improving consumer information about motorcycle protective

Comments

Transcription

improving consumer information about motorcycle protective
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing IMPROVING CONSUMER INFORMATION
ABOUT MOTORCYCLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
PRODUCTS
Liz de Rome, Tom Gibson, Narelle Haworth,
Rebecca Ivers, Chika Sakashita & Paul Varnsverry
JANUARY 2012
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing products (2012)
was prepared for the Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (MAA), under the auspices of the
Australian Heads of CTP.
The project was led by Liz de Rome with Rebecca Ivers and Chika Sakashita from The
George Institute for Global Health, The University of Sydney.
Co-investigators were: Tom Gibson (Human Impact Engineering, Sydney), Narelle Haworth
(Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety– Queensland, Queensland University of
Technology) and Paul Varnsverry, PVA Technical File Services Limited (UK).
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (MAA), under the auspices of the Australian Heads
of CTP, commissioned a study of the potential options for increasing the availability of
credible consumer information regarding motorcycle safety clothing.
A review of the literature highlighted the increasing participation in motorcycling in
Australasia and the associated increase in the numbers of motorcycle crash injuries. While
there is evidence that specialized motorcycle protective clothing may significantly reduce the
risk and severity of injuries in crashes, there is also evidence that over 25% of the protective
clothing worn by motorcyclists in Australia is of inferior quality and may fail under crash
conditions.
The researchers investigated a range of existing consumer information programs in road
safety and other sectors, to identify the features of different business models. An international
search of motorcycle clothing rating regimes found the most comprehensive and objective
program available to be the tests specified under the European Standards for motorcycle
protective clothing.
Consultations with riders and key stakeholders in the motorcycle accessories industry in
Australia and New Zealand found no significant barriers to the proposition of an independent
consumer testing and information program. Riders were generally supportive with the caveat
that such a program must not lead to compulsory usage of protective clothing. A substantial
proportion indicated that they would be willing to pay higher prices for protective clothing
that has been independently tested and accredited. Industry stakeholders were concerned that
they would be expected to absorb the costs of such a program, but did see some potential for
such a program assisting them to compete with cheap low quality imports. Industry support
for independent testing may increase as the provisions of the new Australian Consumer Law
(ACL) become more widely known. Under this Act, anyone in the supply chain (e.g.
manufacturer, importer, retailer or hirer), can be held liable if a product is found to be unsafe.
The findings of this report suggest that an independent scheme for testing and rating
motorcycle protective clothing could increase usage rates and reduce injuries, by enabling
riders to make informed purchasing decisions. It would also provide incentives to industry to
focus on higher quality products and would reduce the marketability of those found to be not
fit for purpose. Options for quantifying the potential benefits of improved quality and uptake
of protective clothing in terms of data sources and issues for benefit cost analysis are
discussed.
Five potential models of consumer information/ratings programs were examined to identify
the optimal model for this program. Factors considered included whether products are
assessed on single or multiple dimensions, completeness of coverage, how the ratings are
communicated to consumers, whether the system is mandatory or voluntary, how it relates to
any existing standards and how is it funded.
The recommended model is commonly used in road safety and requires external stakeholders
to provide funding for purchase, testing and promotion of results to intending purchasers. For
example, the Australian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) is funded by a consortium
of motoring organizations and road authorities who independently purchase and crash test
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing cars to specified performance criteria, Tests are generally based on standards and results
made available to the public though stakeholder communication networks. While this model
requires significant input of resources from the accrediting body, it has several important
advantages. It is not dependent on the support of either industry or consumers but, as the
ANCAP program has demonstrated, this approach operates most effectively by educating
consumers and thus shaping market demand for higher quality products. Over time the
changing market demand would be expected to create a more inviting business case for
industry to engage proactively with the program. As with ANCAP it would be recommended
that manufacturers be encouraged to take part by paying for the testing of their products
rather than waiting to be independently selected.
This model also has the potential to avoid the problems that have arisen in Europe where
testing is the responsibility of manufacturers. This has resulted in many of the largest
manufacturers avoiding the requirements of compliance with the European Standards by
avoiding any reference to safety when marketing their motorcycle clothing products.
With a funding base that is independent of industry, a star system may be more able than a
voluntary industry standard to withstand pressure to reduce the performance requirements.
Thus, the independent star system would potentially have greater safety benefits for
motorcyclists. In addition to ANCAP other current examples include the Child Restrain
Evaluation Program (CREP) and the Consumer Rating and Assessment of Safety Helmets
(CRASH). The essential features are that the tests are objectively validated and the
methodology and criteria transparent.
Further work, including focus groups, will be required to refine the presentation of results
(star ratings systems) to ensure they are readily comprehensible to the target audience.
Essentially, it is proposed that ratings be based on two separate dimensions. Each garment
would be rated firstly on injury protection and, secondly, on user comfort. The latter to
comprise weather protection, water penetration, thermal comfort and ergonomics. It is
proposed that a thermal manikin be used to ensure consistency and reliability in the thermal
testing. As there are a number of appropriate water penetration and thermal comfort standards
available, further work will be required to determine which would be optimal when used in
combination with the injury protection tests. Injury protection performance and ergonomics
would be evaluated using the equipment and test methodologies specified for the European
standards for motorcycle protective clothing.
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CONTENTS The brief
1 The scope of the report
2
CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
3 Injury risk and costs of motorcycle crashes
4 Crash data and injury incidence
The frequency and severity of injuries
Injury costs
Injury risk reduction and motorcycle protective clothing
The MAIDS study (Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study)
The Gear study – effectiveness of motorcycle protective clothing
Quality And Failure Rates Of Motorcycle Clothing Products
Ride Magazine product tests
The Gear Study – product quality findings
Usage of motorcycle PPE
5 6 9 10 10 11 13 13 13 14
CHAPTER 2 - PRODUCT TESTS AND RATING SCHEMES FOR MOTORCYCLE
PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
21 Currently existing motorcycle clothing evaluation regimes
The European Standards for motorcycle protective clothing
background research and the evidence base for the european standards
22 22 22 The development of the European Standards for motorcycle protective clothing 23 Inter-product compatibility
24 Compliance with the European Standards
25 Industry support and compliance
26 Regulation of protective clothing in motorcycle sports
26 Motorcycle helmet rating schemes
27 Safety helmet assessment and rating program (SHARP)
27 Consumer rating and assessment of safety helmets (CRASH)
27 Consumer product information, reviews and ratings programs
28 Motorcycle magazine product reviews
Ride Magazine (UK)
Motorrad magazine (Germany)
Victorian motorcycle protective clothing consumer awareness program
28 29 29 29
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CHAPTER 3 - CONSUMER RATING AND EVALUATION PROGRAMS
39 Identifying and classifying consumer information programs
39 Consumer information programs in vehicle and road safety
New and used car safety rating programs
40 40 Effects of car safety rating programs on purchase decisions
41 Other vehicle and road safety rating systems
42 Rating systems in other industries
Efficacy and cost-effectiveness
The different business models
43 45 52
CHAPTER 4 - CONSUMER CONSULTATIONS AND FURTHER RESEARCH55 Industry consultations
55 Rider consultations
56 The samples
Ownership and usage of protective clothing
Purchasing of protective clothing
Discussion and conclusions
The use of safety in protective clothing advertisements
Background to the study.
Aims and Method
Results
56 57 57 58 58 59 59 59
CHAPTER 5 - QUANTIFYING THE ECONOMIC AND HUMAN COSTS OF
MOTORCYCLE CRASHES
62 Introduction
62 Approaches to quantifying motorcycle road crash costs
62 Types of data required
Available sources of data and their limitations
Road crash data
Injury surveillance and claims data
Hospital admissions data
65 67 67 68 69 Injury insurance claims
69 Injury costs
69 Management of data limitations
70 Options for quantifying the potential benefits of improved quality and uptake of protective
clothing.
74 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Methodological imperative 1:
75
Methodological imperative 2:
75 Methodological imperative 3:
76
CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
83 Introduction
83 Current sources of consumer information about motorcycle safety clothing
Motorcycle clothing test and evaluation regimes
Test facilities
83 84 84 Relevant features of the motorcycle clothing market in Australasia.
Models of consumer information programs
The feasibility in the Australian and New Zealand context
85 85 86 Recommended approach and mechanisms
89 Business model
89 Administration
89 Testing
89 Publication of results
90 Rating and reporting
90 APPENDICES
A. European Standards for Motorcycle Protective Equipment (PPE)
93
B. RIDE test results
94
C. Rating schemes - decision matrix
103
D. Rider survey
113
E. Data for cost estimates
123
F.
Test Facilities for EU Motorcycle PPE Standards
132
G. Standards for Thermal and Water Penetration test
133
H. Facilities for Thermal and Water Penetration tests
134
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing IMPROVING CONSUMER INFORMATION ABOUT
MOTORCYCLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING PRODUCTS
THE BRIEF
The Motor Accidents Authority of NSW (MAA), under the auspices of the Australian Heads
of CTP, commissioned a study of the potential options for increasing the availability of
credible consumer information for motorcycle safety clothing.
The project team was coordinated by The George Institute for Global Health and includes
representatives of CARRS-Q, Human Impact Engineering (Sydney) and PVA Technical File
Services Limited (UK).
The current report is the first phase of a two part project. The aim of the first phase was to
identify options and assess the feasibility of increasing the availability of credible information
about the effectiveness of motorcycle protective clothing products in the Australasian market.
A range of options were to be considered including, but not only, the establishment of an
evidence-based rating program. The report is intended to provide sufficient information to
provide a framework and direction for a possible second phase. Should the second phase
proceed, it will involve a detailed cost benefit analysis and business case for implementation
of the options identified in phase
Structure of the report
Chapter 1 provides the outcome of a targeted review of the literature and available evidence
as to the risk, injury and cost reduction benefits of motorcycle protective clothing.
Chapter 2 provides a critical assessment of existing motorcycle protective clothing rating
and/or testing' regimes both nationally and internationally.
Chapter 3 reports on existing consumer information programs and what is known about their
efficacy and cost-effectiveness in road safety and other sectors.
Chapter 4 reports on the outcomes of industry and rider consultations in Australia and New
Zealand and further research into the likely impacts of improved consumer information about
protective clothing.
Chapter 5 outlines options for quantifying the economic and human costs of road crashes
involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers, and the potential benefits of improved quality
and uptake of protective clothing.
Chapter 6 describes the options for improving the availability of consumer information about
motorcycle safety clothing. It discusses the feasibility of each of the identified options in the
Australian and New Zealand context.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing THE SCOPE OF THE REPORT
This report is concerned with motorcycle protective clothing designed for riding on-road.
Protective equipment designed for off-road riding has been excluded as it is usually very
specialised and designed for impacts not directly applicable to on-road riding. The range of
products examined includes jackets, pants, one-piece suits, gloves and boots in addition to
impact protectors for the limbs and back. As helmets are already the subject of an Australian/
New Zealand standard, they are not the primary focus of investigation but are included in the
proposed options for consumer information systems.
The primary focus is on protection from injury in a crash, but also takes account of the
functionality of clothing. Discomfort and heat-related stress are recognised factors associated
with protective clothing in many industries, where protection from hazards has to be provided
at a cost to comfort and flexibility (James 2002). This is because the materials required to
provide injury protection tend to be heavier than normal clothing and, by creating
physiological stress, may potentially increase crash risk for motorcyclists (EEVC 1993). In
addition to the potential crash risk, heat is also a significant factor in discouraging usage of
protective clothing (de Rome 2011).
The aim of this project is to outline the options for increasing the availability of reliable
independent information about the protective performance of motorcycle clothing products to
riders in Australia and New Zealand. Options to be considered include the possibility of
developing a national and cross-Tasman regime for the testing and rating of motorcycle
protective clothing. The focus is the provision and promotion of reliable information to
consumers, not the development of any regulatory frameworks or government enforcement
policies.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
2
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
Motorcyclists represent an increasing proportion of road crash casualties in Australia and
around the world. This is due to the increasing number of riders, as motorcycles have become
the fastest growing sector of motor vehicles globally (Rogers 2008). Motorcyclists also have
a higher risk of injury than other motorised road users who are protected by a vehicle shell.
The safety measures routinely fitted to motor cars in order to safeguard the vehicle occupants
from injury in a road traffic accident are almost entirely absent from motorcycles. Vehiclemounted systems include crash bars and air bags, but neither have proven a reliable or viable
mechanism for general use due to the variety of pre-crash and collision motions of riders and
motorcycles. Crash bars have been found to be effective in some situations but the agents of
injury in others (Craig 1983, Mackay 1986, Ouellet et al. 1987, Sporner et al. 1990). While
test results are encouraging, the effectiveness of airbags in motorcycle crashes is yet to
proven (Ijima et al. 1998, Dragčević et al. 2009b, Thollon et al. 2010). A recent report to the
European Transport Safety Council concluded that the development of airbags mounted on
motorcycles will be a protracted task, particularly as the trend towards taller cars (people
carriers, minivans and SUVs) increases the risk of severe injury crashes. Collisions involving
vehicles with high, steep fronts or sides are more likely to result in the rider’s head impacting
the roof frame with higher risk of severe injury (ETSC 2008).
A number of researchers have concluded that effective injury prevention is most likely to
come from protection systems worn by the rider rather than attached to the motorcycle (Craig
1983, Nordentoft et al. 1984, Ouellet et al. 1987, Sporner et al. 1990). Motorcycle helmets
have been identified as an effective measure for reducing the risk of death or severe injury in
motorcycle crashes (Liu et al. 2008). Most recently, work has also been done on fall
dynamics for the development of airbags integrated into motorcycle jackets (Bellati et al.
2006, Dragčević et al. 2009a). Less attention has been paid to the injury reduction benefits of
motorcycle clothing but there is evidence that a significant proportion of motorcycle injuries
may be reduced or prevented by the use of effective protective clothing (Schuller et al. 1986,
EEVC 1993, Otte et al. 2002, ACEM 2004, de Rome et al. 2011a).
Despite such evidence, it is apparent that relatively few riders wear full motorcycle protective
clothing when they ride (Reeder et al. 1996, ACEM 2004, de Rome et al. 2004, Watson et al.
2008). Research into non-usage of protective clothing suggests that there is a range of
associated factors including riders’ age, lack of information, type of motorcycle, and
scepticism about its protective value (de Rome et al. 2011b), journeys purpose (de Rome
2006, Watson et al. 2008). In particular, hot weather has been cited as a factor in non-usage
of protective clothing (Koch and Brendicke 1998, Manzardo 2006, de Rome et al. 2011b).
The challenge for industry has been to provide protection from injury and weather conditions
without restricting the riders ease of movement or causing discomfort or fatigue.
Standards for motorcycle protective clothing were issued in Europe in the late 1990s. This
provided benchmarks and incentives for manufacturers to develop improved products (EEVC
1993). Despite the ensuing technical developments and new products, few European
manufacturers submit their products for testing, circumventing the need for compliance by
avoiding any reference to safety or protection in product descriptions.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
3
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing INJURY RISK AND COSTS OF MOTORCYCLE CRASHES
In Australia and New Zealand, as in many other high income countries, there has been a
substantial increase in the numbers of motorcycles registered and the number of rider
casualties. In the five years from 2004 and 2008, the reported numbers of motorcyclists
injured increased by 21% in Australia and almost doubled (94%) in New Zealand (ABS
2011, Ministry of Transport 2011, NZTA 2011). A risk rate is calculated as the number of
fatalities or injuries per 10,000 registered motorcycles. Thus while the numbers of reported
fatalities and injuries have gone up in each country, the risk rates have declined or remained
relatively stable. See Table 1.1 and Figure 1.1.
Table 1.1 Motorcycle casualties and casualty rates Australia and New Zealand†.
Australia
Motorcycle registrations*
Motorcycle fatalities
Fatality rate**
Motorcycle injuries
Injury rate**
New Zealand
Motorcycle registrations*
Motorcycle fatalities
Fatality rate**
Motorcycle injuries
Injury rate**
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2004-08
396
191
4.8
6,969
176.0
422
233
5.5
7,366
174.5
463
238
5.1
7,590
163.9
512
237
4.6
7,679
150.0
568
245
4.3
8,421
148.3
624
224
3.6
NA
NA
660
214
3.2
NA
NA
+43%
+28%
-11%
+21%
-16%
59
34
5.8
721
122.9
64
36
5.6
903
141.6
75
38
5.1
1,017
135.3
85
41
4.8
1,336
156.5
97
50
5.2
1,396
144.0
101
48
4.7
1,369
134.9
100
50
5.0
1,300
130.1
+65%
+47%
-11%
+94%
+17%
† Australian figures compiled from data published or provided by each State and Territory road authority. NZ data obtained
from Ministry of Transport 2011, NZTA 2011.
* Registrations ‘000,
**Fatality and injury rates calculated as number per 10,000 registered motorcycles
NA Injury data was not available for all Australian States and Territories at the time of writing.
Figure 1.1 Casualty rates per 10,000 registered motorcycles, 2004-2010
200.0
180.0
176.0
174.5
20.0
150.0
160.0
140.0
80.0
20.0
16.0
14.0
144.0
135.3
122.9
5.8
60.0
40.0
148.3
156.5
141.6
120.0
100.0
18.0
163.9
4.8
134.9
130.1
12.0
10.0
8.0
5.6
5.1
5.5
5.1
4.8
4.6
5.2
4.7
5.0
6.0
4.0
4.3
3.6
3.2
2009
2010
0.0
Injury rate (Aus)
Injury rate (NZ)
Fatalites rate (Aus)
Fatalites rate (NZ)
2.0
0.0
2004
2005
Chapter 1 – Introduction
2006
2007
2008
4
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CRASH DATA AND INJURY INCIDENCE
The true number of motorcycle crash injuries and particularly minor injuries is difficult to
establish, even in countries where road fatality and serious injury records are relatively
accurate. This is due to under reporting of motorcycle crashes to police, and also to the bias
towards serious injuries that is inherent in records provided by hospital systems (Rutledge
and Stutts 1993, Lin and Kraus 2008).
Under-reporting of motorcycle crashes compared to other motor vehicle crashes, particularly
in relation to minor injury and single vehicle motorcycle crashes, has been identified in many
jurisdictions including Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Asia (Cercarelli et al. 1996,
Lopez et al. 2000, Alsop and Langley 2001, Melhuish 2002, ADB 2006, Amoros et al. 2006,
Wilson et al. 2011). A national survey conducted for the UK Department of Transport about
reported and unreported crashes, found that overall, 17% of motorcycle crashes had been
reported to police. This included 24% of injury crashes and 8% of non-injury crashes. Other
studies using hospital data linkage suggest that between 33%-69% of motorcycle crashes in
high income countries are reported to police (Harris 1990, Alsop and Langley 2001, Barros et
al. 2003, Richardson and Paini 2006).
Bias in injury records is due to the exclusion of non-hospitalized injuries from many injury
surveillance systems. In Australia, national injury surveillance systems exclude injured
persons who are treated only at the scene, in emergency departments or by private medical
services (AIHW 2011). A recent State-based study of motorcyclist presentations (n=104) to
emergency departments in Perth, Western Australia over a six month period, found that 63%
were subsequently admitted to hospital (Meuleners et al. 2007).
Population surveys may provide more accurate estimates of the actual proportions of injured
riders. A cohort study of 4,721 junior college students in Taiwan, found that the incidence
rates per 1,000 person-years were 358 crashes to 104 injured and 14 hospitalised (Lin et al.
2001).
Injury claims data is an alternate source of information, but is sometimes limited by the terms
of coverage. For example some schemes exclude casualties who were at-fault or if the crash
was not reported to police. However, the Accident Compensation Commission (ACC) in New
Zealand provides comprehensive no-fault based injury insurance cover for all injuries. Over
the period 2006-2010, there were 19,063 motorcycle road crash injury claims to the ACC, but
only 34% (n = 6,418) motorcycle injury crashes were reported to police (ACC 2011a,
Ministry of Transport 2011). The NZ data on injury claims is likely a reliable estimate of the
true number of motorcycle road crash injuries in New Zealand, but due to differences in
police reporting systems does not provide a means of estimating numbers in other
jurisdictions. The actual burden of injury from motorcycle crashes in Australia is more
difficult to establish and may be substantially higher than is currently recorded in Australian
jurisdictions (Richardson, 2006).
The burden of injury from motorcycle crashes may have repercussions beyond the short term
of an immediate injury. Motorcyclists have a relatively high risk of impairment and disability
following road crashes compared to other road user groups (Bull 1985, Mayou and Bryant
2003, Coben et al. 2007, Crompton et al. 2009, Hours et al. 2010). Their higher levels of
disability have been attributed to the high frequency of head and limb injuries. Most of the
documented research refers to of the disabling consequence head injuries and the
effectiveness of helmets (Rutledge and Stutts 1993, Peek-Asa and Kraus 1997, Hotz et al.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
5
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing 2004, Mertz and Weiss 2008, Crompton et al. 2009). However a retrospective study of
motorcyclists in New Zealand, who had received accident compensation payments for
disablement, found that 68% were associated with mechanical impairment of a limb and 80%
had disfiguring impairments due to soft tissue injuries including scarring and muscle wasting
(Clarke and Langley 1995).
