fri­ day, Saturday, and Sunday, were 167 or 41.7 percent of the total, while 2 33 or 58.3 percent of the accidents occurred during the weekdays of Monday through Thursday. Time of Day Accidents Occurred— Accident occurrence by time of day is shown in Table 35. The most frequent number of accidents clustered around the hours of 3:01 to 8:00 p.m. half of the accidents these five hours. Slightly more than (202 or 50.5 percent) occurred during The number of accidents averaged approx­ imately 10 percent each for these hours. 120 TABLE 34— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Day of Week Day Number Percent* Sunday 47 11.7 Monday 58 14.5 Tuesday 55 13.7 Wednesday 59 14.8 Thursday 61 15.3 Friday 70 17.5 Saturday 50 12.5 Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. The single hour with the highest number of accidents was 4:01-5:00 p.m. This hour accounted for 43 or 10.8 per­ cent of the total accidents. The hour with the least num­ ber of accidents was 4:01-5:00 a.m. No accidents occurred during this hour. In looking at the a.m. and p.m. hours separately, 12:01 a.m. to 12:00 noon (a.m.) accounted for 45 or 11.2 percent of the total accidents, while 355 or 88.8 percent occurred between 12:01 p.m. and 12:00 midnight (p.m.). 121 TABLE 35— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Time of Day Number Time Percent* Midnight to 1 a.m. 2 .5 1 a.m. to 2 a.m. 4 1.0 2 a.m. to 3 a.m. 5 1.2 3 a.m. to 4 a.m. 2 .5 4 a.m. to 5 a.m. 0 .0 5 a.m. to 6 a.m. 1 .2 6 a.m. to 7 a.m. 1 .2 7 a.m. to 8 a.m. 3 .7 8 a.m. to 9 a.m. 7 1.7 9 a.m. to 10 a.m. 5 1.2 10 a .m . to 11 a.m. 5 1.2 11 a .m . to Noon 10 2.5 Noon to 1 p.m. 21 5.3 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 30 7.5 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 26 6.5 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. 40 10.0 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. 43 10.8 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. 40 10.0 6 p.m. to 7 p.m. 39 9.7 7 p.m. to 8 p.m. 40 10.0 8 p.m. to 9 p.m. 30 7.5 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. 24 6.0 10 p.m . to 11 p.m. 15 3.7 7 1.7 11 p.m . to Midnight Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 122 Four hour time blocks representing accident occur­ rence are illustrated in Figure 5. A total of 13 accidents (3.3 percent) occurred between the hours of 12:01 and 4:00 a.m. Between 4:01 and 8:00 a.m., 5 accidents (1.1 percent) occurred. The hours of 8:01 a.m. to 12:00 noon accounted for 27 (6.6 percent) of the accidents. From 12:01 to 4:00 p.m., 117 accidents (19.3 percent) occurred. The hours of 4:01 to 8:00 p.m. totaled 162 accidents (40.5 percent). Between 8:01 p.m. to 12:00 midnight, 76 accidents (18.9 percent) occurred. Month of Year Accidents Occurred— In Table 36, the accident occurrence within the months of the year are shown. Figure 6 illustrates graph­ ically the month to month comparisons. The most frequent number of accidents occurred with­ in the months of June, July, and August. More than half of the total accidents (227 or 56.7 percent) were reported during those three summer months. Most accidents (93 or 2 3.3 percent) occurred during the month of July. No accidents were reported during the month of February. Accident involvement for each season of the year, i.e., Fall (September, October, November), Winter (December, January, February), Spring (March, April, May), and Summer 123 170 40.5% 160 162 150 140 130 NUMBER 120 29.3% 110 117 100 OF 90 ACCIDENTS BO 18.9% 70 76 60 50 40 6 .6% 30 27 20 3.3% 10 13 0 1.1% 5 L 12.01- 4.01- 8:01- 12.01- 4 a.m. b a.m. i2 a.m. 4 p.m. 4:01- 8 :0 1 - 8 p.m. 12 p.m. TIME OF DAY TOTAL ACCIDENTS = 400 FIGURE 5 Non-Fatal Randomly Selected 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents By Four Hour Time Blocks 124 TABLE 36— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Month of Year Month Number Percent* January 1 .2 February 0 .0 March 8 2.0 April 28 7.0 May 54 13.5 June 65 16.2 July 93 23.3 August 69 17.2 September 42 10.5 October 29 7.2 November 6 1.5 December 5 1.2 Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 125 100 23.3% 5T 90 80 70 NUMBER 60 OF 50 ACCIDENTS 40 16.2% 65 17.2% 13.5% 54 10.5% TT1 7.2% 7.0% 28 30 79 20 2 .0% 8 10 .2% 0 m . *• 5% os £ 8 Z 8 a £ 8 OS m ES X u os 1 .2% 6 os 04 < i g § 3 < a s w 6h cu u w os W CD O H O a u 3 £ > O 2 X w 3 £ u u u Q MONTHS OF THE YEAR TOTAL ACCIDENTS = 400 FIGURE 6 --Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents By Month of Year 126 (June, July, August) is illustrated in Figure 7. During the fall months, 77 accidents occurred (19.2 percent). The cold, snowy, winter months contained the fewest number of accidents (6 or 1.4 percent). As the spring season approached, driving exposure increased re­ sulting in a total of 90 accidents (22.5 percent). Weather at the Time of the Accident— In Table 37, the various types of weather conditions prevailing during the time of the accidents are shown. Three-hundred seventy-nine or 94.7 percent of the accidents occurred under ideal conditions on clear or cloudy days. A total of 18 accidents (4.5 percent) happened while it was raining. Two accidents (.5 percent) occurred under foggy conditions. One moped driver (.2 percent) was involved in a collision while it was snowing. 12 7 240 56.754 220 227 200 180 160 HUMBER 140 OF 120 ACCIDENTS 100 80 19.254 60 90 77 40 20 1.454 FALL WINTER SPRING SUMMER SEASONS OF THE YEAR TOTAL ACCIDENTS = 400 FIGURE 7— Non-Fatal Randomly Selected 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents By Seasons of the Year 128 TABLE 37— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Weather Conditions at Time of Accident Number Percent* 379 94.7 2 .5 Raining 18 4.5 Snowing 1 .2 Weather Clear or Cloudy Fog Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Light Conditions at the Time of the Accident— Light conditions at the time of the accidents are shown in Table 38. Over three-fourths of the moped traf­ fic accidents (30 8 or 77.0 percent) occurred during day­ light hours. A total of 35 accidents (8.8 percent) occurred at night in darkness where there was no street lighting, while slightly less, 34 accidents (8.5 percent) occurred at night where there was street lighting. The least ac­ cident involvement time of the day was at dawn or dusk, when 2 3 accidents (5.7 percent) occurred. 129 TABLE 38— Frequency of Varying Light Conditions at the Time of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traf­ fic Accidents Light Conditions Number Percent* 308 77.0 Dawn or Dusk 23 5.7 Darkness— Street Lights 34 8.5 Darkness— No Street Lights 35 8.8 Daylight Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Road Surface Conditions at the Time of Accident— Road surface conditions at the time of the acci­ dents are shown in Table 39. Most accidents occurred on dry surface roads under ideal conditions. A total of 369 accidents (92.3 percent) were on dry pavement surfaces. Wet surface conditions accounted for 26 accidents (6.5 percent). Two accidents (.5 percent) occurred while driv­ ing on a road covered to some degree with snow or ice. 130 TABLE 39^— Frequency of Varying Road Surface Conditions at the Time of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Road Surface Number Percent* Dry 369 92.3 Wet 26 6.5 Snowy or Icy 2 .5 Other or Not Known 3 .7 Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Accident Location Road Alignment— Alignment of the road upon which the accidents oc­ curred is indicated in Table 40. Eight accidents (2.0 percent) were reported on curved roadways. Most accidents (392 or 9 8 o 0 percent) happened on straight aligned roads. Road Defect Related Accidents— In Table 41, road defects at or near the accident locations are listed. Five accidents (1.2 percent) occur­ red where loose material such as sand, oil, etc., were present. Road surfaces having holes, ruts, or bumps, were noted at 3 accidents (.7 percent). A roadway obstruction 131 TABLE 40— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Which Occurred on Straight or Curved Roadways Road Alignment Straight Curve Total Number Percent* 392 98.0 8 2.0 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. TABLE 41— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Involving Varying Road Defects Road Defect Number Percent* 391 97.8 Obstruction 1 .2 Loose Material on Road Surface 5 1.2 Holes, Ruts t Bumps 3 .7 None Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 132 was near 1 accident (.2 percent). faces were reported in No defective road sur­ 391 accidents (97.8 percent). Construction Zone Related Accidents— In Table 42, the number of accidents occurring within a marked construction zone is indicated. Accident reports revealed that a construction zone was the locality for 2 accidents (.5 percent). TABLE 42— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurring Within a Con­ struction Zone Construction Zone Accidents Not a Construction Zone Construction Zone Total Number Percent* 398 99.5 2 .5 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 133 Visual Obstruction Related Accidents— Visual obstructions at or near the accident scene are listed in Table 43. accidents No obstruction was involved in 396 (99.0 percent). Of the four obstructions noted, 3 (.7 percent) were defined as "related physical obstruc­ tions." These would include parked or moving vehicles, shrubbery, buildings, crops, hillcrest, etc. One accident (.2 percent) was reported as having a glare obstruction. This would involve sun, headlights, other lights, etc. TABLE 43— Frequency of Randomly Selected 1981-82 Non-Fatal Hoped Traffic Accidents Related to a Visual. Obstruction Visual Obstructions Number Percent* 396 99.0 Related Physical Obstruction 3 .7 Glare Obstruction 1 .2 No Obstruction Total 400 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 134 Fatal Accidents Number and County of Fatal Accidents— Six moped drivers were killed as a result of a moped traffic accident during the years 19 81-1982. In Table 4 4 , the five different counties in which these drivers died are listed. County location of these fatalities within the state are illustrated geographically in Figure 8 . Two fatal accidents Kalamazoo County. (33.3 percent) occurred in The other four fatalities (16.7 percent each) occurred in the counties of Bay, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. TABLE 44— Fatal 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents by County County Number Percent* Bay 1 16.7 Kalamazoo 2 33.3 Oakland 1 16.7 St. Clair 1 16.7 Wayne 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 135 MICHIGAN Total Fatal Accidents • 6 FIGURE 8 — Michigan's 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents By County 136 Age and Sex of Drivers— The actual ages of the moped drivers killed are listed in Table 45. The fatal accidents were equally divided between the younger and older drivers. The three younger moped drivers killed (50.0 percent) were ages 15, 16, and 18. Three years was the range within this group. The three older moped drivers killed (50.0 percent) were ages 53, 58, and 6 3, a range of 10 years. In Table 46, the sex of the moped drivers killed is shown. All six drivers killed were male. TABLE 45— Age of Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Age Number Percent* 15 1 16.7 16 1 16.7 18 1 16.7 53 1 16.7 58 1 16.7 63 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 137 TABLE 46— Sex of Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents County Number Percent* Male 6 100.0 Female 0 .0 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percentbecause of rounding. Residence of Drivers— In Table 4 7, the residence of the moped drivers killed is shown. All six drivers were killed within the same county they lived. TABLE 47— County and State Residence of Moped Drivers Killed In 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents As Com­ pared to Site of Accident Number Residence Percent* In County 6 100.0 Not Within County 0 .0 Bordering State 0 .0 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 138 Hazardous Action by Driver and Police Written Citations in Accident-In Table 48, the hazardous driving actions by the moped drivers killed are listed. Three of the drivers (50.0 percent) did not commit a hazardous driving action. The other three drivers (50.0 percent) did violate a traf­ fic law. Two of these drivers (33.3 percent) drove left of the center line. The other driver (16.7 percent) failed to yield the right-of-way. TABLE 48— Frequency of Hazardous Actions by Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Hazardous Action Number Percent* No Hazardous Action 3 50.0 Failed to Yield Right-of-Way 1 16.7 Drove Left of Center 2 33.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding 139 In Table 49, the number of moped drivers issued a citation for violating a traffic law causing the resultant fatal collisions is indicated. The aforementioned three moped drivers who violated a traffic law in the fatal ac­ cidents were reportedly cited by the investigating officer. TABLE 49— Frequency of Police Written Citations to Moped Drivers Rilled in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Written Citations Number Percent* None 3 50.0 Cited for Hazardous Action 3 50.0 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Drinking or Drugs in Accident— Drinking or drug involvement by those moped drivers killed are shown in Table 50. Five of the drivers killed (83.3 percent) had not been drinking or using drugs at the time of their accident. One driver (16.7 percent) was re­ ported to have been drinking. 140 TABLE 50— Frequency of Drinking or Drug Involvement by Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Drinking/Drug Use Number Percent* Had 1 16.7 Had Not 5 83.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. In Table 51, the drinking test results of those moped drivers killed are shown. Accident reports revealed that the aforementioned driver (16.7 percent) reported to have been drinking, was in fact impaired at the time of his fatal collision. Four drivers (66.7 percent) were not tested, while the last driver (16.7 percent) was listed as not driving while impaired. Driver Intentions Before Accident— In Table 52 are listed the intentions before the accidents occurred of the moped drivers killed in this study. Four of the drivers (66.7 percent) were simply driving straight ahead. Two drivers (33.3 percent) were in the process of changing lanes when their fatal accident occurred. 141 TABLE 51— Drinking Test Results of Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Drinking Test Results Number Percent* Not Tested 4 66.7 Impaired 1 16.7 Not Impaired 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. TABLE 52— Intentions of Moped Drivers Killed Before Occur­ rence In 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Driver Intentions Number Percent* Go Straight Ahead 4 66.7 Change Lanes 2 33.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 142 Helmet Use by Driver— The frequency and percentage of helmet use by those moped drivers killed are shown in Table 53. The majority of moped drivers killed did not have on a protective hel­ met. Five drivers (83.3 percent) were reported as not wearing a helmet at the time of their fatal collision. Hel­ met use information was not reported for the other moped driver killed. TABLE 53— Frequency of Helmet Use by Moped Drivers Killed in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Helmet Use Number Percent* Helmet Not Used 5 83.3 Helmet Information Not Coded 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Moped Collision and Damage Characteristics— In Table 54, the object of collision with the moped is shown. Five of these fatal accidents (83.3 percent) in­ volved a collision between the moped and a motor vehicle. One accident (16.7 percent) was classified as "other or unknown." 143 TABLE 54— Frequency of Motor Vehicles or Objects Which Collided with the Moped in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Collision Object Percent* Number Another Motor Vehicle 5 83.3 Other or Not Known 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of r o u n d i n g . Collision types experienced in the fatal moped traf­ fic accidents are listed in Table 55. Rear-end collisions accounted for 3 (50.0 percent) of the fatal accidents. Angle on collisions in which a moped turned into the path of a motor vehicle, or a motor vehicle turned into the path of a moped, accounted for 2 (33.3 percent) of the fatal ac­ cidents. The single non-motor vehicle collision (16.7 per­ cent) was undefined. Damaged areas of the mopeds resulting from these fatal collisions are listed in Table 56. Two of the mopeds (33.3 percent) sustained center front damage. mopeds (33.3 percent) Two other received left side damage. The im­ pact areas of the last two mopeds were the right side (16.7 percent) and center rear (16.7 percent). 144 TABLE 55— Frequency of Varying Collision Types Experienced in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Collision Type Number Percent* Collision Other Than Motor Vehicle 1 16.7 Rear End 3 50.0 Angle 2 33.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. TABLE 56— Frequency of Damage to Impacted Areas of Mopeds Involved in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Damaged Parts Number Percent* Center Front 2 3*3.3 Right Side 1 16.7 Center Rear 1 16.7 Left Side 2 33.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 145 The number of mopeds damaged dents are shown in Table 57. in these fatal acci­ All six of the mopeds were damaged to some degree. TABLE 57— Frequency of Damaged Mopeds in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Damaged Mopeds Number Percent* No Damage 0 .0 Damaged 6 100.0 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. In Table 58, the number of mopeds that were drivable after the fatal collisions is shown. Five of the mopeds (83.3 percent) were damaged so severely, they could not be driven away from the accident scene. One moped (16.7 per­ cent) was still drivable after the fatal collision. In Table 59, the number of mopeds experiencing fuel leaks because of damage is indicated. Two mopeds (33.3 percent) experienced fuel leaks after the fatal collisions, while the other four (66.7 percent) did not. 146 TABLE 58— Frequency of Mopeds Drivable After Collision in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Drivability of Moped Number Percent* Yes 1 16.7 No 5 83.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. TABLE 59— Frequency of Fuel Leaks by Mopeds Damaged in 198182 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Fuel Leaks Number Percent* Fuel Leaked From Vehicle 2 33.3 No Vehicle Fuel Leak 4 66.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 147 In Table 60, mopeds involved in fatal accidents found to have defective equipment are shown. One moped (16.7 percent) had some type of vehicle defect associated with either the brakes, lights, or steering. No defective equipment was found on the other five mopeds (83.3 percent). TABLE 60— Frequency of Defective Equipment of Mopeds in 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Defective Equipment Number Percent* Brakes, Lights, Steering 1 16.7 No Defect 5 83.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Accident Location By City or Township Population Categories— The location by city or township population cate­ gories in which the fatal accidents occurred are listed in Table 61. Fatal collisions were equally divided between townships and large cities. Three fatal collisions (50.0 percent) occurred within a township having less than 1,0 00 people. Of the larger city fatalities, two (33.3 percent) were in cities with population sizes ranging from 50,000 148 to 100,000 people. The other fatality (16.7 percent) occurred in a city with a population of 250,000 plus people. TABLE 61— Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Hoped Traffic Accidents According to Location Population Size Population Size Percent* Number Township 3 50.0 50,000 to 100,000 2 33.3 > 250,000 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Highway Class Location— The classification of highway upon which the fatal accidents occurred is listed in Table 62. One fatal ac­ cident (16.7 percent) occurred on a Michigan Route. The highway classification upon which the other five fatalities (83.3 percent) occurred was not reported. 149 TABLE 62— Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Highway Classification Highway Classification Number Percent* Michigan Route 1 16.7 Not Known 5 83.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Highway Area/Measurements/ Traffic Control Devices— The highway area, and measurements in feet from the center of the intersections the fatal accidents occurred are listed in Table 63. Half of the six fatalities (3 or 50.0 percent) occurred within the confines of an inter­ section. This meant they occurred within the area where two or more roads crossed forming the intersection. Two fatalities (33.3 percent) happened within 100 feet each of an intersection. Altogether, 5 or 83.3 percent of the fatal collisions were intersection related. Traffic control devices located at the scene of the fatal accidents are listed in Table 64. A stop sign was located at two (13.3 percent) of the fatal accident scenes. 150 TABLE 63— Highway Area, and Measurements in Feet From the Middle of Intersections where 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurred Highway Area and Measurements Number Percent* Within Intersection 3 50.0 Within 100 Ft. East of Inter­ section 2 33.3 Other or Not Known 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. TABLE 64— Frequency of Stop Signs Located at the Scene of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Number Stop Signs Percent* None 4 66.7 Stop Sign 2 33.3 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 151 No traffic control device was located at the other four (66.7 percent) fatal accident locations. Investigator Type— Enforcement agencies of the State which investi­ gated the fatal accidents are reported in Table 65. Three fatal accidents (50.0 percent) were investigated by County Sheriff officers, while the other three (50.0 percent) were investigated by City or Village Police. TABLE 65— Frequency of Law Enforcement Agencies Investigat­ ing 1981-82 Fatal Hoped Traffic Accidents Law Enforcement Agency Number Percent* County Sheriff 3 50.0 City or Village Police 3 50.0 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. In Table 66, the number of fatal moped traffic acci­ dents investigated at the scene of occurrence is shown. six fatal accidents were investigated at the scene. All 152 TABLE 66— Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Investigated at Scene Investigation Number Percent* Accident Investigated at Scene 6 100.0 Accident Not Investigated at Scene 0 .0 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Day of Week and Time of Day Accidents Occurred— Fatal accident occurrence by day of the week is shown in Table 6 7. Half of the moped drivers (3 or 50.0 percent) were killed on Thursdays. The other three fatal days of the week included Sunday (16.7 percent), Tuesday (16.7 percent), and Saturday (16.7 percent). Fatal accident occurrence by time of day is shown in Table 6 8. The single hour with the highest number of fatal accidents was 3:01-4:00 p.m. Three of the fatal ac­ cidents (50.0 percent) occurred during this hour. other three fatal hours included 1:01-2:00 p.m. cent), 2:01-3:00 p.m. (16.7 percent)„ The (16.7 per­ (16.7 percent), and 9:01-10:00 p.m. 153 TABLE 67— Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Day of Week Day Number Percent* Sunday 1 16.7 Tuesday 1 16.7 Thursday 3 50.0 Saturday 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. TABLE 68--Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Time of Day Number Time Percent* 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. 1 16.7 2 p.m. to 3 p.m. 1 16.7 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. 