THE FREQUENCY AND SEVERITY OF INJURIES
Distributions of injury severity can be described in terms of the Abbreviated Injury Severity
(AIS) scale, which classifies injury severity from 1 (minor) to 6 (maximal or currently
untreatable) (AAAM 2005). The distribution of injury severity for a sample of casualties can
be in terms of the severity of all recorded injuries, or by the single most serious injury
(MAIS) recorded for each individual.
While most motorcycle crash casualties are likely to sustain multiple injuries, a substantial
proportion will not sustain any severe injuries. The MAIDS European in-depth motorcycle
crash study (n = 923) found almost half (48%) of all injuries recorded were relatively minor
(AIS 1), as was the most serious injury (MAIS) suffered by a substantial proportion (38%) of
crashed motorcyclists (ACEM 2004). Similarly, an in-depth study of 1,082 motorcycle
crashes in Thailand reported similar proportions with minor (AIS 1) accounting for 65% of
all recorded injuries and 74% of the single most serious injury sustained by each rider
(Kasantikul 2001b, a). Twenty years earlier in the US, the respective proportions reported in
the Hurt Study were 62% and 53% (Hurt et al. 1981b). Figure 1.2 illustrates the distribution
of severity of all recorded injuries comparing crashes in Europe, Thailand and the US (Hurt et
al. 1981b, Kasantikul 2001b, ACEM 2004). It should be noted that even for those who also
have serious injuries, the reduction or prevention of additional minor injuries may improve
clinical outcomes by reducing blood loss, pain or the risk of infection from wound
contamination (EEVC 1993)
Figure 1.2 Distribution of severity of all recorded injuries (AIS) comparing crashed riders in
US (Hurt et al 1981b), Thailand (Kasantikul, 2001a,b) and Europe (ACEM, 2004).
Hurt, 1981
70%
Kasantikul, 2001
ACEM, 2004
65%
62%
60%
50%
48%
40%
27%
20%
17%
30%
20%
11%
10%
13%
5%
5% 3%
2%
4% 7% 3%
2% 1% 1%
AIS 3
AIS 4
AIS 5
AIS 6
0%
AIS 1
AIS 2
Figure 1.3 illustrates the relative distribution of the most severe injuries (MAIS) sustained by
riders in the US, Thai and European studies (Hurt et al. 1981b, Kasantikul 2001b, ACEM
2004). These figures suggest that if even just those injuries considered minor (AIS 1) could
be reduced or prevented, the proportion of riders with any injuries could be substantially
reduced.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
6
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Figure 1.3 Distribution of the most serious injury (MAIS) sustained by each rider in USA
(Hurt et al, 1981b) and Europe (ACEM, 2004).
Hurt, 1981
80%
Kasantikul, 2001
ACEM, 2004
74%
70%
60%
53%
50%
38%
40%
30%
34%
22%
20%
12%
12%
10%
16%
8%
6% 3% 4%
4% 3% 5%
3% 1% 2%
MAIS 3
MAIS 4
MAIS 5
MAIS 6
0%
MAIS ≤1
MAIS 2
The distribution of injury type and severity follow similar patterns across time and in
different countries with heads, upper and lower limbs being most frequently injured in
motorcycle crashes.
Table 1.2 provides the distribution and type of injury as described by Otte, Kalbe and Suren
in 1981. The distribution is broadly consistent with that reported by other investigators over
the intervening years and in different countries (Trinca and Dooley 1979, Harms 1981, Hurt
et al. 1981b, Bachulis et al. 1988, Sosin et al. 1990, Koizumi 1992, Ankarath et al. 2002, Liu
et al. 2008, Crandon et al. 2009, Fitzharris et al. 2009, Lin and Kraus 2009, Forman et al.
2011).
Table 1.2 Distribution of type of injury by body part (n=470, Otte et al 1981).
Head
Neck
Shoulder
Thorax
Whole arm
Upper arm
Elbow
Lower arm
Wrist
Hand
Abdomen
Pelvis
Whole leg
Upper leg
Knee
Lower leg
Ankle
Foot
% of all
22.9
1.8
3.8
6.7
18.8
2.5
2.5
4.6
2
6.8
4
30.1
38.9
7.6
11.3
11.8
4.6
3.3
% of all
48.4
8.7
19
19
56.2
12.9
14.5
21.9
11.8
30.2
13.6
13.1
81.2
33.5
19.7
45.7
23
16.2
Soft tissue
39.6
5.7
12.5
12.3
50.6
10.1
13.4
14.5
9.9
27.3
8.3
11
75.7
25.6
48.1
35.7
20.3
14.9
Fractures
14.4
3.3
9
8.5
17.1
4.2
1.7
8.8
1.7
5.2
1.1
3.3
32.2
12.9
3.1
18.6
4.2
3.5
Internal
29.8
0.4
6.3
6.6
0.6
-
Injuries to the head and chest are the type of injuries most likely to be severe, but these are
not the most common type of injury sustained by motorcyclists. In 1993, Hell and Lob found
that 43% of head injuries were severe (AIS≥2) compared to the proportions of lower
extremities (37%), upper extremities (30%), thorax (25%), abdomen (16%), spine (12%) and
Chapter 1 – Introduction
7
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing pelvis (8%) (Hell and Lob 1993). These relative proportions are similar to those reported in
other studies, with highest injury risks to the head and lower extremities but head injuries
most likely to result in death or disability (Pedder et al. 1979, Hurt et al. 1981b, Otte 1987,
Sosin et al. 1990, Ankarath et al. 2002, ACEM 2004, Chen 2006, WHO 2009).
The substantial proportion of relatively minor injuries is critical to the estimation of
motorcycle injury costs and protective clothing because the largest cost savings that could be
made from protective clothing are for non-fatal injuries (EEVC 1993). In addition minor
injuries have been estimated to account for 88% of quality adjusted life years lost due to
injury in the first 6 months following a crash and for 91% over the remaining lifetime
(McClure and Douglas 1996).
Table 1.3 shows the distribution of injuries by body location and type of the primary injury
for motorcycle casualty claims in New Zealand in the financial years 2006-2010 (ACC
2011b). The locations of the most common primary injuries were the arms (n = 4321, 23%)
and legs (n = 4874, 26%). Dislocations/ sprains (27%) and fractures (24%), followed by
bruising or contusions (23%), were the most common types of injury.
Table 1.3 Number of claimants by type and location of primary injury, New
Zealand 2006-2010 (ACC 2011b)
Count of Claims
Arms
n (%) 23%
Feet/
ankles
Hands/
wrists
Head/ face Legs
Torso
Other
(unknown)
Total
10%
11%
8%
26%
19%
4%
100%
Bruising
676 (16)
366 (19) 262 (12) 739 (48)
1,343(28)
826 (23)
82 (12)
4,294 (23)
Burns
311 (7)
6
514 (11)
11 (0)
1
1,035 (5)
Open wounds
614 (14)
236 (12) 331 (15) 425 (28)
(0)
161 (7)
31 (2)
Dislocation/sprain 1,318(31) 706 (36) 606 (28) 6
Fractures
(0)
1,361(31) 653 (33) 798 (37) 100 (7)
1,361 (28) 171 (5)
135 (5)
3,273 (17)
799 (16) 1,605(45)
36 (45)
5,076 (27)
818 (17)
720 (20)
34 (20)
4,484 (24)
70 (2)
8
96
126 (4)
372 (4)
805 (4)
3,529
668
19,063
Internal organ injury -
-
-
18 (1)
-
Other injury
41 (1)
1(0)
14(1)
212 (14)
39
Total (100%)
4,321
1,968
2,172
1,531
4,874
Chapter 1 – Introduction
(0)
(1)
(2)
(1)
8
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing INJURY COSTS
The cost of different types of motorcycle crash related injuries can also be estimated from
claims records from the Accident Compensation Commission (NZ). Cost may be expressed
in terms of dollars or in the number of days off work. Table 1.4 shows the average cost and
Table 1.5 shows the average number of work compensation days paid by location and type
for the primary injury sustained per claimant.
Table 1.4
Average cost of claims by type and location of primary injury, New
Zealand 2006-2010 (ACC 2011b)
Type of injury/
Cost of Claims
Bruising
Arms
Hands/
wrists
$782
Head/
face
$6,414
Legs
Other
Torso
$1,069
Feet/
ankles
$843
$1,049
$2,319
$1,119
Burns
$876
$1,830
$1,236
$930
$493
$0
$360
Open wounds
$948
$3,022
$1,491
$1,566
$1,859
$3,875
$1,033
Dislocation/sprain
$2,538
$1,360
$1,248
$606
$3,281
$5,732
$1,535
Fractures
$6,893
$6,951
$5,557
$13,066 $14,869
$37,224
$13,232
$19,964
$7,726
$15,248
Internal organ injury
Other injury
$4,066
$20,542
$1,267
$4,115
$1,809
$15,819
$2,371
Total
$3,349
$3,329
$2,811
$5,210
$3,908
$12,173
$4,098
Table 1.5
Average number of days work compensation paid by type and location of
primary injury, New Zealand 2006-2010 (ACC 2011b)
Type of injury/
WC Days Paid
(first 12 months)
Bruising
Arms
Feet/
ankles
Hands/
wrists
Head/
face
Legs
Other
Torso
5.5
4.4
4.8
21.9
5.5
17.8
6.1
Burns
3.6
10.2
6.9
3.2
1.8
Open wounds
4.4
19.4
8.2
6.8
10.4
19.0
4.6
Dislocation/sprain
16.7
9.4
8.1
0.0
22.5
32.9
5.4
Fractures
49.7
53.9
39.5
39.1
96.3
101.1
57.7
24.6
45.7
Internal organ injury
93.1
1.0
Other injury
30.2
140.0
7.6
15.6
12.1
19.5
14.7
Total
22.8
24.5
19.2
18.3
24.5
24.1
17.3
Chapter 1 – Introduction
9
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing INJURY RISK REDUCTION AND MOTORCYCLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
For many years motorcycle safety research has been dominated by debate about the
effectiveness of helmets (Lawrence et al. 2002, Liu et al. 2008). There has been less focus on
other protection for the rider’s body, although the protective value of materials such as
leather have been known for at least 30 years (Feldkamp et al. 1977, Zettas et al. 1979,
Aldman et al. 1981, Hurt et al. 1981a, Schuller et al. 1982, Schuller et al. 1986, Otte and
Middelhauve 1987, Hell and Lob 1993). These studies were mostly descriptive and did not
conform to what would now be required of clinical research, but they did provide evidence of
the injury reduction potential of abrasion resistant materials and identify the need for
additional shock absorption over high risk areas. The findings of these studies stimulated
research into the development of more effective products and the development of standards
by which these products could be judged.
The European Standards for motorcycle protective clothing are based on two mechanisms for
protecting the motorcyclist’s body (EEVC 1993). The first requires protection of soft tissues
by material and construction, that is abrasion, cut, tear and burst resistant (CEN 2002). The
second requires the use of body armour or impact protectors (high-density foam shields)
which absorb and distribute the force of direct impacts to exposed areas, e.g. elbows (CEN
1998). There are separate standards for motorcycle protective gloves, boots, one piece suits,
jackets and pants and body armour for the limbs and back (see Appendix A). While only
enforceable in Europe, the standards have provided benchmarks for manufacturers across the
international market (de Rome 2006). The result has been the emergence of a new generation
of protective clothing products, however few manufacturers have submitted their products for
certification under the standards and until recently their performance in real world crashes
had not been examined.
THE MAIDS STUDY (MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT IN-DEPTH STUDY)
In 2004, the findings of the MAIDS Study in Europe were published (ACEM 2004). This was
an in-depth motorcycle crash case-control study conducted over two years (1999-2000) in
France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain and Italy. The study was conducted by the Association
of European Motorcycle Manufacturers (ACEM) with the support of the European
Commission. Data was collected from 921 crashes including those involving motorcycles and
scooters (57%) and those involving mopeds and mofas (43%). This was the first study to
collect information about injuries and the effectiveness of clothing worn, since the
development of the European Standards for motorcycle protective clothing. To date, only descriptive results from the MAIDS study have been published, with clothing
effectiveness coded only relative to the effect it had on minor injuries (AIS 1). According to
the authors, the decision to consider only AIS 1 injuries was based on the belief that
motorcycle protective clothing has a minimal effect on reducing serious injuries (ACEM
2004). The effectiveness of clothing was coded according to whether there was evidence of
direct contact with surfaces that could cause AIS 1 injury (e.g., roadway) and the presence or
absence of injury in the medical record. Clothing was then classified according to whether it
prevented, reduced or had no effect on the severity of the AIS 1 injuries. The results indicated
that AIS 1 injuries were reduced or prevented on the upper torso (64.6%), lower torso
(61.3%), hands (43.5%) and feet (48.7%) by the clothing worn.
Clothing had also been classified by type of material (unknown, light, medium, heavy or
leather) and whether clothing was motorcycle oriented, but the associations between these
Chapter 1 – Introduction
10
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing levels of detail and injury prevalence were not reported. Data does not appear to have been
collected on the usage of fitted impact protectors (also called body armour), possibly because
these items were only just appearing in the market following the publication of European
standards for impact protectors (CEN 1998). In addition, the report did not distinguish
between the clothing worn by riders of motorcycles/scooters and that worn by those riding
mopeds/mofas.
THE GEAR STUDY – EFFECTIVENESS OF MOTORCYCLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
The Gear Study was a prospective cohort study of motorcyclists who crashed in the
Australian Capital Territory between June 2008 and June 2009 (de Rome et al. 2011a, b).
Eligible motorcyclists included riders and passengers of motorcycles and scooters who were
involved in road crashes causing injury or motorcycle damage. Participants were volunteers
recruited through the two hospitals and thirteen motorcycle repair services in the study area.
Baseline interviews were conducted face-to-face in participants’ homes or in hospital
approximately two weeks after their crash. Follow-up surveys were conducted by mail
approximately two months and six months later with the reference period being ‘over the past
four weeks’. At baseline, information was collected about the crash, clothing worn, injury
details and basic demographics. Injury reports completed at the interview were subsequently
corroborated with hospital records for independent scoring on the AIS scale by a trained
assessor. At the interview, participants also completed questionnaires about their general
health and functional ability prior to the crash. The questionnaires were also included as part
of the follow-up surveys to monitor the longer term consequences of the crash.
Primary analysis – injury risk reductions and protective clothing
The aim of the first stage analysis was to examine the association between use of motorcycle
protective clothing and risk of injury in crashes (de Rome et al. 2011a). This was a crosssectional analytic study of crashed motorcyclists (n=212) representing 71% of identified
eligible cases. The main outcome was hospitalisation and motorcycle crash-related injury.
Poisson regression was used to estimate relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI)
for injury to each body zone by injury type. Tests of association were adjusted for potential
confounders of injury identified from the literature including age, gender, motorcycle type,
crash type (single or multi-vehicle), type of impact (e.g. road surface, other vehicle or fixed
object) and the estimated speed of impact.
The results showed that motorcyclists were 21% less likely to be admitted to hospital if they
crashed while wearing motorcycle jackets, but the risk reduction was greater if they were
wearing motorcycle pants or gloves (51% and 59% respectively). When garments were fitted
with body armour (impact protectors), there was a significantly reduced risk of any injury to
the upper body (23%), hands and wrists (45%), legs (39%), feet and ankles (45%). However
the benefits of body armour could not be detected specifically in relation to fracture injuries.
Given the relatively low occurrence of fractures (15%), compared to soft tissue injuries
(71%), in unprotected motorcyclists (Duffy and Blair 1991) the sample size was likely too
small to be able to detect any such difference. While the findings of this study provide
convincing evidence of the overall protective benefits of body armour, further research is
necessary to establish the specific benefits of body armour for each part of the body in
relation to specific injury types, particularly fractures. Non-motorcycle boots were also
associated with a 53% reduced risk of any injury compared to shoes or joggers.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
11
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Table 1.6 shows the estimated injury risk reduction associated with each type of protective
clothing, adjusted to take account of potentially confounding factors (rider age and gender,
motorcycle type, single or multi-vehicle crash, impact speed and type of impact). It is
apparent that the greatest risk reduction is in terms of cuts/abrasions, and to a lesser extent
soft tissue injuries including bruises.
Table 1.6 Relative injury risk reduction (IRR) protected vs. unprotected riders by type of
protective clothing
Any injuries
Cuts/abrasions
Soft tissue
Jacket
NS
- 58%
NS
Jacket +BA
- 23%
- 63%
- 33%
Gloves
NS
- 70%
- 40%
Gloves + BA
- 45%
- 73%
- 62%
Pants
NS
- 37%
NS
Pants + BA
- 39%
- 91%
- 47%
MC Boots
NS
NS
- 65%
MC Boots + BA
- 45%
- 90%
- 69%
Non-MC boots
- 53%
- 76%
- 61%
NS Not statistically significant., BA Body Armour , Adjusted for rider age and gender, motorcycle type, single or multivehicle crash, type of impact and impact speed.
The Gear Study - health outcomes in the six months following a motorcycle crash
The aim of the second stage analysis was to examine the associations between use of
protective clothing and subsequent impairment and disability in the six months following a
crash (de Rome et al. 2011c). Completed follow-up surveys at two and six months were
returned by 69% (n = 146) of eligible motorcyclists.
The exposure factor was usage of protective clothing classified as full protection (motorcycle
jacket and pants), partial protection (motorcycle jacket) and unprotected (neither). Outcomes
of interest included general health status (Short Form SF-36), disability (Health Assessment
Questionnaire) treatment and recovery progress, quality of life and return to work in the six
months post-crash. Odds ratios (OR) were estimated for categorical outcomes using multiple
logistic regression to assess differences in outcomes associated with levels of protection.
Odds ratios were adjusted for potential confounders including age, sex, occupation, speed and
type of impact. Non-parametric procedures were used for data that were not normally
distributed.
The results showed that compared to unprotected riders, both fully and partially protected
riders had fewer days in hospital and reported less pain immediately post-crash. At two
months, both protection groups were also less likely to have disabilities or reductions in
physical function. By six months, there were no significant differences in disability or
physical function between groups, but both protection groups were more likely to be fully
recovered and returned to pre-crash work than unprotected riders. Fully protected riders
achieved better outcomes than either partially or unprotected riders on most measures. There
were few significant differences between the full and partial protection groups, although the
latter showed greater impairment in physical health two months post-crash.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
12
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing QUALITY AND FAILURE RATES OF MOTORCYCLE CLOTHING PRODUCTS
RIDE MAGAZINE PRODUCT TESTS
The only published evidence-based program of motorcycle clothing product tests is the one
established by Ride Magazine in the United Kingdom (UK), which has published regular
reports since the European Standards tests were first available. A review of the most recently
available product tests (reported in detail in Appendix B), found that a substantial proportion
of garments rated poorly in tests of their protective performance including abrasion, burst and
impact force resistance. While these tests were based on those required by the European
Standards for motorcycle protective clothing, the magazine reports relative or scaled scores
rather than actual test results and in some cases improvised on the specified test
methodology. As a result it is not possible to infer from the published reports whether they
would be predictive of garments’ likely compliance with the European Standards. It was
apparent from the reports that price was not predictive of test performance.
THE GEAR STUDY – PRODUCT QUALITY FINDINGS
The Gear Study was the first in-depth study of the performance of motorcycle clothing in
crashes (de Rome et al. 2011a). Whereas a majority of the protective garments worn
sustained some impact in the crash, not all were damaged and only a proportion of those
damaged were considered to have failed. For the purposes of the study, garments were
assessed to have failed if damage to the protective layer potentially exposed the wearer to
injury. The protective layer is not necessarily the outer shell for example, in the case of
Kevlar lined jeans, the outer denim may be worn away but if the Kevlar lining remains intact
the garment has not failed.
Construction failure was defined as seams splitting or fastenings opening in the protective
layer due to crash impacts. Material failure was defined by holes in the protective layer of the
garment. The failure rate is calculated from the number of garments that failed as a
proportion of those that had sustained an impact.
In all 29.7% of motorcycle designed jackets, 25.7% of pants and 28.1% of gloves were
assessed to have failed in the crash. Table 1.5 lists the type of damage sustained by each type
of garment and the number and proportion of those that sustained an impact and failed to
provide the wearer with adequate protection. Such failure does not necessarily mean the rider
was injured as a result of that exposure.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
13
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Table 1.7
Motorcycle clothing worn, impact and injuries sustained and failure recorded
Motorcycle clothing Jacket Pants Gloves Boots Worn (n) Impact sustained All garments damaged Type of damage sustained* Abrasion damage Burst damage Cut penetration Split Torn material Clothing failure* Material failure Construction failure 175 (82.6) 142 (81.1) 115 (65.7) 74 (34.9) 55 (74.3) 42 (56.8) 185 (87.3) 120 (64.9) 101 (54.6) 81 (38.2) 54 (66.7) 56 (69.1) 107 (75.4) 13 (9.2) 0 5 (3.5%) 51 (35.9) 35 (63.6) 1 (1.8) 2 (3.6) 1 (1.8) 22 (40.0) 89 (74.2) 4 (3.3) 1 (0.8) 10 (8.3) 44 (36.7) 51 (94.4) 2 (3.7) 2 (3.7) 3 (5.6) 6 (11.1) 52 (29.7) 18 (10.3) 19 (25.7) 2 (2.7) 52 (28.1) 14 (7.6) 7 (8.6) (6.2) *Percentage damaged and percentage failure, are given as a proportion of those motorcycle designed garments that sustained an impact.
These results are consistent with the findings of the Ride magazine products tests and provide
strong evidence that a substantial proportion of motorcycle garments may fail to provide the
expected level of protection in a crash.
USAGE OF MOTORCYCLE PPE
Relatively few studies have documented the prevalence of usage of protective clothing by
motorcyclists in the population. Most of those studies reporting itemised usage of protective
clothing have been based on samples of crashed riders (Aldman et al. 1981, Hurt et al. 1981a,
Schuller et al. 1982, Danner et al. 1984, ACEM 2004, Phan et al. 2008). The limitation of
such approaches to estimate usage in the rider population is that crashed riders are not
necessarily representative of all riders, and may include a higher proportion with
characteristics associated with higher crash risk, such as youth and risk taking ((Lin and
Kraus 2009). A number of cross-sectional surveys have been conducted to provide estimates
of usage in the wider riding population in Germany, New Zealand and Australia (Marburger
1987, Reeder et al. 1996, Koch and Brendicke 1998, de Rome and Brandon 2007, Wishart et
al. 2009).
Population estimates of protective clothing usage rates are also difficult to obtain because
motorcyclists are a small but highly segmented and diverse community, which makes it
difficult to obtain a representative sample (Johnston et al. 2008, Christmas et al. 2009,
Jamson and Chorlton 2009) (Johnston et al. 2008, Christmas et al. 2009, Jamson and
Chorlton 2009).
Population surveys distributed through licensing authorities are expensive and efforts to
survey samples within the motorcycling population are subject to bias according to the means
by which potential recruits are identified. Volunteers, particularly those contacted through
motorcycle media, networks or events, may be more representative of motorcycling
enthusiasts. Observational surveys may be biased to particular sections of the rider
population, according to the specific route or time or day of week (e.g. recreational or
commuting) and time of year in terms of weather and climatic factors.
There is also evidence that riders usage of protective clothing may vary according to the type
of machine (scooter or motorcycle), type of ride (recreation or commuting), their intended
Chapter 1 – Introduction
14
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing destination and the weather. This was first documented in 1986 in a survey of riders (n = 557)
attending a motorcycle exhibition in Germany. They were asked about their ownership and
usage of motorcycle clothing when riding in urban environments, country roads and on
motorways (Koch and Brendicke 1998). This study is of interest because it revealed that
riders did not always wear the protective clothing that they owned and that patterns of usage
varied according to riding environment. Discomfort and heat were identified as key
disincentives for always wearing full protective clothing.
Figure 1.4 presents the findings of three Australian cross-sectional surveys of riders’ usage of
protective clothing. The NSW study was a cross-sectional survey (n = 1300) distributed to
riders through motorcycle magazines, clubs and events in New South Wales and the
Australian Capital Territory, Australia. Compared to the general riding population, the
sample was over representative of experienced, older riders and motorcycle club members.
Riders were asked what they normally wore for recreational and commuting rides. Those who
had been involved in a crash (n = 338) were also asked what they had been wearing at the
time (de Rome 2006). The ACT study was an observational study of riders taken on popular
motorcycling recreational routes (n=116) and on key commuter routes (n = 272) in the
Australian Capital Territory in 2007 (Watson et al. 2008). The QLD studies were also
observational studies conducted in Brisbane on recreational (n = 144, 2006) and commuter
routes (n = 262, 2008) (Wishart et al. 2009). In each study, it is apparent that many riders
normally wear a helmet, gloves and motorcycle jackets, but are less likely to wear motorcycle
pants or boots, particularly for commuting. It is also apparent that the NSW riders, who had
been involved in a crash, were less likely to have been wearing protective clothing at the time
of the crash, despite their self reported ‘normal’ usage.
Figure 1.4 Protective clothing reported in cross-sectional surveys of Australian riders 1
Recreation NSW
Commuting NSW
Crash NSW
Commuting ACT
Recreation, QLD
Commuter, QLD
Recreation ACT 120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
Helmet/ eye protection
MC Jacket
MC Gloves
Boots
MC Pants
While none of the above studies can be assumed to provide an accurate picture of what all
riders wear or even the ‘average’ rider wears, some consistencies in the patterns can be
identified. It is apparent from this figure that riders are more likely to protect their upper body
1 Note: in the NSW study, riders who had been wearing a helmet but without eye protection, were not classified as having full protection for the head. Chapter 1 – Introduction
15
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing than their lower body, to wear more protective clothing for recreational than commuting rides
and that motorcycle pants are the garment least likely to be worn.
A survey of Australian and New Zealand riders (n=1020), conducted for the current project,
confirmed these general trends. It found that riders were more likely to own motorcycle
jackets and gloves than either boots or pants. Ownership did not necessarily imply always
wearing those garments. Motorcycle pants were least likely to be always worn, with only
41% of all respondents always wearing and 58% of all who owned pants, always wearing
them. A higher proportion owned (80%) and always wore (61%) motorcycle boots. Those
that owned jackets and gloves were more likely to report that they always wear them. See
Figure 1.5
Figure 1.5 Proportions of riders who own and who always wear each type of motorcycle
clothing (Australia).
Own
Always wear
Worn if owned
120%
100%
99% 98% 99%
96%
92%
84%
78%
80%
80%
72%
58%
60%
77%
79%
83%
61%
41%
40%
20%
0%
Helmet
MC long sleeved MC protective jacket
pants
MC Boots
MC Gloves
Conclusions
There is evidence that protective clothing can prevent or reduce the severity of injuries in
motorcycle crashes. There is also evidence that not all riders wear full protective clothing and
that not all protective clothing is of sufficient quality to be fit for the protective purpose.
If the proportion of riders benefiting from wearing protective clothing is to be increased, then
both usage rates and clothing quality must be improved. This is because if the quality is poor,
an increase in usage will have no overall benefit and quality failures will deter usage.
References
AAAM, 2005. Abbreviated injury scale 2005,. In: Gennarelli, T.A., Wodzin, E. eds.
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), Barrington, Il, USA.
ABS, 2011. 9309.0 motor vehicle census, Australia, 31 january 2011.
ACC, 2011a. Data extracted on 11 October 2011 from ACC data warehouse tables refreshed
on 8 October 2011. Geoff Ness, Wellington, NZ.
ACC, 2011b. Motorcycle crash injury claims, 2006-2010. Accident Compensation
Commission, Wellington, NZ.
ACEM, 2004. MAIDS in-depth investigation of accidents involving powered two wheelers:
Final report 1.2. Association of European Motorcycle Manufacturers (ACEM)
http://www.maids-study.eu/ Last accessed 11 October 2010, Brussels, pp. 173.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
16
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing ADB, 2006. Mainstreaming road safety: Technical note. Asian Development Bank–
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, http://www.adb.org/Documents/Books/RoadSafety-Guidelines/, Manila.
AIHW, 2011. Trends in serious injury due to land transport accidents, Australia. Injury
Research and Statistics Series: No. 54. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,
Canberra.
Aldman, B., Cacciola, I., Gustafsson, H., Nygren, A., Wersall, J., 1981. The protective effect
of different kinds of protective clothing worn by motorcyclists. In: Charpenne, J.P.C.A.
ed. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Research Council on the
Biomechanics of Impact. IRCOBI, Salon-de-Provence (France), pp. 1-9.
Alsop, J., Langley, J., 2001. Under-reporting of motor vehicle traffic crash victims in New
Zealand. Accident Analysis and Prevention 33 (3), 353-9.
Amoros, E., Martin, J.-L., Laumon, B., 2006. Under-reporting of road crash casualties in
France. Accident Analysis and Prevention 38 (4), 627-635.
Ankarath, S., Giannoudis, P.V., Barlow, I., Bellamy, M.C., Matthews, S.J., Smith, R.M.,
2002. Injury patterns associated with mortality following motorcycle crashes. Injury 33
(6), 473-7.
Bachulis, B.L., Sangster, W., Gorrell, G.W., Long, W.B., 1988. Patterns of injury in helmeted
and nonhelmeted motorcyclists. American Journal of Surgery 155 (5), 708-711.
Barros, A.J., Amaral, R.L., Oliveira, M.S., Lima, S.C., Goncalves, E.V., 2003. Traffic
accidents resulting in injuries: Under reporting, characteristics and case fatality rate.
Cadernos Saude Publica 19 (4), 979-86.
Bellati, A., Cossalter, V., Lot, R., Ambrogi, A., 2006. Preliminary investigation on the
dynamics of motorcycle fall behavior: Influence of a simple airbag jacket system on rider
safety. Proceedings of the International Conference for Motorcycle Safety. Institute fur
Zweiradsicherheit, Cologne.
Bull, J.P., 1985. Disabilities caused by road traffic accidents and their relation to severity
scores. Accident Analysis and Prevention 17 (5), 387-397.
CEN, 1998. Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact: Requirements and
test methods for impact protectors. EN 1621-1:1998. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussels.
CEN, 2002. Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders: Jackets, trousers and one
piece or divided suits - general requirements. EN 13595-1:2002. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussels.
Cercarelli, L.R., Rosman, D.L., Ryan, G.A., 1996. Comparison of accident and emergency
with police road injury data. Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care 40,
805-809.
Chen, H.B., 2006. Injury patterns and risk factors of motorcycle crashes. Chinese Journal of
Clinical Rehabilitation 10 (40), 187-190.
Christmas, S., Young, D., Cookson, R., Cuerdenm, R., 2009. Passion, performance,
practicality: Motorcyclists' motivations and attitudes to safety. Motorcycle safety research
project, PPR 442. Transport Research Laboratory, Wokingham, Berkshire UK.
Clarke, J.A., Langley, J.D., 1995. Disablement resulting from motorcycle crashes. Disability
and Rehabilitation 17 (7), 377-85.
Coben, J.H., Steiner, C.A., Miller, T.R., 2007. Characteristics of motorcycle-related
hospitalizations: Comparing states with different helmet laws. Accident Analysis and
Prevention 39 (1), 190-6.
Craig, G.R., Sleet, R. & Wood, S.R. , 1983. Lower limb injuries in motorcycle accidents.
Injury 15, 163-166.
Crandon, I.W., Harding, H.E., Cawich, S.O., McDonald, A.H., Fearron-Boothe, D., 2009.
Motorcycle accident injury profiles in Jamaica: An audit from the University Hospital of
Chapter 1 – Introduction
17
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing the West Indies. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety Promotion 16 (3), 175178.
Crompton, J.G., Tolulope, O., Stevens, K.A., Efron, D.T., Haut, E.R., Haider, A.H., 2009.
Motorcycle helmets save lives, but not limbs: A national trauma data bank analysis of
functional outcomes after motorcycle crash. Journal of Surgical Research 151 (2), 1-5.
Danner, M., Langwieder, K., Polauke, J., Sporner, A., 1984. Protective clothing for riders.
Buro fur KFZ- Technik, Federal Highway Research Institute, Bergisch Gladbach.
de Rome, L., 2006. The injury reduction benefits of motorcycle protective clothing.
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/symp_motorcycle_safety/symp_motorcycle_safety.htm, NTSB Public
Forum on Motorcycle Safety. National Transport Safety Board, September 12-13 2006,
Washington DC
de Rome, L., Brandon, T., 2007. Survey of motorcyclists in NSW, 2006 Motorcycle Council
of NSW, Inc. www.roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au. Last accessed 5 October 2010., Sydney.
de Rome, L., Ivers, R., Fitzharris, M., Du, W., Richardson, D., Haworth, N., Heritier, S.,
2011a. Motorcycle protective clothing: Protection from injury or just the weather?
Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (6), 1893-1900.
de Rome, L., Ivers, R., Haworth, N., Heritier, S., Du, W., Fitzharris, M., 2011b. Novice riders
and the predictors of riding without motorcycle protective clothing. Accident Analysis and
Prevention 43 (3), 1095-1103.
de Rome, L., Ivers, R.Q., Fitzharris, M., Haworth, N., Heritier, S., Richardson, D., 2011c.
Effectiveness of motorcycle protective clothing: Riders' health outcomes in the six months
following a crash. doi: 10.1016/j.lnjury.2011.10.025.
de Rome, L., Stanford, G., Wood, B., 2004. Survey of motorcyclists and their safety
initiatives. Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference,
http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=771117. Perth, Australia.
Dragčević, Z., Takeuchi, K., Vecaj, D., Hursa, A., 2009a. Motorcycle jacket with integrated
air bag. Tekstil 58 (7), 346-351.
Dragčević, Z., Takeuchi, K., Večaj, D., Hursa, A., 2009b. Motorcycle jacket with integrated
air bag. Motorradjacke mit eingebautem airbag 58 (7), 346-351.
Duffy, E.M., Blair, A., 1991. Motorcycle accidents: The leg injury problem in perspective.
Proceedings of the International Conference of the Research Council on the Biomechanics
of Impact. IRCOBI Berlin, pp. 231-246.
EEVC, 1993. Report on motorcycle Safety. An EEVC Paper, Report of the Ad-hoc Group on
Motorcycle Safety, 1993. European Experimental Vehicles Committee Brussels, pp. 75.
ETSC, 2008. Vulnerable riders: Safety implications of motorcycling in the European union.
European Transport Safety Council, Brussels.
Feldkamp, G., Prall, W.D., Buehler, G., Junghanns, K., 1977. Motocycle accidents;
epidemiology, clinical aspects and protective measures, a followup and prospective study.
Unfallheilkunde 80 (1), 1-19.
Fitzharris, M., Dandona, R., Kumar, G.A., Dandona, L., 2009. Crash characteristics and
patterns of injury among hospitalized motorised two-wheeled vehicle users in urban India.
BMC Public Health 9.
Forman, J.L., Lopez-Valdes, F.J., Pollack, K., Heredero-Ordoyo, R., Molinero, A., Mansilla,
A., Fildes, B., Segui-Gomez, M., 2011. Injuries among powered two-wheeler users in
eight European countries: A descriptive analysis of hospital discharge data. Accident
Analysis and Prevention In Press, Corrected Proof. Available online 15 March 2011.
Harms, P.L., 1981. Injury patterns of motorcyclists involved in accidents. Supplementary
Report No 651. Transport and Road Research Laboratory, Crowthorne, Berkshire.
Harris, S., 1990. The real number of road traffic accident casualties in the Netherlands: A
year-long survey. Accident Analysis and Prevention 22 (4), 371-8.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
18
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Hell, W., Lob, G., 1993. Typical injury patterns of motorcyclists in different crash typeseffectiveness & improvement of countermeasures. Proceedings of the 37th Annual
Conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine.
AAAM, San Antonio, pp. 77-86.
Hotz, G., Cohn, S., Mishkin, D., Castelblanco, A., Li, P., Popkin, C., Duncan, R., 2004.
Outcome of motorcycle riders at one year post-injury. Traffic Injury Prevention 5 (1), 879.
Hours, M., Bernard, M., Charnay, P., Chossegros, L., Javouhey, E., Fort, E., Boisson, D.,
Sancho, P.O., Laumon, B., 2010. Functional outcome after road-crash injury: Description
of the ESPARR victims cohort and 6-month follow-up results. Accident Analysis and
Prevention 42 (2), 412-421.
Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J., Wagar, I., 1981a. Effectiveness of motorcycle safety helmets and
protective clothing. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference of the American
Association for the Advancement of Automotive Medicine. AAAM, San Francisco, pp.
223- 235.
Hurt, H.H., Ouellet, J.V., Thom, D.R., 1981b. Motorcycle accident cause factors and
identification of countermeasures. In: University of Southern California Traffic Safety
Center ed. Technical Report. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington, DC.
Ijima, S., Ozono, S., Ota, A., Yamamoto, T., 1998. Exploration of an airbag concept for a
large touring motorcycle. Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on the
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. NHTSA, Canada.
James, P.Z., 2002. The hidden hazard of protective apparel. Occupational Health and Safety
71 (1), 55.
Jamson, S., Chorlton, K., 2009. The changing nature of motorcycling: Patterns of use and
rider characteristics. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour 12
(4), 335-346.
Johnston, P., Brooks, C., Savage, H., 2008. Fatal and serious road crashes involving
motorcyclists. Monograph 20 Department of Infrastructure,
http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/roads/safety/publications/2008/mono20.aspx Canberra,
pp. 26.
Kasantikul, V., 2001a. Motorcycle accident causation and identification of countermeasures
in Thailand, Volume 2: Up country Study. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
10330.
Kasantikul, V., 2001b. Motorcycle accident causation and identification of countermeasures
in Thailand. Volume 1. Bangkok Study. Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand
10330.
Koch, H., Brendicke, R., 1998. Protective clothing: Wearing patterns, knowledge and
attitudes of motorcyclists. In: Rothengatter, T., De Bruin, R. eds. Road user behaviour:
Theory and research. Van Gorcum & Company Assen, Netherlands.
Koizumi, M.S., 1992. Injury patterns in motorcycle accident victims. Rev Saude Publica 26
(5), 306-15.
Lawrence, B.A., Max, W., Miller, T.R., 2002. Costs of injuries resulting from motorcycle
crashes: A literature review. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Washington DC,
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/PEOPLE/INJURY/pedbimot/motorcycle/Motorcycle_HTML/to
c.html (accessed June 11, 2010).
Lin, M.R., Hwang, H.F., Kuo, N.W., 2001. Crash severity, injury patterns, and helmet use in
adolescent motorcycle riders. Journal of Trauma - Injury, Infection and Critical Care 50
(1), 24-30.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
19
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Lin, M.R., Kraus, J.F., 2008. Methodological issues in motorcycle injury epidemiology.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 40 (5), 1653-1660.
Lin, M.R., Kraus, J.F., 2009. A review of risk factors and patterns of motorcycle injuries.
Accident Analysis and Prevention 41 (4), 710-722.
Liu, B., Ivers, R., Norton, R., Boufous, S., Blows, S., Lo, S., 2008. Helmets for preventing
injury in motorcycle riders (review update). Cockrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Issue 1, pp. 37.
Lopez, D.G., Rosman, D.L., Jelinek, G.A., Wilkes, G.J., Sprivulis, P.C., 2000.
Complementing police road-crash records with trauma registry data -- an initial
evaluation. Accident Analysis and Prevention 32 (6), 771-777.
Mackay, M., 1986. Lower limb injuries to riders of motorcycles. Proceedings of the
Biomechanics and Medical Aspects of Lower Limb Injuries Conference. Society of
Automotive Engineers, Warrendale, PA USA, San Diego California, pp. 129-135.
Manzardo, D., 2006. Report on the performance of riders protective devices and the
corresponding injuries of riders. State-of-the-art regarding motorcyclists helmets and
clothing. Future research guidelines. APROSYS SP44 Integrated Project on Advanced
Protection Systems, http://www.aprosys.com/ , Last accessed 20 August 2010 ed.
Marburger, E.A., 1987. The protective clothing used by motorized two-wheelers in the
Federal Republic of Germany. Passive safety for motorcyclists: Contributions to second
Bochum workshops for two-wheel safety. Institute for Motorcycle Safety, Bochum,
Germany.
Mayou, R., Bryant, B., 2003. Consequences of road traffic accidents for different types of
road user. Injury 34 (3), 197-202.
McClure, R.J., Douglas, R.M., 1996. The public health impact of minor injury. Accident
Analysis and Prevention 28 (4), 443-451.
Melhuish, M., 2002. Technical report on road Safety in the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations. TAR: STU 36046. ADB. Asian Development Bank, Manila, Philippines.
Mertz, K., Weiss, H., 2008. Changes in motorcycle-related head injury deaths,
hospitalisations, and hospital charges following repeal of Pennsylvania's mandatory
motorcycle helmet law. American Journal of Public Health 98 (8), 1464-1467.
Meuleners, L.B., Lee, A.H., Haworth, C., 2007. Road environment, crash type and
hospitalisation of bicyclists and motorcyclists presented to emergency departments in
Western Australia. Accident Analysis and Prevention 39 (6), 1222-1225.
Ministry of Transport, 2011. Motor vehicle crashes in New Zealand 2010. Statistical
Statement Calendar year 2010. Ministry of Transport, Wellington, NZ.
Nordentoft, E.L., Larsen, C.F., Behrensdorff, I., 1984. The problem of leg injuries in
motorcycle riders. In: Cesari, D., Charpenne, A. eds. Proceedings of the International
Conference of the Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impact. IRCOBI, Delft, pp.
229-241.
NZTA, 2011. New Zealand motor vehicle registration statistics 2010. NZ Transport Agency,
Palmerston North.