3 50.0 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 154 Month of Year Accidents Occurred— In Table 69, the months of the year in which the six moped drivers were killed are listed. accidents Half of the fatal (3 or 50.0 percent) occurred within the summer month of July. The other three months containing one fatal collision (16.7 percent each) were March, May, and October. TABLE 69— Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents by Month of Year Month Number Percent* March 1 16.7 May 1 16.7 July 3 50.0 October 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Weather/Road/Light Conditions at Time of Accident— In Table 70, the weather conditions prevailing at the time of the fatal accidents are shown. All six fatalities occurred when the weather was reportedly clear 155 or cloudy under ideal conditions. TABLE 70— Weather Conditions at the Time of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Weather Percent* Number Clear or Cloudy 6 100.0 Fog 0 .0 Raining 0 .0 Snowing 0 .0 6 Total * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. The road surface conditions at the time of the fatal accidents are shown in Table 71. Dry road surfaces were reported in all six fatal accidents. Light conditions at the time of the fatal accidents are shown in Table 72. Five of the fatalities (83.3 per­ cent) occurred during the daylight hours. The other moped driver (16.7 percent) was killed at night in a location where street lights were located. 156 TABLE 71— Road Surface Conditions at the Time of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Road Surface Number Percent* Dry 6 100.0 Wet 0 .0 Snowy or Icy 0 .0 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. TABLE 72— Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents By Light Conditions Number Light Conditions Percent* Daylight 5 83.3 Dawn or Dusk 0 .0 Darkness— Street Lights 1 16.7 Darkness— No Street Lights 0 .0 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 157 Accident Location Road Alignment— Alignment of the roads upon which the fatal acci­ dents occurred is indicated in Table 73. According to ac­ cident reports, all six fatalities occurred on straight aligned roads. TABLE 73— Road Alignment of Roads Upon Which 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Occurred Straight 6 Curve 0 Total Percent* 100.0 • Number 1O Road Alignment 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Construction Zone Related Accidents In Table 74, the number of fatal accidents occurr­ ing within a marked construction zone is shown. Accident reports revealed that one fatality (16.7 percent) occurred within a marked construction zone. 158 TABLE 74— Frequency of 1981-82 Fatal Moped Traffic Accident Occurrence Within a Construction Zone Construction Zone Number Percent* Not a Construction Zone 5 83.3 Construction Zone 1 16.7 Total 6 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Automobile Operator's Driving Records Residence of Drivers— A total of 100 moped drivers were randomly selected for the purposes of studying their previous automobile operator's driving records. The various counties in which these drivers lived are illustrated geographically in Figure 9. Most of the drivers were from the counties of Wayne, Kent, Macomb, Genesee, and Oakland. Drivers by Age Group— In Table 75, the number and percentages of drivers selected by age group are shown. The age group represent­ ing a majority of this sample were 15-19 cent) . (27 or 27.0 per­ Those drivers between the ages of 75-84 represented the smallest group at 2 or 2.0 percent. 159 MICHIGAN 11 12 27 Total Drivar Driving Records 100 FIGURE 9--Residence of Moped Drivers According to Automobile Operator's Driving Records 160 TABLE 75— Moped Drivers by Age Group Selected for Automobile Operator's Driving Records Age Number Percent 15 - 19 27 27.0 20 - 24 24 24.0 25 - 34 16 16.0 35 - 44 11 11.0 45 - 54 9 9.0 55 - 64 5 5.0 65 - 74 6 6.0 75 - 84 2 2.0 100 100.0 Total 161 Driver Previous Violation and Accident Involvement— Previous violation and accident involvement of these moped drivers as automobile operators are shown in Table 76. The number of drivers relative to four cate­ gories, i.e., no violations/no accidents, no violations/ accidents, violations/no accidents, and violations/acci­ dents, are illustrated in Figure 10. The most frequent number of drivers (40 or 40.0 percent) had no previous reported violations or accidents. Almost one-third (30 or 30.0 percent) had previous reported violations and accidents. The violations among this group totaled 111 or 72.54 percent of the total violations among all drivers. These same drivers were involved in 57 acci­ dents accounting for 81.42 percent of the total accidents among all drivers. Twenty-three drivers (23.0 percent) had previous violations but had not been involved in any re­ ported accidents. Forty-two previous violations were spread among this group accounting for the remaining 27.45 percent of the total violations among all drivers. Seven drivers (7.0 percent) had no reported violations, but had been involved in a total of 13 accidents. This group accounted for the remaining 18.57 percent of the total ac­ cident involvement among all these drivers. 162 TABLE 76— Frequency Within Categories of Previous Automobile Operator's Driving Record Violation and Accident Involvement by Moped Drivers Category Number of Drivers 40 No Violations/ Accidents 7 Violations/ No Accidents Violations/ Accidents Total Percent* Number of Acci­ dents Percent* O • O ■=r No Violations/ No Accidents Percent* Number of Vio­ lations 0 0.00 0 0.00 7.0 0 0.00 13 18.57 23 23.0 42 27.45 0 0.00 30 30.0 111 72.54 57 81.42 100 153 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 70 *1 H a a » w to U l o o (D a Q > t( ® rt H (D H < NO VIOLATIONS ACCIDENTS O VIOLATIONS NO ACCIDENTS C I - 1 01 < fl> < 3 (0 o 3 M «+ 01 p. O 3 SD 3 CL Ul o VIOLATIONS ACCIDENTS Qj l-t 3 H< O Ul 16 3 O HO < H- (I) NO NO o VIOLATIONS ACCIDENTS to K w> w LJ u» 164 Driver Previous Accident and Violation Involvement by Age Group— In Table 77, the combined previous accident and violation involvement of these drivers by age group are shown. The age group 25-34 at 82 or 36.77 percent, had the worst previous driving records with more recorded vio­ lations and accidents than any other age group represented. A total of 6 8 (30.49 percent) combined violations and ac­ cidents were recorded on the previous driving records of those drivers between the ages of 20-24. Altogether, those drivers between the ages of 20-34 accounted for 150 or 6 7.26 percent of the combined previous violation and accident involvement among all age groups represented. The average number of violations among these 100 moped drivers was .70, while the average number of violations totaled 1.5 3. Previous Driving Record Violations— In Table 78, the previous types of violations among these moped drivers as automobile operators are shown. Almost half (72 or 47.05 percent) of the previous violations were attributed to speeding. Disobeying a traffic signal accounted for 16 or 10.45 percent. A total of 12 violations (7.84 percent) resulted from the drivers not having a valid license in possession. Eight violations (5.22 percent) were attributed to disobeying a stop sign, while 6 (3.92 percent) resulted from improper passing. Failure to yield the right- of-way and making a prohibited turn accounted for 5 or 165 TABLE 77— Moped Driver Previous Automobile Operator's Driving Record Accident and Violation Involvement Frequency by Age Group Age Group 15 20 25 35 45 55 65 75 - 19 24 34 44 54 64 74 84 Total Number of Accidents 7 20 21 4 7 8 3 0 70* Percent* 10.00 28.57 30.00 5.71 10.00 11.42 4.28 0.00 Number of Vio­ lations Percent^ 10 48 61 14 10 2 7 1 6.53 31.37 39.86 9.15 6.53 1.30 4.57 .65 153*** • May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. ** Mean s .70 accidents per driver. *** Mean s 1.53 violations per driver. Total 17 68 82 18 17 10 10 1 223 Total Percent* of Total 7.62 30.49 36.77 8.07 7.62 4.48 4.48 .44 166 TABLE 78— Frequency of Moped Driver Previous Automobile Operator Driving Record Violations Violations Number Percent* 4 2.61 16 10.45 Disobey Stop Sign 8 5.22 Improper Lane Use 3 1.96 Improper Turn 2 1.30 Improper Passing 6 3.92 Failed to Yield 5 3.26 Speeding 72 47.05 No Valid License in Possession 12 7.84 No Proof of Insurance 1 .65 Registration and/or Plate Violation 1 .65 Operating Under Influence of Liquor 1 .65 Reckless Driving 4 2.61 Careless Driving 4 2.61 Drove Moped on Sidewalk 1 .65 Drove Left of Center 1 .65 Drove While License Suspended 2 1.30 Drove Wrong-Way on One-Way Street 3 1.96 Prohibited Turn 5 3.26 Unlawful Rider on Motorcycle/Moped 1 .65 Obstructed Vision or Control 1 .65 Disobey Traffic Control Device Disobey Traffic Signal Total 153 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 167 3.26 percent each. Disobeying a traffic control device, reckless driving, and careless driving made up 4 or 2.61 percent each. Improper lane use as well as driving the wrong way on a one-way street, totaled 3 or 1.96 percent each. A total of 2 or 1.30 percent each resulted from improper turns and driving while license suspended. Warning/Correspondence Letters and Hearing Referrals— In Table 79, the number of moped drivers which had been sent a Warning Letter, a Correspondence Letter, or referred to a hearing as automobile operators is shown. Warning letters are usually sent when a driver has accumulated four points on his/her driving record (refer to Appendix J ) . Subsequently, when seven points have been assessed, a Correspondence letter is sent (refer to Appen­ dix K ) . A hearing is requested for a driver when he/she is close to losing his/her driving privilege, or if the li­ cense has already been suspended. In the latter case, the purpose of the hearing is to decide when and if the sus­ pension is to be terminated. Three-fourths of the drivers (75 or 75.0 percent) had not been sent any Warning or Correspondence letters, or referred for a hearing. to attend a hearing. Eleven drivers (11.0 percent) had Ten drivers (10.0 percent) had been sent a Correspondence letter, while 5 drivers (5.0 percent) had received Warning letters. 16 8 TABLE 79— Frequency of Previous Automobile Operator's Driv­ ing Record Warning/Correspondence Letters and Hearing Referrals Sent to Moped Drivets Number of Drivers Category Warning Percent 5 5.0 Correspondence 10 10.0 Hearing Referrals 11 11.0 None 75 75.0 101* Total * One driver had both a Correspondence letter and a Hearing Referral recorded. Variable Correlations— The automobile operator's driving records were used to study three correlations. Moped driver previous driving violations were correlated with the following variables in moped traffic accidents for all 100 drivers in the driving record sample: 1. Age 2. Hazardous Action 3. Collision Type These correlations were done in order to determine the relationship of factors involved in 1981-1982 non-fatal moped traffic accidents to previous driving violations of moped drivers. Table 80. The data for these correlations are shown in A correlation coefficient (r) of .195 was needed 169 TABLE 80— Correlations Between 100 Moped Drivers' Previous Automobile Operator's Driving Violations and Related Variables in Moped Traffic Accidents Standard Deviation* Covariance Value of I ** or rxy Age 1.97 .0969 .0214*** Hazardous Action 3.57 .1411 .0173*** Collision Type 3.02 -.4554 -.0658*** Variable * Standard Deviation of driver violations = 2.29 ** Significant r = .195 *** Decision: Accept Ho for significance at the .05 level. The hypothesis tested in its null form states: Ho1 : There is no relationship between the automobile driving records of moped drivers and those factors involved in moped traffic accidents. Driver previous automobile violations were not sig­ nificantly correlated with driver age. An "r" or .2014 was found when an "r" of .195 was needed to determine a significant relationship. Driver previous automobile violations were not sig­ nificantly correlated with hazardous action. was necessary for significance. An "r" of .195 An "r" of .0173 was obtained. Driver previous automobile violations were not sig­ nificantly correlated with collision type. was found. significanto An "r" of -.0658 An "r” of .195 was necessary in order to be 170 Personal Interview Questionnaire A total of 25 moped drivers were interviewed per­ sonally by the writer. These drivers were randomly selec­ ted from the previously selected sample of 100 moped drivers used for driving record comparison purposes. Twenty-three questions were asked with the last two being open-ended (refer to Appendix F) . The open-ended questions allowed the moped driver the opportunity to discuss freely his/her particular accident. These questions addressed the follow­ ing five content areas of interest (refer to Appendix G ) : 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Exposure Experience Education Safety Equipment Feelings and Reactions to Accident Driver Residence— The counties in which these moped drivers lived are illustrated geographically in Figure 11. The counties visited included Wayne, Kent, Macomb, Oakland, and Genesee. Age of Drivers— The age groups of those moped drivers personally interviewed are shown in Table 81. Over half of the dri­ vers, 13 or 52.0 percent, were between the ages of 15-19. Almost one-fourth, 6 or 24.0 percent, were between the ages of 25-34. 44. Three drivers or 12.0 percent, were between 35- The remaining three drivers at 4.0 percent each were between the ages of 25-34, 45-54, and 55-64. 171 L l .. MICHIGAN J I I * ie r=Taa1=si3 | l .j.. .j___ i_( [._f- —_.T I j i i_: Total Drivsrs Interviewed 25 FIGURE 11— Residence of Moped Drivers Personally Interviewed By County 172 TABLE 81— Frequency of Moped Drivers Interviewed By Age Group Age Number 15 - 19 13 52.0 20 - 24 6 24.0 25 - 34 1 4.0 35 - 44 3 12.0 45 - 54 1 4.0 55 - 64 1 4.0 Total Percent 25 Driver Exposure— In Table 82, the responses given by the moped dri­ vers concerning driver exposure are shown. Almost half of the drivers (12 or 48.0 percent) re­ ported driving their moped more than 21 hours a week. About one-fourth of the drivers (6 or 24.0 percent) reported driving 0-5 hours a week. Four drivers (16.0 percent) stated they drove 11-15 hours weekly. Two drivers (8.0 percent) rode between 6-10 hours a week, while one driver (4.0 percent) drove 16 to 20 hours weekly. The normal duration of trips, or the average amount of time spent driving the moped from destination to destination, was 16-20 minutes for over half (13 or 52.0 percent) of the drivers. Ten drivers (40.0 percent) said 173 TABLE 82— Moped Driver Responses Relative to Driving Exposure Questions Responses Percent 11. How many hours a week do you ride your moped? 0 - 5 6-10 11 - 15 16 - 20 21 and above 6 2 4 1 12 24.0 8.0 16.0 4.0 48.0 10 13 1 1 0 40.0 52.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 20 1 4 8 2 80.0 4.0 16.0 32.0 8.0 21 9 1 1 84.0 36.0 4.0 4.0 0 2 18 1 4 0.0 8.0 72.0 4.0 16.0 12. How long is the normal duration of your moped drive on usual trips? 0 - 1 5 minutes 1 6 - 3 0 minutes 31 - 45 minutes 46 - 60 minutes 60 minutes plus 13. What is the major purpose behind the use of your moped* Recreation Business Economy Work Other (Basic Transportation)** 14. In what location do you normally ride? *** Residential City Country Expressway 15. Where, in terms of location on the highway, do you have more problems interacting with other drivers? On hills On curves At intersections At bridges Receiving full use of lane **** * Seven drivers reported more than one major purpose. ** Two drivers reported "basic transportation" as an additional response. *** Six drivers reported more than one location. **** pour drivers reported "receiving full use of lane" as an additional response. 174 they averaged about 15 minutes driving on trips. One male driver (4.0 percent) said he drove his moped an average of 31-45 minutes, while another driver (4.0 percent) reported driving 46-60 minutes. No driver stated an average of 60 minutes plus on the moped without stopping or reaching their destination point. Seven drivers reported more than one major purpose behind the use of their moped. The most frequent number of drivers, 20 or 80.0 percent, stated they used the vehicle for recreational purposes. Almost one-third (8 or 32.0 per­ cent) reported work as the major purpose. Four drivers (16.0 percent) stated economical reasons for moped usage. Two drivers (8.0 percent) used the moped for basic transpor­ tation needs. One driver (4.0 percent) used the moped for business related reasons. Six drivers reported more than one primary location for their moped driving. Twenty-one drivers (84.0 percent) reported residential areas for most of their driving. Nine drivers (36.0 percent) stated much of their driving was done in the city. One male driver (4.0 percent) said he drove in the country, while another driver (4.0 percent) stated he drove sometimes on the shoulder beside the expressway lanes. The most frequent number of drivers (18 or 72.0 per­ cent) pointed out that they had more problems interacting with other drivers at intersections than any other location. Four drivers (16.0 percent) indicated they had problems resul­ ting from other drivers not giving them full use of their lane. 175 Two drivers (8.0 percent) said other drivers gave them prob­ lems on curves, while one male driver (4.0 percent) reported sharing bridges with other drivers as his problem area. Driver Experience— In Table 83, the responses given by the moped dri­ vers relative to driver experience are shown. Twenty-three drivers (92.0 percent) stated they did not have a motorcycle endorsement on their driver license. Two drivers (8.0 percent) did have an endorsement. All 25 drivers (100.0 percent) stated they could ride a bicycle. Over half of the drivers (14 or 56.0 percent) had driven a motorcycle prior to purchasing their moped. Eleven drivers (44.0 percent) had not. Twenty-one drivers (84.0 percent) reported 0-10 hours of driving experience on a moped before purchasing it. However, of these same drivers, no one reported actually having more than 60 minutes of driving experience on a moped prior to purchasing it. Two drivers (8.0 percent) reported 21-30 hours of experience, while two others (8.0 percent) said they had 41 hours plus of moped driving experience prior to purchasing it. The latter four drivers pointed out that driving a friend’s moped accounted for these hours. 176 TABLE 83— Moped Driver Responses Relative to Driving Experience Questions Responses Percent 4. Do you have a motorcycle endorsement on you drivers license? Yes No 2 23 8.0 92.0 25 0 100.0 0.0 14 11 56.0 44.0 21 84.0 16. Can you ride a bicycle? Yes No 17. Had you driven a motorcycle prior to purchasing your moped? Yes No 19. How many hours of driving experi­ ence with a moped did you have prior to purchasing your moped? 0-10 11 - 20 21-30 31 - 40 41 and above 0.0 2 2 8.0 0.0 8.0 177 Educational Aspects of the Driver— In Table 84, the responses given by the moped drivers to questions concerning educational aspects are shown. Of all the moped drivers interviewed, 25 or 100.0 percent reported they had not taken a beginning motorcycle rider course. The number of drivers who took and passed an examin­ ation at the Secretary of State's office in order to obtain a restricted license for moped drivers, and those who did not, were almost equally divided. Specifically, 13 drivers (52.0 percent) did not take such an examination, while 12 drivers (48.0 percent) did initially take the exam. This indicates that almost half of these drivers were 15 years of age when they first began driving their moped legally on Michigan's streets and highways. Over half of these drivers, 14 or 56.0 percent, re­ portedly studied materials relative to safe moped driving before purchasing their moped. The 12 aforementioned drivers who passed an examination to obtain a restricted moped license, reported the materials they studied consis­ ted solely of Michigan's Motorcycle/Moped handbook. The most frequent number of drivers, 22 or 88.0 per­ cent, said they would not take a moped rider course, even if it was offered in their local area. Most of these drivers indicated that they did not feel such a course was neces­ sary in order to learn how to drive a moped. Three dri­ vers (12.0 percent) said they would take such a course. 178 TABLE 84— Moped Driver Responses Relative to Educational Aspects of the Driver Questions Responses Percent 1. Have you taken a beginning motorcycle rider course? Yes No 0 25 0.0 100.0 12 13 48.0 52.0 14 11 56.0 44.0 3 22 12.0 88.0 12 13 48.0 52.0 21 1 1 2 84.0 4.0 4.0 8.0 2. Did you initially take and pass an examination to obtain a restricted license for moped drivers? Yes No 3. Did you study any materials relative to moped driving and riding prior to purchasing your moped? Yes No 5. If a moped rider course was offered in your area, would you take it? Yes No 6. Are you aware of the current changes in Michigan's moped laws? Yes No 7. From whom did you initially learn to drive a vehicle? Driver Education Course Commercial Driving School Family Friend 179 TABLE 84 (Cont'd.) Responses Questions Percent 8. From whom did you learn to drive a moped? Family Friend Dealer Instructor Self-Instructed* 5 3 4 0 13 20.0 12.0 16.0 0.0 52.0 25 0 0 0 0 100.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 18. How many hours of moped driving instruction did you have prior to purchasing your moped? 0 6 11 16 21 - 5 -10 - 15 - 20 and above These drivers were almost equally divided as to their knowledge of the current changes in Michigan's moped laws. Specifically, 12 or 48.0 percent were aware of the current changes, while 13 or 52.0 percent were not. The most frequent number of drivers (21 or 84.0 percent) initially learned to drive an automobile in a dri­ ver education course. from a friend. Two drivers (8.0 percent) learned One driver (4.0 percent) was taught by a commercial driving school, while one other driver (4.0 per­ cent) was taught by a family member. When questioning the drivers as to how they learned to drive a moped, over half (13 or 52.0 percent) reportedly 180 taught themselves. by a family member. Five drivers (20.0 percent) were taught Four drivers (16.0 percent) said the dealer taught them, while 3 drivers (12.0 percent) were taught by a friend. All 25 drivers (100.0 percent) reported receiving 0-5 hours of instruction before purchasing their moped. However, none of these drivers actually reported having more than an hour of instruction in driving the moped prior to purchasing it. Safety Equipment Use by Drivers— In Table 85, the responses given by the moped dri­ vers relative to their use and feelings toward safety equipment when driving their moped are shown. Almost half of these drivers (11 or 44.0 percent) reportedly wore no type of safety equipment when driving their moped. Almost one-fourth (6 or 24.0 percent) said they wore protective clothing such as long pants and long sleeve shirts, while four drivers each (16.0 percent each) stated they wore a helmet, eye protection, and visible clothing when driving. Two of the drivers who said they wore their helmet, added they did "most of the time." Three drivers (12.0 percent) felt gloves were important and thus used them when driving, while two drivers cent) wore protective boots. (8.0 per­ One male driver (4.0 percent) said he wore all of the types of safety equipment listed. 181 TABLE 85— Moped Driver Responses Relative to Their Use and Feelings Toward Safety Equipment Questions Responses Percent 9. What type of safety equipment do you normally wear when riding your moped? * Helmet Boots Gloves Protective Clothing Eye Protection Visible Clothing All of the above None of the above 4 2 3 6 4 4 1 11 16.0 8.0 12.0 24.0 16.0 16.0 4.0 44.0 21 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 84.