Otte, D., 1987. Kinematics of motorized bicycle accidents--injury patterns, long-term
sequelae and protective possibilities. Z Unfallchir Versicherungsmed Berufskr 80 (1), 3746.
Otte, D., Middelhauve, V., 1987. Quantification of protective effects of special synthetic
protectors in clothing for motorcyclists. In: Cesari, D., Charpenne, A. eds. Proceedings of
the International Conference of the Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impact.
IRCOBI, Birmingham, UK, pp. 1-18.
Otte, D., Schroeder, G., Richter, M., 2002. Possibilities for load reductions using garment leg
protectors for motorcyclists -- a technical, medical and biomechanical approach.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
20
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the American Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine. AAAM, pp. 367-385.
Ouellet, J.V., Hurt, H.H., Thom, D., 1987. Collision performance of contemporary crash bars
and motorcycle rider leg injuries. Accident reconstructions: Automobiles, tractors, semitrailers, motorcycles and pedestrians The Engineering Society for Advancing Mobility
Land Sea Air and Space (SAE), Warrendale, PA 15096, pp. 2829 - 2842.
Pedder, J.B., Hagues, S.B., Mackay, G.M., 1979. A study'of 93 fatal two-wheeled motor
vehicle accidents. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference of the International
Research Council of the Biomechanics of Impact. IRCOBI, Goteborg, Sweden.
Peek-Asa, C., Kraus, J.F., 1997. Estimates of injury impairment after acute traumatic injury
in motorcycle crashes before and after passage of a mandatory helmet use law. Annals of
Emergency Medicine 29 (5), 630-636.
Phan, V., Moutreuil, M., Martin, A., Feurxer, J.-C., Hermitte, T., 2008. Rider: A complete
study on accidents involving a powered two-wheeler: Accident causation, safety
equipment and injury mechanisms. CEESAR - Centre Europeen d' Etudes de Securite et d'
Analyse des Risques. (European Centre of Studies on Safety and Risk Analysis).
Reeder, A.I., Chalmers, D.J., Langley, J.D., 1996. The risky and protective motorcycling
opinions and behaviours of young on-road motorcyclists in New Zealand. Social Science
and Medicine 42 (9), 1297-1311.
Richardson, D.B., Paini, C., 2006. Amalgamation of police and hospital trauma data in the
Australian Capital Territory 2002-2003. Road Safety Research, Education and Policing
Conference, www.rsconference.com. Southport, Queensland.
Rogers, N., 2008. Trends in motorcycle fleets worldwide. International Workshop on
motorcycling safety,
http://www.internationaltransportforum.org/jtrc/safety/Lillehammer2008/lillehammer08.ht
ml. OECD, Lillehammer, Norway.
Rutledge, R., Stutts, J., 1993. The association of helmet use with the outcome of motorcycle
crash injury when controlling for crash/injury severity. Accident Analysis and Prevention
25 (3), 347-353.
Schuller, E., Beier, G., Spann, W., 1982. Effectiveness of protective clothing in Munich area
motorcycle accidents. Proceedings of the 26th Stapp car crash conference. Warrendale,
PA, Ann Arbor, pp. 259-267.
Schuller, E., Beir, G., Spann, W., 1986. Disability and impairment of protected and
unprotected motorcycle riders. SAE International Congress and Exposition - Crash Injury
Impairment and Disability: Long Term Effects, Detroit, MI. The Engineering Society for
Advancing Mobility Land Sea Air and Space (SAE), Warrendale, PA 15096, pp. 51-56.
Sosin, D.M., Sacks, J.J., Holmgreen, P., 1990. Head injury--associated deaths from
motorcycle crashes: Relationship to helmet-use laws. JAMA: Journal of the American
Medical Association 264 (18), 2395-2399.
Sporner, A., Langwieder, K., Polauke, J., 1990. Passive safety for motorcyclists. From the leg
protector to the airbag. SAE Technical Paper Series.
Thollon, L., Godio, Y., Bidal, S., Brunet, C., 2010. Evaluation of a new security system to
reduce thoracic injuries in case of motorcycle accidents. International Journal of
Crashworthiness 15 (2), 191-199.
Trinca, G.W., Dooley, B.J., 1979. The pattern of motor cycle injuries sustained by motor
cyclists in Victoria in 1974 and 1975. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Surgery 49
(2), 203-207.
Watson, B., Wishart, D., Christie, T., 2008. Canberra motorcycle apparel observation Study.
NRMA_ACT Road Safety Trust,
http://www.roadsafetytrust.org.au/c/rtt?a=da&did=1004593. Last accessed 5 October
2010, Canberra.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
21
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing WHO, 2009. Global status report on road safety: Time for action World Health Organization,
www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/road_safety_status/2009, Geneva, pp. 301.
Wilson, S.J., Begg, D.J., Samaranayaka, A., 2011. Validity of using linked hospital and
police traffic crash records to analyse motorcycle injury crash characteristics. Accident
Analysis and Prevention In Press, Corrected Proof. Available online 3 April 2011.
Wishart, D., Watson, B., Rowden, P., 2009. Motorcycle rider protective apparel wearing:
Observational study results from the Brisbane and Canberra regions. Journal of the
Australasian College of Road Safety 20 (4), 52-59.
Zettas, J., Zettas, P., Thanasophon, B., 1979. Injury patterns in motorcycle accidents. Journal
of Trauma - Injury, Infection & Critical Care 19 (11), 833-6.
Chapter 1 – Introduction
22
CHAPTER 2 - PRODUCT TESTS AND RATING
SCHEMES FOR MOTORCYCLE PROTECTIVE
CLOTHING
A key task of the project was to identify and critically assess existing motorcycle
protective clothing rating and/or testing regimes both nationally and internationally. The
objective was to identify the relative merits of each approach in terms of efficiency, costeffectiveness, as well as their reliability and validity in estimating the injury protection
performance of motorcycle clothing under crash conditions. A framework for criteria was
established to provide structure to the process. Table 2.1 presents the framework with the
range of performance areas included in the tests/ratings systems and the types of
information provided.
Table 2.1 Framework for assessing motorcycle protective clothing rating/ testing regimes
Performance area A. Safety performance
B. User Performance C. User education ‐ dissemination of results
D. History E. Price F. Availability/ selections G. Rating scheme H. Degree of obligation
I. Jurisdiction Information provided Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) type Body region
Type of injury
Test method
Does this replicate real world injury? Comfort
Weight
Fit
Waterproofing
Heat
Heat/cold
Ease of use
Noise
Explanation of assessment.
Explanation of results.
Transparency of results.
Level of results available to user. Advice given on important things to look for when purchasing? Previous results remain available? How often is the review done?
History or recalls/problems available? Is price assessed?
Easily accessible to users?
Range of models tested? Popular models chosen?
How are they rated? Eg score, pass/fail, star rating etc. Voluntary/ mandatory
International/ national/ sub‐national This framework provided a structured approach to the assessment of each test regime
including the appropriateness of the test component, the stringency of conformity
assessment procedures, the performance rating approach and the effectiveness of getting
the results to the public in an understandable form. See Appendix C for a table of
information about the test regimes considered for this report.
Chapter 2– Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
21
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CURRENTLY EXISTING MOTORCYCLE CLOTHING EVALUATION REGIMES
A limited number of motorcycle protective equipment testing /regimes were identified and
their features documented in the evaluation framework. See Appendix C.
The most comprehensive testing scheme is that provided under the European Standards by
the European standards agency, Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN). These
Standards are also published as national standards such as the British standard, French
standards etc.
The European Standards tests form the basis for consumer product rating programs
conducted by the British motorcycling magazine Ride and, to a lesser extent, the German
magazine Motorrad. These publications also include other tests relating to comfort and
utility such as evaluation of waterproofing and insulation that are not included in the
European Standards.
Other test/ratings regimes identified include regulations adopted by sporting bodies for
motorcycle racing but are less comprehensive than the European Standards. These other
evaluation regimes include the Motorcycle Federation of Japan Standard2 and the United
States’ SFI Foundation3 Specification 40.1 “Abrasion resistant rider/driver suits” technical
specification published in November 1993 (last reviewed December 2008). The SFI 40.1
specification pre-dates the European Standards by publication date and is reviewed more
frequently (usually bi-annually compared with every five years for European Standards);
however, its assessment regime is restricted to just two tests of materials: abrasion
resistance and tear strength.
A number of options for test procedures that may serve to assess thermal, water
penetration and other comfort features were also identified.
THE EUROPEAN STANDARDS FOR MOTORCYCLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
BACKGROUND RESEARCH AND THE EVIDENCE BASE FOR THE EUROPEAN STANDARDS
In the 1980s, Roderick Woods from Cambridge University (UK), conducted a series of
studies into the required properties of motorcycle protective clothing (Woods 1982, Woods
1983, Prime and Wood 1984, Woods 1986, Woods 1996b). This research involved the
analysis of crash damaged motorcycle suits and plotting the distribution of road contact
abrasion marks and type of damage including fabric, seam and fastening failure to define
the injury protection requirements for each part of the riders (Woods 1996a). The resulting
specifications were subsequently validated on a dummy in simulated crash incidents
(Woods 1996b). Figure 2.2 illustrates the four types of injury protection identified. Zone 1
requires impact and high abrasion resistance. Zone 2 requires high abrasion and materials
stress resistance. Zone 3 requires moderate abrasion resistance and Zone 4 requires low
abrasion resistance.
2 We have been unable to obtain an English language version of the Japanese standard. 3 The US SFI Foundation, Inc. (SFI) is a non‐profit organization established to issue and administer standards for specialty/performance automotive and racing equipment. Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
22
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Table 2.2 Motorcycle crash injury risk zones (Woods 1996a)
Zone 1. High risk - needs impact
protectors & high abrasion resistance (4.0
– 7.0seconds)
Zone 2. High risk - needs high
abrasion resistance (4.0 - 7.0 seconds)
Zone 3. Moderate risk - moderate
abrasion resistance (1.8 - 2.5 seconds)
Zone 4. Relatively low risk (1.0 - 1.5
seconds)
Woods also specified the required construction and burst strength of seams and linings,
placement, protection and strength of zip fasteners and other garment restraints and
fasteners for each body zone (Woods 1994). The results were published as the Cambridge
Standard for Motorcycle Rider’s Clothing (Woods 1999) and subsequently incorporated
into a British Standards Institute submission to the European Standards agency CEN
(Comité Européen de Normalisation).
At approximately the same time, a group of researchers from the Accident Research Unit
at the Medical University at Hannover (ARU-MUH) in Germany investigated the concept
of shock absorbing foam, initially developed in Sweden (Aldman et al. 1981, Nygren
1987). This group led by Dietmar Otte created impact protectors consisting of a hard
plastic outer shell with shock absorbing foam lining (Otte and Middelhauve 1987, Otte et
al. 2002). The outer shell distributed the force from a single point of impact to a wider
area, while the foam absorbed the force of the impact. The protectors were designed in
hinged segments to fit over vulnerable areas within existing garments. Areas selected for
coverage were those identified from injury patterns to have the highest frequency of soft
tissue and fracture injuries.
Laboratory tests reported up to 69% reduction in the level of force transmitted by a 35 kN
impact compared to leather clothing alone. (Note: A kiloNewton (kN) is equal to 1,000
Newtons, where a Newton is the unit of force required to accelerate a mass of 1 kilogram
at a rate of one metre per second.) A subsequent laboratory study comparing impact tests
on protected and unprotected human cadaver lower legs, found no soft tissue injuries and
50% fewer and less severe fracture injuries for protected compared to unprotected feet and
ankles. The researchers did not report significance tests for these findings (Otte et al.
2002). They concluded that impact protectors reduce the incidence of complex leg
fractures and high boots reduced the risk of ankle and foot injuries including fractures.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE EUROPEAN STANDARDS FOR MOTORCYCLE PROTECTIVE
CLOTHING
In 1989, the European Commission (EU) issued a general directive 89/686/EEC, under
which any personal protective equipment (PPE), that is clothing or equipment intended to
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
23
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing provide protection from injury, had to be tested and labelled as complying with a relevant
standard (CEC 1989).
At the time there were no standards for motorcycle protective clothing, but the Auto Cycle
Union (ACU), the governing body for motorcycle sport in the United Kingdom, were
concerned about the clothing worn by competitors in motorcycle racing. The ACU were
concerned about lack of quality control and evidence from a number of incidents in which
protective suits failed on the race track, resulting in a leading brand being banned from
race tracks (Varnsverry 2003). During the late 1980s, the ACU worked with industry and
medical experts to develop a specification for race suits, but this was not introduced due to
concerns of legal liability. Consequently, one of the medical experts involved in the work
approached the European Commission to apply for motorcycle clothing to be covered
under the directive. This application was successful, thus providing a mechanism for the
development of standards for motorcycle protective clothing
The resulting Standards employ two mechanisms for the protective function. The first
involves protection of soft tissues by materials, fastenings and construction that is
abrasion, cut, tear and burst resistant (CEN 2002). The second requires the use of body
armour (impact protectors ) which are high-density foam shields fitted over exposed areas
(e.g. elbows, knees) to absorb and distribute the force of direct impacts (CEN 1998, Otte et
al. 2002, CEN 2003).
Separate Standards and test specifications, each with a different number, were developed
for each type of clothing (jackets and pants, gloves, boots, impact protectors and back
protectors. Garments and protectors which satisfy the performance requirements of the EU
Standards will offer protection from abrasions, cuts, contusions, bruising and some
fractures. It is acknowledged that clothing cannot, however, mitigate against more serious
injuries such as major fractures which can occur when severe impacts, torsional or bending
forces are involved, or neurological spinal injuries.
Effectively the Standards assess key characteristics of materials and constructions used in
the manufacture of motorcyclists’ protective clothing, including:





Impact abrasion resistance
Impact cut resistance
Determination of bursting strength
Tensile strength
Impact energy attenuation
The Standards also evaluate the innocuousness of the materials used in the garments, to
ensure exposure to these does not constitute a hazard to the health of the wearer. Basic
ergonomic assessments replicate a series of movements commonly used when riding a
motorcycle, to provide an indication of comfort and fitness for purpose. They do not
consider issues of heat, cold or cost. The footwear Standard (EN 13634) is the only
document to consider waterproofing and only then as an optional test.
INTER-PRODUCT COMPATIBILITY
Compatibility between motorcycle clothing products – particularly the interface between
footwear and the lower legs of trousers or a suit, the wrists of gloves and those of a jacket
or suit, the waistbands of jackets and trousers and the lower edge of a helmet and the
shoulder area of a jacket or suit – is an area not currently covered under the EU Standards.
There are precedents with other standards (e.g. the British Standards Institution standards
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
24
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing for police riot equipment) which require ergonomic assessments to be performed with
other items of PPE which will ordinarily be worn in conjunction. These factors should be
considered for inclusion in any ratings protocol devised for motorcycle protective clothing.
Table 2.3 The European Standards for motorcycles protective clothing
EN 1621‐1:1997 “Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact – Part 1: Requirements and test methods for impact protectors EN 13594:2002 “Protective gloves for professional motorcycle riders –Requirements and test methods” EN 13595‐1:2002 “Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders – Jackets, trousers and one‐piece or divided suits – Part 1 – General requirements” EN 13595‐2:2002 “Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders – Jackets, trousers and one‐piece or divided suits – Part 2 – Test method for determination of impact abrasion resistance” EN 13595‐3:2002 “Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders – Jackets, trousers and one‐piece or divided suits – Part 3 – Test method for determination of burst strength” EN 13595‐4:2002 “Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders – Jackets, trousers and one‐piece or divided suits – Part 4 – Test method for determination of impact cut resistance” EN 13634:2002 “Protective footwear for professional motorcycle riders – Requirements and test methods” EN 1621‐2:2003 “Motorcyclists’ protective clothing against mechanical impact – Part 2: Motorcyclists’ back protectors – Requirements and test methods” EN 14021:2003 “Stone shields for off‐road motorcycling suited to protect riders against stones and debris – Requirements and test methods” At the time of writing, two further Standards for impact protection are being drafted:
1.
2.
prEN 1621-3 Motorcyclists’ protective clothing against mechanical impact – Part 4: Chest
protectors – Requirements and test methods
prEN 1621-4 Motorcyclists’ protective clothing against mechanical impact – Part 4: Inflatable body
protectors – Requirements and test methods.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE EUROPEAN STANDARDS
Under the European Directive on Personal Protective Equipment (1989) any clothing
claiming to provide protection from injury must be tested and labelled as complying with
the relevant Standard. This applies to all safety equipment not just for motorcycle apparel.
Under the directive, a product can only be described as “protective” if it provides
protection from injury, the term cannot be applied to products that provide protection from
the weather.
This means that compliance with the European Standards is not mandatory. A product
only falls within the scope of the European Union’s Personal Protective Equipment
Directive 89/686/EEC; if a manufacturer, or their agent in the European Community,
claims or specifically implies in the literature or advertising that a product is intended to
offer protection from injury. Compliance with a European Standard carries a presumption
of conformity with this legislation. Motorcyclists’ clothing is classified as ‘Category 2’ or
‘Intermediate Design’ Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) which is required to be tested
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
25
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing by an independent, accredited test facility and certified by a government approved Notified
Body.
INDUSTRY SUPPORT AND COMPLIANCE
As motorcycle clothing can be represented as serving a number of different functions
including weather protection, manufacturers can circumvent the need for compliance by
avoiding any reference to safety or protection in product descriptions. As a result, ten years
since the first Standards were issued, there are still relatively few CE marked motorcycle
clothing products available in the European market.
However, despite the lack of CE marked products, it is apparent that the Standards have
provided benchmarks for manufacturers across the international market (de Rome 2006).
The result has been the emergence of a new generation of protective clothing products,
although their performance in real world crashes has rarely been examined (de Rome et al.
2011a).
REGULATION OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING IN MOTORCYCLE SPORTS
Clothing worn in motorcycle sports is regulated by the relevant sports association. The
international body, Federation Internationale de Motocyclisme (FIM), has standing
technical regulations for clothing which are commonly adopted by national sporting bodies
(e.g. in the UK, the Auto Cycle Union). European, Japanese and American helmet
standards are quoted as normative references, but there is no reference to the European
Standards for clothing, boots or gloves. Discretion on whether these garments meet the
regulations rests with the Chief Scrutineer at an event, although no specialist knowledge of
motorcycle clothing is required for the position.
In Australia, the governing body of motorcycle sport is Motorcycling Australia (MA).
Regulations are contained in the Manual of Motorcycle Sport which covers General
Competition Rules and other relevant information including the protective clothing
required. The MA regulations for road racing require full-face helmets which are approved
under the Australian helmet standard and the FIM technical rules for road racing. The MA
Regulations also require riders to wear back protectors and have full body coverage with
leather or other material of high durability, however as with FIM, there is no guidance to
scrutineers in identifying clothing, boots or gloves that may not provide adequate
protection.
Despite the lack of attention from motorcycling sports, the International governing body
for kart racing (CIK) does reference the European standard for motorcycle jackets and
pants (EN 13595-2) test method in the international specification for kart racing overalls.
These garments are often part of the product range of manufacturers who also make
motorcycle clothing.
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
26
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing MOTORCYCLE HELMET RATING SCHEMES
There are government supported consumer information testing schemes for motorcycle
helmets in the UK and Australia. These run according to differing models.
SAFETY HELMET ASSESSMENT AND RATING PROGRAM (SHARP)
In 2007, the UK Department for Transport (DFT) launched the Safety Helmet
Assessment and Rating Program (SHARP) to provide safety information to consumers on
the best motorcycle helmets available. (See http://sharp.direct.gov.uk.) According to the
latest posting on the SHARP website (27 May, 2010), the results to date of 202 helmet
tests ratings had been published.
SHARP annually tests a selection of popular motorcycle helmets to a unique set of
requirements, and delivers the results in a 5 star rating system. A total of 32 impact tests
are made on a group of 7 helmets of differing sizes, in two types of impact (on a flat anvil
and an inclined plane) and at three impact severities (Halewood and Hynd 2008).
The testing methodology itself is based on the now withdrawn BSI 6651-1985 Standard.
The test results obtained from each helmet model are used to estimate the probability of
death for a wearer based on the results of the European Cost 327 Project (Bogerd et al.
2010). Cost 327 was an accident investigation and head injury analysis study based on 256
European crashes investigated in depth. A five star rating is allocated based on this
estimated probability. The rating is combined with information supplied by the helmet
manufacturer.
The SHARP website does not provide the details of the analysis used to derive the rating,
however is discussed in the report published by TRL (Halewood and Hynd 2008).
CONSUMER RATING AND ASSESSMENT OF SAFETY HELMETS (CRASH)
A similar Australian program, CRASH, is run by a consortium of government agencies
and motorist organisations who share a common interest in improving motorcycle safety.
The program is supported by the NSW Transport, Roads and Maritime Services, the
NRMA Motoring & Services, and the Victorian Transport Accident Commission (TAC).
CRASH aims to provide helmet buyers with independent and consistent information on the
levels of protection from injury in a crash provided by motorcycle helmets and the comfort
level of the helmet.
For the comfort level performance, the helmets were rated using comfort features which
were considered important by motorcyclists. These features were ranked based on results
from a 2010 survey conducted by the European project COST 357–PROHELM (Accident
Prevention Options with Motorcycle Helmets) involving 598 motorcyclists. The study
found 71 per cent of the riders wore a helmet that was not of the right size and 69 per cent
of the respondents reported discomfort using the helmet (Bogerd et al. 2010).
CRASH awards a star rating from 1 to 5 for each motorcycle helmet following
independent crash protection and comfort assessments by independent specialist
laboratories.
 Crash protection: 1 star = Meets AS/NZ Standard, 2 stars = Average, 3 stars = Above
average, 4 stars = Good, 5 stars = Excellent
 Comfort: 1 star = Poor, 2 stars = Average, 3 stars = Above average, 4 stars = Good, 5
stars = Excellent
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
27
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing In the crash protection assessments, the helmets were rated based on their individual
performance aspects. These aspects were ranked and weighted based on their importance
to reduce the risk of head and brain injury in a crash and are listed as follows:







Energy reduction in a higher speed impact on a flat surface (30 per cent)
Energy reduction in a higher speed impact on kerb surface (25 per cent)
Energy reduction in a lower speed impact on flat surface (15 per cent)
Helmet's ability to minimise the rotation of the helmet in a crash (10 per cent)
Helmet coverage (10 per cent)
Helmet chin-strap's strength (5 per cent)
Helmet's ability to minimise rebound (5 per cent)
To date the results of tests on 31 helmets have been published. The web address is
http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/motorcyclesafety/index.html/.
CONSUMER PRODUCT INFORMATION, REVIEWS AND RATINGS PROGRAMS
The European Standards are high level technical documents for manufacturers and test
houses, which provide little information that would be immediately useful to the
consumer. However it is also a requirement of the PPE Directive for a basic level of
information to be provided by manufacturers, to assist consumers to choose suitable
protective clothing.
There is little evidence to date of any initiative by industry to enhance consumers’
knowledge about appropriate or effective protective clothing. This is perhaps best
illustrated by the publication in 2010 of “A campaign informing riders and raising their
awareness regarding the benefits of a good motorcycling equipment” by the motorcycle
industry in Europe’s trade body ACEM (Association des Constructeurs Européens de
Motocycles). The booklet entitled Protective Equipment for Riders (ACEM 2010), which
was central to the campaign lacks any reference to the European Standards for motorcycle
protective clothing.
There have been a number of initiatives by rider organizations, the motorcycle media and
government agencies to promote information about the benefits and selection of
appropriate protective clothing. These include a range of media including websites,
booklets and videos, such as: The Rider Risk series of videos; The Good Gear Guide for
Motorcycle and Scooter Riders and a number of information websites http://roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/75.html, http://www.spokes.com.au/#/protectiveclothing/jackets, http://www.rideforever.co.nz/gear/choosing-the-right-gear/ .
However while promoting the benefits of protective clothing, few of these sources provide
riders with any objective information about how well specific garments will provide injury
protection in a crash. This is a matter of concern as there is evidence that a substantial
proportion of motorcycle clothing does not perform well under laboratory tests based on
those specified by the EU Standards.
MOTORCYCLE MAGAZINE PRODUCT REVIEWS
Motorcycle magazines frequently provide reviews of products based on road tests of usage
which relate to weather proofing, comfort, convenience and durability. Only two have
been identified that also include tests of performance under crash conditions. These two
exceptions are the British motorcycling magazine ‘Ride’ and a German magazine
‘Motorrad’.
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
28
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing RIDE MAGAZINE (UK)
Ride was the first publication to use the European Standards as the benchmark in its
product tests. The magazine is online at http://www.motorcyclenews.com/Ride/.
Irrespective of whether or not the manufacturer claimed their clothing, boots or gloves to
be protective, their products were subjected to the relevant tests and part of the rating
allocated accordingly. Ride also conducted further tests, such as evaluations of
waterproofing and insulation, not incorporated in the European Standards for
motorcyclists’ protective clothing and equipment.
The Ride reviews included wearer trials by one or more experienced motorcycling
journalists. Ratings were allocated to each of several key areas, with cost factored in to
identify which products represented the best value for money. Products conforming to
European Standards were regularly awarded “Best Buy” or “Recommended.” See
Appendix B for a report on a selection of Ride published reviews.
MOTORRAD MAGAZINE (GERMANY)
Motorrad in Germany also has a record of publishing informative product reviews. The
magazine is online at http://www.motorradonline.de. The product reviews are less
systematic that those by Ride magazine. They sometimes report on testing which appears
to comply with the requirements of the European Standards and at other times varies from
the test procedure. For example, a comparison of gloves were rated by apparently
accepting the manufacturers CE certification and adding extra more subjective tests. When
testing textile combination suits, rather than use the European Standard abrasion and burst
strength testing, the testing was done by dropping a clad dummy from a moving vehicle
and rating the damage to the garment.
The Motorrad articles also included wearer trials by one or more experienced motorcycling
journalists. Point score ratings were allocated to each of several key areas, with cost
factored in to identify which products represented the best value for money. Motorrad uses
a different format for its reviews and does not clearly lay out the test procedures or
standards used.
VICTORIAN MOTORCYCLE PROTECTIVE CLOTHING CONSUMER AWARENESS PROGRAM
The Transport Accident Commission (TAC) and VicRoads are also investigating options
to assist motorcycle riders to make the best selection with regard to purchasing and
wearing protective clothing. This project is currently investigating the feasibility of
running a motorcycle protective clothing consumer awareness program based on the
laboratory testing of garments. The pilot program will involve the testing of a small
number of garments using tests for the European Standards for motorcycle protective
clothing. The results of the pilot are scheduled to be completed by June, 2012. Some of the
issues to be determined in the pilot are:





How many versions of a garment are required to generate a test result?
Does the sizing of a garment affect the testing protocol?
What is the rationale behind taking the mean score from 5 or 6 tests to obtain a test
result? What does it do to the test outcome reliability if the number of tests is reduced?
What, if any, compromises to the EU testing protocol are required to overcome any
feasibility issues?
What considerations need to be given in the translation of test results into a consumer
awareness program?
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
29
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Conclusions
A critical review of existing motorcycle protective clothing rating and test regimes has
been made. The two existing rating and test regimes able to be applied for motorcycle
protective equipment closest to fulfilling the framework put forward at the beginning of
this chapter are the product tests and reviews published by Ride Magazine in the UK and
the Australian CRASH helmet rating scheme. These regimes both consist of a combination
of physical testing to appropriate standards with user assessment. Both schemes include
comprehensive and transparent reporting of the test result and a simple comparative rating
scheme.
References
ACC, 2004. Ride for ever, http://www.Rideforever.Co.Nz/gear/choosing-the-right-gear/.
In: de Rome, L. ed. Accident Compensation Commission, Wellington, NZ.
ACEM, 2010. Protective equipment for riders. In: Motorcycles, A.D.C.E.D. ed., Brussels.
Aldman, B., Cacciola, I., Gustafsson, H., Nygren, A., Wersall, J., 1981. The protective
effect of different kinds of protective clothing worn by motorcyclists. In: Charpenne,
J.P.C.A. ed. Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the Research Council
on the Biomechanics of Impact. IRCOBI, Salon-de-Provence (France), pp. 1-9.
Bogerd, C.P., Carley, M., Crundall, D., Otte, D., Shahar, A., Shinar, D., Webb, D.,
Brühwiler, P.A., 2010. Cost action 357: Accident prevention options with motorcycle
helmets. St. Gallen
CEC, 1989. The Council of the European Communities directive on the approximation of
the laws of the member states relating to personal protective equipment 89/686/EEC.
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 1989L0686-08/10/1996
CONSLEG, http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/mechanical/legislation/personalprotective-equipment/index_en.htm.
CEN, 1998. Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact: Requirements
and test methods for impact protectors. EN 1621-1:1998. European Committee for
Standardisation, Brussels.
CEN, 2002. Protective clothing for professional motorcycle riders: Jackets, trousers and
one piece or divided suits - general requirements. EN 13595-1:2002. European
Committee for Standardisation, Brussels.
CEN, 2003. Motorcyclists' protective clothing against mechanical impact: Motorcyclists
back protectors - requirements and test methods. EN 1621-2:2003 European Committee
for Standardisation, Brussels.
de Rome, L., 2004. Motorcycle protective clothing,
http://roadsafety.Mccofnsw.Org.Au/a/75.Html. Motorcycle Council of NSW, Sydney,
Australia.
de Rome, L., 2009. The good gear guide for motorcycle & scooter riders.
Http://www.Infrastructure.Gov.Au/roads/safety/publications/2009/good_gear_guide.As
px, Canberra.
de Rome, L., Ivers, R., Fitzharris, M., Du, W., Richardson, D., Haworth, N., Heritier, S.,
2011. Motorcycle protective clothing: Protection from injury or just the weather?
Accident Analysis and Prevention 43 (6), 1893-1900.
Halewood, C., Hynd, D., 2008. Safety helmet assessment and rating programme (sharp) development of the performance evaluation protocol. Transport Research Laboratory
Wokingham, Berkshire UK.
MCC, 2011. Rider risk video series, www.Mccofnsw.Org.Au/a/332.Html. Motorcycle
Council of NSW, Sydney, NSW.
Nygren, A., 1987. Protective effect of a specially designed suit for motorcyclists. Passive
safety for motorcyclists. Institute for Motorcycle Safety - Institut fur Zweiradsicherheit
(IFZ), Bochum.
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
30
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Otte, D., Middelhauve, V., 1987. Quantification of protective effects of special synthetic
protectors in clothing for motorcyclists. In: Cesari, D., Charpenne, A. eds. Proceedings
of the International Conference of the Research Council on the Biomechanics of
Impact. IRCOBI, Birmingham, UK, pp. 1-18.
Otte, D., Schroeder, G., Richter, M., 2002. Possibilities for load reductions using garment
leg protectors for motorcyclists -- a technical, medical and biomechanical approach.
Proceedings of the 46th Annual Conference of the American Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine. AAAM, pp. 367-385.
Prime, D.M., Wood, R.I., 1984. Tests on the protection afforded by various fabrics and
leathers in a simulated impact of a motorcyclist on a road surface. In: Cesari, D.,
Charpenne, A. eds. Proceedings of the International Conference of the Research
Council on the Biomechanics of Impact. IRCOBI, Delft, pp. 253-264.
TAC, 2009. Spokes http://www.Spokes.Com.Au/#/protective-clothing/jackets, . In: de
Rome, L. ed. Transport Accident Commission, Melbourne, Victoria.
Varnsverry, P., 2003. Personal protective equipment (ppe): A briefing from the British
Motorcyclists Federation. In: Jackson, R., Olliffe, R. eds. British Motorcycle
Federation, Leicester, UK.
Woods, R.I., 1982. Necessary properties of winter motorcycling clothing. Journal of
Physiology 330, 51-52.
Woods, R.I., 1983. Cooling of Motorcyclists in various clothing during winter in Britain.
Ergonomics 26 (9), 847-861.
Woods, R.I., 1986. Relation between clothing thickness and cooling during motorcycling.
Ergonomics 29 (3), 455-462.
Woods, R.I., 1994. Testing motorcycle riders clothing and the personal protective
equipment directive. In: Charpenne, A., Zac, R. eds. Proceedings of the International
Conference of the Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impact. International
Research Council on Biokinetics of Impacts, Lyon, France, pp. 291-302.
Woods, R.I., 1996a. Specification of motorcyclists' protective clothing designed to reduce
road surface impact injuries. In: Johnson, J.S., Mansdorf, S.Z. eds. Performance of
protective clothing. American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM STP 1237,
Philadelphia, pp. 3-22.
Woods, R.I., 1996b. Testing of protective clothing for motorcyclists: Validation of
laboratory tests by accident studies. In: Johnson, J.S., Mansdorf, S.Z. eds. Performance of
protective clothing. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, pp. 43-56.
Woods, R.I., 1999. The Cambridge standard for Motorcyclists' clothing. Part 1. Jackets,
trousers, one piece suits and two piece suits, designed to provide mechanical protection
against some injuries. Protective Clothing Research Facility, Physiological Laboratory,
Cambridge University, Downing Street, Cambridge, UK CB2 3EG.
Chapter 2 – Product tests and rating schemes for motorcycle protective clothing
31
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CHAPTER 3 - CONSUMER RATING AND EVALUATION
PROGRAMS
One of the key tasks was to analyze consumer information programs in road safety and other
sectors in terms of their efficacy and cost-effectiveness. A number of consumer information
programs in road safety were identified (e.g. ANCAP, CREP), including some focussed on
motorcycle safety (e.g. CRASH, SHARP and Ride), as well as in other non-road safety
sectors (e.g. fuel consumption and energy efficiency). However there is relatively little
evidence-based literature evaluating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these consumer
information programs, as most evaluation reports focus on the reach of the message rather
than the associated change in behaviour.
This section of the report will discuss the mechanisms by which consumer information
programs are known or postulated to work and assess the relevance of these mechanisms for
increasing usage of protective clothing.
IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING CONSUMER INFORMATION PROGRAMS
Existing consumer information programs were examined in terms of whether they assess
products on single or multiple dimensions, how the ratings are communicated to consumers,
whether the system is mandatory or voluntary, the related issue of the completeness of
coverage, how the program relates to any existing standards and who funds the assessment
program.
Table 3.1 Key factors in a consumer rating / information system
Features Factors assessed Business model paid for by : Regulatory status Distribution of results Rating/ information disclosure Rating/ information displayed on product: Efficacy Cost‐effectiveness Single or multiple dimension.
Consumer directly
Industry organization / manufacturer of product being assessed. System mandatory or voluntary
On the product, website, magazine, multiple sites. Mandatory or voluntary
Test criteria available
Criteria available
Only consumer information programs that seek to inform the general public were examined.
Programs designed to inform a small number of specific consumers were not addressed in
this report. For example, the Nielsen media ratings have not been included because the main
consumers are advertising agencies and the commercial television and radio stations, rather
than the general public.
Consumer information is commonly available on the internet. A range of search terms,
which might ordinarily be used by consumers when looking for safety information, were
entered into an internet search engine to identify road safety rating systems that are easily
accessible by consumers. Further searches were then carried out to gather information about
any evaluations of these systems.
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 39 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing This section will begin by providing examples of Australian and international rating systems
used. It will outline the business models that have been used, and assess which may be most
useful in designing future rating systems in motorcycle safety.
CONSUMER INFORMATION PROGRAMS IN VEHICLE AND ROAD SAFETY
NEW AND USED CAR SAFETY RATING PROGRAMS
Programs have been developed to provide information to consumers who are intending to
purchase new or used cars, child restraints or motorcycle helmets. New Car Assessment
Programs have been developed in the United States, Europe, Japan, Korea, China and
Australia to provide safety information to intending purchasers of new cars. While they
initially considered only measures of secondary safety (ability to protect the occupants once a
crash had occurred), more recent changes to the Programs have incorporated crash avoidance
technologies such as enhanced stability control systems. The New Car Assessment Programs
generally test cars to a level of performance that is higher than specified in the mandatory
Government safety standards. This approach is used to avoid problems with regulatory
compliance if a failure should occur. These programs are funded by motorist associations and
government agencies and independently purchase and crash test vehicles. Thus, while the
majority of the largest selling models are tested, some are not, and the Australian New Car
Assessment Program (ANCAP) often presents results of European testing of some models.
Star ratings are available free to the public on a variety of websites. In Australia, car retailers
and vehicle manufacturers can voluntarily display the rating on vehicles for purchase or use
the ratings in advertising material. In the United States, it is mandatory to display the star
rating on the price tag of the vehicle.
Euro NCAP works on the same system and model as ANCAP. In 2009, Euro NCAP changed
its rating system to put a greater emphasis on rating the extent to which vehicles protect
pedestrians in crashes. Research by Liers (2009b) aimed to estimate how well the pedestrian
rating system matches the expected real world benefit. His results supported the inclusion of
findings from real-world accident data and associated effectiveness studies in the
development of passive safety measures, legislation tests or ratings like Euro NCAP (Liers
2009a)
In the U.S, as well as NCAP, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), and
Consumers Union, also rate vehicle safety. The 2010 IIHS Status Report stated that the IIHS
and Consumers Union ratings attract more media attention than NCAP’s (IIHS 2010).
“Institute crash tests routinely are covered on national news, attracting tens of millions of
viewers. About 8 million people subscribe to Consumers Union publications, making the
flagship Consumer Reports a top -10 magazine” (Consumers Union 2012b, a). A common
characteristic of these programs is that they are not part of a regulatory program and their
purpose is to go beyond minimum government requirements “to do a better job of protecting
their occupants in crashes. For this reason, the tests generally are more demanding than those
required to comply with safety regulations established by governments in the United States
and elsewhere”.
The validity of laboratory crash test information and New Car Assessment programs, and
whether they predict real-world performance, has been demonstrated in research by the
Institute for Highway Safety in the U.S (Farmer 2005, Farmer et al. 2008, Teoh and Lund
2011). In a study of the relationship between frontal offset crash test ratings and real-world
fatality rates, Farmer (2005) found fatality rates per registered vehicle were lower for vehicles
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 40 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing rated ‘good’ than were for those rated ‘poor’. Farmer et al. also examined consumer safety
ratings for vehicle seats against real-world neck injury rates (Farmer et al. 2008). The
researchers found that real-world injury rates were 15% lower for vehicles with seats rated
‘good’ compared with vehicles with seats rated ‘poor’, and rates of neck injuries lasting 3
months or more were 35% lower for those rated ‘good’ compared with those rated ‘poor’.
Consumer information on side impact ratings has been shown to be a strong predictor of realworld performance. Teoh and Lund found drivers of vehicles rated ‘good’ were 70% less
likely to die when involved in left side crashes than of drivers of vehicle rated ‘poor’(Teoh
and Lund 2011). Death risk was 64% lower for those rated ‘acceptable’ compared with
‘poor’ and 49% lower than those rated ‘marginal’ compared with ‘poor’.
In Australia and New Zealand, the Used Car Safety Rating (UCSR) program seeks to assist
purchasers of used cars to select vehicles that will provide a greater level of protection to
occupants in the event of a crash as well as a low level of danger to occupants of other
vehicles (TAC 2012). This program is similar to the New Car Assessment Program (TAC
2012) in that it is independently funded by motorist associations and government agencies
and is a voluntary program where the results are publicised and available on a range of
websites, rather than being required to be displayed on the vehicle. It differs from the New
Car Assessment Program in that it derives its ratings from analyses of injury risk and severity
in Police-reported crashes, rather than laboratory crash testing.
EFFECTS OF CAR SAFETY RATING PROGRAMS ON PURCHASE DECISIONS
Relatively little information is available regarding the effect of consumer information
programs on consumers’ decisions when purchasing new or used cars. Spalding and King
investigated the role of safety features in consumers’ purchase decisions in Australia and the
relative importance of different sources of vehicle safety information (Spalding and King
2006). The investigators surveyed 175 individuals and found safety was ranked the joint fifth
most important attribute in a prospective future used vehicle purchase. Nearly 90% of the
respondents were aware of crash testing of vehicles. Awareness of ANCAP ratings was over
46% and awareness of UCSR was over 20%. More than half of the respondents considered
the advice from motoring clubs and magazine road tests on vehicles to be very useful.
However, almost 80% of respondents noted the seller of their last purchased vehicle did not
inform them very well about its safety features. The authors noted that mixed results provide
challenges and opportunities ahead to communicate benefits and encourage the purchase of
safer vehicles.
A national survey in the US (based on 928 drivers) found that safety was rated the second
most important factor in selecting a vehicle, after quality/reliability (McCartt and Wells
2010). Of the respondents, 86% said safety is a very important consideration. The importance
of safety appears to be higher in this larger U.S sample compared with the smaller Australian
sample. More than three-quarters of respondents said they had seen safety ratings or crash
test information (somewhat less than the awareness of crash testing in Australia) and 67% of
these U.S respondents said such information would be useful in purchasing or considering
which vehicle to own. Approximately 30% of respondents could name an organisation that
provides ratings.
A recently completed Queensland study by Spalding evaluated a pilot which was designed to
improve awareness of consumer information for the Used Car Safety Ratings (UCSR) at
point-of-sale (POS) (Spalding 2011). The report highlighted a lack of acceptability by the
vehicle sellers of the UCSR information being displayed at POS. In fact, the initial aim of the
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 41 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing research, which was to track changes in the vehicle safety levels of dealer held stock, could
not be achieved as there was not sufficient dealer support for the involvement for the duration
of the pilot. Feedback from dealers included that POS material was not seen as beneficial to
them and some felt it was detrimental to their business. Dealers felt that potential purchasers
generally have little interest in POS safety related information and/or they (the purchaser)
have done their safety research prior to entering the car yard. Feedback also suggested there
is lack of clarity (for the dealers) around the difference between ANCAP and UCSR.