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 4.0 0.0 8.0 0.0 10. What type of safety equipment do you feel is most important for the moped driver to wear? Helmet Boots Gloves Protective Clothing Eye Protection Visible Clothing All of the Above None of the Above * Six drivers reported more than one type of safety equipment worn. 182 These drivers were asked in question 10, which type of safety equipment among those listed, i.e., helmet, boots, gloves, protective clothing, eye protection, or visible clothing was probably the most important to wear when driv­ ing their moped. Twenty-one drivers (84.0 percent) said the helmet was probably the most important, two drivers (8.0 percent) felt all of these were important. One driver (4.0 percent) felt protective clothing was the most impor­ tant, while one other driver (4.0 percent) indicated eye protection was the most important. Feelings and Reactions to Accident— This section contains the responses given by the moped drivers to those questions dealing with their par­ ticular moped traffic accident. In Table 86, the responses given by the moped dri­ vers relative to their emotional and physical state before their moped traffic accident occurred are shown. Twenty-two drivers (88.0 percent) were reportedly calm, emotionally, before their accident occurred. drivers (8o0 percent) Two said they were excited, while one driver (4.0 percent) said he was mad. Twenty-three drivers (92.0 percent) said they were physically well at the time of their accident. drivers (8.0 percent) said they were fatigued. Two other 183 TABLE 86— Moped Driver Responses Relative to Their Emotional and Physical State Before the Occurrence of Their Moped Traffic Accident Responses Questions Percent 20. How were you feeling emotionally before the accident occurred? Upset Calm Excited Mad Depressed Other 0 22 2 1 0 0 0.0 88.0 8.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0 23 2 0 0.0 92.0 8.0 0.0 21. How were you feeling physically before the accident occurred? Sick Well Fatigued Other The responses to the last two questions, i.e., (Can you recount step by step the events leading up to and causing the accident?) and (Are there any other factors involved in the accident other than what I have asked you?) are presented in the following manner: 1. 2. 3. A diagram showing pictorially what happened in each moped driver's particular moped traffic accident. In Figure 12, the legent of symbols used in these diagrams are shown. Each diagram is labeled by number and lettered by case in order to assure complete anonymity. A short summary of the events relative to the moped traffic accident. Presentation of the moped driver's previous driving record as an automobile operator. 184 TRAFFIC SIGNAL □ CAR 1 VAN o STOP SIGN VEHICLE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL MOPED + A A ONE-WAY TRAFFIC PEDESTRIAN A DIVIDED LANES COLLISION POINT O FIGURE 12— Legend for Symbols Used in Individual Moped Traffic Accident Diagrams 185 FIGURE 13— CASE A — Moped Traffic Accident Account of the Accident The moped driver was on his way to see a friend in a residential area. The weather was clear. He was late, excited, and in a hurry. He approached a stop sign, but failed to stop. A car on his right, which he had not seen, was about to proceed through the intersection. V7hen the moped driver finally noticed the car, he tried to steer clear, and ultimately dropped the moped as he hit the left front quarter panel of the car. He stated: "There really wasn't that much impact on the car." The moped driver suffered a concussion as a result of the accident, along with scrapes and bruises. He did not have on his helmet. He was cited for failure to yield the right-of-way by the police. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 186 FIGURE 14--CASE B— Moped Traffic Accident I _________________________ I _______ 11 I Account of the Accident The moped driver was on his way home from work. It was during the summer, and the weather was clear and sunny. As he approached an uncontrolled intersection, a car on his right pulled out in front of him. The crash occurred almost in the middle of the intersection. The moped driver had bruised knees, and scrapes on other parts of his body. No helmet was worn. His moped was a total loss. The car had a small dent in the left front door. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 187 FIGURE 15— CASE C— Moped Traffic Accident Account of the Accident The moped driver decided to drive his moped to the local 7-11 store to get a soda pop. The weather was clear. On the way there, he noticed that the engine was "missing." He figured trash was in the fuel line, and all the engine needed was "blowing out." Therefore, he decided to go to a side street, and drive around in a circle with the throttle all the way open. He stated during this process, he became "mad at the moped," and was not really watching the traffic. As a result, he turned left from the side street of his lane, in front of an approaching car. He scraped his knee, but sustained no other injuries. He did not have on a helmet. No damage was done to his moped, or the car he hit. The moped driver was cited for improper turning. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Disobeyed Stop Sign Prohibited Turn Improper Passing Speeding Disobeyed Traffic Control Device 6. 7. 8. 9. Speeding Speeding Disobeyed Traffic Signal Three Accidents 188 FIGURE 16— CASE D— Moped Traffic Accident ' I Account of the Accident The moped driver was out driving for recreational purposes within his neighborhood. The weather was clear. He noticed while driving, that a car with three or four young people was approaching from behind. He said the car kept getting "closer and closer." Finally, the car's front bumper hit his back tire, bursting it, causing him to lose control of his moped. The car did not stop, and was therefore classified by the police as hit and run. The moped driver sustained only minor injuries. He had on his helmet that day. Other than the bursted tire, no major damage was done to his moped. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 189 FIGURE 17--CASE E--Moped Traffic Accident Account of the Accident The moped driver was on his way to a motorcycle dealer to get a new part for his moped. The weather was warm and sunny. He was driving in the center portion of the right lane, when a van behind started to pass. As the driver of the van was completing the passing maneuver, he turned too sharply in front of the moped. As a result, the large right sideview mirror on the van, hit the moped, causing the collision. The moped driver received cuts and bruises. He did not have on a helmet. His moped was severely damaged. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. Drove Moped on Sidewalk No Accidents 190 FIGURE 18— CASE F— Moped Traffic Accident 1 y-Olil Account of the Accident The moped driver was driving around town just for fun. The weather was clear. He was approaching an inter­ section where he had a green light. A lady in a car was in a stacking area waiting to complete her left turn when the traffic cleared. Apparently she did not see the moped and proceeded across the intersection. The moped driver realized this, and actually jumped off the moped to avoid hitting the car. Therefore, no actual contact between the moped and car occurred. The moped driver said "one whole side" of his body was scraped, including forehead, palms, and elbows. He did not have on a helmet. The damage to his moped amounted to severe dents and scratches, Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. 3. 4. Speeding Prohibited Turn Speeding Speeding 5. 6. 7. Disobeyed Traffic Signal Speeding Two Accidents 191 FIGURE 19— CASE G— Moped Traffic Accident Account of the Accident The moped driver was out driving for recreational purposes on a clear, hot, day. A lady in a car was in front of him. As he passed a friend, he looked back and waved. Upon looking back in front of him, he realized the car had stopped. The lady was apparently looking at the design of a swimming pool behind someone's house. As a result, the moped driver did not have time to stop, and rear-ended the lady's car. He was not injured. He did not have on a helmet. His moped was only slightly damaged. The police cited the moped driver for careless driving. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. Speeding No Accidents 192 FIGURE 20— CASE H— Moped Traffic Accident I I I Account of the Accident The moped driver was out pleasure driving on a clear, sunny, day. As he approached a house on the right, he noticed a truck backing out of a driveway. He assumed the truck driver saw him, so he maintained his position within the lane. When he realized the truck driver had not seen him, and was going to back in front of him, it was too late to do anything about it. Hence, the truck backed into the front of the moped. As a result, the moped driver suffered a cut lip, requiring stitches, a scraped face, and a bruised arm. He did not have on a helmet. His moped was severely damaged. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. Speeding No Accidents 193 FIGURE 21— CASE I— Moped Traffic Accident Account of the Accident The moped driver was out driving in his community on a clear day. A car was going down the road in front of him. As he passed a friend beside the road, he turned around to talk to him. When he looked back up, he realized the car in front had stopped, and was about to make a left turn. He was so close at that point, he could not stop, and therefore rear-ended the car. The moped driver suf­ fered a chipped bone in his leg. He did not have on a helmet. The damage to his moped mainly consisted of bent forks. Only a small dent was noticed on the car. The moped driver was cited by the police for violation of the basic speed law. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. 3. 4. Speeding Careless Driving Careless Driving Two Accidents 194 FIGURE 22— CASE J— Moped Traffic Accident 1 I 1 I I l Account of the Accident The moped driver was on his way to his uncle's motorcycle dealership on a clear day. As he approached an intersection, the light turned green and he proceeded through. A car facing him, was in a left turn lane, about to turn into a bank parking lot. As he continued straight ahead, the car turned left in front of him. He did not have time to stop, and thus hit the car. His injuries included a broken leg, a crushed knee cap, which required surgery, and a cut chin. He did not have on a helmet. The moped was a total loss. The car had a dent in the right front quarter panel. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 195 FIGURE 23— CASE K— Moped Traffic Accident 0-0 Account of the Accident The moped driver was driving in a residential area on a sunny, clear, day. A car was facing him in the opposite lane. As he approached a road on his right, the car facing him, attempted to turn left into that road. The moped driver stated the other driver "did not give a signal." As a result, the two vehicles collided. The moped driver injured his knee in the collision. He had on his helmet. No damage was done to the car. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 196 FIGURE 24— CASE L— Moped Traffic Accident o Account of the Accident The moped driver was on his way home from work on a clear day. As was his common practice on this particular street, he always drove on the wrong side of the road, to avoid bicyclists coming from the nearby school this time of day. As he approached a four-way stop intersection, a car on his left arrived there first and stopped. The car then turned right, resulting in a head-on collision. The moped driver suffered a broken leg. He did not have on a helmet. The front of his moped was bent, dented, and scratched. He also received a citation for careless driv­ ing. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. Careless Driving No Accidents 197 FIGURE 25— CASE M — Moped Traffic Accident 1 Account of the Accident The moped driver was driving in a residential area on a warm, dry, day. He saw a lady in a car facing him in the opposite lane, approaching with a left turn signal on. When she got to the road on her left, she initially stopped, yielding to the approaching moped. She then, for some reason, decided to complete the turn in front of the moped. As a result, a collision occurred. The extent of the moped driver's injuries were mostly bruises. He did not have a helmet on that day. His moped was a total loss, while the car had little damage to it. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 198 FIGURE 26— CASE N — Moped Traffic Accident o & ] Account of the Accident The moped driver was driving for recreational pur­ poses on a clear day. He approached an intersection with a stop sign, but failed to stop. A car in the far right lane, on a two-lane, one-way street, was approaching the intersection from the moped driver's right. The driver of the car apparently did not see the moped, and continued through the intersection. When the moped driver felt the collision was inevitable, he jumped off the moped. The moped continued for a number of feet, hitting the left front door of the car. The moped driver suffered cuts, scratches, and bruises. He did not have on a helmet. The moped was dented and scratched. A citation for failing to yield the right-of-way, was issued to the moped driver. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Disobeyed Traffic Signal Speeding Speeding Speeding One Accident 199 FIGURE 27— CASE 0— Moped Traffic Accident I Account of the Accident The moped driver was on his way to see a friend. The weather was clear. He was driving close to the right edgeline, and was going to turn left at the next inter­ section. He saw a truck approaching behind in his rear­ view mirror. He thought the truck was quite a distance back, so he proceeded to make his turn. As he was turn­ ing, he realized too late, that the truck was actually very close behind. As a result, a collision occurred. The moped driver suffered a severe cut on his leg, re­ quiring stitches, as well as a scraped back. He did not have on a helmet. His moped was a total loss. The truck had only minor frontal damage. A citation for improper turning was issued to the moped driver. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 200 FIGURE 28— CASE P— Moped Traffic Accident G r I Account of the Accident The moped driver was driving close to home on a sunny, summer day. He was driving alongside parallel parked vehicles, when a car in front of a van, pulled out onto the lane in front of him. He did not have time to stop, and a collision occurred. The driver of the car apparently did riot see the mopedalist. The moped driver was not injured. He had on a helmet that day. His moped had no major damage, nor did the car. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents FIGURE 29— CASE Q— Moped Traffic Accident Account of the Accident The moped driver was driving in a residential area on a clear day. A car, which was behind the moped, passed and proceeded to turn right into a driveway. Apparently, the car driver did not see the mopedalist. As a result, the car continued to turn, which collided with the moped. The moped driver was not injured. She did not have on a helmet. The moped had minor damage, as well as the car. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 202 FIGURE 30— CASE R— Moped Traffic Accident ♦ Account of the Accident The moped driver was on her way home from work. The weather was clear and sunny. She approached an inter­ section where a van was parked to her left. She was on the through street, so stop signs were erected on the cross street. She continued to go through the intersec­ tion, when she noticed a car coming at her from the left. The parked van had apparently blocked the car driver's view, so that he could not see her. On the other hand, the van had also blocked the mopedalist's view, so she did not see the car coming, until it was too late. As a result, the two vehicles crashed within the intersection. The moped driver suffered a severe cut under her left eye, which required stitches. She did not have on a helmet. The moped was bent and scratched. No major damage was done to the car. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 203 FIGURE 31— CASE S— Moped Traffic Accident Account of the Accident The moped driver was on his way to school for extended day driver education. The weather was clear. He was driving on the right edgeline, and was not aware that a car was approaching from behind. When he finally noticed the car, it was attempting to pass. The car driver moved only a few feet to the left for the passing maneuver, thus crowding the moped. As a result, the car hit the mopedalist while attempting to complete the pass. The moped driver suffered a scraped hand in the collision. He did not have on a helmet. The car’s right front door was scratched. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 204 FIGURE 32— CASE T— Moped Traffic Accident — ► 1 — Account of the Accident The moped driver interviewed, and his wife, were driving their mopeds together in the city. The weather was clear. He made a left turn to go into a church park­ ing lot, when he noticed a van approaching fast in the opposing lane. He completed his turn, and turned around to tell his wife to watch out for the van. He indicated he was excited, because he was not sure if his wife had seen the van. After this, he really does not know what happened. All he could remember was getting into the church driveway, because once there, he passed out and fell off the moped. As a result, his hand was scraped, and he broke a finger. He did have on a helmet that day. His moped was dented and scratched. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations One Accident 205 FIGURE 33— CASE U— Moped Traffic Accident I £ - * /, 3 1 Account of the Accident The moped driver was driving in a residential area on a hot, summer, day. He approached an intersection, and made a left turn. As he was completing the turn, he drove through a puddle of oil on the road. He therefore lost traction and control of the moped, and fell off. As a result, he suffered a slipped disc in his back. He did not have on a helmet. His moped was slightly damaged. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. Speeding 2. Speeding 3. Speeding 4.Improper Turn 5. 6. 7. 8. Disobeyed Traffic Signal Speeding Disobeyed Stop Sign Three Accidents 206 FIGURE 34— CASE V— Moped Traffic Accident o -©■ o I t :t Account of the Accident The moped driver was out pleasure driving on a sunny day. He approached an intersection with a stop sign, and stopped. The sun was glaring in his eyes, so he could not see the approaching car on his left in the far left lane. He therefore proceeded across the inter­ section, and the two vehicles collided. His injuries were mostly scrapes and bruises. He did not have on a helmet. The moped was damaged mostly in the front. The car's right front fender was dented. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 207 FIGURE 35— CASE W— Moped Traffic Accident C2L Account of the Accident The moped driver was on his way home from a base­ ball game. The weather was clear. As he approached the intersection, his intentions were to proceed straight through. Facing him, was a car in a left turn lane, wait­ ing for the traffic to clear on a blinking red light. The driver of the car, apparently did not see the mopedalist, and turned left in front of him. As a result, the two vehicles crashed within the intersection. The moped driver suffered cuts in his knee and leg which required stitches. He did not have on a helmet. His moped was totaled. The car was slightly damaged in the front. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 208 FIGURE 36— CASE X— Moped Traffic Accident it s I II Account of the Accident The moped driver was driving in a residential area, for recreational purposes. He was following behind a car approaching an intersection, with a traffic light. The moped driver did not see the brakelights of the car ahead, indicating he was stopping for a red light. As a result, he rear-ended the car. The moped driver's knees were scraped, being about the extent of his injuries. He did not have on a helmet. Frontal damage to the moped was not severe. The back bumper of the car had a small dent. No citation was issued to the moped driver. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. No Violations No Accidents 209 FIGURE 37— CASE Y— Moped Traffic Accident Account of the Accident The moped driver was coming home for lunch. The weather was clear and sunny. He saw that a car facing him in the opposing lane, was making a left turn. As he got closer to the vehicle, the car for some unknown reason, stopped quickly in front of him. He could not stop, and hit the right front side of the car. No major injuries were suffered by the mopedalist, even though he was bruised and scratched. He did not have on a helmet. His moped was severely damaged. The car's right front quarter panel was dented. Previous Driving Record Prior to Accident 1. 2. Unlawful rider on motorcycle/moped No Accidents 210 Accident Location Distance From Residence— In Table 87, the average distance the total 25 ac­ cidents occurred from the moped driver's residence is shown. Case C occurred furthest away at slightly more than three miles (3.3) from the driver's residence, while Case N oc­ curred the closest at one-half mile (.5). On the average, the total moped traffic accidents occurred less than two miles (1.78) from the moped driver's home. Dealer Questionnaire A total of 20 motorcycle/moped dealers were selec­ ted and administered a questionnaire. The sample size selected was based on the fact that each of these dealers were located within a 100 mile radius of Lansing, Michigan, the location of the study. A total of thirteen questions were asked with the last two being open-ended (refer to Appendix H ) . The open-ended questions allowed the dealer an opportunity to express his/her thoughts relative to Michigan's moped laws, and place of responsibility for educating the moped driver. These questions addressed the following four general content areas of interest (refer to Appendix I): 1. 2. 3. 4. Education Safety Equipment Moped Retailing Michigan's Moped Laws 211 TABLE 87— Moped Traffic Accident Location Distance Prom the Moped Driver's Residence Total Drivers Distance In Miles From Residence A B C D E F G H I J K L M N 0 P 2.2 2.3 3.3 .8 .7 2.0 1.0 2.4 1.5 2.5 2.0 1.5 2.4 .5 1.0 2.2 Q 1.2 R S T U V W X Y 2.0 1.0 2.3 1.9 1.5 -1.7 2.0 2.8 25 44.7 Average Total Distance in Miles From Residence 1.78 212 County Location of Dealers— In Figure 38, the various counties visited in which these dealers were located are shown geographically. The questionnaire was administered to motorcycle/moped dealers in the counties of Kent, Ingham, Eaton, Calhoun, Clinton, and Livingston. Educational Concerns— In Table 88, the motorcycle/moped dealer's response to those questions addressing educational concerns are shown. All 20 dealers (100.0 percent) said they offered in­ struction for their moped buyers. However, they pointed out that this was "basic" instruction. This consisted mainly of locating and going over the controls with the buyer, along with a few starts, stops, and turns in their dealership parking lot. When the dealers were asked if they had a curriculum complete with instructional informational materials which could be given to the moped buyer, 9 or 45.0 percent, said no. Eleven or 55.0 percent, said they did. This material consisted mainly of pamphlets, offering safety tips, along with those tips given in the vehicle's (moped) owner's manual. The most frequent number of dealers (14 or 70.0 per­ cent) said they did not suggest to moped buyers to take a beginning motorcycle rider course before purchasing a moped. 213 Ll MICHIGAN jJk Total Dealers Interviewed • 20 FIGURE 38— County Location of Motorcycle/Moped Dealers Interviewed 214 TABLE 88— Moped Dealer's Responses Toward Educational Con­ cerns Questions Responses Percent 20 0 100.0 0.0 11 9 55.0 45.0 6 14 30.0 70.0 7 13 35.0 65.0 1. Do you offer any formal instruc­ tion for moped buyers? Yes (basic)* No 2. Do you have a curriculum complete with instructional information which could be given to moped buyers? Yes** No 3. Do you suggest to moped buyers to take a beginning motorcycle rider course before purchasing the moped? Yes No 5. Do you feel the average moped buyer is properly educated in driving a moped before purchasing it? Yes No * All dealers reported giving basic instruction to the moped buyer mainly consisting of going over the controls, with a few starts, stops, and turns, in their parking lots. ** The curriculum material given to the moped driver consisted mainly of pamphlets offering safety tips, along with those tips given in the owner's manuals. 215 These dealers indicated that they did not feel such a course would benefit the novice moped driver. Six dealers (30.0 percent) felt the motorcycle course would be beneficial for the moped buyer, and thus suggested that they take it. Thirteen of the dealers (65.0 percent) agreed that the average moped driver was probably not properly educated in driving a moped before purchasing it. (35.0 percent) Seven dealers felt the average moped driver was properly educated in driving a moped prior to buying it. Safety Equipment Concerns— The motorcycle/moped dealer's responses toward safety equipment concerns are shown in Table 89. The most frequent number of dealers (17 or 85.0 per­ cent) indicated that most of their moped customers bought helmets when they purchased their moped. Three dealers (15.0 percent) said their customers bought no type of safety equipment. One dealer (5.0 percent) said he usually sold gloves to his customers. The most frequent number of dealers (19 or 95.0 per­ cent) agreed that a helmet was the most important type of safety equipment for the moped driver to wear when driving. Three dealers (15.0 percent) felt visible clothing was the most important. Two of these three dealers felt visible clothing was equally important as the helmet. 216 TABLE 89— Moped Dealer's Responses Toward Safety Equipment Concerns Questions Responses Percent 17 1 0 0 0 3 85.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 19 0 0 3 0 95.0 0.0 0.0 15.0 0.0 8. What type of safety equipment do most of your moped customers buy?* Helmet Gloves Protective Clothing Visible Clothing All of the above None of the above 11. Which sinale piece of safety equipment do you feel is most important for a moped driver to wear?** Helmet Gloves Boots Visible Clothing Protective Clothing * One dealer reported more than one type of safety equipment bought. ** Two dealers reported more than one type of safety equipment as most important. 217 Moped Retailing Concerns— In Table 90, the motorcycle/moped dealer's respon­ ses toward moped retailing concerns are shown. Since Michigan law eliminated the requirement that all mopeds have pedals (refer to Appendix D), the dealers were asked if they felt sales would increase for small motorcycles without pedals now considered a moped. dealers were equally divided on their responses. or 50.0 percent) The Half (10 felt their sales would increase, while the other half (10 or 50.0 percent) felt they would not experience a rise in sales. The most frequent number of dealers (16 or 80.0 per­ cent) said their moped sales had increased since they first began selling them. Three dealers (15.0 percent) indicated their moped sales had stayed about the same, while one dealer (5.0 percent) stated his sales had decreased. Seventeen dealers (85.0 percent) reported they nor­ mally asked a young consumer his/her age when they were in­ quiring about purchasing a moped. Three dealers (15.0 per­ cent) stated they did not. Concerns Toward Michigan's Moped Laws— In Table 91, the motorcycle/moped dealer's respon­ ses to Michigan's moped laws are shown. All 20 dealers (100.0 percent) reportedly were aware of the current changes in Michigan's moped laws. 218 TABLE 90— Moped Dealers' Responses Toward Moped Retailing Concerns Questions Responses Percent 6. Do you anticipate a rise in sales for small motorcycles now con­ sidered a moped? Yes No 10 10 50.0 50.0 16 1 3 80.0 5.0 15.0 17 3 85.0 15.0 7. What has been the purchasing trend in moped sales since you first began selling them? Increased Decreased Stayed about the same 9. Do you normally ask a younger consumer his/her age when they are inquiring about purchasing a moped? Yes No 219 TABLE 91— Moped Dealers' Responses Toward Michigan Moped Laws Questions Responses Percent 20 0 100.0 0.0 10 10 50.0 50.0 4. Are you familiar with the current changes in Michigan's moped laws? Yes No 10. Do you feel than an insurance requirement should be placed upon mopeds? Yes No The dealers were equally divided in their responses concerning whether an insurance requirement should be placed upon mopeds. Half (10 or 50.0 percent) said yes, while the other half (10 or 50.0 percent) said no. In Table 92, those changes the motorcycle/moped dealers personally would like to see in Michigan's current moped laws are shown. Almost half of the dealers (9 or 45.0 percent) said they liked the current laws just as they are and felt no need to make any changes. Three dealers (15.0 percent) in­ dicated they would prefer a mandatory helmet law regardless of age. Two dealers (10.0 percent) felt the minimum age to operate a moped on Michigan's streets and highways should be reduced to 14 instead of the current 15. The rest of 220 TABLE 92— Moped Dealer's Responses Relative to the Changes They Would Like to See in Michigan's Current Moped Laws* Suggestions Number Percentage Current Laws Are Okay as is 9 45.0 Mandatory Helmet Regardless of Age 3 15.0 More Restrictions Where Moped is Allowed on Streets and Highways 1 5.0 Driver's License Exam Include Questions Concerning Mopeds 1 5.0 Reduce Minimum Age to 14 2 10.0 No Registration Requirement 1 5.0 Increase Horsepower to 3.0 1 5.0 No Mandatory Helmet Law Below 19 1 5.0 Motorcycle Endorsement Requirement 1 5.0 Classify a Scooter as a Moped Mainly for Older Adult Drivers 1 5.0 * One dealer reported more than one desired change 221 the suggested changes at 1 or 5.0 percent each included more restrictions as to where a moped can be driven on Michigan's streets and highways, inclusion of questions relative to mopeds on driver license examinations, elimin­ ation of the registration requirement, increasing the horse­ power to 3.0, elimination of the mandatory helmet law for those drivers under 19, a motorcycle endorsement requirement to operate the moped, and classification of a motor scooter as a moped mainly for the purpose of older adult drivers. In Table 93, the motorcycle/moped dealers responses to whom they feel should be responsible for educating the moped driver are shown. The most frequent number of dealers, 7 or 35.0 per­ cent, felt the State could better ascertain whether or not the moped driver was prepared to operate a moped on Michi­ gan's streets and highways by requiring a skill test for li­ censing. Four dealers (20.0 percent) indicated they would like to see a moped course offered in the schools such as driver education. Three dealers (15.0 percent) felt the moped driver should teach themselves how to drive. A state supported moped rider course was suggested by another three dealers (15.0 percent). Three other dealers (15.0 percent) felt the parents should be responsible. Limited dealer as­ sistance was suggested by two dealers (10.0 percent), while one dealer said he would like to see a shared responsibility between motorcycle/moped manufacturers and dealers in 222 TABLE 93— Moped Dealers' Responses Relative to Whom They Feel Should be Responsible for Educating the Moped Driver* Suggestions Number Percentage Self-Instruct 3 15.0 State Supported Moped Rider Course 3 15.0 Sec. of State Skill Test for Licensing 7 35.0 Moped Course in Schools such as Driver Education 4 20.0 Parents 3 15.0 Limited Dealer Assistance 2 10.0 Manufacturers/Dealers Combined 1 5.0 * Three dealers reported more than one responsible person or agency. 223 educating the moped driver. All Persons Involved (Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, Bicyclists) This section contains information relative to all persons, i.e., drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and bi­ cyclists involved in Michigan's 1981-1982 moped traffic accidents. The total population of 79 7 accidents was utilized. Sex of All Persons Injured— In Table 94, the sex of all persons injured are shown. Males constituted the most frequent number at 637 or 81.14 percent, while females accounted for 148 or 18.85 percent of the total. TABLE 94— Sex of All Moped Drivers, Other Motor Vehicle Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists Injured in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents Sex Number Percent* Male 637 81.14 Female 148 18.85 Total 785 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 224 Age and Sex of All Persons Injured— In Table 95, the age and sex of all persons injured are shown. The age group 15-19 accounted for the most fre­ quent number of male injuries at 276 or 43.32 percent. The age group 10-14 suffered 114 or 17.89 percent of the male injuries. Altogether, the age group 10-19 accounted for 390 or 61.21 percent of the injuries for all males. Females also sustained the most frequent number of their injuries within the 15-19 age group (49 or 33.10 per­ cent) . Injuries within the 10-14 age group were slightly less at 42 or 28.37 percent. Altogether, the age group 10-19 accounted for 91 or 61.47 percent of the injuries for all females. In looking at the total percent of the total in­ juries between both male and female, the age group 15-19 accounted for 325 or 41.40 percent of the total injuries. For both sexes, the age groups 10-14 accounted for 156 or 19.87 percent of the injuries. Altogether, for both male and female combined, the age group 101-9 suffered 481 or 61.27 percent of the total injuries. Injuries of All Persons Involved In 19 81-82 Moped Traffic Accxdents Moped drivers injured versus all other persons injured are shown in Table 96. Among all persons injured, moped drivers alone accounted for 742 or 94.52 percent of the total. Four drivers (.50 percent) of other motor TABLE 95— Sex and Age of All Moped Drivers, Other Motor Vehicle Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists Injured in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents Age Male Percent* Female Percent* Total Percent' of Tota! 5 .78 1 .67 6 .76 5 - 9 17 2.60 10 6.75 27 3.43 10 - 14 114 17.89 42 28.37 156 19.87 15 - 19 276 43.32 49 33.10 325 41.40 20 - 24 51 8.00 13 8.78 64 8.15 25 - 34 49 7.69 14 9.45 63 8.02 35 - 44 40 6.27 12 8.10 52 6.62 45 - 54 30 4.70 1 .67 31 3.94 55 - 64 24 3.76 4 2.70 28 3.56 65 - 74 17 2.66 2 1.35 19 2.42 75 and over 10 1.56 0 0.00 10 1.27 _! .62 0 0.00 __4 .50 Not Stated Total 637 148 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 785 2 25 0 - 4 226 TABLE 96— Frequency of Injuries to All Persons Involved in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents Vehicle Driver or Other Persons Moped Driver Other Vehicle Driver Bicycle Driver Passenger Pedestrian Total Number Percent* 742 94.52 4 .50 20 2.54 2 .25 17 2.16 785 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 227 vehicles which collided with the moped were injured. Twenty bicycle driver injuries accounted for 2.54 percent with pedestrian at 17 or 2.16 percent. Two passengers (.25 percent) were injured as a result of these accidents. Residence of All Moped and Automobile Drivers— In Table 97, the residence of all drivers involved is shown. The most frequent number of all drivers (1166 or 86.62 percent) were residents of the same county in which the accidents occurred. The remaining drivers were cate­ gorized as residing elsewhere (93 or 6.90 percent), non­ resident (4 or .29 percent), and not stated (83 or 6.16 percent). TABLE 97— Residence of All Hoped and Automobile Drivers Involved in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents Residence of Driver Local Resident Residing Elsewhere Non-Resident Not Stated Total Number Percent* 1166 86.62 93 6.90 4 .29 83 6.16 1346 * Hay not add to 100 percent because of rounding 228 Drinking Condition of All Moped and Automobile Drivers— The drinking condition of all drivers involved in these accidents is shown in Table 9 8. total drivers Sixty-eight of the (5.05 percent) had been drinking at the time of their accident. Those reported as not drinking were 1113 or 82.68 percent. It was not known if 165 (12.25 per­ cent) were drinking. TABLE 98— Drinking Condition of All Moped and Automobile Drivers Involved in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents Drinking Condition Number Percent* 68 5.05 Not Known if Drinking 165 12.25 Had Not Been Drinking 1113 82.68 Had Been Drinking Total 1346 * May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. Hazardous Actions by All Drivers— The reported hazardous actions by all drivers in these accidents are shown in Table 99. No hazardous actions were reported by the investigating officers in al most half (613 or 44.29 percent) of the total accidents. 229 TABLE 99— Reported Hazardous Actions by All Drivers Involved in 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents* Hazardous Action Number Percent* 613 44.29 Speed Too Fast 52 3.75 Speed Too Slow 1 .07 293 21.17 Wrong Way 11 .79 Left Center/Improper Pass/Lane 99 7.15 Improper Turn/Signal 59 4.26 Improper Backing/Start 11 .79 202 14.59 43 3.10 No Violation Disregard Control/Right of Way Following/Unable to Stop Other/Not Known Total 1384 * Includes pedestrians also. ** May not add to 100 percent because of rounding. 230 Of the hazardous actions reported, disregarding a traffic control device resulting in failure to yield the right-ofway ranked first at 29 3 or 21.17 percent. Following too closely accounted for 202 or 14.59 percent of the acci­ dents. Driving left of the center line, as well as im­ proper passing and lane changing totaled 99 or 7.15 percent of the total. Improper turning and signaling were done by 59 or 4.26 percent of the drivers. A total of 52 dri­ vers (3.75 percent) were reportedly driving too fast for the existing conditions. Eleven drivers each at .79 per­ cent were either driving the wrong way on a street or back­ ing and starting improperly. One driver (.07 percent) was reported as driving too slow. Summary This chapter presented an analysis of the data. The results were reported descriptively in tables, histograms, and diagrams. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. The seven major sections included: Moped Registrations Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents Automobile Operator's Driving Records Personal Interview Questionnaire Dealer Questionnaire All Persons Involved (Drivers, Passengers, Pedestrians, and Bicyclists) In Table 100, a frequency summary of variables in 19 81-82 non-fatal moped traffic accidents is shown. 231 TABLE 100— Frequency Summary of Variables in Randomly Selected 1981-82 Moped Traffic Accidents Variable Number Percent Special Collision Types (Not With School Bus, Deerf Emergency Vehicle) 399 99.7 Impaired Driving by Moped Driver (Not Impaired) 399 99.7 Accident Occurrence Within Construction Zone (None) 398 99.5 Visual Obstructions at Location of Accident (No Obstruction) 396 99.0 Road Alignment at Location of Accident (Straight Aligned) 392 98.0 Moped Defective Equipment (No Defect) 391 97.8 Road Defects at Location of Accidents (No Defects) 391 97.8 Fuel Leaks by Moped (No Fuel Leaks) 386 96.5 Weather Conditions at Time of Accident (Clear or Cloudy) 379 94.7 Object Hit by Mopedalist (No Object Hit) 376 94.0 Road Surface Conditions at Time of Accident (Dry Pavement Surfaces) 369 92.3 Moped Driver Residence As Compared to Site of Accident (In County) 364 91.0 Sex of Moped Driver (Male) 342 85.5 Damage of Moped (Moped Damaged) 325 81.2 232 Table 100 (Cont.) Variable Number Percent Helmet Use by Hoped Driver (Helmet Not Used) 320 80.0 Moped Driver Drinking/Drug Use (Had Not Been) 316 79.0 Light Conditions at Time of Accident (Daylight) 308 77.0 Investigator Type (City or Village Police) 302 75.5 Moped Driver Intentions Before Accident (Going Straight Ahead) .294 73.5 Accident Investigation (At Scene) 294 73.5 Intersection Related Accidents (Within or 100 Feet From Intersection) 283 71.0 Police Written Citations In Accident (Moped Driver Not Cited) 276 69.0 Collision of Moped (With Motor Vehicle) 265 66.2 Moped Driver Hazardous Action (Committed Hazardous Action) 240 60.0 Drivability of Moped (Drivable After Accident) 220 55.0 Moped Impact Area (Center Front) 214 53.5 Moped Driver Degree of Injury (Non Incapacitating) 169 42.3 Located Traffic Control Devices at Location of Accident (Stop Sign) 137 34.2 233 Table 100 (Cont.) Number Percent Accident Location Population Size (Township) 93 23.3 Accident Occurrence by Month of Year (July) 93 23.3 Collision Type (Angle-On) 83 20.7 Accident Occurrence by Day of Week (Friday) 70 17.5 Moped Driver Age (15 Year Old) 66 16.5 Accident Occurrence by Time of Day (4:01-5:00 p.m.) 43 10.8 Variable Chapter V will summarize the study, as well as give discussion, conclusions, and recommendations derived from the study. Chapter V SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, DISCUSSION, RECOMMENDATIONS Included in this chapter is: a summary of the study, major findings in each of the seven major sections, recommendations, recommendations for further research, and discussion. Summary of the Study The purpose of this study was to identify those factors which proved to be of greater or lesser frequency in moped traffic accidents which occurred within the State of Michigan during the years 19.81-1982. Initially, moped registration information for the State of Michigan during the years 1983-1985 was collected from the Michigan Department of State. A random sample of 400 non-fatal moped traffic accidents were selected from the population of 79 7 total accidents, which occurred during the years 19 81-19 82 within the State of Michigan. Six fatal accidents occurring between 19 81-1982 were studied separately. This information was gathered from UD-10 State of Michigan Official Traffic Accident Reports (Appendix A ) , located with the Michigan State Police Records Identifica­ tion Traffic Services Department. 234 Variables listed on the 235 UD-10, relevant to the following predetermined general areas, were analyzed: 1. Driver 2. Vehicle 3. Accident Location, Time, and Date 4. Accident Conditions 5. Driver's Degree of Injury The previous automobile operator's driving records of 100 randomly selected moped drivers, from those drivers involved in the aforementioned 400 moped traffic accidents, were also studied. These driving records were located at the Driver Records Section of the Michigan Department of State. Frequency and percentage analysis were done in order to depict the following eight variables: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Residence of Drivers Driver Age . Previous Violations Previous Accidents No Violations/No Accidents No Violations/Accidents Violations/No Accidents Violations/Accidents Additionally, moped driver previous automobile driving violations were correlated with the following three variables in moped accidents for all 100 drivers in the driving record sample: 1. Age 2. Hazardous Action 3. Collision Type A Personal Interview Questionnaire (Appendix F ) , with 2 3 questions, was developed and administered for the purpose of attaining a profile of the moped driver. group of 30 moped drivers were randomly selected for A 2 36 personal interview purposes from the previously selected random sample of 100 moped drivers used for driving record comparison purposes. Twenty-five of the 30 randomly selec­ ted moped drivers agreed to be personally interviewed. Therefore, among 25 moped drivers, information was collec­ ted from 21 questions relevant to the following five con­ tent areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. ended. Exposure Experience Education Safety Equipment Feelings and Reactions to Accident The last two questions, i.e., 22 and 23, were open- This allowed the moped driver the opportunity to discuss freely his/her particular accident. A Dealer Questionnaire (Appendix G ) , with 13 ques­ tions, dealers was developed and administered to 20 dealers. The selected for the Dealer Questionnaire were chosen on the basis of being a retailer of mopeds, and located within a 100 mile radius of Lansing, Michigan. The infor­ mation collected from 11 questions was categorized and re­ ported according to the following four general content areas of interest: 1. 2. 3. 4. Education Safety Equipment Moped Retailing Michigan's Moped Laws The last two questions were open-ended. This al­ lowed the dealer to express his/her personal thoughts relevant to Michigan's moped laws, and place of 237 responsibility for educating the moped driver. The 1981-19 82 summary report accident data, rela­ tive to all persons involved in moped traffic accidents, i.e., drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and bicyclists, were located with the Michigan State Police Records Identification Traffic Services Department. The following six variables were analyzed and reported: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Age Sex Driver Residence Hazardous Action Drinking Condition Different Vehicle Driver Injuries The data analyzed in this study yielded one-way frequency distributions, and percentage analysis of the various variables studied. The results were reported des­ criptively in tables, histograms, maps, and diagrams. Upon completion of summarization and analysis of the data, recommendations to improve moped safety within the State of Michigan were made relative to the following seven areas: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Moped Manufacturers Moped Drivers Moped Dealers Education Needs of Moped Drivers Public Information Needs Traffic Engineering Needs Enforcement Needs Findings The following is a summary of the major findings of this investigation: 238 Moped Registration 1. Wayne County led the state in total registra­ tions at 4,820 or 19.03 percent. 2. The five counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Genesee, accounted for over half (12,950 or 51.13 percent) of the total registrations. 3. Michigan's upper peninsula 15 counties con­ tained 805 or 3.18 percent of the total registrations. 4. Lower peninsula counties contained 24,514 or 96.82 percent of the total 25,319 moped registrations. Non-Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents 1. Of the 400 moped traffic accidents studied, almost one-third, (122 or 30.5 percent) occurred in Wayne County. 2. Two-hundred sixty-one accidents or 65.2 per­ cent occurred in the five counties of Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Kent, and Genesee. 3. Seven or 1.7 percent of the accidents occurred in Michigan's upper peninsula counties. 4. Fifteen year old moped drivers were involved in 66 or 16.5 percent of the accidents. 5. Sixteen year old moped drivers were involved in 40 or 10.0 percent of the accidents. 6. Young drivers, 9-14 years of age, (below the minimum age to operate a moped legally within the State of Michigan), accounted for 6 8 or 16.8 percent of the total accidents. 2 39 7. Almost half of the accidents (173 or 43.2 per­ cent) , were attributed to those teenage drivers between 14-17 years of age. 8. Almost two-thirds of the accidents (273 or 68.1 percent), were attributed to those drivers between the ages of 9-24. 9. The mean or average age represented was 24.52, while the median age was 17.08. The mode was 15.00 years of age. 10. Male moped drivers were involved in 342 or 85.5 percent of the total accidents. Females were involved in 58 or 14.5 percent. 11. Of all moped drivers involved in these acci­ dents, 74 or 18.5 percent were listed as having no visible injury. 12. Most frequently, 326 or 81.5 percent of the mo­ ped drivers, had injuries ranging from possible injury (74 or 18.5 percent) to non-incapacitating injury (169 or 42.3 percent) to incapacitating injury (83 or 20.7 percent). 13. Since possible injury could mean the driver may or may not have been injured, at least 252 or 63.0 percent of the drivers were definitely injured receiving either non-incapacitating (169 or 42.3 percent) or incapacitating injuries (83 or 20.7 percent). 14. The most frequent number of moped drivers (364 or 91.0 percent) lived in the same county in which their accident occurred. 240 15. More than half of the moped drivers (240 or 60.0 percent) were reported by the investigating officers as having committed some type of hazardous action which led to or caused the resultant accidents. Actual citations were issued to 124 or 31.0 percent of the moped drivers in the sample. 16. Of the hazardous actions reported, almost one- fourth, 9 3 or 2 3.3 percent of the moped drivers, were fol­ lowing another vehicle too closely. Additionally, 76 or 19.0 percent of the accidents were caused as a result of the moped driver failing to properly yield the right-ofway. 17. Accident reports revealed that 31 or 7.7 per­ cent of the mopedalists had been drinking or using drugs at time of their accident. One driver, or .2 percent, was reportedly driving while impaired. 