New Car Assessment Programs have shown some effect in promoting improvements in the
level of fleet vehicle safety. The Australian Federal Government recently announced that all
Commonwealth fleet passenger car purchases would require a 5-star ANCAP rating and light
commercial vehicles would require a 4-star rating from July 2011. Several State governments
and private fleets have already made similar decisions.
OTHER VEHICLE AND ROAD SAFETY RATING SYSTEMS
The Child Restraint Evaluation Program (CREP) is another example of an independent
consumer information program. The program is supported by the NSW Roads and Marine
Services (RMS), NRMA Motoring & Services, the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria
(RACV), the Transport Accident Commission (TAC), and the Royal Automobile Club of
WA (RACWA). It is a multidimensional program in that it provides information on both the
levels of occupant protection provided by child restraints and the ease with which the
restraints can be used correctly. Currently restraints must meet the Australian/New Zealand
Standard AS/NZ 1754:2010 Child restraints for use in motor vehicles. However, the purpose
of the program is to apply commercial and public consumer pressure on manufacturers to
deliver Child Restraint Systems (CRS) that perform well beyond the requirements of the
Australian Standard. Thus, it is similar in purpose to the New Car Assessment Program.
The Consumer Rating and Assessment of Safety Helmets (CRASH) Program is discussed in
detail elsewhere in this report. It should be noted that it follows the same “business model” as
the New Car Assessment Program and CREP, in that it is funded by government and motorist
organisations and is a voluntary system which operates to promote performance beyond that
specified in mandatory standards. Little is known about the effects of the CREP or CRASH
programs on consumer behaviour.
Following from the example of the New Car Assessment Programs and the UCSR, rating
systems have also been developed for roads and for road crossing points. The Australian
Road Assessment Program (AusRAP) has developed into the International Road Assessment
Program (iRAP). It calculates crash rates on various major routes within a jurisdiction and
converts this data into star ratings (from 1 to 5) for routes. A ‘star rating’ model was
developed for rating the safety of individual road crossing points in Victoria considering the
main determinants of pedestrian crash and injury risk. The project by Corben, Logan and
Oxley demonstrated that is it feasible to objectively rate the safety performance of individual
road crossing points as well as provide indications of overall route safety (Corben et al.
2008). The authors note further work is desirable to improve the robustness of the
mathematical risk relationship utilised, as well as to broaden the applicability of the model to
walking populations and road environments. To the best of our knowledge, as yet there had
been no evaluation of effectiveness of the ‘star rating’ use for road crossings.
A ‘STAR rating’ system for tractor safety assessment has been developed as a means of
comparing the inherent safety features of individual tractors by giving tractor manufacturers,
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 42 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing dealers and users information critical in managing tractor risk (Scott et al. 2002). In this case
the stars system was developed “in a systematic process with reference to fatality and injury
patterns, current standards, and tractor safety research, and included farmer input” (Day et al.
2005, pg. 363). The rating system is available via the internet to farmers, tractor
manufacturers, and dealers. In Australia, it was initially implemented within the technical
education and training sector. In New South Wales, all agricultural and horticultural teachers
are required to undertake STARS training and training was to be incorporated into the
curriculum for agricultural students. The STARS system is included as resource material in
the rural occupational health and safety risk management course. As further evidence of the
reach of the system, in 2003, elements of the STAR system were used in the tender for the
purchase of several hundred new tractors for rural high schools in NSW. The authors note
“this indicates that recognition of STARS as a useful resource is beginning to occur” (Day et
al. 2005) p.362.
RATING SYSTEMS IN OTHER INDUSTRIES
To identify rating systems in other industries, a similar process of internet searches was
carried out as above. Accommodation standards and energy ratings observed provide
examples of different types of business models used. Information on a number of these
systems follows.
The AAA STAR rating is a consistent rating of (approximately 8,000) accommodation
properties throughout Australia. Properties are rated between one and five stars based on:
Cleanliness, Quality & Condition, Facilities & Services (AAA Tourism Corporate 2011). It is
a voluntary system where properties pay for a licence to be rated by AAA. The star level can
then be displayed by the property (on the premises) and is also available in accommodation
guides. These guides and standards listings are generally available free of charge to
consumers and the general public online or at visitor centres. Some auto clubs associated with
AAA may sell the guides for a fee. Properties pay a higher fee in their membership to have
their property’s information displayed more prominently in the guides (telephone
correspondence AAA Tourism, 2011).
AAA Tourism has surveyed consumers about the accommodation STAR rating symbol or
logo. Their research found that 89% of consumers recognised the AAA STAR symbol.
Responses to “Do you search by STAR ratings when choosing accommodation?” showed that
84% of consumers “use the STARS ‘always’ or ‘most of the time’ in the accommodation
buying process”. The STAR system was found to be extremely important guiding decision
making for consumers (between competing accommodations). It was found that the rating
had a great deal of equity in the minds of consumers, however this was largely subconscious,
and that there is a belief that all accommodation types should have a STAR rating (AAA
Tourism Corporate 2011).
The mandatory energy efficiency labeling scheme for household appliances is a well-known
consumer information program. A study conducted for the Australian Department of
Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts used a series of focus group discussions in
Australia and New Zealand to address whether a 10-star rating scheme would improve the
current scheme which has long used a 6-star format to communicate the energy efficiency of
selected consumer appliances (Department of Environment et al. 2008). The results
(obtained by Winton Sustainable Research Strategies, 2008) found that after 20 years of
community awareness and promotion, the appliance energy labels is almost universal, with
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 43 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing most consumers having a good understanding of the basic concepts and features. It was also
found that:
Most have acted on the label in real appliance purchase decisions
Almost all are aware that more stars mean greater energy efficiency, and half stars are
clearly recognised and understood.
In their purchase process almost all referred to the stars (almost always before the
numbers), and they liked the graphical depiction. They saw the stars as a fun concept
that also communicates a simple and important environmental message.
With a 6-star label, consumers did not read the number of stars or half stars, they
tended to recognise the rating in its entirety, they “intuit or subitize” the rating,
without (consciously) counting each star.
Most people also referred to the energy consumption figure, the numbers, and while
they may have been unclear as to precisely what the numbers represented, most did
understand that the larger the number, the more energy that appliance consumes
and/or the more it will cost to run.
Research in Montreal investigated the development of a new energy rating system for
existing houses and concluded the following about owners’ awareness of the potential
advantages of the system. It was found that owners’ awareness could be increased by the
presentation of the actual energy performance compared with that of a reference house.
Secondly that awareness could be increased by the presentation of the potential savings
(Zmeureanu et al. 1998).
In the U.S., the ENERGY STAR® system is a voluntary labelling program to promote and
identify energy efficient products, buildings and practices. It is operated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Research evaluated the ENERGY STAR® system in order to estimate the energy, dollar and
carbon savings achieved by the program. The method used was to calculate the number of
energy star units in place each year that can be attributed to the ENERGY STAR® program.
Sales of each product were segmented first into non-energy star and energy-star units. They
were further divided into those that would have been sold even without the program and
those that could be attributed to the program. It was estimated that the system saved more
than 1,194 trillion BTUs of energy and prevented carbon emissions of 21.1 million metric
tons in 2006 (Sanchez et al. 2007). Details of the sales figures, which would be useful in
examining estimated reach to consumers of the ENERGY STAR® system, were not provided
in the paper.
Consumers are also provided with information regarding the fuel consumption of new
vehicles. The fuel consumption labeling standard (ADR81/02) applies to all new vehicles
being sold in Australia (up to 3.5 tonnes gross vehicle mass). It is mandatory that vehicle
manufacturers display a fuel consumption labels on the front windscreen. The label indicates
both how many litres of fuel a vehicle will use to travel 100 kilometres as well as how many
grams of carbon dioxide the vehicle would emit for each kilometre (Department of
Sustainability 2011). The purchaser of the vehicle has no link to the funding of the system.
Vehicle manufacturers are responsible for the testing under this system. In the proposed
update from ADR81/01 the Department of Transport and Regional Services in consultation
with the Land Transport Environment Committee (2007) found that there were limitations to
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 44 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing the ADR81/01 in assisting consumers to make informed decisions when purchasing vehicles.
They found the label displayed as a combined figure for both fuel consumption and CO2
emissions leads to some confusion among those consumers who are unable to achieve these
results in real world driving (Department of Transport and Regional Services 2007).
Information is provided to consumers about a wide range of products and services by Choice
magazine. Choice is a not for profit organisation founded in 1960 which rates a range of
products on the market. The system both tests products and surveys customers to develop
reliability ratings. ‘Choice’ is funded by subscribers and governed by an elected council.
“CHOICE is the public face of the not-for-profit Australian Consumers Association (ACA)
Governed by an elected, unpaid and independent Council
Senior management team oversee day to day operations
Risk management based on Australia/New Zealand standard” (ACA 2011).
A brand awareness study commissioned by ‘Choice’ found that a large proportion (88%) of
‘Choice’ members had bought a product on a ‘Choice’ recommendation and nearly all were
happy with their purchase (ACA 2010). Given that the system has been in place for 51 years
and is still running, the model appears cost-effective from the ‘Choice’ point of view. The
model also appears cost-effective for consumer as 41% of non-members thought “CHOICE
can save you time and money”. However, the study also found only 22% of members and
17% of non-members regarded CHOICE as being visible in the community suggesting the
limited reach achieved by the organisation (ACA 2010).
A summary of the all the rating system models described above can be found in Table 3.2.
EFFICACY AND COST-EFFECTIVENESS
While a number of road safety and vehicle safety rating systems have been developed, there
appears to be little research which has evaluated the efficacy (regarding safety) or costeffectiveness of these rating systems in the ‘real world’. In the other industries, where there is
a commercial advantage for information regarding the reach of the programs, there has been
more research and has focused on consumer awareness of the rating programs (as outlined
above). Again there appears to be a lack of research detailing cost-effectiveness issues. The
length of time the system has been running, however, provided an indication of the success
and future viability of such a business model.
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 45 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Table 3.2 Summary consumer rating systems models
Consumer rating
/ information
system
Single or
multiple
dimension
Business
model
Paid for
by
consumer
directly?
Paid for by
organisation/
manufacturer
of product
being
assessed?
System
mandatory or
voluntary?
NCAP
Single:
Safety
Consumer
has no direct
link to the
funding of
the system
Government
agencies &
motorist
associations
No
No
Vehicle
models
independently
chosen by
NCAP (AUS
& Euro).
Consumer
has no direct
link to the
funding of
the system
Government
agencies &
motorist
associations
No
New Car
Assessment
Program
UCRS
Used Car Rating
Scheme
Single:
Safety
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems No
In the U.S.
NCAP star
rating must be
placed on the
price sticker
(as of Sep 07)
Not
Mandatory
Rating/
information
displayed on
the product,
website,
magazine,
multiple?
Often
displayed on
vehicle & in
advertising
material
(AUS)
Brochures
published,
available on
website s of
supporters
Rating/
information
displayed on
product:
Mandatory or
voluntary?
Efficacy
Costeffectivene
ss
Voluntarily
(AUS &
Europe) /
Mandatory
(U.S.)
Effect on
safety of
ratings
unknown:
Awareness of
ANCAP
ratings were
over 46%
(Spalding &
King 2006)
Unknown
Information
available on
the internet.
Not usually
displayed on
the vehicle by
the seller
Brochures
published and
available to
the consumer.
Voluntary
Effect on
safety of
ratings
unknown
Awareness of
UCSR was
over 20%
(Spalding &
King 2006)
Unknown
46 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Consumer rating
/ information
system
Single or
multiple
dimension
Business
model
Paid for
by
consumer
directly?
Paid for by
organisation/
manufacturer
of product
being
assessed?
System
mandatory or
voluntary?
CREP
Multiple:
Safety &
Ease-of-use
Consumer
has no direct
link to the
funding of
the system.
Government
agencies &
motorist
associations
combine
NO
NO
Voluntary
Single:
Energy
efficiency
Consumer
has no direct
link to the
funding of
the system
NO
Suppliers
organise
testing and
certification
through
specialist
laboratories.
Mandatory
Child Restraint
Effectiveness
Program
ENERGY
STAR®
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems Rating/
information
displayed on
the product,
website,
magazine,
multiple?
Information
available on
the internet.
Not usually
displayed on
the vehicle by
the seller
Brochures
published and
available to
the consumer.
Rating on the
product and
other sources
including web
47 Rating/
information
displayed on
product:
Mandatory or
voluntary?
Efficacy
Costeffectivene
ss
Voluntary
Unknown
Unknown
Mandatory
It is estimated
that the system
saved more
than 1,194
trillion Btus of
energy and
prevented
carbon
emissions of
21.1 million
metric tons in
2006 (Sanchez
etal., 2007)
Unknown
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Consumer rating
/ information
system
Single or
multiple
dimension
Business
model
Paid for
by
consumer
directly?
Paid for by
organisation/
manufacturer
of product
being
assessed?
System
mandatory or
voluntary?
Fuel efficiency
Single: Fuel
efficiency
Consumer
has no direct
link to the
funding of
the system
NO
Manufacturer's
responsibility
to test &
produce the
labels
Mandatory
AAA Tourism
Single:
accom'n
standard
Subscription
type model.
Property
pays: via a
membership
licence
Generally
NO:
some star
rating
guides are
free (e.g.
Online)
others are
sold by
the
member
clubs
Property pays:
via
membership/
licence
Voluntary
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems Rating/
information
displayed on
the product,
website,
magazine,
multiple?
On vehicle and
in advertising
Rating/
information
displayed on
product:
Mandatory or
voluntary?
Efficacy
Costeffectivene
ss
Mandatory on
new vehicle
Unknown
Unknown
Rating
displayed on
property and
published in
guides and
online
Voluntary
84% of
consumers use
the STARS
‘always’ or
‘most of the
time’(AAA
Tourism
Corporate,
2011)
This model
has been
financially
viable with
the system
running for
96 years
(since
1915)
(AAA
Tourism
Corporate,
2011)
48 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Consumer rating
/ information
system
Single or
multiple
dimension
Business
model
Paid for
by
consumer
directly?
Paid for by
organisation/
manufacturer
of product
being
assessed?
System
mandatory or
voluntary?
CHOICE
Magazine
Multiple:
Product
testing &
reliability
rating
Subscription
type model
YES
NO,
Subscribers
pay
Voluntary
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems Rating/
information
displayed on
the product,
website,
magazine,
multiple?
Ratings of
products in
CHOICE
magazine
49 Rating/
information
displayed on
product:
Mandatory or
voluntary?
Efficacy
Costeffectivene
ss
Ratings not
displayed on
products
Although a
large
proportion
(88%) of
CHOICE
members had
bought a
product on a
CHOICE
recommendati
on, only 22%
of members
regarded
CHOICE as
being visible
in the
community
and 17% of
non-members
regarded it as
being visible
(CHOICE,
2010)
CHOICE
is a not for
profit
organisatio
n, its model
appears
financially
viable as it
has been
running for
51 years
(was
founded in
1960)
funded by
their
members
and
safeguarde
d by an
elected
council
(CHOICE,
2010)
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Rating/
information
displayed on
the product,
website,
magazine,
multiple?
Star rating
available as a
brochure (inc
on the
internet)
Rating/
information
displayed on
product:
Mandatory or
voluntary?
Efficacy
Costeffectivene
ss
Voluntary
Unknown
Unknown
Voluntary
Information
available on
the internet.
Voluntary
Unknown
Unknown
Mandatory
YES on the
product &
other sources
including web
Mandatory
Unknown
Unknown
Consumer rating
/ information
system
Single or
multiple
dimension
Business
model
Paid for
by
consumer
directly?
Paid for by
organisation/
manufacturer
of product
being
assessed?
System
mandatory or
voluntary?
CRASH
Multiple:
Safety and
user
assessment
Consumer
has no direct
link to the
funding of
the system.
Government
agencies &
motorist
associations
Consumer
has no direct
link to the
funding of
the system.
NO
NO
Voluntary
NO
NO
NO
Suppliers
organise
testing and
certification
through
specialist
laboratories.
Consumer
Rating and
Assessment of
Safety Helmets
(Motorcycle)
SHARP
Safety Helmet
Assessment and
Rating Program
(Motorcycle)
Standard
AS/NZS 1698
Protective
Helmets for
Vehicle Users
Multiple:
Safety, User
assessments,
price
Single:
Safety
UK
Government
Consumer
has no direct
link to the
funding of
the system
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 50 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Consumer rating
/ information
system
Single or
multiple
dimension
Business
model
Paid for
by
consumer
directly?
Paid for by
organisation/
manufacturer
of product
being
assessed?
System
mandatory or
voluntary?
Ride Magazine
Multiple:
Safety, User
assessments,
price
Subscription
type model
YES
NO,
Subscribers
pay
Voluntary
Motorrad
magazine
Multiple:
Safety, User
assessments,
price
Subscription
type model
YES
NO,
Subscribers
pay
Voluntary
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems Rating/
information
displayed on
the product,
website,
magazine,
multiple?
Ratings of
products in
Ride magazine
Rating/
information
displayed on
product:
Mandatory or
voluntary?
Efficacy
Costeffectivene
ss
Ratings not
displayed on
products
Unknown
Unknown
Ratings of
products in
Motorrad
magazine
Ratings not
displayed on
products
Unknown
Unknown
51 Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems THE DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODELS
In summary, five types of business models were identified:
1 Mandatory testing and display (e.g. appliance energy ratings, vehicle fuel consumption)
2 Purchase of products by external organisation(s), testing to beyond mandatory standards
and publicity (e.g. NCAP, CREP, CRASH)
3 Purchase of products by a consumer organisation which develops tests and publishes
results (e.g. Choice magazine)
4 Analysis of real-world safety performance of products by external organisation(s) and
publicity (e.g. UCSR)
5 Suppliers pay to have products assessed by independent organisation with results
published and often displayed (e.g. AAA accommodation ratings)
Conclusions
Overall, there has been relatively little evaluation of consumer rating and information systems
(in either road safety or other areas of consumer use). Most were single dimension and if there
was a requirement to label the rating on the product, these were generally voluntary and market
driven.
In the area of road safety, all the programs observed were designed to make an improvement
beyond the official standards. In the area of accommodation standards, there are no
comparable official rating systems however, there were quite a number of informal
accommodation rating systems available to consumers, in the form of internet forums and
ratings specific properties listed on websites. There were also systems developed in the
absence of official (government) standards.
References
AAA Tourism Corporate, 2011. Consumer research. http://www2.aaatourism.com.au/industry/
STARRatings/ConsumerResearch/tabid/142/default.aspx.
ACA, 2010. Annual review 2010 www.choice.com.au. Australian Consumer Association,
Marrickville, NSW.
ACA, 2011. How we run. Choice Magazine,. Australian Consumer Association,
http://www.choice.com.au/about-us/how-we-are-run.aspx, Marrickville, NSW.
Corben, B., Logan, D., Oxley, J., 2008. Star rating school walking routes. Report no. 275.
Monash Accident Research Centre, Clayton, Victoria.
Day, L., Scott, M., Williams, R., Rechnitzer, G., Walsh, P., Boyle, S., 2005. Development of
the safe tractor assessment rating system. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health 11 (3),
353-364.
Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts, 2008. Towards a 10-star energy
efficiency rating system for major household appliances. Canberra, ACT.
Department of Sustainability, E., Water, Pollution and Communities, 2011. Fuel consumption
labels http://www.Environment.Gov.Au/settlements/transport/fuelguide/label.Html.
Canberra, ACT.
Department of Transport and Regional Services, 2007. Proposed update of ADR81/01 fuel
consumption labelling for light vehicles LTEC position paper.
Http://www.ephc.gov.au/ltec/pdfs/positionpaper_proposed_adr81_02_nov2007.pdf.
Canberra, ACT.
Farmer, C.M., 2005. Relationships of frontal offset crash test results to real-world driver
fatality rates. Traffic Injury Prevention 6, 31-37.
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 52 Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems Farmer, C.M., Zuby, D.S., Wells, J.K., Hellinga, L.A., 2008. Relationship of dynamic seat
ratings to real-world neck injury rates. Traffic Injury Prevention 9, 561-567.
IIHS, 2010. Status report. Special Issue: Vol 45, No. 4, April 15, 2010. Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, Arlington, US.
Liers, H., 2009a. Benefit estimation of the Euro NCAP pedestrian rating concerning real world
pedestrian safety. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/esv/esv21/09-0387.pdf.
Verkehrsunfallforschung an der TU Dresden GmbH (VUFO), (Traffic Accident Research at
the Technical University of Dresden GmbH (VUFO)).
Liers, H., 2009b. Benefit estimation of the Euro NCAP pedestrian rating concerning real world
pedestrian safety, . Proceedings of the 21st (Esv) International Technical Conference on The
Enhanced Safety of Vehicles. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Stuttgart,
Germany.
McCartt, A., Wells, J., 2010. Consumer survey about vehicle choice. Insurance Institute for
Highway Safety, Arlington, VA.
Sanchez, M.C., Webber, C.A., Brown, R.E., Homan, G.K., 2007. 2007 status report. Savings
estimates for the energy star® voluntary labelling Program. . Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory LBNL-56380. Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Berkeley, CA.
Scott, M., Williams, R., Day, L., Rechnitzer, G., Walsh, P., Boyle, S., 2002. Safe tractor
assessment rating system. Technical reference document. Monash Accident Research
Centre and Kondinin Group, Clayton, Victoria.
Spalding, S., 2011. Dealer pilot – evaluation of using POS consumer information for used car
Safety ratings. Royal Automobile Club of Queensland (RACQ). Brisbane, QLD.
Spalding, S., King, M., 2006. Motor vehicle Safety levels - considerations for consumers in
used vehicle purchasing decisions. Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and
Education Conference, 25-27 October 2006. Surfers Paradise, Qld.
Teoh, E.R., Lund, A.K., 2011. IIHS side crash test ratings and occupant death risk in realworld crashes. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Arlington, US.
Zmeureanu, R., Fazio, P., DePani, S., Calla, R., 1998. Development of an energy rating system
for existing houses. Energy and Buildings 29 (1999), 107-119.
Chapter 3 – Consumer rating and evaluation systems 53 Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CHAPTER 4 - CONSUMER CONSULTATIONS AND
FURTHER RESEARCH
The following chapter describes the outcomes of consultations with industry, riders and a
study of motorcycle clothing advertisements.
INDUSTRY CONSULTATIONS
Consultations with key representatives of the motorcycle accessories industry in Australia
and New Zealand were conducted to identify factors that need to be taken into account in the
development of any ratings systems in order to avoid unnecessarily compromising the
viability of the industry.
Organisations consulted included - Cassons, Peter Stevens, Monza, Draggin Jeans, Tiger
Angel, Forbes and Davies, Darbie Accessories, Nationwide Accessories, Northern
Accessories, Eurobike, Whites and Crown Kiwi.
The Australian representatives had already been consulted about aspects of improving usage
and the quality of motorcycle protective clothing and were familiar with the concept of a star
rating system (Currie Communications 2009). All expressed views that were either positive
or neutral about the prospects of an independent protective clothing rating scheme for
consumers, there was no overt opposition expressed to the interviewer.
It was apparent that a key incentive for the local industry would be if a ratings scheme could
help them to compete with cheaper low quality imports. Concern was also expressed about
the perceived high proportions of accessories being bought on-line from overseas companies.
Factors such as taxes and import duties were also raised and it was apparent that removal of
GST on motorcycle clothing that is defined as a safety product could provide a significant
incentive.
Due to the differences in seasons between the northern and southern hemispheres, time
frames in relation to the ordering process were an issue for some importers. They need to
order stock well in advance and some were concerned about buying stock before it has been
assessed with the risks of receiving a poor rating. Others did not seem to consider the
prospect of a rating scheme as a threat but saw little benefit to their own business.
The recent introduction of the new Australian Consumer Law (ACL) provides a further
incentive as this has introduced a new nationally consistent system to regulate the safety of
consumer goods and product related services. The ACL is contained in a schedule to the
Competition and Consumer Act 2010, which has replaced the Trade Practices Act 1974. The
schedule is also mirrored in state and territory fair trading legislation. The ACL’s product
safety provisions set out how the Australian and state/territory Governments can regulate
consumer goods and product related services to ensure they are safe. The new Act does not
rely solely on mandatory standards, but places the onus on the industry to ensure their
products are safe. Under the new Act anyone in the supply chain (e.g. manufacturer,
importer, retailer or hirer), can be held liable if a product is found to be unsafe.
Chapter 4 – Consumer consultations and further research
55
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing RIDER CONSULTATIONS
Initial consultations with rider representatives were conducted to identify the appropriate web
forums. Discussions about protective clothing were conducted on a number of web forums in
order to reach a wide range of different rider groups. The researcher applied to become a
member of each forum and disclosed her identity and purpose in joining to seek input into the
research program.
Successful approaches were made to: Netrider, PerthRiders, IronBark Riders, Kiwi Biker,
Two Wheels Forum, Sydney City Scooter Riders. Unsuccessful attempts were made to
establish discussion posts on: RidingSA, AusTouring, QLD Motorcycle Riders, and Rider
Awareness Northern Territory (RANT). The lack of success was due technical difficulties
with the website, in most cases, possibly because these are run on a volunteer basis. The
application to join was rejected as spam by the forum moderator in one case (AusTouring).
Following these web-based discussions a web-based survey was developed taking account of
issues raised by the industry representatives and riders on the discussion forums. Questions
focused on the ownership and usage of motorcycle clothing, factors associated with choice of
clothing, sources of reliable information and willingness to pay more for accredited products.
Other questions related to demographic details, type of bike ridden and income. The survey
was held on two separate websites and invitations to take part were distributed through two
parallel mechanisms. See Appendix D for the survey questions.
The first mechanism was to distribute invitations to participate in the survey through the
motorcycle networks (MN) including motorcycle internet sites, discussion forums and clubs.
The advantage of consulting with these groups is that they are more readily identifiable and
accessible as motorcyclists, and more likely to be informed about the issues; the disadvantage is
that they may not be representative of the average rider.
The second mechanism was to use a market research company to conduct the survey using an
established research panel. Research panels (RP) are comprised of people who have agreed to
take part in on-line surveys. Participants are rewarded for their participation in surveys
through points systems, which can be redeemed for gift vouchers. They are recruited through
involvement in off-line computer assisted telephone interviews (CATI), opt-in invitations on
survey websites, banners and advertising. A part of their registration process involves
completion of a questionnaire about their demographic details, which also includes a range of
non-mandatory questions including their licence status and vehicles owned. Subgroups can
be identified for specific surveys based on these details such as riding a motorcycle.
The advantage of using a research panel (RP) is to obtain a more representative sample of
motorcyclists than may be obtained using motorcycle networks (MN). While panelists’
willingness to participate in on-line surveys means they cannot be regarded as a random
sample of the wider community, the recruitment process also means they may be more
representative of wider motorcycling population than enthusiasts recruited through
motorcycle community networks (MN).
THE SAMPLES
The research panel survey (RP) was conducted within Australia only, as the market research
company did not operate in New Zealand. The motorcycle networks (MN) survey was
conducted in Australia (n = 309) and New Zealand (n = 90).
Chapter 4 – Consumer consultations and further research
56
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing The RP survey provided 625 usable responses and the MN survey provided 309 usable
responses. There were no significant differences in the distribution of age, licence status or
helmet usage between the two survey samples. There were significantly more women (38%
vs 9%) and more scooter riders (16% vs 2%) in the RP sample (p<0.0001).
The MN sample were more likely (p<0.0001) than were the RP sample to say that they
always wore a motorcycle jacket (88% vs 71%), pants (62% vs 32%), boots (81% vs 51%)
and gloves (92% vs 70%) and more likely to belong to a motorcycle club (49% vs 22%) and
visit motorcycle discussion forums (79% vs 25%). There were also no significant differences
in usage of motorcycle clothing between the New Zealand and Australian samples, however
it should be noted that the New Zealand sample were obtained solely through motorcycle
networks as the market research panels was restricted to Australia.
OWNERSHIP AND USAGE OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
Both surveys confirmed that riders were more likely to own motorcycle jackets and gloves
than either boots or pants. However, ownership did not necessarily imply always wearing
those garments. The MN sample was significantly more likely both to own and always wear
clothing. Figure 4.1 shows the proportions of the combined samples who owned and always
wore motorcycle clothing. The last column in the figure shows the proportion who owned
and always wore each item. Motorcycle pants were least likely to be always worn, with only
41% of all respondents always wearing and 58% of all who owned pants, always wearing
them. A higher proportion owned (80%) and always wore (61%) motorcycle boots. Those
that owned jackets and gloves were more likely to report that they always wear them.
Figure 4.1 Proportions of riders who own and who always wear each type of motorcycle
clothing (Australia).
Own
Always wear
Worn if owned
120%
100%
99% 98% 99%
84%
78%
80%
96%
92%
80%
72%
58%
60%
77%
79%
83%
61%
41%
40%
20%
0%
Helmet
MC long sleeved MC protective jacket
pants
MC Boots
MC Gloves
PURCHASING OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
A higher proportion of the MN sample than the PR sample, had bought motorcycle protective
clothing within the last 12 months (p< 0.0001), although a high proportion of both groups had
done so (84% vs 56%). The majority of purchases were in local retail shops, with 69% of the
MN and 82% of the PR groups saying they had never bought on-line from an overseas
Chapter 4 – Consumer consultations and further research
57
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing company. While a relatively small proportion had bought some products on-line, over 73% of
the PR group and 64% of the MN group had bought 60% or more of their gear locally.
Other riders were identified as the source of reliable advice about which motorcycle clothing
to buy, more frequently than any other identified source. Industry sales and marketing
products were rated higher than government websites and materials produced specifically for
the purpose of informing riders about protective clothing.
Table 4.2
Reliable sources of information about protective clothing
I can obtain reliable information about which motorcycle clothing to buy from: Other riders Staff in motorcycle clothing shops Australian motorcycle magazines product reviews Rider community websites Websites selling motorcycle clothing Rider trainers Advertisements in motorcycle magazines Overseas motorcycle magazines product reviews Government websites/ print materials The Good Gear Guide The Ride Forever website The Spokes website Agree/ strongly agree Research panel Motorcycle networks 85% 89% 77% 53% 76% 67% 67% 79% 61% 49% 57% 50% 52% 29% 47% 53% 40% 21% 36% 25% 30% 13% 26% 10% Asked about consumer information, almost half (49%) agreed that more should be done to
provide riders with independent evaluations of the quality of motorcycle clothing before they
buy. Twenty-one percent (21%) disagreed and 30% were undecided.
Half (50%) said that they would be willing to pay more for gear that had been independently
tested and accredited, 28% disagreed and 22% were undecided.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
The results of the two surveys indicate that almost half those surveyed felt more should be
done to provide riders with independent information about protective clothing and would be
prepared to pay for such information. However it is also of concern that a substantial
proportion of riders appear to believe they can obtain reliable information about motorcycle
clothing from their own informal networks and that they appear to be somewhat naïve as
consumers, placing high reliance on information provided by manufacturers through sales
and advertising information.
The surveys also established that the majority of those surveyed had bought motorcycle gear
within the past 12 months and had made these purchases in local retail shops. The latter
factor is particularly important as it assuages concerns that a locally based evaluation
program would be ineffective if a high proportion of purchases are made from other
countries. This finding is also important in reassuring the local industry concerns about
perceived increasing proportions of on-line overseas purchases.
THE USE OF SAFETY IN PROTECTIVE CLOTHING ADVERTISEMENTS
A small study conducted for the current project investigated the use of safety language in
motorcycle clothing advertisements in 2004 compared to 2011.
Chapter 4 – Consumer consultations and further research
58
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY.
The period selected encompassed the ongoing testing program conducted by Ride magazine
in the UK , but also marked the advent of programs about protective clothing quality and the
European Standards, aimed at the motorcycle accessories industry in Australia and New
Zealand (ACC 2004, de Rome 2004, MAA 2005). These initiatives included:
A. In 2003, the results of a study funded by the MAA into motorcycle protective clothing,
was released and the finding promoted through the Motorcycle Council of NSW (MCC)
website and community activities such as Motorcycle Awareness Week (de Rome 2003).
B. In 2004, in New Zealand the ACC undertook a major program to address the increasing
numbers of motorcycle casualties. The program, called ‘Ride for ever’, included a campaign
to provide riders with information about the benefits of wearing protective clothing. This
included a website providing information about choosing appropriate products. The campaign
also targeted the industry and provided hard cover books containing detailed information
about the features of effective protective clothing referenced to the European Standards.
C. In Australia in May 2005, a seminar funded by the MAA was conducted for the
motorcycle accessories industry. The focus of the seminar was to alert the industry to the
release of the European standards and the implications this may have for their businesses. As
a result of the seminar a working group was formed to examine options for establishing an
industry based rating scheme (de Rome et al. 2005). However, despite a number of
subsequent meetings being held no further progress was achieved.
D. In 2006, VicRoads and the TAC commissioned a report into the potential for
establishing a rating scheme for protective clothing (Haworth et al. 2006). The authors
concluded that a star rating system, whether a voluntary industry system or an independent
system, had the potential to provide such information to consumers and contribute to
reductions in the severity of injury to riders. Since that time the TAC has undertaken further
work investigating the potential for such a scheme through consultation and research with the
industry and with motorcyclists. At the current time, pilot tests are being conducted to assess
the feasibility of running a motorcycle protective clothing consumer awareness program
based on the laboratory testing of garments according to the European Standards.
AIMS AND METHOD
The aim of the current study was to assess whether there were any changes in the use of
safety as a selling point for motorcycle clothing since the release of the standards for
protective clothing in Europe (1998-2003), and following the initiatives to raise awareness of
the protective clothing standards in Australia and New Zealand.
The contents of six road riding motorcycle magazines from the United Kingdom, New
Zealand and Australia in 2004 were compared with the corresponding issues in 2011. A total
of 452 clothing advertisements were analysed to establish the proportion of advertisements
using safety/injury protection or impact protection as a selling point compared to those
referring to non-safety factors such as comfort, weather protection and style. Key words for
impact protection included but were not limited to references to CE marked impact
protectors.
RESULTS
Overall the usage of safety words in advertisements increased from 31% to 51%, (p<0.0001)
and references to impact protection increased from 18% to 41%, (p< 0.0001). Between
countries there was also a significant increase in the proportion of advertisements using
Chapter 4 – Consumer consultations and further research
59
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing safety words in Australia (16% vs 30%, p=0.03) and the UK (44% vs 62%, p=0.03). There
was no comparative increase in New Zealand, but the baseline in 2004 was substantially
higher than either UK or Australia (See Table 4.3).
Table 4.3
Motorcycle clothing advertisements using injury protection as a selling
point in UK, NZ and Australia 2004 compared to 2011
Safety key words Not used Used P value Total 2004 Aus 124 (84%) 24 (16%) 148 NZ 19 (40%) 29 (60%) 48 UK 32 (56%) 25 (44%) 57 175 (69%) 78 (31%) 253 All countries 2011 Aus 47 (70%) 20 (30%) 0.03 67 NZ 7 (37%) 12 (63%) NS 19 UK 43 (38%) 70 (62%) 0.03 113 All countries 97 (49%) 102 (51%) <0.0001 199 272 180 452 Total There was also a significant increase in references to impact protection in advertisements in
the UK, but not in either Australia or New Zealand (see Table 2). Comparison between
countries for 2011 found that Australian magazines had a relatively lower proportion of
advertisements using safety or impact protection than either New Zealand (p<0.01) or the UK
(p<0.0001). There were no significant differences between New Zealand and UK.
Table 4.4.
Motorcycle clothing advertisements using impact protection as a selling
point in UK, NZ and Australia 2004 compared to 2011
Impact protection P value
Not used Used Total Aus 133 (90%) 15 (10%) 148 NZ 32 (67%) 16 (33%) 48 UK 43 (75%) 14 (25%) 57 All countries 208(82%) 45(18%) 253 55 (82%) 12 (18%) 0.12
67 10 (53%) 0.16
19 59 (52%) 0.001
113 <0.0001
199 2004 2011 Aus NZ UK 9 (47%) 54 (48%) All countries 118 (59%) 81(41%) Total 326 126 452 Conclusions
The research and consultants conducted provide encouraging evidence of rider support for the
provision of evidence based information about the effectiveness of protective clothing
products. The rider surveys indicate that appropriate publicity for such a program will need to
Chapter 4 – Consumer consultations and further research
60
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing establish the credibility of the scheme. In particular this should focus on the independent
scientific evidence base of the ratings. This would appear to be essential to counter the
apparent suspicion of information provided by road safety agencies in preference for the
personal opinions of other riders and sales information provided by manufacturers.
There are also indications of likely industry cooperation provided the implementation process
takes accounts of the potential risks for the industry which have been identified. In particular,
removal of GST from the sale of accredited safety equipment could be an effective incentive.
As Spaulding found, industry is unlikely to lead change that is perceived to constitute a risk
to business, but there is evidence from other product areas that as consumers become better
informed, industries will respond to changing demand. The observed changes in the use of
injury protection as a selling point in motorcycle clothing advertisements, particularly in UK,
may be a sign of the industry responding to market demand. While this should not be taking
to imply any causal links between increasing consumer awareness and particular programs
(e.g Ride) or campaigns to raise awareness of performance quality issues. It is however worth
noting that following the MAA seminar in 2005 an Australian company, Drag'in Jeans,
undertook to adopt the EU standards and have since achieved CE certification for one line of
products.
References
ACC, 2004. Ride for ever, http://www.rideforever.co.nz/gear/choosing-the-right-gear/. In: de
Rome, L. ed. Accident Compensation Commission, Wellington, NZ.
Currie Communications, 2009. Motorcycle protective clothing communications audit: Final
report. VicRoads Melbourne.
de Rome, L., 2004. Motorcycle protective clothing,
http://roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/75.html. Motorcycle Council of NSW, Sydney,
Australia.
de Rome, L., Stanford, G., Wood, B., 2005. Final report on gearing up a seminar on
motorcycle protective clothing and consumer protection in Australia Motorcycle Council
of NSW, Sydney.
de Rome, L., Stanford, G. & Wood, B., 2003. Motorcycle protective clothing. Road Safety
Research, Policing and Education Conference http://trid.trb.org/view.aspx?id=706134.
Sydney, NSW.
Haworth, N., de Rome, L., Rowden, P., 2006. Motorcycle protective clothing: Stage 1 review
of literature and development of a safety ‘star rating’ system (rsd-0299). A report to
VicRoads. In: Queensland, C.-Q.T.C.F.A.R.R.S. ed. Vicroads, Melbourne.
MAA, 2005. Gearing up - motorcycle protective clothing - May 2005,
http://roadsafety.mccofnsw.org.au/a/107.html. Motor Accidents Authority, Sydney,
Australia.
Chapter 4 – Consumer consultations and further research
61
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CHAPTER 5 - QUANTIFYING THE ECONOMIC AND
HUMAN COSTS OF MOTORCYCLE CRASHES
INTRODUCTION
There are no clear definitions of economic and human costs of crashes and injuries in the
literature. Some authors understand economic costs to be any costs that have a market price
(e.g. workplace productivity, vehicle repair costs) and human costs to be other costs that do
not have a market price (e.g. quality of life loss). Others understand human costs to be any
costs related to human loss, which includes economic costs such as productivity loss. From a
pure economics point of view, economic costs are any costs that have an opportunity cost.
Hence, for the purpose of outlining the methodological options for quantifying the costs of
road crashes involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers, it is useful to first list all the cost
items from the broadest societal perspective (i.e. all costs and consequences to whomsoever
they accrue). Inclusion or exclusion of some items can be then considered as options to
quantify motorcycle crash costs depending on the study context.
From a societal perspective, the relevant road crash costs are those accrued by the road crash
victims, their families, government, insurers, and taxpayers. Other narrower viewpoints
include a specific provider of the safety intervention, the consumers, or a third-party payer
(public or private). The viewpoints of the study guide what cost items are to be included and
omission of any relevant viewpoints must be justified. The appropriateness of the viewpoints
taken would depend on the decision making context.
When weighing the costs against the benefits of improved quality and uptake of protective
clothing, the most relevant costs are those that protective clothing is able to influence.
Protective clothing is not a crash prevention measure, but a crash consequence reduction
measure. In the event of a crash, protective clothing has the potential to prevent an injury or
reduce the severity of the injury consequences, but is likely to have little or no impact on fatal
injury crashes (EEVC 1993; Noordzij, Forke et al. 2001).
The final results for the costs of road crashes involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers
are naturally sensitive to the methods employed to calculate them. These methodological
factors that influence the magnitude of the estimations include the definitions and
classifications of road crash injuries, the availability and quality of data, the approaches taken
to estimate values of human life, and the assumptions made to accommodate the limitations
in the data. Therefore these issues will be discussed in the next sections. Finally the options to
quantify road crash costs involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers will be summarised
following the discussion.
APPROACHES TO QUANTIFYING MOTORCYCLE ROAD CRASH COSTS
There lacks consensus on the most appropriate approach for computing road crash costs
(Alfaro et al, 1994; Elvik, 2000). Understanding how road crash costs have been categorised
can assist in the determining which approach to take. The valuation of reductions in road
deaths can be made by the individuals who could experience road death or by the society as a
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
62
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing whole (Evans, 2001). From an individual perspective, the costs of a road death include
material and immaterial costs. Material costs consist of the individual consumption that could
have occurred in the life years lost. Immaterial costs have no market price and represent the
loss of joy of life and the value of pain, sorrow and distress of the casualties and their
relations (Wijnen et al, 2009). The willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach can account for these
two costs.
However, for society as a whole the value of a road death is also determined by gross
production loss and medical costs (e.g. Alfaro et al, 1994; Persson & Odegaard, 1995), which
are not borne by the individuals directly. Gross production loss, which includes the individual
consumption loss, can be estimated by the human capital approach (HCA). Values derived
from the HCA are often found lower than the values derived from the WTP approach because
HCA is restricted to the economic costs and does not include human costs. Both approaches
have pros and cons as summarised in Table 5.1.