18. Three-fourths of the mopedalists, 300 or 75.0 percent, were driving straight ahead at the time of their accident, while 34 or 8.5 percent were making a left turn at the time of their accident. 19. The most frequent number of moped drivers, 320 or 80.0 percent, did not have on a helmet at time of their accident. 20. No moped driver was classified as a hit and run 21. No defective equipment was found on 391 or driver. 97.8 percent of the mopeds. 241 22. In 265 or 66.2 percent of the accidents, a mopedalist collided with a motor vehicle. Single vehicle accidents in which the mopedalist hit nothing, but over­ turned, occurred 6 3 times or 16.1 percent of the accidents. 23. The data showed that most often, 83 or 20.7 percent of the accidents, the type collision occurring between a moped and motor vehicle was an "angle on". This meant the moped'turned into the path of a motor vehicle or the motor vehicle turned into the path of the moped. 24. Accident reports showed that 325 or 81.2 per­ cent of the mopeds were damaged to some degree. Of those mopeds damaged, 160 or 40.0 percent were so severely damaged, they were not drivable after the accident occurred. 25. • Over half of the mopeds (214 or 53.5 percent) had center frontal damage. The left side of the moped was damaged in 40 or 10.0 percent of the accidents. 26. Almost half, 198 or 49.5 percent of the acci­ dents, occurred within the larger cities of Michigan rang­ ing in population size from 50,000 to 250,000 plus. Ninety-three or 23.3 percent of the accidents occurred in the smaller townships. 27. The most frequent number of the accidents, 152 or 38.0 percent, occurred within an intersection. One- hundred thirty-one or 33.0 percent occurred within 100 feet of an intersection. intersection related. Altogether, 283 or 71.0 percent were 242 28. Almost half, 187 or 46.7 percent of the acci­ dents, occurred at locations where there was no erected traffic control device. A stop sign was located at 137 or 34.2 percent of the accident locations. A stop signal (flashing red light) was located at 53 or 13.2 percent of the accident scenes, while yield signs were at 21 or 5.3 percent. 29. City or Village Police investigated over two- thirds (302 or 75.5 percent) of the accidents. 30. Seventy or 17.5 percent of the accidents oc­ curred on Fridays, higher than any other day of the week. 31. ends. More accidents occurred on weekdays than week­ Monday through Thursday accidents totaled 233 or 58.3 percent, while Friday, Saturday, and Sunday accidents were less at 167 or 41.7 percent. 32. Forty-three or 10.8 percent of the accidents occurred between 4:01-5:00 p.m., higher than any Other one hour period of the day. 33. The most frequent number of accidents clustered around the four hour time span of 4:01-8:00 p.m. During these four hours, 162 or 40.5 percent of the total acci­ dents occurred. 34. Almost one-fourth of the accidents (93 or 23.3 percent) occurred during the month of July, higher than any other month of the year. 35. Over half of the accidents (227 or 56.7 percent) 243 occurred during the summer months of June, July, and August. Almost one-fourth (90 or 22.5 percent) of the ac­ cidents occurred during the spring months of March, April, and May. 36. ditions. Most accidents occurred under ideal weather con­ The prevailing weather in 379 or 94.7 percent of the accidents was reportedly clear or cloudy. 37. Over three-fourths of the accidents (30 8 or 77.0 percent) occurred under daylight conditions. 38. Road surface conditions were dry at the time of 369 or 92.3 percent of the accidents. 39. Most accidents, 392 or 98.0 percent, occurred on straight aligned roads. Eight accidents or 2.0 percent were reported on curved roadways. 40. No defective road surfaces were reported in 391 or 9 7.8 percent of the accidents. 41. No visual obstructions were reported at 396 or 99.0 percent of the accidents. Fatal Moped Traffic Accidents 1. Two fatal accidents, or 33.3 percent, occurred in Kalamazoo County. The remaining four fatalities, at 16.7 percent each, occurred in the counties of Bay, Oakland, St. Clair, and Wayne. 2. were male. All moped drivers killed, 6 or 100.0 percent, 244 3. Fatal accidents were equally divided between younger and older drivers. ages 15, 16, and 18. Half, 3 or 50.0 percent, were The other half, 3 or 50.0 percent, were ages 53, 58, and 63. 4. All drivers, 6 or 100.0 percent, were killed within the same county they lived. 5. Half of the drivers killed, 3 or 50.0 percent, did not commit a hazardous traffic violation. Violations making up the other 3 or 50.0 percent were driving left of the center line by two (33.3 percent) and failure to yield the right-of-way by one (16.7 percent). 6. Citations were written for all three moped dri­ vers, or 50.0 percent, at fault in their fatal collisions. 7. Accident reports revealed that one driver killed, or 16.7 percent, had been drinking and was impaired. 8. Two-thirds, 4 or 66.7 percent of the fatal dri­ vers, were driving straight ahead at the time of their acci­ dent. One-third, 2 or 33.3 percent, were in the process of changing lanes. 9. The most frequent number of drivers killed, 5 or 83.3 percent, did not have on a protective helmet. Hel­ met information was not coded for the other driver. 10. A collision between the moped and a motor ve­ hicle made up 5 or 8 3.3 percent of the fatal accidents. 11. Half of the fatal collisions, 3 or 50.0 percent, were hit from the rear. 2 or 33.3 percent. Angle on collisions accounted for 245 12. Two mopeds (33.3 percent) sustained center front damage from these fatal collisions. Two other mopeds (33.3 percent) received left side damage. 13. The most frequent number of mopeds, 5 or 8 3.3 percent, were damaged so severely they could not be driven away from the accident scene. 14. Locations of the fatal collisions were equally divided between smaller and larger cities. Half, 3 or 50.0 percent, occurred within a township having less than 1,000 people. The other half, 3 or 50.0 percent, occurred within larger cities ranging in size between 50,000 up to 250,000 plus. 15. Half of the fatal collisions, 3 or 50.0 percent, occurred within an intersection. Additionally, 2 or 33.3 percent occurred within 100 feet of the intersection. Al­ together, 5 or 83.3 percent of the fatal collisions were intersection related. 16. Half of the fatal accidents, 3 or 50.0 percent, occurred on Thursdays. 17. weekends. More fatal accidents occurred on weekdays than Tuesday and Thursday accidents made up two- thirds, 4 or 66.7 percent, while Saturday and Sunday acci­ dents made up one-third, 2 or 33.3 percent. 18. All fatal accidents, 6 or 100.0 percent, occur­ red during the afternoon and evening hours of the day. 19. Three or 50.0 percent of the fatal accidents occurred between 3:01-4:00 p.m. 246 20. Half of the fatal accidents, 3 or 50.0 percent, occurred during 21. All the month of July. fatal accidents, 6 or 100.0 percent, occur­ red when the weather was clear or cloudy, under ideal conditions, on dry road surfaces. 22. The most frequent number of fatal collisions, 5 or 83.3 percent, occurred during the daylight hours. 23. red on All fatal accidents, 6 or 100.0 percent, occur­ straight aligned roads with no incidence of road defects of visual obstructions. 24. One fatality, or 16.7 percent, occurred within a marked construction zone. Automobile Operators' Driving Records 1. In looking at combined previous violation/acci­ dent categories among 100 moped drivers, it was found that the most frequent number of drivers, 40 or 40.0 percent, had clear driving records, with no previous reported violations or accidents. However, almost one-third, 30 or 30.0 per­ cent, had previously recorded violations and accidents. Additionally, 2 3 or 23.0 percent, had previous violations but no accidents, while 7 or 7.0 percent had no previous violations or recorded accidents. 2. Thirty moped drivers (30.0 percent) having both violations and accidents on their driving records as automobile operators, had a combined total of 111 vio­ lations (72.54 percent) and 57 accidents (81.42 percent) 247 from the total number of violations and accidents. 3. The age group 25-34, at 82 or 36.77 percent, had the worst previous automobile driving records with more recorded violations and accident involvement, than any other age group represented. A total of 68 (30.49 percent) combined violations and accidents were recorded on the previous automobile driving records of those drivers between the ages of 20-24. Altogether, those drivers be­ tween the ages of 20-34 accounted for 150 or 67.26 percent of the combined previous violation and accident involvement among all age groups represented. 4. The average number of accidents among these 100 moped drivers was .70, while the average number of vio­ lations totaled 1.53. 5. Almost half, 72 or 47.05 percent of the pre­ vious violations, were attributed to speeding. Disobeying a traffic signal accounted for 16 or 10.45 percent. 6. From the Department of State, Correspondence letters had been sent to 10 or 10.0 percent of these dri­ vers, while 5 or 5.0 percent had received warning letters. Also, 11 or 11.0 percent had attended hearings because they were close to, or already had, lost their driving privilege. 7. Driver previous automobile violations were not significantly correlated with driver age. An "r" of .0214 was found when an "r" or .195 was needed to determine a significant relationship. 248 8. Driver previous automobile violations were not significantly correlated with hazardous action. of .195 was necessary for significance. An "r" An "r" of .0173 was obtained. 9. Driver previous automobile violations were not significantly correlated with collision type. -.0658 was found. An "r" of An "r" of .195 was necessary in order to be significant. Personal Interview Questionnaire 1. Almost half of the 25 moped drivers interviewed, 12 or 4 8.0 percent, reported driving their moped more than 21 hours a week. 2. The normal duration of trips, or the average amount of time spent driving from destination to destin­ ation, was 16-30 minutes for over half, 13 or 52.0 percent of the drivers. 3. The most frequent number, 20 or 80.0 percent, stated they used the moped primarily for recreational purposes. 4. Most of the drivers, 21 or 84.0 percent, repor­ ted residential areas for much of their driving. 5. Almost two-thirds of the drivers, 18 or 72.0 percent, pointed out they had more problems interacting with other drivers at intersections, than any other location listed. 6. The most frequent number of drivers, 23 or 92.0 249 percent, stated they did not have a motorcycle endorsement on their driver license. 7. All drivers, 25 or 100.0 percent, stated they could ride a bicycle. 8. Over half of the drivers, 14 or 56.0 percent, had driven a motorcycle prior to purchasing their moped. 9. More than two-thirds of the drivers, 21 or 84.0 percent, reported 0-10 hours of driving experience on a moped before purchasing it. However, of these drivers, no one reported actually having more than 60 minutes on the moped prior to purchasing it. 10. Of all the moped drivers interviewed, 25 or 100.0 percent, had not taken a beginning motorcycle rider course. 11. Almost half of the drivers, 12 or 48.0 percent, were 15 years of age when they first began driving their moped legally on Michigan's streets and highways. Each of these initially took and passed the required examination for a 15 year old restricted moped license. 12. Over half of these drivers, 14 or 56.0 percent, reportedly studied materials relative to safe moped driving before purchasing their moped. However, 12 or 48.0 percent of these drivers, reported the materials they studied con­ sisted solely of Michigan's Motorcycle/Moped handbook. 13. The most frequent number of drivers, 22 or 88.0 percent, indicated they would not take a moped rider course, even if it was offered in their local area. 14. These drivers were almost equally divided as to their knowledge of the current changes in Michigan's moped laws. Specifically, 12 or 48.0 percent were aware of the current changes, while 13 or 52.0 percent were not. 15. Most of these drivers, 21 or 84.0 percent, initially learned to drive an automobile in a driver educa­ tion course. 16. Over half of the drivers, 13 or 52.0 percent, reportedly taught themselves how to drive a moped. 17. All drivers, 25 or 100.0 percent, reported receiving 0-5 hours of instruction in moped driving before purchasing their moped. However, no driver reported more than an hour of actual instruction. 18. Almost half of these drivers, 11 or 44.0 per­ cent, reported they wore no type of safety equipment when driving their moped. Four drivers or 16.0 percent said they wore a helmet. 19. The most frequent number of drivers, 21 or 84.0 percent, said they felt the helmet was the most important piece of safety equipment to wear when driving. 20. Most of these drivers, 22 or 88.0 percent, re­ ported they were calm, emotionally, before their accident occurred. 21. The most frequent number of drivers, 2 3 or 92.0 percent, were physically well at the time of their accident. 22. On the average, the total accidents occurred less than two miles, or 1.78, from the moped driver's home. 251 Dealer Questionnaire 1. All 20 motorcycle/moped dealers interviewed or 100.0 percent, said they offered basic instruction for their moped buyers. This consisted mainly of locating and going over the controls, along with a few starts, stops, and turns in the dealership parking lot. 2. Over half of the dealers, 11 or 55.0 percent, indicated they had on hand instructional informational materials which could be given to the moped buyer. 3. Almost two-thirds of the dealers, 14 or 70.0 percent, said they did not suggest to moped buyers to take a beginning motorcycle rider course before purchasing a moped. These dealers felt such a course was not necessary. 4. Most of the dealers, 13 or 65.0 percent, agreed that the average moped driver was probably not properly educated in driving a moped before purchasing it. 5. The most frequent number of dealers, 17 or 85.0 percent, indicated that most of their moped customers bought helmets when they purchased the moped. 6. Almost all of the dealers, 19 or 95.0 percent, agreed that a helmet was the most important type of safety equipment for the moped driver to wear. 7. Half of the dealers, 10 or 50.0 percent, felt their moped sales would increase, while the other half, 10 or 50.0 percent, felt they would not experience a rise in sales for small motorcycles not considered a moped. 252 (Current moped laws eliminated the pedal requirement for moped classification purposes.) 8. The most frequent number of dealers, 16 or 80.0 percent, said their moped sales had increased since they first began selling them. 9. More than two-thirds of the dealers, 17 or 85.0 percent, reported they normally asked a young consumer his/her age when they were inquiring about purchasing a moped. 10. All of the dealers, 20 or 100.0 percent, were aware of the current changes in Michigan's moped laws. 11. Half of the dealers, 10 or 50.0 percent, felt an insurance requirement should be placed upon mopeds, while the other half, 10 or 50.0 percent, felt it should not. 12. Almost half of the dealers, 9 or 45.0 percent, said they liked Michigan's current moped laws, and felt no need to make any changes. A mandatory helmet law regard­ less of age was preferred by 3 or 15.0 percent of the dealers, while 2 or 10.0 percent felt the minimum age should be reduced to 14, instead of the current 15. 13. Seven dealers, or 35.0 percent, felt the state could better ascertain whether or not the moped driver was prepared to operate a moped on Michigan's streets and highways by requiring a skill test for licensing. 253 All Persons Involved (Drivers, Passengersy Pedestrians, and Bicyclists) 1. At 637 or 81.14 percent, males constituted the most frequent number of all persons injured. Females in­ jured totaled 148 or 18.85 percent. 2. The age group 10-19 accounted for 390 or 61.21 percent of all males injured. The age group 10-19 accounted for 91 or 61.4 7 percent of all females injured. 3. Among all persons injured, the moped drivers accounted for 742 or 94.52 percent of the total. 4. The most frequent number of all drivers, or 86.62 percent, were residents of the same county in which their accident occurred. 5. Of the total moped and automobile drivers, 6 8 or 5.05 percent had been drinking at the time of their accident. 6. Of the hazardous actions reported by all moped and automobile drivers and pedestrians, disregarding a traffic control device, resulting in failure to yield the right-of-way, ranked first at 293 or 21.17 percent. Conclusions The following are conclusions based on the key findings of this investigation: 1. Among all ages, fifteen year old moped drivers were involved in the most frequent number of moped traffic accidents. 254 2. A non-incapacitating injury was the most fre­ quent type of injury suffered by moped drivers in these accidents. 3. A hazardous action by a moped driver was the most frequent cause of moped traffic accidents. 4. In the most frequent number of accidents, a moped collided with a motor vehicle. 5. The most frequent number of accidents were intersection related. 6. The most frequent number of accidents occurred on Fridays, 4:01-5:00 p.m. during the month of July. 7. A protective helmet was not worn by a moped driver in the most frequent number of accidents. 8. Moped driver previous automobile violations were not significantly correlated with driver age. 9. Moped driver previous automobile violations were not significantly correlated with moped driver hazard­ ous actions. 10. Moped driver previous automobile violations were not significantly correlated with moped driver col­ lision type. Recommendations The following are recommended to improve moped safety within the State of Michigan, based on the findings and conclusions of this study: Moped manufacturers should: a. Increase research concerned with better designing and equipping the moped to make it more visible to other road users. Ad­ ditionally, inclusion of a reflectorized bright flag attached to each moped sold. b. Make available with each moped comprehensive educational materials relative to safe and proper moped driving. This should be re­ quired by state law. c. Include in advertisements safety tips not only for the moped driver, but for other users sharing the road with the mopedalist. d. Provide financial support for moped rider courses, including making available mopeds for the programs. The State Legislature should further revise moped laws relative to the moped driver that would: a. Increase the minimum age limit for moped operators to 16. Also, require these dri­ vers to successfully complete a driver edu­ cation course. This would increase the like­ lihood that most of these young moped drivers would be licensed as motor vehicle drivers. b. Require a moped endorsement for a driver already possessing a driver license. This would include requiring not only the "suc­ cessful completion" of a written examin­ ation but also a skill test. A written and skill test would be required for a restric­ ted moped license also. c. Require a driver applying for a restricted moped license an initial three month learn­ er's permit. An additional requirement would be that the mopedalist drive only while accompanied by another mopedalist on a separate moped during this period. This would allow the mopedalist the opportunity to gain experience before having to in­ dividually cope with the highly complex highway transportation system alone. d. Require each moped driver regardless of age to wear a protective helmet and eye protec­ tion while operating on Michigan's streets and highways. e. Require moped operators to show proof of liability insurance when purchasing their moped registration decal. Motorcycle/Moped dealers should be required by State Law to: a. Inform the Secretary of State's office if they know a parent or guardian is purchas­ ing a moped for an underaged youngster. b. Be responsible for assuring that consumer educational informational materials pro­ vided by the manufacturers are included in the sale of each moped. Additionally, pro­ vide each moped consumer a copy of Michi­ gan's Motorcycle/Moped handbook. c. Personally give basic instructions to each moped consumer prior to completing the sale. Public institutions of learning as well as local and state police should provide moped edu­ cation programs. These activities should in­ volve and include: a. After school programs for those moped dri­ vers at middle and high school ages. The schools would provide facilities and per­ sonnel. b. Adult programs for those older moped drivers at various community colleges. The colleges would provide the facilities and personnel. c. University research relative to development of a comprehensive curriculum for quality moped education programs. d. Coordination by local and state police of moped education programs in those areas of greatest demand. These law enforcement agencies should also provide personnel and facilities for additional programs. e. Development of a moped education curriculum by Michigan's Department of Education to be implemented within the public school sys­ tems . f. All of the aforementioned activities should be financed through increasing the fee for a moped endorsement or restricted license. Manufacturers, dealers, local and state police, with Michigan's Department of State should each be responsible for distributing public infor­ mation relative to safe moped driving for the benefit of mopedalist and other highway users via: a. Radio b. Television c. Newspapers d. Magazines e. Displays Additionally the Department of State should: f. Include more information in Michigan's Driver Handbook relative to the prevalence, vulnerability, and limitations Of the moped sharing the road with other vehicles. This would help to make other drivers more aware of the mopedalist. g. Include at least two questions dealing with mopeds on the State's driver license 259 written tests. This should include the first-time examination as well as all re­ newal tests. 6. Through traffic engineering, the state should modify those streets and highways shown to con­ tain the largest volumes of moped traffic. This should include constructing an extra lane for mopedalists similar to bicycle lanes already constructed. 7. Selective enforcement activities should be directed by local and state police in those counties and areas having the highest accident rates. Particular attention should be given to • those times of the day, days of the week, and months of the year shown in this study exper­ iencing the most frequent number of accidents. Recommendations for Further Research The following are recommendations for further re­ search based on the findings, conclusions, and observations of this study: 1. A replication of this study for the years 19831984. 2. A replication of this study covering a greater period of time. 3. A replication of this study on non-traffic moped accidents. 260 4. Research be conducted on those factors shown to be most frequent in 1981-1982 moped traffic accidents to determine why certain factors were more frequent than others. 5. A study be conducted to determine what parts of the mopedalist's body are most frequently in­ jured in accidents, and thus provide recommen­ dations for the type safety equipment needed to be worn. 6. An in-depth study be conducted to measure the psychological, physiological, and sociological aspects of the moped driver. 7. Research be conducted to determine the most ef­ fective methods and procedures for use in moped education programs. 8. A study be conducted to determine the effective­ ness of moped education programs on subsequent moped driving violations and accidents. 9. This study be compared with eventual moped studies from other states to determine common accident factors and patterns. Discussion The findings of this study indicated those factors which were of greater or lesser frequency in moped traffic accidents which occurred within the State of Michigan during 1981-1982. A broader perspective of the individual 261 who operates a moped on Michigan's streets and highways was gained from information collected from moped driver automo­ bile operator driving records, i.e., previous violation and accident involvement as automobile operators, as well as information gained from personal interviews with moped dri­ vers. The personal interviews addressed specifically as­ pects of the moped driver relative to exposure, experience, education, feelings toward use of safety equipment, and feelings and reactions to individual moped traffic acci­ dents. Reactions, concerns, and feelings toward the moped consumer were shown by some of Michigan's motorcycle/moped dealers relative to educational aspects of the moped con­ sumer, safety equipment, moped retailing, and Michigan's moped laws. All indications are that the moped traffic accident problem will continue to grow within the state. This has resulted because of increased purchasing and use of mopeds by Michigan residents. If the current trend continues, and the writer feels it will, Michigan will experience in the future even greater volumes of moped traffic on its streets and highways. Therefore, those factors shown to be of greater frequency in these accidents will be magnified. Because mopeds are used for meeting both recre­ ational and basic transportation needs, as well as its ap­ peal to all age groups, the use of the vehicle should be controlled in a manner which would facilitate maximum ef­ ficiency and safety as part of the highway transportation 262 system. The writer feels this can be successfully accom­ plished if constructive steps are taken now relative to revision of Michigan moped laws related to drivers, manu­ facturers, and dealers, together with addressing the edu­ cational, public information, traffic engineering, and enforcement needs necessary for improving moped safety within the state. This study seems to indicate shortcomings in the aforementioned areas. Young drivers were shown to be over represented in the moped traffic accidents studied. It is logical to assume that inexperience, and lack of knowledge relative to the safe and proper operation of the vehicle, contributed to their involvement. Of those moped drivers interviewed, over half reportedly taught themselves how to drive a mo­ ped. It seems apparent to the writer that proper instruc­ tion relative to safe moped driving for the young and old alike could aid in offsetting future needless injuries and deaths. Legislators have a responsibility to give direction in improving moped safety within the state. Current laws, with their latest revisions, show that concern has been directed in this respect. However, the writer feels these laws should be reevaluated and thus improved in regards to moped licensing, safety equipment requirements for moped drivers, and financial responsibility laws. Law enforcement agencies of the state are involved in enforcing the laws mandated by the legislature. 263 Personal interviews revealed that officers investigating moped traffic accidents seemed uncertain of proper proce­ dures and laws to follow. This could account for the fact that among the accidents studied, only slightly more than half of the moped drivers who reportedly committed a hazardous driving action were actually issued a citation. It seems that better communication is needed in informing law enforcement agencies of laws relative to mopeds, while at the same time emphasizing the need to enforce them. Moped manufacturers are accountable for designing the safest vehicle possible for the moped consumer. This includes not only the physical design of the moped, but also, development of comprehensive instructions relative to proper operation of the vehicle. Because moped rider courses are not available nor mandated by the state, the burden is shifted to manufacturers in making sure consumer educational informational materials are available. should also share in this responsibility. Dealers Additionally, this effort could be taken a step further by combined fi­ nancial support of moped rider programs by manufacturers and dealers. Middle and high schools, community colleges, universities, and local and state police, could share in this effort by providing facilities and personnel. This study found that 66.2 percent of moped colli­ sions are a result of colliding with a motor vehicle. Seventy-one percent of the moped traffic accidents were intersection related. Seventy-two percent of the moped 264 drivers interviewed said they had more problems interacting with other drivers at intersections than any other lo­ cation, while 16.0 percent reported other motor vehicle drivers frequently failed to give them full and legal use of their (mopedalist) lane when driving. It stands to reason that this high involvement with other motor vehicles could have been due in part to a lack of awareness by other drivers of the prevalence, vulnerability, and limitations of the moped. This indicates efforts should be made to get public information in the hands of motor vehicle drivers relative to the presence of mopeds, with their limitations, within the traffic mix. if other drivers are more ac­ tively looking for the mopedalist, it is safe to assume that a reduction in accidents would result. It is the writer’s opinion that improvements in this area would vastly help reduce moped traffic accidents within the state. The ultimate responsibility for safe moped driving certainly rests with the moped driver. This includes know­ ing the limitations of the vehicle, and his/her skill as a driver, adhering to state moped laws and regulations, and driving always in a defensive manner. Parents are to be admonished for allowing their youngsters under age to oper­ ate a moped on Michigan's streets and highways. It is safe to assume that the aforementioned responsibilities of the moped driver are not seriously considered by this age group because of a lack of maturity. 265 The increased use of mopeds on Michigan streets and highways seems to be the trend for the future. With this being the case, steps should be taken now in order to assure a safer future for those mopedalists who will be sharing the highway transportation system with other users. APPENDICES 266 APPENDIX A UD-10 STATE OF MICHIGAN OFFICIAL TRAFFIC ACCIDENT REPORT 267 268 C IR C L l T H t A m O M t A T t S tL tC T IO N OFFICIALTRAFFICACCIOENTREPORT >QmvO m«On t VIM T55T Viv |UU«'>«r I T.ii'TTi APPENDIX B ACT NO. 439 OF THE PUBLIC ACTS (MICHIGAN) OF 1976 269 270 PUBLIC AND LOCAL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE State of Michigan PASSED AT THE R E G U L A R SESSION O F 1976 ALSO OTHER MATTERS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THE PUBLIC ACTS COMPILED BY THE LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU AND PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 1470 PUBLIC ACTS 1976—No. 439 257.661, 257.661a, 257.679a, 257.685, 257.697b, 257.699,257.702,257.705,257.706, 257.707 , 257.708u, 257.710b and 257.801 of the Compiled Laws of 1970;’ to add sections 32b, 217b, 801e and 801f; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts. T he Teuple u j the State o f Michigan enact: Sections amended and added; Michigan vehicle code. Section 1. Sections 4, 79, 216, 224, 248, 251b, 251c, 251d, 251e, 3i2n, 3121), 312c, 657, 658, 659, 660, 661, 661a, 679a, 685, 697b, 699, 702, 705, 706, 707, 708a, 7101) and 801 of Act No. 300 of tin* Public Acts of 1949, section 4 as amended by Act No. 209 of the Public Acts of 1975, section 216 as amended by Act No. 74 of the Public Acts of 1976, sections 224 and 801 as amended by Act No. 114 of the Public Acts of 1976, section 312b as amended by Act No. 108 of the Public Acts of 1974, section 312c as amended by Act No. 122 of die Public Acts of 1975, section 660 as amended by Act No. 273 of the Public Acts of 1975, section 679a as amended by Act No. 212 of the Public Acts of 1974, section 705 as amended by Act No. 60 of the Public Acts of 1974, section 706 as amended by Act No. 100 of the Public Acts of 1975 and section 707 as amended by Act No. 44 of the Public Acts of 1976, being sections 257.4 , 257.79, 257.216, 257.224, 257.248, 257.251b, 257.251c, 257.251d, 257.251e, 257.312a, 257.312b, 257.312c, 257.657, 257.658, 257.659, 257.660, 257.661, 257.661a, 257.679a, 257.685, 257.697b, 257.699, 257.702, 257.705, 257.706, 257.707, 257.708a, 257.710b and 257.801 of the Compiled Laws of 1970, are amended and sections 32b, 217b, 801e and 801f are added to read as follows: 257.4 “.Bicycle" defined. [M.S.A. 9.1814] Sec. 4. “Bicycle" means a device propelled by human power upon which a person may ride, having either 2 or 3 wheels in a tandem or tricycle arrangement, all of which are over 14 inches in diameter. 257.32b “Moped" defined. [M.S.A. 9.1832(2)] Sec. 32b. “Moped” means a 2- or 3-wheeled vehicle with operable pedals which is equipped with a motor that does not exceed 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement, produces 1.5 brake horsepower or less, and cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 25 miles per hour on a level surface. 257.79 “Vehicle” defined. [M.S.A. 9.1879] Sec. 79. “Vehicle” means every device in, upon, or by which any person or property is or may be transported or drawn upon a highway, excepting devices exclusively moved by human power or used exclusively upon stationary rails or tracks. 257.216 Vehicles subject to registration and certificate of title provisions; ' exceptions. [M.S.A. 9.1916] Sec. 216. Every motor vehicle, trailer coach, trailer, semitrailer, and pole trailer, when driven or moved upon a highway shall be subject to the registration and certificate of title provisions of this act except: (a) A vehicle driven or moved upon a highway in conformance with the provisions of this act relating to manufacturers, transporters, dealers, or nonresidents. (b) A vehicle which is driven or moved upon a highway only for the purpose of crossing that highway from 1 property to another. 272 1484 PUBLIC ACTS 1976—No. 439 Empty weights 0- 500 pounds 501-1,500 pound*........................................................................... i,501 pounds and over.................................................................... Fee $ 3.75 7.50 15.00 (n) For each commercial vehicle used for the transportation of passengers for hire, according to the following schedule of empty weights: Empty weights Per 100 pounds Up to 4,000 pounds........................................................................ $ 1.00 •1,001 to 6,000 pounds .................................................................... 1.25 6.001 to 10,000 pounds.................................................................. 1.55 10.001 pounds and over.................................................................. 1.85 (o) For each motorcycle......................................................... 7.50 (p) Fur each truck weighing 8,001 pounds or more, roail tractor, or (ruck tractor used exclusively as a moving van or part thereof in transporting household furniture and household effects or the equipment or those engaged in conducting carnivals, at the rate of 80% of the schedule of elected gross weights in subsection (I). (q) For each pick-up truck weighing not over 5,000 pounds, 55 cents per 100 pounds empty weight or $12.00, whichever is greater. (r) The secretary of state shall compute the tax on the basis of 100 pounds or major fraction thereof, except where specific fees are specified, and may accept the manufacturer’s shipping weight thereof fully equipped for the use for which the registration application is made. If the weight is not correcily stated or. is not satisfactory, the secretary of state shall determine the actual weight. Each application for registration of a vehicle under subsections (i), (m), and (n), shall have attached thereto a scale weight receipt of the vehicle fully equipped as of the time the application is made. The scale weight receipt is not necessary when there is presented with the application a registration receipt of the previous year which shows on its face the weight of the motor vehicle as registered with the secretary of state and is accompanied by a statement of applicant that there has been no structural change in the motor vehicle which has increased the weight and that the previous registered weight is the true weight. (2) Manufacturers shall not be exempted under this act from paying ad valorem taxes on vehicles in stock or bond, except on the specified number of motor vehicles registered. Dealers shall be exempt from paying ad valorem taxes on vehicles in stock or bond. (3) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, the minimum specific tax per vehicle shall be $2.00, except for vehicles described in subsection (l)(e) and (f). 257.801e Moped; application for registration; form; signature; fee; records; issuance and contents of certificate of registration; insurance; size, legibility, and availability of certificate; issuance and display of decal; certificate of registration for use in testing or demonstrating moped. [M.S.A. 9.2501(5)] Sec. 801e. (1) Beginning May 1, 1977, and each registration period thereafter, the owner of a moped required to be registered under this act shall file an application for registration with the secretary of state on forms provided PUBLIC ACTS 1976—No. 439 1485 by him. The application shall be signed by the owner of the moped und shall be accompanied by a fee of $6.00 if submitted in the first year of the 3-yeur registration period; $4.00 if submitted in the second year, and $2.00 if submitted in the third year. Upon receipt of the application in approved form, the secretary of state shall enter the application upon his records and issue to the applicant a certificate of registration containing the decal for the moped, the name and address of the owner, and other information the secretary of state considers necessary. A moped shall not be required to be insured in the manner specified for motor vehicles under chapter 31 of Act No. 216 of the Public Acts of 1956, as amended, being sections 500.3101 to 500.3179 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The certificate of registration shall be pocket size, shall accompany the vehicle, shall be legible, and shall be made available for inspection upon demand by any law enforcement officer. (2) A decal indicating that the certificate of registration is in full force und effect shall be issued. A registration certificate and decal shall not be issued earlier than 90 days preceding the commencement date of the new registration period. Display of the decal shall be as prescribed by rule promulgated by the secretary of state. (3) A seller or manufacturer of mopeds, upon application to the secretary of state upon forms provided by him, may obtain certificates of registration for use in the testing or demonstrating of a moped upon payment of $10.00 for each of the first 2 registration certificates. Additional certificates may be issued at a cost of $5.00 each and used by the applicant only in the testing or demonstrating of mopeds by temporary placement of the registration on the moped being tested or demonstrated. A certificate issued pursuant to this subsection may be used on only 1 moped at any given time. ■ 257.801 f Moped; notice ot destruction or abandonment; cancellation ot certificate; notice of change of address; transfer of certificate of registration; fee; duplicate certificate. [M.S.A. 9.2501(6)] Sec. 801 f. (1) The owner of a moped shall notify the secretary of state if the moped is destroyed or abandoned within 15 days after its destruction or abandonment. Notice shall consist of a surrender of die certificate of registration on which the proper information shall be noted on a place to be provided. The secretary of state shall cancel the certificate and enter that fact in his records. (2) The owner of a moped shall notify the secretary of state upon a change of address. The new address shall be recorded by the secretary of state and a certificate of registration bearing that information shall be returned to the owner. The transferee of a moped, within 15 days after acquiring it, shall make application to the secretary of state for transfer of the certificate of registration issued to the moped, giving his name, address, and the number of the moped and pay to the secretary of state a fee of $2.00. Upon receipt of the application and fee, the secretary of state shall transfer the certificate of registration issued for the moped to the new owner. Unless the application is made and the fee paid within 15 days, the moped $hall be considered to be without certificate of registration and a person shall not operate the moped until a certificate is issued. A late fee of $5.00 shall also be assessed. (3) If a certificate of registration is lost, mutilated, or becomes illegible, the owner of a moped shall obtain a duplicate of the certificate upon application and payment of a fee of $2.00. APPENDIX C 19 83 MICHIGAN VEHICLE CODE (MOPED RELATED LAWS) 274 275 1983 MICHIGAN VEHICLE C O D E And Related Laws Concerning Ownership and Use of Vehicles on the Streets and Highways Compiled Under the Supervision of the Secretary of State Michigan Department of State Purchasing and Office Services 208 N. Capitol Ave., 5th Floor Lansing, Michigan 48918 Telephone: (517) 373-2570 Printed by Speaker-Hmes and Thomas. Inc.. Lansing. Michigan 276 257.32b M oped. [MSA 9.1832(2)] Sec. 32b. "Moped” means a 2- or 3-wheeled ve­ hicle with operable pedals which is equipped with a motor that does not exceed 50 cubic centimeters pis­ ton displacement, produces 1.5 brake horsepower or less, and cannot propel the vehicle at a speed greater than 25 miles per hour on a level Burface. Add. 1976, Act 439. 257.801e Moped registration. [MSA 9.2501(5)] Sec. 801e. (1) The owner of a moped required to be registered under this act shall file an applica­ tion for registration with the secretary of state on forms provided by the secretary of state. The appli­ cation shall be signed by the owner of the moped and shall be accompanied by a fee of $15.00. Upon re­ ceipt of the application in approved form, the secre­ tary of state shall enter the application upon the secretary of state’s records and issue to the applicant a certificate of registration containing the decal for the moped, the name and address of the owner, and other information the secretary of state considers necessary. A moped shall not be required to be in­ sured in the manner specified for motor vehicles under chapter 31 of Act No. 218 of the Public Acts of 1956, as amended, being sections 500.3101 to 500.3179 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The cer­ tificate of registration shall be pocket size, shall accompany the vehicle, shall be legible, and shall be made available for inspection upon demand by a law enforcement officer. (2) A decal indicating that the certificate of regis­ tration is in full force and effect shall be issued. A registration certificate and decal shall not be issued earlier than 90 days preceding the commencement date of the new registration period. Display of the decal shall be as prescribed by rule promulgated by the secretary of state. (3) A seller or manufacturer of mopeds, upon application to the secretary of state upon forms pro­ vided by the secretary of state, may obtain certifi­ cates of registration for use in the testing or demon­ strating of a moped upon payment of $10.00 for each of the first 2 registration certificates. Additional cer­ tificates may be issued at a cost of $5.00 each and used by the applicant only in the testing or demon­ strating of mopeds by temporary placement of the registration on the moped being tested or demon­ strated. A certificate issued pursuant to this subsec­ tion may be used on only 1 moped at any given time. (4) A moped registration shall be valid for a 3year period which begins on May 1 and expires on April 30 of the third registration year. For puposes of this subsection, a registration year begins on May 1 and ends on April 30. Am. 1979, Act 120. 277 257.801f Moped; transfer, duplicate, etc. [MSA 9.2501(6)] Sec. 801f. (1) The owner of a moped shall notify the secretary of state if the moped is destroyed or abandoned within 15 days after its destruction or abandonment. Notice shall consist of a surrender of the certificate of registration on which the proper information shall be noted on a place to be provided. The secretary of state shall cancel the certificate and enter that fact in the records of the secretary of state. (2) The owner of a moped shall notify the secre­ tary of state upon a change of address. The new address shall be recorded by the secretary of state and a certificate of registration bearing that infor­ mation shall be returned to the owner. (3) The transferee of a moped, within 15 days after acquiring it, shall make application to the sec­ retary of state for transfer of the certificate of regis­ tration issued to the moped, giving the transferee’s name, address, and the number of the moped and pay to the secretary of state a fee of $2.00. A regis­ tration fee of $10.00 shall be assessed if the trans­ ferred registration would have remained valid for 1 year or less. If the transferred registration would have remained valid for more than 1 year but less than 2 years, a registration fee of $5.00 shall be assessed. A registration fee shall not be assessed if the transferred registration would have remained valid for 2 or more years. Upon receipt of the appli­ cation and feeB, the secretary of state shall transfer the certificate of registration issued for the moped to the new owner. The registration shall be valid for 3 registration years. Unless the application is made and the fee paid within 15 days, the moped shall be considered to be without certificate of registration and a person shall not operate the moped until a certificate is issued. (4) If a certificate of registration is lost, muti­ lated, or becomes illegible, the owner of a moped shall obtain a duplicate of the certificate upon appli­ cation and payment of a fee of $2.00. Am. 1979, Act 120. 278 Moped; special restricted license. (2) A person, before operating a moped upon a highway shall procure a special restricted license to operate a moped unless the person has a valid operator’s or chauffeur’s license. A special restricted license to operate a moped may be issued to a person 15 years of age or older if the person satisfies the secretary of state that he is competent to operate a moped with safety. The secretary of state shall not require a road test before issuance of a special re­ stricted license to operate a moped. Same; fee, expiration. (3) A special restricted license to operate a moped shall expire on the birthday of the person to whom it is issued in the fourth year following the date of issuance. A license shall not be issued for a period longer than 4 years. A person issued a license to operate a moped shall pay $7.50 for an original license and $6.00 for a renewal license. The money received and collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the state treasury to the credit of the general fund. The secretary of state shall refund out of the fees collected to each county or municipality, acting as an examining officer, $2.50 for each appli­ cant examined for an original license and $1.00 for a renewal license. Am. 1976, Act 439. Cl 257.702 Mopeds; head lights. [MSA 9.2402] Sec. 702. The head lamp or head lamps upon every moped may be of the single beam or multiple beam type, but in either event shall comply with the requirements and limitations as follows: (1) Every head lamp or head lamps on a moped shall be of sufficient intensity to reveal a person or a vehicle at a distance of not less than 100 feet. (2) If the moped is equipped with a multiple beam head lamp or head lamps, the upper beam shall meet the minimum requirements set forth above and shall not exceed the limitations set forth in section 699(b) and the lowermost beam shall meet the re­ quirements applicable to a lowermost distribution of light, as set forth in section 699(c). (3) If the moped is equipped with a single beam lamp or lamps, the lamp or lamps shall be so aimed that when the vehicle is loaded none of the high intensity portion of light, at a distance of 25 feet ahead, shall project higher than the level of the center of the lamp from which it comes. Am. 1978, Act 439. 279 257.217b Moped, manufacturers identification number. [MSA 9.1917(2)] Sec. 217b. A moped manufactured for sale in this state after January 1,1977, shall have perma­ nently affixed to its frame a manufacturer’s identifi­ cation number. Add. 1976. Act 439. C l 257.685 Head lamps; number, height. [MSA 9.2385] Sec. 685. (a) Every motor vehicle other than a motorcycle or moped, shall be equipped with at least 2 head lamps with at least 1 on each side of the front of the motor vehicle, which head lamps shall comply with the requirements and limitations set forth in this chapter. (b) Every motorcycle and moped shall be equipped with at least 1 and not more than 2 head lamps which shall comply with the requirements and limitations of this chapter. (c) Every head lamp, upon every motor vehicle, including every motorcycle and moped, shall be lo­ cated at a height measured from the center of the head lamp of not more than 54 inches nor less than 24 inches above the level surface upon which the vehicle stands. (d) When a motor vehicle equipped with head lamps as required in this section is also equipped with auxiliary lamps or a spot lamp or any other lamp on the front of the motar vehicle projecting a beam of an intensity greater than 300 candlepower, not more than a total of 4 of those lamps on the front of a vehicle shall be lighted at a time when upon a highway. (e) A motor vehicle licensed as an historic vehicle is exempt from the requirements of this section if the vehicle as originally equipped failed to meet these requirements. An historic vehicle shall not be oper­ ated in violation of section 684. Am. 1978, Act 55. Cl 257.697b Rear stop lamps. [MSA 9.2397(2)] Sec. 697b. A person shall not sell or offer for sale or operate on the highways a vehicle manufactured or assembled after January 1, 1965, except those exempted from certificate of title requirements under the provisions of section 216, unless the vehi­ cle is equipped with 2 rear stop lamps except on a motorcycle or moped meeting the requirements of section 697. A motorcycle or moped shall be required to have 1 rear stop lamp. Am. 1976, Act 439. 280 C l 287.705 Brakes. [MSA 9.2406] Sec. 70S. (a) Brake equipment required as follows: (1) A motor vehicle, other than a motorcycle or moped, when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with brakes adequate to control the movement of and to stop and hold the vehicle, in­ cluding 2 separate means of applying the brakes, each of which means shall be effective to apply the brakes to at least 2 wheels. If these 2 separate means of applying the brakes are connected in any way, they shall be so constructed that failure of 1 part of the operating mechanism shall not leave the motor vehicle without brakes on at least 2 wheels. (2) A motorcycle or moped when operated upon a highway shall be equipped with at least 2 brakes, 1 on the front wheel and 1 on the rear wheel, which may be operated by hand or foot. C l 257.706 H orns and other w arning d evices. [MSA 9.2406] Sec. 706. (a) A motor vehicle, including a motorcycle or moped, when operated upon a high­ way shall be equipped with a horn in good working order and capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance of not less than 200 feet but a horn or other warning device shall not emit an unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whis­ tle. The driver of a motor vehicle shall when reason­ ably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning with his horn but shall not otherwise use the horn when upon a highway. (b) A vehicle shall not be equipped with nor shall a person use upon a vehicle a siren, whistle, or bell, except as otherwise permitted in this section. (c) A commercial vehicle may be equipped with a theft alarm signal device which is so arranged that it cannot be used by the driver as an ordinary warn­ ing signal. (d) An authorized emergency vehicle may be equipped with a siren, whistle, air horn, or bell ca­ pable of emitting sound audible under normal condi­ tions from a distance of not less than 500 feet, but the siren shall not be used except when the vehicle is operated in response to an emergency call or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law. In those cases the driver of the vehicle shall sound the siren when necessary to warn pedes­ trians and other drivers of the approach of the vehicle. (e) A motor vehicle licensed as an historic vehicle may be equipped with a siren, whistle, or bell which may be used when participating in a parade, exhibi­ tion, tour, or similar event. Am. 1978, Act 65. 281 Cl 257.661 B icycles, m opeds end m otorcycles; carryin g a rticles, h ands on h an d le­ bars. [MSA 9.2861] Sec. 661. A person operating a bicycle, moped, or motorcycle shall not carry any package, bundle, or article which prevents the driver from keeping both hands upon the handlebars of the vehicle. Am. 1970, Act 489. Cl 257.661a Mopeds and motorcycles; handlebar height [MSA 9.2361(1)] Sec. 661a. A person shall not operate on a public highway of th is state a motorcycle or moped equipped with handlebars that are higher than 15 inches from the lowest point of the undepressed sad­ dle to the highest point of the handle grip of the operator. Am. 1976, Act 439. Cl 257.659 C linging to oth er v eh icles. [MSA 9.2359] Sec. 659. A person riding upon a bicycle, moped or motorcycle, coaster, roller skates, sled, or toy ve­ hicle shall not attach the same or himself to a street­ car or vehicle upon a roadway. Am. 1976, Act 439. Cl 257.660 B icycles, m opeds and m otorcycles; lan e usage; sid ew alk s and p ath s. [MSA 9.2360] Sec. 660. (1) A person operating a bicycle or moped upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceed­ ing in the same direction. A motorcycle is entitled to full use of a lane and a motor vehicle shall not be driven in such a manner as to deprive a motorcycle of the full use of a lane. This subsection shall not 750.419 Operating motor vehicle, moped or m otorcycle on sid ew alk or b icycle path. [MSA 28.651] Sec. 419. A person who operates or rides a motorcycle, moped, or other motor vehicle, excepting motorized wheelchairs upon a bicycle path or a sidewalk regularly laid out and constructed for the use of pedestrians, not including a crosswalk or driveway, is guilty of a misdemeanor. Am. 1978, Act 56. 282 500.3103 Security requirements for motorcy­ cles, motor driven cycles. [MSA 24.13103] Sec. 3103. (1) An owner or registrant of a motorcycle shall provide security against loss result­ ing from liability imposed by law for property dam­ age, bodily injury, or death suffered by a person arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of that motorcycle. The security shall conform with the requirements of section 3009(1). (2) Each insurer transacting insurance in this state which affords coverage for a motorcycle as de­ scribed in subsection (1) also shall offer, to an owner or registrant of a motorcycle, security for the pay­ ment of first-party medical benefits only, in incre­ ments of $5,000.00, payable in the event the owner or registrant is involved in a motorcycle accident. An insurer providing first-party medical benefits may offer, at appropriate premium rates, deduct­ ibles, provisions for the coordination of these bene­ fits, and provisions for the subtraction of other bene­ fits provided or required to be provided under the laws of any state or the federal government, subject to the prior approval of the commissioner. These deductibles and provisions shall apply only to bene­ fits payable to the person named in the policy, the spouse of the insured, and any relative of either domiciled in the same household. (3) Each insurer which provides the security re­ quired by this section shall provide information on a form prescribed by the commissioner that describes the frequency and severity of motorcycle accidents for which claims have been filed. This information shall distinguish claims for liability and first-party medical benefits on an individual incident basis. After the receipt of 3 years of claims experience, the commissioner shall prepare and transmit a report to the legislature which compiles and analyzes the in­ formation so collected. (4) Subsections (2) and (3) of this section shall take effect May 1, 1981. Am. 1980, Act 445. Cl 257.679a Limited access highway; pedestrians and certain v eh icles p roh ib ited . [MSA 9.2379(1)] Sec. 679a. (1) A person shall not operate a motorcycle with less than a 125 cubic centimeter engine, moped, farm tractor, or other self-propelled farm implement, nor shall a pedestrian, bicycle, ex­ cept as provided in this section, or other non­ motorized traffic be permitted on a limited access highway in this state. Bicycles shall be permitted on paths constructed separately from the roadway and designated for the exclusive use of bicycles. (2) A person who violates this section is responsi­ ble for a civil infraction. Am. 1978, Act 510. 283 500.3101 Security for paym ent o f benefits; motor vehicle and motorcycle defined. [MSA 24.13101] Sec. 3101. (1) The owner or registrant of a motor vehicle required to be registered in this state shall maintain security for payment of benefits under personal protection insurance, property pro­ tection insurance, and residual liability insurance. Security shall be in effect continuously during the period of registration of the motor vehicle. (2) As used in this chapter: (a) "Motorcycle” means a vehicle having a saddle or seat for the use of the rider, designed to travel on not more than 3 wheels in contact with the ground, which is equipped with a motor that exceeds 50 cubic centimeters piston displacement. The wheels on any attachment to the vehicle shall not be considered as wheels in contact with the ground. Motorcycle does not include a moped, as defined in section 32b of Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949, being section 257.32b of the Michigan Compiled Laws. (b) "Motorcycle accident” means a loss involving the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motorcycle as a motorcycle, but not involving the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle. (c) "Motor vehicle” means a vehicle, including a trailer, operated or designed for operation upon a public highway by power other than muscular power which has more than 2 wheels. Motor vehicle does not include a motorcycle or a moped, as defined in section 32b of Act No. 300 of the Public Acts of 1949. (d) "Motor vehicle accident” means a loss involv­ ing the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle regardless of whether the accident also involves the ownership, operation, maintenance, or use of a motorcycle as a motorcycle. (3) Security may be provided under a policy is­ sued by an insurer duly authorized to transact busi­ ness in this state which affords insurance for the payment of benefits described in subsection (1). A policy of insurance represented or sold as providing security shall be deemed to provide insurance for the payment of the benefits. (4) Security required by subsection (1) may be provided by any other method approved by the secre­ tary of state as affording security equivalent to that afforded by a policy of insurance, if proof of the security is filed and continuously maintained with the secretary of state throughout the registration period. The person filing the security has all the obligations and rights of an insurer under this chap­ ter. When the context permits, "insurer” aB used in this chapter, includes any person filing the security as provided in this section. Am. 1980, Act 445. 284 357.707c V ehicle noiee s ta n d a r d s . (MSA *3407(3)] C l Sec. 707c. (1) After April 1,1978, a motor ve­ hicle ahell not be operated or driven on a highway or (treat if the motor vehicle produce* total noiae ex­ ceeding 1 of the following limita a t a diatance of SO feet except aa provided in aubdiviaiona (bMiii) and (cMiii): (a) A motor vehicle with a groaa weight or groaa vehicle weight rating of8,500 pounds or more, com­ bination vehicle with grow weight or groaa vehicle weight rating* of 8,500 pounda or more. (i) Ninety DBA if the maximum lawfttl apeed on the highway or street i* greater than 35 miles per hour. (ii) Eighty-six DBA if the maximum lawful speed on the highway or street is not more than 35 miles per hour. (iii) Eighty-eight DBA under stationary run-up test. (b) A motorcycle or a moped: (i) Eighty-six DBA if the maximum lawful apeed on the highway or street is greater than 35 mile* per hour. (ii) Eighty-two DBA if the maximum lawful speed on the highway or street is not more than 35 miles per hour. (iii) Ninety-five DBA under stationary run-up test at 75 inches. (c) A motor vehicle or a combination of vehicles towed by a motor vehicle not covered in subdivision (a) or (b): (i) Eighty-two DBA if the maximum lawful speed on the highway or street is greater than 35 mile* per hour. (ii) Seventy-six DBA if the maximum lawful speed on the highway or street is not more than 35 miles per hour. (iii) Ninety-five DBA under stationary run-up test 20 inches from the end of the tailpipe. M (2) A dealer shall not aell or offer for sale for use upon a street or highway in this state a new motor vehicle manufactured after April 1, 1978, which produces a minimum noise exceeding the following limits: (a) A motor vehicle with a gross vehicle weight rating of 8,500 pounds or more - 83 DBA. (b) A motorcycle or a moped - 83 DBA. (c) A motor vehicle not covered in subdivision (a) or (b) • 80 DBA. Cl (3) A person shall not operate a vehicle on a highway or street if the vehicle has a defect in the exhaust system which affects sound reduction, is not equipped with a muffler or other noise dissipative device, or ie equipped w ith a cutout, bypass, amplifier, or a similar device. M (4) A person, either acting for himself or herself or as the agent or employee of another, shall not aell, install, or replace a muffler or exhaust part that cauass the motor vehicle to which the muffler or exhaust part is attached to exceed the noise limits established by this act or a rule promulgated under this act C l (5) A person shall not modify, repair, replace, or remove a part of an exhaust system causing the motor vehicle to which the system is attached to produce noiee in excess of the levels established by this a c t or operate a motor vehicle so altered on a etreet or highway. M (6) A dealer shall not aell a used or secondhand motor vehicle for use upon a street or highway which is not in compliance with this act. A a !»?(.Act 403. 285 257.7I0d Mandatory child restraints. (MSA 9l2410(4)) Sac. 710d. (1) Except aa provided in this sec* tion, or aa otherwise provided by law, a rule promul­ gated pursuant to Act No. 306 of the Public Acta of 1969, as amended, being sections 24.201 to 24.316 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, or federal regulation, each driver transporting a child in a motor vehicle shall properly secure each child in a child restraint system aa follows: (a) Any child less than 1 year of age in a child restraint system which meets the standards pre­ scribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213. (b) Any child 1 year of age or more hut less than 4 years of age, when transported in the front seat, in a child restraint system which meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213. (c) Any child 1 year of age or more but less than 4 years of age, when transported in the rear seat, in a child restraint system which meets the standards prescribed in 49 C.F.R. 571.213, unless the child is secured by a safety belt provided in the motor vehicle. (2) This section does not apply to a nonresident driver transporting a child in this state or to any child being nursed. (3) This section does not apply if the motor vehi­ cle being driven is a bus, school bus, taxicab, moped, motorcycle, or other motor vehicle not required to be equipped with safety belts under section 710b or federal law or regulations. (4) A person who violates this section is responsi­ ble for a civil infraction. (5) Points shall not be assessed under section 320a for a violation of this section. An abstract re­ quired under section 732 shall not be submitted to the secretary of state regarding a violation of this section. (6) The secretary of state may exempt by rules promulgated pursuant to Act No. 306 of the Public Acts of 1969, as amended, a claaa of children from the requirements of this section, if the secretary of state determines that the use of the child restraint system required under subsection (1) is impractical because of physical unfitness, a medical problem, or body size. The secretary of state may specify alter­ nate means of protection for children exempted under this subsection. Add.1961.Act117 Cl 967.710b Safety belts for motor vehicle pas­ sengers, exceptions. [MSA 9.2410(2)] See. 710b. A private passenger vehicle man­ ufactured after January 1,1966 shall not be offered for sale in this state unless the vehicle is equipped with safety belts for the use of the driver and 1 other front seat passenger. All safety belts and bolts and brackets used in the installation of the safety belts shall meet the minimum specifications of the society of automotive engineers as prescribed on April 1, 1963. This section shall not apply to trucks, buses, hearses, motorcycles, or mopeds. A a. 1B7S, Act 43S. APPENDIX D ACT NO. 91 OF THE PUBLIC ACTS (MICHIGAN) OF 1983 286 287 PUBLIC AND LOCAL ACTS OF THE LEGISLATURE OF THE State of Michigan PASSED AT THE R E G U L A R SESSION O F 1983 ALSO OTHER MATTERS REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE PUBLISHED WITH THE PUBLIC ACTS COMPILED BY THE LEGISLATIVE SERVICE BUREAU AND PUBLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 288 Act No. 91 o f the Public Acts of 1983 The P eople o f the S ta te «/.W iehigan enact: Sectio n 1. S ectio n s .12b. 6.58. a n d 8 0 le o f A c t No. 30(1 o f th e P u b lic A c ts o f 1949. being section s 257.12b. 257.658. and 25 7 .8 0 1 e o f the M ich ig an C om piled L aw s, are am end ed to read a s follows: Sec. .12b. "M oped” m ea n s a 2- o r 3 -w h eeied v eh icle w h ich is eq u ip p ed w ith a m otor that does not exceed .50 cubic c en tim e te r s piston d isp la c e m e n t, produces 2.0 b rak e h orsep ow er o r less, and cannot propel the v eh icle a t a speed g r e a te r than JU ),m iles p er hour on a level su r fa c e. T h e pow er d riv e svstem sh a ll not req uire th e operator to sh ift g ea rs Sec. 658. I D A person p r o p e llin g a b ic y c le o r o p e r a tin g a m otorcycle o r m oped sh all not ride oth er than anon and a strid e a p erm a n en t and reg u la r se a t attach ed th ereto. 121 A b icycle or m otorcycle sh a ll not be used to c a rr y m ore p erson s a t 1 tim e than th e nu m ber tor w hich it is d esig n ed and equip ped. 13) A m oped sh a ll not be used to carry m ore than 1 person at a tim e. <41 A person o p e r a tin g or r id in g on a m otorcycle, and any nerson less than 19 vears o f age o p e r a tin g s m oged on a pu b lic th orou gh fare sh all w ear a crash h e lm e t on ins neari. C rasn n e im e ts sn ail lie approved by the d ep a rtm en t of sta te police. T he d e p a r tm en t o f sta te police sh all p r o m u lg a te rules for the im p lem en ta tio n o f this sectio n p u rsu a n t to the a d m in istr a tiv e proced u res a ct of 1969 A ct N o Hid o f the P u b lic A cts o f 1969. as a m en d ed . R u les in e ffe c t on injne_L _lo7u. »hall ap p iy to iteim ets req u ired by this act. S ec. 601e. 1 1) W hen a m oped r eq u ired to be reg istered un der th is a ct is sold bv a reta ile r to a g e n e r a l purchaser, the c e r tific a te o f r e g istr a tion sh all he o b tain ed in th e n am e o f th e p u rch aser nv m v retailor In oth er "Uses. :ne c er tific a te o f reg istra tio n sh all be ob tain ed itv 'n o intr—laser. T he u ii i m e n t iu n 'n a il he sig n ed uy th e g u r c n a s e r of the m op ed and snail be accom panieti iiy a fee o f I t 3.00 L'jKin rec e ip t o f the app lication in app roved form , th e sec r eta ry o f sta te sh a ll e n te r th e a p p lic a tio n upon th e secretary o f s ta te s records and issue to the a p p lic a n t a c er tific a te o f registration co n ta in in g the d ecal for the m o p e d , the nam e and ad d ress o f the ow ner, and o th er inform ation th e sec r eta ry o f s ta te co n sid e rs n ecessary A m n p e d 'h a ll not be req uired to be insured in th e m an n er sp ecified for m otor v eh icles u n der ch ap ter 1! of A . 1. No. 2 IS of the P u b lic A cts o f 1956. as a m e n d ed , b e in g section s 500.3101 to 5 0 0 .1 1 7 9 o f th e M ichigan C om p iled L aw s T h e c er tific a te o f reg istra tio n sh a ll be pocket size, sh a ll accom pany th e tehiC ie. shaii i-e iegitn c. and 'n a ii be m ade a v a ila b le for inspection up on d em an d by a law en forcem en t o fficer. i2) A d eca l in d ic a tin g th at th e c e r tific a te o f reg istra tio n is in fu ll force and e ffe c t 'h a il in* is.-u vl A reg istra tio n c er tific a te and d ecal sh all not be issu ed e a r lie r than bM> .la v s p r e ce d in g the .■ n i-.,.,.n cn n en i date o f the new r eg istr a tio n period. D isp lay of th e d e c a l sh all be a> p rescrib ed itv , u ie p rom u lgated b> the secreta ry o f state. i l l A retailor or m a n u fa ctu rer o f m opeds. upon ap p lication to the secreta ry of -t it. .p>>n rn i m » provided uy t h e secreta ry of sta te , m ay obtain c er tific a te s of r eg istr a tio n for u s e r t c - t i n g or d e m o n str a tin g of a m oped upon p aym en t o f $10.00 for each of th e first 2 registrar ■n .-rtifi.-n ic' A dditional cer tific a te s m ay be issu ed at a cost of $ 5 . 0 0 each and used by the ap p lican t o n lt n t r e t c ' t i n g or d em o n stra tin g o f m opeds by tem p orary p lacem en t of th e reg istra tio n on the m u p v d in o - ig t e s t e d or dem on strated . A c er tific a te issu ed p u rsu an t to th is subsection m ay be used on unit I m n p yi any g iw n tim e. <41 A m oped reg istra tio n shall be v a lid for a 3 -year period w hich b e g in s on M ac ; u r o . x i n r - on \p r d 10 o f the third reg istra tio n vear. F o r p u rp oses of th is su b section , a r eg istr a tio n year begin- m M u ; 1 and en d s on A pril 10. APPENDIX E STATE MOPED LAWS— 19 80/81 289 STATE MOPED LAWS-1980/81 S tate Minimum Age AZ 16 AK none License Rules R egistration Requirements Speed Limit Maximum Engine Limits any d riv e r's license yes 25mph 1.5 hp 50 cc pedal bicycle no (fin an cial with helper resp o n sib ility ) motor no none requi red none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no no Legal D efinition Mandatory Insurance Mandatory Helmet 15>s any d riv e r's lic en se; or learner permit yes 30mph 2 hp motorized bicycle no (fin an cial re sp o n sib ility ) no CO 16 any d riv e r's license yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no no CT 16 any d riv e r's license none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc bicycle with helper motor no no DE 16 any d riv e r's license yes 25mph 1.5 hp 55 cc moped no no DIST OF COL Inspection 16 any d riv e r's license or motor bicycle permit yes 25mph 1.5 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no (fin an cial re sp o n sib ility ) no FL 15 any d r iv e r's lic en se; or learner permit yes 25mph 1.5 hp moped no no GA 15 any d riv e r's lice n se ; or learner permit o r lim ited permit none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no yes 290 CA State Minimum Age License Rules R egistration Requi rements Speed Limit Maximum Engine Limits Mandatory Insurance Legal D efinition Mandatory Helmet 15 any d riv e r's licen se; or special learn er permit yes 35mph 1.5 hp 50 cc moped no no II 16 any d riv e r's license yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc motori zed pedalcycle no (financial re sp o n sib ility ) no IN 15 none required none 25mph 1.5 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no no IA No Passengers 14 any d riv e r's lice n se ; or motor bicycle license yes 25mph 50 cc motorized bicycle no (fin an cial resp o n sib ility ) no KS 14 any d riv e r's licen se; or motor bicycle license • yes 30mph 3.5 hp 50 cc motori zed bicycle no no KY 16 any d riv e r's licen se; or moped license none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no no LA 15 any d r iv e r's license none 25mph 1.5 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no yes ME 16 any d riv e r's license yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no (financial re sp o n sib ility ) no MD 16 any d r iv e r's licen se; or moped permit none none stated 1.5 hp 50 cc moped no no MA 16 any d r iv e r's lic e n se ; or learn er permit yes 25mph 1.5 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no no 291 HI S tate Minimum Age License Rules R egistration Requirements Speed Limit Maximum Engine Limits Mandatory Insurance Legal D efinition Mandatory Helmet 15 any d riv e r's lic en se; or moped license yes 25mph 1.5 hp 50 cc moped no no MN 15 any d riv e r's lic en se; or motor bicycle permit yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no no MO 16 any d riv e r's 11cense none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no no MT 16 any d riv e r's license none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc bicycle no no NB 14 any d riv e r's lic e n se ; o r learn er permit; o r school permit none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no no NV 16 any d riv e r's license none 30mph none sta te d moped no (fin an cial re sp o n sib ility ) no NH 16 any d riv e r's license or moped license yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no (financial re sp o n sib ility ) no NJ No Passengers 15 any d riv e r's lice n se; or motor bicycle license yes 25mph 1.5 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle yes yes NM 13 any d riv e r's lic en se; o r re s tric te d license none 25mph 50 cc motorized bicycle no no 292 HI No Passengers State Minimum Age License Rules R egistration Requi rements Speed Limit Maximum Engine Limits Legal Definition Mandatory Insurance Mandatory Helmet NY (Class C) 16 any d riv e r's lice n se; or special license yes 20mph none sta te d lim ited use class "C" motorcycle no (financial re sp o n sib ility ) no NY (Class B) 16 any d riv e r's lic en se; or special license yes 21-30 mph none stated lim ited use class "B" motorcycle yes yes NC 16 none required none 20mph 50 cc moped ND 14 none required none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no no OH 14 any d riv e r's lic en se; or motor bicycle license none 20mph 1 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no no OK Inspection 14 any d riv e r's license or re s tric te d license yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle yes y es, for those under 18 years old OR 16 any d riv e r's lic en se; or moped license yes 30mph 50 cc moped yes no PA 16 any d riv e r's license yes 25mph 1.5 hp 50 cc motorized pedalcycle yes no RI 16 any d riv e r's license yes 30mph 2 hp motorized bicycle no no SC 12 none requi red none 20mph 1 hp bicycle with helper motor no no no 293 S tate Minimum Age License Rules R egistration Requi rements Speed Limit Maximum Engine Limits Mandatory Insurance Legal D efinition Mandatory Helmet 14 any d riv e r's licen se; in ­ stru c tio n perm it, or re stric te d permit none 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no no TN 14 any d riv e r's license or motor bicycle permit yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc motorized bicycle no yes TX Inspection 15 motor a ssisted bicycle license (w ritten te s t) yes 20mph 60 cc motor a ssisted bicycle no no VT Inspection 16 any d r iv e r's license yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no (fin an cial re sp o n sib ility ) no VA 16 none required none 30mph 2 hp moped no no HA 16 any d riv e r's license yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no (fin an cial re sp o n sib ility ) no HV Inspection 16 any d riv e r's license yes 30mph 2 hp 50 cc moped no (fin an cial resp o n sib ility ) no HI No Passengers 16 any d riv e r's license yes 30mph 50 cc moped no (financial re sp o n sib ility ) no WY 16 any d riv e r's none 30mph 2 hp moped no no license 50 cc 294 SD 295 ABBREVIATIONS OF STATES AZ — Arizona NH — New Hampshire AK — Arkansas NJ — New Jersey CA — California NM — New Mexico CO — Colorado NY — New York CT — Connecticut NC — North Carolina DE — Delaware ND — North Dakota OH — Ohio DIST OF COL — District of Columbia FL — Florida OK — Oklahoma GA — Georgia OR — Oregon HI — Hawaii PA — Pennsylvania IL — Illinois RI — Rhode Island IN — Indiana SC — South Carolina IA — Iowa SD — South Dakota KS — Kansas TN — Tennessee KY — Kentucky TX — Texas LA — Louisiana VT — Vermont ME — Maine VA — Virginia MD — Maryland WA — Washington MA — Massachusetts WV — West Virginia MI — Michigan WI — Wisconsin MN — Minnesota WY — Wyoming MO — Missouri MT — Montana NB — Nebraska NV — Nevada APPENDIX F PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 296 297 PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Have you taken a beginning motorcycle rider course? A. Yes ___ B. No ___ 2 . Did you initially take and pass an examination to obtain a restricted license for moped drivers? A. Yes ___ B. No ___ 3. Did you study any materials relative to moped driving and riding prior to purchasing your moped? A. Yes ___ B. No ___ 4. Do you have a motorcycle endorsement on your driver license? A. Yes ___ B. No ___ 5. If a moped rider course was offered in your area, would you take it? A. Yes ___ B. No ___ 6. Are you aware of the current changes in Michigan's moped laws? A. Yes ___ B. No ___ 7. From whom did you initially learn to drive a vehicle? A. Driver Education Course _ D. Friend ___ B. Commercial Driving School ___ E. NA ___ C. Family ___ 8 . From whom did you learn to drive a moped? C. Dealer ___ A. Family ___ B. Friend ___ D. Instructor____ 9. 10. What type safety equipment do you normally wear when riding your moped? A. Helmet ___ E. Eye protection ___ B. Boots ___ F. Visible clothing ___ C. Gloves ___ G. All of the above ___ D. Protective Clothing ___ H. None of the above ___ What type safety equipment do you feel is most important for the moped driver to wear? A. Helmet ___ E. Eye protection ___ B. Boots ___ F. Visible clothing ___ C. Gloves ___ G. All of the above ___ D. Protective Clothing ___ H. None of the above ___ 298 11. How A. B. C. many hours a week do you ride your moped? _ 0-5 D. 16-20 6-10 E. 21 and above ____ 11-15 12. How long is thenormal usual trips? A. 0-15 minutes ___ B. 16-30 minutes ___ C. 31-45 minutes ___ duration of your moped drive on D. E. 46-60 minutes ___ 60 minutes plus ___ 13. What is the major purpose behind the use of your moped? A. Recreation ___ D. Work ___ B. Business ___ E. Other ___ C. Economy ___ 14. In what location do you normally ride? C. Country A. Residential ____ B. City_________ ___ D. Expressway 15. Where, in terms of location on the highway, do you have more problems interacting with other drivers? A. On hills C. At intersections ___ B. On curves D. At bridges ___ 16. Can you ride a bicycle? A. Yes B. No 17. Had you driven a motorcycle prior to purchasing your moped? A. Yes _____ B.No____ 18. How many hours of moped driving instruction did you have prior to purchasing your moped? ___ A. 0-5 D. 16-20 B. 6-10 E. 21 and above C. 11-15 ___ 19. How you A. B. C. 20. How were you feeling emotionally before the accident occurred? A. Upset _____ D. Mad ___ B. Calm _____ E.Depressed____ C. Excited F. Other ___ many hours of driving experience with a moped did have prior to purchasing your moped? 0-10 ___ D. 31-40 ___ E. 41 and above 11-20 21-30 ___ 299 21. 22. How were you feeling occurred? _ C. A. Sick B. Well _ D. Can and A. (If physically before theaccident Fatigued ___ Other ___ you recount step by step the events leading up to causing the accident? Yes ___ B. No ___ yes, please state these) 2 3. .Are there any other factors involved in the accident other than what I have asked you? APPENDIX G PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ACCORDING TO CONTENT AREAS OF INTEREST 300 301 PERSONAL INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE ACCORDING TO CONTENT AREAS OF INTEREST EXPOSURE 11. How A. B. C. many hours a week do you ride your moped? 0-5 D. 16-20 _ 6-10 E. 21 and above 11-15 ___ 12. How long is the normal usual trips? A. 0-15 minutes ___ B. 16-30 minutes ___ C. 31-45 minutes duration of your moped drive on D. E. ___ 46-60 minutes 60 minutes plus ___ 13. What is the major purpose behind the use of your moped? A. Recreation D. Work ___ B. Business E. Other ___ C . Economy ___ 14. In what location do you normally ride? C. Country ___ A. Residential ___ B. City D. Expressway ___ 15. Where, in terms of location on the highway, do you have more problems interacting with other drivers? A. On hills ___ C. At intersections ___ B. On curves D. At bridges ___ EXPERIENCE 4. Do you have a motorcycle endorsement on your driver license? A. Yes B. No 16. Can you ride a bicycle? A. Yes B. No 17. Had you driven a motorcycle prior to purchasing your moped? A. Yes B. No 19. How you A. B. C. many hours have prior 0-10 ___ 11-20 ___ 21-30 of driving experience with a moped did to purchasing your moped? D. 31-40________ ___ E. 41 and above ___ 30 2 EDUCATION 1. Have you taken a beginning motorcycle rider course? A. Yes _____ B.No____ 2. Did you initially take and pass an examination to obtain a restricted license for moped drivers? A. Yes _____ B.No____ 3. Did you study any materials relative to moped driving and riding prior to purchasing your moped? A. Yes B. No 5. If a moped rider course was offered in your area, would you take it? A. Yes B. No 6. Are you aware of the current changes in Michigan's moped laws? A. Yes B. No 7. From A. B. C. whom did you initialy learn to drive a vehicle? Driver Education Course _____ D. Friend _ Commercial Driving school _____ E. NA ___ Family ___ 8. From whom did you learn to drive a moped? A. Family _____ C. Dealer ___ B. Friend D. Instructor 18. How many hours of moped driving instruction did you have prior to purchasing your moped? A. 0-5 D. 16-20 ___ B. 6-10 E. 21 and above C. 11-15 SAFETY EQUIPMENT What type safety equipment do you normally wear when riding your moped? A. Helmet E. Eye protection B. Boots F. Visible clothing C. Gloves G. All of the above D. Protective Clothing ___ H. None of the above 10. What type safety equipment do you feel is most important for the moped driver to wear? A. Helmet E. Eye protection B. Boots F. Visible clothing C. Gloves G. All of the above D. Protective Clothing ___ H. None of the above 303 FEELINGS AND REACTIONS TO ACCIDENT 20. How were you feeling emotionally before the accident occurred? A. Upset ___ D. Mad __ B. Calm ___ E. Depressed ___ C. Excited ___ F. Other ___ 21. How were you feeling occurred? A. Sick _ C. B. Well _ D. physically before theaccident Fatigued ___ Other ___ 22. Can and A. (If you recount step by step theevents leading causing the accident? Yes ___ B. No yes, please state these) up to 23. Are there any other factors involved in the accident other than what I have asked you? APPENDIX H DEALER QUESTIONNAIRE 304 305 DEALER QUESTIONNAIRE 1. Do you offer any formal instruction for moped buyers? A. Yes B. No____ 2. Do you have a curriculum complete with instructional in­ formation which could be given to moped buyers? A. Yes B. No____ 3. Do you suggest to moped buyers to take a beginning motor­ cycle rider course before purchasing the moped? A. Yes ___ B. No____ 4. Are you familiar with the current changes in Michigan's moped laws? A. Yes B. No____ 5. Do you feel the average moped buyer is properly educated in driving a moped before purchasing it? A. Yes B. No____ 6. Do you anticipate a rise in sales for small motorcycles now considered a moped? A. Yes B. No____ 7. What has been the purchasing trend in moped sales since you first began selling them? A. Increased ___ C. Stayed about the same B. Decreased ___ 8. What type safety equipment do most of your moped cus­ tomers buy? A. Helmet D. Visible clothing _ B. Gloves E. All of the above _ C. Protective clothing ____ F. None of the above ___ 9. Do you normally ask a young consumer his/her age when they are inquiring about purchasing a moped? A. Yes ___ B. No____ 10. Do you feel that an insurance requirement should be placed upon mopeds? A. Yes B. No 306 11. Which single piece of safety equipment do you feel is most important for a moped driver to wear? D. Visible clothing A. Helmet ___ E. Protective clothing B. Gloves ___ C. Boots 12 . What changes would you like to see in Michigan's current moped laws? 13. Whom do you feel should be responsible for educating the moped drivers? APPENDIX I DEALER QUESTIONNAIRE ACCORDING TO CONTENT AREAS OF INTEREST 307 30 8 DEALER QUESTIONNAIRE ACCORDING TO CONTENT AREAS OF INTEREST EDUCATION 1. Do you offer any formal instruction for moped buyers? A. Yes B. No____ 2. Do you have a curriculum complete with instructional in­ formation which could be given to moped buyers? A. Yes B. No____ 3. Do you suggest to moped buyers to take a beginning motor­ cycle rider course before purchasing the moped? A. Yes B. No 5. Do you feel the average moped buyer is properly educated in driving a moped before purchasing it? A. Yes B. No SAFETY EQUIPMENT 8. What type safety equipment do most of your moped cus­ tomers buy? A. Helmet ___ D. Visible clothing __ B. Gloves ___ E. All of the above __ C. Protective clothing ___ F. None of the above __ 11. Which single piece of safety equipment do you feel is most important for a moped driver to wear? A. Helmet ___ D. Visible clothing B. Gloves ___ E. Protective clothing C. Boots MOPED RETAILING 6. Do you anticipate a rise in sales for small motorcycles now considered a moped? A. Yes B. No 7. What has been the purchasing trend in moped sales since you first began selling them? A. Increased ___ C. Stayed about the same B. Decreased 309 9. Do you normally ask a young consumer his/her age when they are inquiring about purchasing a moped? A. Yes ___ B. No____ MICHIGAN'S MOPED LAWS 4. Are you familiar with the current changes in Michigan's moped laws? A. Yes ___ B. No____ 10. Do you feel that an insurance requirement should be placed upon mopeds? A. Yes ___ B. No____ 12. What changes would you like to see in Michigan's current moped laws? 13. Whom do you feel should be responsible for educating the moped driver? APPENDIX J WARNING LETTER 310 311 M I C H I G A N D E P A R T M E N T RICHARD H . AUSTIN O P S T A T E SECRETARY O F STATE BUREAU OP DRIVER IMPROVEMENT PAGE 32 E X H IB IT 4 IA N S IN O M IC H IG A N 4 S 9 I S STA TE SECONOARY COMPLEX 7044 CROWMER ORIVE (US 27 4 ■ ). I f • ! Lfnaiflfl NOVEMBER *♦ 1910 WARNING LETTER SEAR ATTACHES IS A COPY OP YOUR DRIVING RECORD. YOUR DRIVER LICENSE m a y BE SUSPENSES ANS/OR RESTRICTED IP YOU CONTINUE TO RECEIVE TRAPPIC TICKETS. YOU WILL BE CALLED IN POR A DRIVER IMPROVEMENT INTERVIEW WHEN YOU REACH 12 POINTS. AT 12 POINTS! A REVIEW OP VOUR RECORD WILL PROBABLY RESULT IN LOSS OP YOUR LICENSE. PLEASE CHANGE YOUR DRIVING HABITS* DRIVE. RESPECTFULLY. PAUL BERTRAM. DIRECTOR RE-EXAMINATION DIVISION BUREAU OP DRIVER IMPROVEMENT PB/RT OP-44 ONLY YOU CAN CONTROL THE WAY YOU o e t . L i . u n V X J .1 |0 HO|( PAGE 29 (R e v is e d 3 -8 -8 2 ) M IC H IG A N 'S P O IN T SY ST E M O p e r a t i n g •» m a t e r v e h ic le w h ile i r l i i i c i l i A , * r u ab c r III* Influ v * * * * f • • O p » > « iln < * v e h i c l e w h i l e A b ility v i s i b l y I m y a l r e i t b p i M * i l l » l l n ( l i ^ i t r ar d ru g * • • r . i f « e i ! i « j ( h e t i m f ’i l i g r i J U aiU b y * • * ! H i m m i le * p e e h u e • • • • • • • « • • • • • • • • f l f l w p t s | 9 n n 4 IS * i l t l p e r Iwvr • • » • • • • • • • • • • • • • « • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • « 4 4 J a 9 IIO T K : r o i « r s hit* C 9 . ’» f C 9 UT C 9 K I C QACK T W V R A f l i » n « * * THC O A f C O # APPENDIX K CORRESPONDENCE LETTER 313 314 MI CHI GAN DEPARTMENT OF STATE s A c t i o n V IZ I PAGE 30 EXHIBIT 3 (R e v ise d 3 -8 -8 2 ) LANSING STATE SECONDARY COMPLEX 70*4 CROWNERDRIVE (U127. * M. *W«# lm n |! MICHIGAN 4E9II CORRESPONDENCE LETTER Dear Michigan Driver: In adding points fo r a recent t r a f f i c t i c k e t to your driving record, we find th a t you have accumulated more points in the past two years than most o th e r d riv e rs. .i ' An extra e f f o r t to drive defensively and obey t r a f f i c laws w ill help you avoid additional tic k e ts o r accidents. Highway s a fe ty is important to a l l of us; won't you help us make Michigan safe? Sincerely, C v 7 zyet.AK.tPaul Bertram, Director Re-examination Division Ami ( | 0 *iOiC I f you continue to receive tic k e ts o r are responsible for acc id e nts, you may be required to appear for a review o f your record. This w ill probably r e s u l t in suspension of your lic e n se . 4q Included with th is l e t t e r is a copy of your d riving record. The points shown on your record will count a g a in st you fo r two y e a r s from the date of conviction. 315 hQ6>e Nn |4 I iEi ■ tw u iu n v i i i PAGE 29 (R e v is e d 3 -8 -8 2 ) M IC H IG A N 'S P O IN T S Y S T E M Palm* Me a si » u 4 !»•«#, m ( I i e « h i h i M i c t d i e# e t h e r f e l e e p • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • « • • • • • • • • O in n iiA d m m a te r v e h ic le w liiit •* I % ih A e e t h e t n l t u e e c a • ( M t t l l l l i • • • • | C iftlm .................... d ii« in | aO O p p 'M i d j m w h ile e i i l i tp Im p a lre r! b p fla tte r « r d n g i ( h e U e t 'i l i p p « J l i e l i b p e « t i h M I I a i l t i p H l e w ........... fle iw e e * |9 « n 4 l l e « l « l p i r M u r .................................................. O p |0 p i r Im w n l e e * • • .• • • • • • • • • ...• • • • ...• • * D lie b * fiM 4 A ll e t h e r Km iIi u * i e e tr u l.w tilp filh « r b M p fM p d p e i i I n i v l e l .t O » e » ....................................................................................... ■ iu m n .-p i in i«4i HO?K: P O ir;r> C 9 V » f C 9 V t C 9 ' n 6 QACK T P O V f f A l b t P A 9 M • * 1 S 1 I BIBLIOGRAPHY 316 317 BIBLIOGRAPHY Aldman, Bertil, and Thorson, Jan. "Motorization and Traffic Mortality in Sweden." Accident Analysis and Pre­ vention. Vol. 3, No. 3~ (October, 1971) , pi 221. Buchanan, Lewis S. "Moped Safety: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Program Development and Re­ search." Vol. 26, No. 1, (October, 1977), p. 6. Bygren, Lars Olov. "The Driver's Exposure to Risk of Acci­ dent." Scandinavian Journal of Social Medicine. Vol. 2, No. 2l (October, 19 74), pp. 60-64. Carlson, Dwight R. "Motorcycle and Moped Education Programs Mandated in Iowa." Journal of Traffic Safety Edu­ cation. Vol. 28, No. 2, (January, 1981), p. 23. Caunter, C. F. The History and Development of Motorcycles. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1955. Christensen, Howard B. Statistics Step By Step. Houghton Mifflin Company, 19 77. Consumer Reports. p. 319. "Mopeds." Boston: Vol. 43, No. 6, (June, 1978), Control Data Corporation. Fortran Version 5 . Sunnyvale, California: Publications and Graphics Division, 1983. Dutch Records. "Cited by" National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. An Analysis of Mopeds as a Po­ tential Safety Problem in the United States, Volume I: Review of the Literature and Data Search. By William Hunter and Jane C. Stutts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. Evans, Michael L. "How Safe Are Mopeds?" Journal of Traffic Safety Education. Vol. 25, No. 1, (October, 1977) , p. 6. "Improving the Moped's Status and Safety." Journal of Traffic Safety Education. Vol. 25, No. T~, (April, 1978) , p. 10. 318 Graybill, Margie B. "The Moped Report." Journal of Traffic Safety Education. Vol. 27, No. 2, (January, 1980), p. 10. Hartford, Bill. "How To Stay Alive On A Motorized Bicycle." Popular Mechanics. Vol. 144, No. 6, (December, 1975), p. 56. Hunter, William W . , and Stutts, Jane C. Mopeds: An Analy­ sis of 1976-1978 North Carolina Accidents. Chapel Hill, North Carolina: University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, 1979. Institute for Road Safety Research. "Pedestrians, TwoWheelers, and Road Safety. A Statistical Comparison of Pedestrian, Cyclist, and Moped-Rider Road Traf­ fic Fatalities in the Netherlands from 1968-1972." Perceptual and Motor Skills. Vol. 45, (AugustDecember, 1977), p. 339. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "Study Predicts Accelerating Crash Toll of Moped Riders." Status Report. Vol. 14, No. 16, (October, 1979), pT Yl Jamieson, K. G . , and Tait, I. A. Traffic Injury in Bris­ bane . Brisbane, Australia: Department of Neurol­ ogy and Neurosurgery Royal Brisbane Hospital, 1966. Johnson, Adam G. "What's Ahead for Mopeds and Motor­ cycles." Traffic Safety. Vol. 80, No. 3, (March, 1980) , p. IT. Kaywood, Richard et al. Drive Right. Glenview, Illinois: Scott, Foresman, and Company, 19 82. ________ . "The Role of Education in Preventing Moped Ac­ cidents." Journal of Traffic Safety Education. Vol. 25, No" 4~, (July, 19 78) , pp. 33-34. Langway, Lynn. "The Moped Moment." 1977), p. 56. Newsweek. (May 23, Licht, Kenneth F. "The Mopeds Are Coming." Traffic Safety. Vol. 77, No. 4, (April, 1977), p. 12. McIntosh, Laurie J. "Moped Accident Analysis Yields Pre­ liminary Data." Journal of Traffic Safety Educa­ tion. Vol. 26, NoT 7~, (January, 1979) , pp. 25-26. 319 Michigan, "Act No. 439 of the Public Acts of 1976." Public and Local Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Department of Manage­ ment and Budget, 19 76. ________ . "Act No. 91 of the Public Acts of 198 3." Public and Local Acts of the Legislature of the State of Michigan. Lansing, Michigan: Department of Management and Budget, 1983. Michigan Department of State. Michigan's Moped Registration. A Report. Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1983. ________ . 19 83 Michigan Vehicle Code. The Department, 19 83. Lansing, Michigan: ________ . Motorcycles and Mopeds. A Handbook. Michigan: The Department, 19 76. Lansing, ________ . What Every Motorcycle and Moped Operator Must Know . . .. A Handbook. Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 1983. ________ . What Every Motorcyclist Must Know . . . And Mopeds. A Handbook. Lansing, Michigan: The De­ partment, 19 81. Michigan State Police. Accident Analyzer Program. Michigan: The Department, n.d. ________ . Accident Master File Tape Layout. Michigan: The Department, 1976. Lansing, Lansing, ________ . Moped Accidents. Five Reports. East Lansing, Michigan: The Department, 19 78-19 82. Moped Association of America. Learn the Big 5 of Moped Safety and Pleasure. A Pamphlet. Montvale, New Jersey: The Association, 1978. ________ . State Moped Laws. A Pamphlet. Jersey: The Association, 1983. ________ . What is a Moped? A Pamphlet. Jersey: The Association, 1980. Montvale, New Montvale, New National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Development and Testing of Techniques for Increasing the Conspicuity of Motorcycles and Motorcycle Drivers. By Olson, et al. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. 320 ________ . Development of Aerodynamic Disturbance Test Pro­ cedures , Volume I: Executive Summary. By Richard H. Klexn and Jeffrey R. Hogue. Washxngton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 1979. ________ . "Moped Accident Rate Predicted to Soar." National Traffic Safety Newsletter. (NovemberDecember, 19 79), p. 12. ________ . Moped Education For Iowans. By Iowa Department of Public Instruction. Washington, D.C.s U.S. Department of Transportation, 1981. ________ . Moped Task Analysis. By A. James McKnight, et al. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Trans­ portation, 1980. ________ . The Moped Report. By Ohio State Department of Education. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation, 19 78. Nie, Norman et al. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Second Edxtxon. New York, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1975. Stoke, Charles B. Mopeds - Bicycle or Motorcycle? Char­ lotte svi 11 e7vrrgxnxTr~HxgHway^afetynDx'vi s ion of Virginia, 1978. The Department of Energy. Regional Analysis of Highway Energy Use. Washington, D.C.: The Department, 1980. "The Risks in Moped Riding— and How to Avoid Them." Edited by Bradley Htichings. BusinessWeek. No. 2494, (August 1, 1977), pp. 65-66. Webster*s New World Dictionary. s.v. "Moped." Edited by Davxd B. Guralnxk. New York: William Collins World Publishing Co., Inc., 1974. Wigan, M. R . , and Carter, A. J. "Mopeds and the Australian User Profile." Proceedings Volume IV, International Motorcycle Safety Conference. Washxngton, D.C.: n.p., 1980.