The HCA is based on the principle that the benefit of avoiding a premature death is given by
the present value of the income flow the economy could lose in such an event (Ashenfelter,
2006). It estimates the life-time earning foregone as the result of a productivity-reducing
disability and death. Some argue that the HCA tends to overestimate the true productivity
losses to the economy because the loss of an individual worker from the workforce only
creates transitory productivity loss (Koopmanschap and van Ineveld, 1992; Koopmanschap et
al, 1995). It is argued that another worker can replace the injured worker eventually.
The WTP approach seeks individuals’ valuation of the consequences of an intervention in
terms of the amount of money that individuals are willing to pay for reducing the risk of their
premature death or of injury (Gafni 1991; Hensher et al, 2010). It is implemented to elicit
individual preferences, predominantly through the application of contingent valuation (CV)
method. CV method uses surveys to elicit how much individuals would pay for the product.
Alternatively revealed preference (RP) method uses data on actual purchasing behaviour of
individuals for risk reducing products (e.g. protective clothing). Pros and cons of these
methods are summarised in Table 5.2. Other than the WTP approach, court-based
compensation awards have also been used as an alternative measure (BTE, 2000). All these
methods aim to estimate a monetised measure of not only income loss but also a reduction in
the enjoyment of life that arises due to disability or death. The HCA misses the latter source
because the same level of income does not provide the same level of satisfaction as it would
have been in the absence of the disability.
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
63
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Table 5.1 The pros and cons of the willingness-to-pay (WTP) approach and the human
capital approach (HCA)
WTP approach (ex-ante value)
HCA (ex-post value)
Pros Reflect people’s preferences (consistent Transparent, verifiable value
with welfare economics)
Provides valid lower bound estimate
Reflect one’s immaterial value of life
(quality, pain, grief, suffering of family
and friends)
Cons Empirical difficulties
It calculates earning capacity loss, which
means higher values are assigned to
working age people than younger and
older people. Hence the value of younger
and older people’s lives are undervalued.
Ignore immaterial costs
Sensitive to discount rate chosen
Table 5.2 The pros and cons of the two methods used to elicit WTP value: revealed
preference (RP) method and contingent valuation (CV) method
RP method
CV method
The survey can incorporate a descriptor
Pros Based on actual behaviour
that describes risks and risk reduction
level, the pros and cons of the product to
be valued.
Cons Limited applicability in road safety (e.g. The values are obtained in hypothetical
airbags cannot be purchased separately
scenarios.
because it is attached to the car; seatbelts
are obligatory).
The values are not considered under
budget constraints. Hence it may not be
Unrealistic assumption that people
feasible to allocate large resources for
correctly assess the risks that they take
marginal changes in safety.
and the risk reduction obtained from the
purchase when paying for the product
It only measures the preferences of
affected individuals only.
The theoretical superiority of the WTP approach lies in the value placed on the immaterial
aspect of road crashes, while the criticism of WTP approach lies in the practical/empirical
difficulties in assigning valid and reliable values of immaterial costs due to the lack of actual
market transactions to verify them. Value of road death prevention is variable with the
methods used, respondents’ income, their initial risk and age, individual or group risk, degree
of voluntary acceptance of or familiarity with the risk, the road safety intervention being
public or private. Hence a constant value cannot be obtained from the literature for Australia.
WTP values tend to be more reliable when it is context specific because WTP is a measure of
preference of specific individuals or groups who are affected by certain proposals. WTP
value should be determined for each road safety measure and its target group.
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
64
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing The WTP approach is particularly suited to estimate the safety value of protective clothing.
This is because there are several unique features of protective clothing that make it less/more
valued as a safety product and it only affects specific road users (i.e. motorcycle riders). CV
surveys can be designed in such a way to maximize validity and reliability of the WTP
values. For example, in the descriptor of the CV survey the limitations of protective clothing
such as heat stress and discomfort (de Rome, 2006) could be clearly identified at the same
time as the safety benefits of protective clothing. This would elicit the value of protective
clothing with all its apparent pros and cons taken into account. That is, the costs borne by
those who are affected by protective clothing is already taken into account in the value
estimation.
TYPES OF DATA REQUIRED
Items one to 19 in Table 5.3 provide a schematic presentation of the total societal costs of
road crashes. These cost items are all used by BITRE (2009), BTE (2000), and the Dutch
Ministry of Transport (Ministry of Transport, 2004). They are consistent with European
recommendations with the exception of traffic delay costs (Alfaro et al, 1994). However,
traffic delay costs are particularly relevant for motorized countries like Australia as it was
found as one of the major costs of road crashes by BITRE (2009).
In addition to the first 19 items presented in Table 5.3, road crash intervention specific costs
may also be included in the cost calculations (items 20 – 22). For example, if the costs are
being weighted against the safety benefits of increased quality and uptake of protective
clothing, then an additional cost incurred to achieve them should also be included in the list.
On the other hand, some of the cost items 1 – 19 may be excluded on the basis that they are
not likely to influence the magnitude of cost savings because protective clothing does not
target them, for example protective clothing cannot prevent crashes. The largest cost savings
that could be made from protective clothing are likely to be for non-fatal injuries because the
most common consequences of crashes involving motorcyclists are minor and moderate (AIS
levels 1 and 2) injuries (ACEM, 2004). AIS refers to Abbreviated Injury Severity, which is a
scale from 1 (minor) to 6 (maximum) developed by the Association for the Advancement of
Automotive Medicine (AAAM 1990). Hence items such as 5 and 13 may not be as important,
while items 3 and 8 are of particular importance. In order to increase quality and uptake, cost
accruing measures such as promotion, public education, and enforcement may be required. If
a piece of protective clothing is damaged in the event of a crash, that piece should also be
replaced. If it is assumed that in the event of a crash protective clothing must always be
replaced, then replacement costs could be estimated from the number of crashes involving
motorcyclists and pillion passengers, the usage rate of protective clothing amongst them, and
the average price of protective clothing used by them based on market price. However, in
some cases protective clothing may be left intact after a crash and this estimation may
overestimate the replacement costs. Data on failure rate of the clothing may also be used in
the estimation. Failure rates could be obtained for products currently available in the market
as reported by international consumer testing programs (Ride 2005; Ride 2008; Ride 2009;
Ride 2009). Data on failure rates of clothing worn by Australian riders is also available from
the GEAR study (de Rome, Ivers et al. 2011). There are also intangible costs for the riders in
terms of discomfort of wearing clothing in the heat. This could be taken into account through
the WTP approach as described in the previous section.
Table 5.3 also categorizes cost items by perspectives to guide inclusion/exclusion of costs
based on the perspectives taken in the study. Depending on the decision making context, one
study may choose to quantify the costs from the government and insurers’ perspectives only,
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
65
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing or another from the crash victims and their families and the intervention specific costs only.
For example, in the decision-making context of whether to implement a consumer
information program on motorcycle protective clothing (e.g. star rating system) or nothing (or
an alternative program), the costs and benefits associated with implementation of the program
and the alternative might be considered from the viewpoints of (a) the Australian Compulsory
Third Party (CTP) agencies, (b) Australian road authorities (the agencies that will incur the
protective clothing assessment costs) (c) protective clothing manufacturers, and (d)
motorcycle riders incurring out-of-pocket costs.
Table 5.3 Schematic presentation of the cost items to quantify road crash costs
involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers from a societal perspective.
Road crash
Wider Government
intervention societal services costs
specific costs costs
Health system and
Insurers’ costs
Costs for crash victim
and their families
Perspectives
Item
Cost
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Cost items
Workplace productivity
Household productivity
Workplace disruption and staff
replacement
Quality of life loss, pain and
suffering
Funeral
Unavailability of vehicles
Medical, ambulance and
rehabilitation
Long-term care
Insurance administration
Property damage
Vehicle repair
Towing
Coroner
Police
Fire and emergency services
Legal
Correctional services
Travel delays
Health cost of crash-induced
pollution
Program operational costs
Protective clothing replacement
costs
Costs borne by only those
wearing protective clothing
TOTAL
Column A: Cost
per unit ($)
Column B:
Number of
cases(n)
Column C:Subtotal ($ x n)
-
-
Sum of subtotals for items
1 – 22
Once all the relevant cost items to be included in the total cost estimation are identified, the
individual items must be measured and valued. In reference to Table 5.3, and in simple terms,
the total cost of road crashes is the sum of the subtotals of each cost item (Column C), each of
which is the product of the unit cost (Column A) and the number of cases for each item
(Column B). However, the costs identified in Table 5.3 are not common to all types of
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
66
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing motorcycle crashes because they vary in consequences from no or minor injuries to fatal
injuries. In order to quantify the costs associated with motorcycle crashes which protective
clothing can influence on, the unit costs (column A, Table 5.3) and the number (column B,
Table 5.3 of cases must be obtained for hospitalised injuries, non-hospitalised injuries, and
property damage only crashes respectively. These figures must be obtained for those
involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers specifically.
AVAILABLE SOURCES OF DATA AND THEIR LIMITATIONS
ROAD CRASH DATA
Not all crashes on a road are considered by authorities to be road crashes, and not all crashes
occur on public roads. A clear definition of road crashes is required to ensure the data
collection is consistent over time and between different jurisdictions or intervention
alternatives that are compared within a study. It also allows legitimate comparisons between
studies.
Road crashes also have varying levels of consequences. Depending on the severity of the
consequence, the costs can be minor to quite significant. Injury costs depend on factors such
as injury type, injury severity, age and gender of the affected person, length of
hospitalisation, and whether the injury effects are short or long term (BITRE, 2009). For
maximum accuracy, the unit costs for each item would at least need to be estimated
separately for different injury severity levels. Hence, for costing purposes, road crash
consequences must be categorised into different groups and clearly define road crash injuries
at the outset.
The Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE, 2009) used the
following definitions in their estimation of road crash costs in Australia in 2006.
A fatal injury (road fatality) is defined as a death resulting from a road crash occurring on a
public road, with unintentional death occurring within 30 days from injuries sustained in the
crash.
Non-fatal injuries are classified as either hospitalised or non-hospitalised injuries:
A. Hospitalised injuries include persons who were admitted to hospital regardless of
their length of stay. Severity of hospitalised injuries:
 Severe to catastrophic injuries: 61 - 211 bed days
 Moderate to severe injuries: 30 - 60 bed days
 Mild to moderate injuries: 1- 30 bed days
 Admitted and discharged the same day
B. Non-hospitalised injuries include persons who attended hospital but were not
admitted, and those who received treatment from a general practitioner. This
excludes people who did not seek medical treatment.
Other distinctions of injuries include those used by BTE (2000); serious injuries (hospital
admission for 24 hours or more) and minor injuries (hospital admission of less than 24 hours
or first aid at the scene of the crash). However, these descriptors do not relate to measures of
injury severity such as the Abbreviated Injury Score (AIS), Injury Severity Score (ISS) and
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
67
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing New Injury Severity Score (NISS). The potential data sources to obtain the number of crash
cases involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers are summarised in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4. Data sources to quantify motorcycle road crash incidence and costs.
Type of injury
Number of
cases
Data source
Fatality
Police reported crash data from State and Territory authorities,
BITRE, Infrastructure Australian Road Deaths Database
Hospitalised injuries - 1
night or more
AIHW –serious injury due to land transport accidents
Non-hospitalised injuries
d data
i
CTP claims
h
i l d i i
/
i
d
Total
Injured motorcyclists are known to be underrepresented in state crash datasets with only 29%
of injured motorcyclists involved in single vehicle crashes appear in state crash records
(Rosman and Knuiman 1994). When there is a risk of underestimation, it is appropriate to
adjust the estimates whenever the magnitude of underreporting can be estimated reasonably
from self-report surveys or data from other jurisdictions. It has previously been reported that
only 55% of motorcyclists involved in a serious crash reported the crash (de Rome &
Brandon 2007). Number of motorcycle crashes in police crash records could be adjusted
upwards using data from previous studies like de Rome & Brandon (2007) and Rosman et al.
(1994). If particular types of crashes are missing from the data in some jurisdictions, they
could also be estimated through extrapolation of data that is available in other jurisdictions.
For example, number of property damage-only (PDO) crashes in Victoria was estimated
using average crash ratios for all other jurisdictions in the BITRE’s road crash cost estimation
(BITRE 2009). Alternatively the proportion of PDO crash costs of the total crash cost
estimate supplied by BITRE (2009) or BTE (2000) can be used to estimate the cost of PDO
crashes in each state and territory (Connelly and Supangan 2006). Such assumptions,
although sometimes crude, may be useful to complement the imperfect official data and
increase the validity of cost estimates.
INJURY SURVEILLANCE AND CLAIMS DATA
Injury surveillance and claims data will provide more reliable estimates of the actual
incidence and costs of motorcycle crash injuries than data based on police reported crashes.
Unlike fatalities, data on the number of people injured in road crashes is not systematically
collected and studies have identified substantial underreporting of injuries in official crash
data. Although reporting levels increase with casualty severity, less than 65% of hospital
casualty records are in police records (Rosman and Knuiman 1994, Rosman 2001). Lower
severity crashes, single vehicle and PDO crashes are commonly underreported in police crash
records because police are far less likely to be involved and/or reporting is not compulsory in
some jurisdictions unless it exceeds a certain threshold (Lin and Kraus 2008; BITRE 2009).
The quality of incidence data on unreported road crashes, non-hospitalised injuries, and on
PDO crashes has also been reported as relatively poor by BITRE (2009). Sole reliance on
official data where such underreporting exists could be particularly problematic for
estimation of crash costs involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers because the most
common consequences of crashes involving motorcyclists are minor and moderate (AIS
levels 1 and 2) injuries (ACEM, 2004).
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
68
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing This is critical to the estimation of motorcycle injury costs and protective clothing because
the largest cost savings that could be made from protective clothing are for non-fatal injuries
(EEVC 1993). It is also important to include injuries of all levels of severity because minor
injuries have been estimated to account for 88% of quality adjusted life years lost due to
injury in the first 6 months following a crash and for 91% over the remaining lifetime
(McClure and Douglas 1996).
HOSPITAL ADMISSIONS DATA
Hospital admission data have become the primary source of information about seriouslyinjured crash casualties in Australia (BITRE 2009). Hospital data provide information on:
injury by body region; demographic characteristics of the injured people; length of
hospitalisation and the nature of categorisations (for example, died in the hospital due to
injuries). Although these data are more likely to record motorcyclist casualties, hospital data
are not linked with crash data and they only include injured individuals who are admitted to
the hospital. BITRE’s national crash database for 2006 includes details of crashes for all
severity (fatal, hospitalised injuries, non-hospitalised injuries, property damage only), and
standardised vehicle types (cars, motorcycles, buses, rigid and articulated trucks) (BITRE
2009). They were provided by state and territory authorities and hence the crash data are
disaggregated by state or territory, metropolitan or non-metropolitan area. They made
estimates of non-hospitalised injuries based on data from TAC, AIHW, and ABS. Therefore
BITRE’s national crash database is an option to obtain motorcycle crash injury details.
INJURY INSURANCE CLAIMS
Claim cost estimates from injury insurance claims will also differ depending on jurisdiction
as different policies and claims thresholds apply. For example, in states where the
compulsory third party (CTP) schemes are fault-based (e.g. NSW and QLD), riders defined to
be at-fault are not eligible to claim and, as a result, motorcycle related injury costs may be
underestimated for those states. Whereas the ACC scheme in NZ and the TAC in Victoria,
are comprehensive schemes and not fault based, however in Victoria non-hospitalised
claimants are required to pay the first $564 of their costs, so those injuries may be excluded
from the TAC database. When insurance data from each jurisdiction is used, the insurance
policies must be well understood to ensure that the measurement of each variable is
consistent between jurisdictions.
INJURY COSTS
Injuries can trigger both immediate costs (e.g. ambulance transport) and flow-on longer term
costs that result from two main adverse outcomes of injuries – impairments and disabilities.
The number of people with impairments can be estimated using claims data provided by
Transport Accident Commission (TAC) of Victoria for persons who made a claim due to
injuries received in a road crash in Victoria and data obtained from Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare (AIHW). Disabilities are long-term outcomes of road crash injuries. Such
information is not available from police and hospital data. The number of people with
disabilities mainly caused by an injury that occurred on the road can be estimated from the
ABS (2004) data. The cost of a certain type of crash injury depends on factors such as
severity, age and gender of the injured person, length of hospitalisation, and whether the
effect are short or long term duration (BITRE 2009). Hence the methods to quantify crash
injury costs must account for all such interactions.
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
69
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Finer unit costs can be obtained where injury costs per highway crash victim were estimated
by body part injured, fracture involvement, and threat-to-life severity scores using the
Abbreviated Injury Scale (AIS) in the USA (Zaloshnja, Miller et al. 2004). They are in US$
and year 2000 values. Such data are especially useful for quantifying cost savings of
measures like protective clothing that target narrow ranges of injuries. This study also
highlighted the importance of applying the same coding system for injury cost calculations
and coding injury incidence data as the AIS scale has been revised several times since it was
first developed. Success versions are named for the year of issue, i.e. AIS90, AIS2005. For
example, 29% of injuries would change severity score when shifting from AIS85 to AIS90
(Garthe et al. 1996). Hence, adoption of figures from other sources must ensure that the same
classification methods (e.g. AIS2005) are used for the incidence data as for the unit cost data.
There are a number of options for how crash costs may be valued by items. These are listed
in Appendix E the data variables required and the potential data sources. These options are
based on what was used by BITRE (2009) because a lot of the limitations from previous
estimations, e.g. (BTE, 2000), were overcome with improved methods. For example, the
limitations in the HCA and WTP approach were managed respectively in their
approximations of workplace and household output losses and intangible loss of life and/or
quality of life. In addition, BITRE (2009) estimates are the most comprehensive and latest
published figures available for crash costs in Australia. The table in green background
describes injuries, and other property and general costs are summarised in purple background.
Injuries were further categorised to cost them by different severities, but the definitions for
injuries are presented in one table.
MANAGEMENT OF DATA LIMITATIONS
The estimation of crash costs is an inexact science (BTE 2000). Due to the limitations in the
data quality and availability and to the requirement of data collection from disparate sources
to reach a final estimate, some clear assumptions must be made in practice. It is critical that
any assumptions made in the calculations are clearly presented and justified.
Variations in road crash costs across Australian jurisdictions have been observed due to
variability in the number of crash-related fatalities and injuries and of population and in the
cost of services/materials (Connelly & Supangan 2006; BITRE 2009). Unit cost data by all
the eight states and territories can be collected to obtain the national sum. Alternatively, a
range estimate using data from some states (e.g. three states representing the smallest,
medium, and largest population) could be collected. The largest crash costs were observed in
New South Wales, the smallest in ACT, and Western Australia was about mid-range in 2006
(BITRE 2009). Extrapolation of state data to make national estimates can be practically
useful, especially when some states lack certain data while others have the data. In the USA
for example, national total number of ambulance transports was estimated from applying the
proportion of injured motorcyclists transported by ambulance in San Diego County (Max et
al. 1998). Such assumptions made to obtain national estimates must be clearly reported in the
study.
Injury cost computation is extremely complex; however BITRE (2009) has calculated these
costs for all road crashes in 2006. Estimated social cost of road crashes involving
motorcycles is 20.2 cents per kilometre travelled in 2006 value (BITRE 2009). However
while the methodology may be robust for other road users, the estimates of kilometres
travelled for motorcycle should be used with caution as they are extrapolations based on
survey data with a standard error rate of between 10% and 50% in (ABS 2008; ABS 2011).
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
70
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing While the BITRE 2006 Australian dollar (AUD) values could be converted to the present
value using the annual geometric mean of the Australian Consumer Price Index for the
intervening period e.g. (Connelly & Supangan 2006) with the assumption that nothing but
purchasing power of each AUD has changed. It must be noted that changes in trend as well as
changes in injury classification codes can make extrapolation of old data solely based on CPI
limited in validity. For example, admissions in the high threat to life group have been
increasing with growing numbers of injured male motorcyclists and pedal cyclists (Berry &
Harrison 2008). Significant differences in cost values can be observed when old published
costs adjusted for inflation are used rather than costs that are updated with the incidence and
cost data based on the most current injury severity classification (Zaloshnja et al. 2004).
Hence, for an assumption such as CPI adjustment, it must be justified with evidence that no
other significant changes have occurred since the old data were collected. Alternatively,
further assumptions could be made and old figures adjusted to accommodate the known
changes that are likely to have influenced the old figures in today’s values.
When costs occur in future years, present value, the amount one would have to invest today
in order to pay these costs when they come due, must be computed. The present value can be
derived from using an appropriate discount rate. The choice of an appropriate discount rate is
controversial, Burkhead & Miner. (1971). BITRE (2009) and BTRE (2006) used a discount
rate of 3%. This rate falls well within the range of discount rates used by other practitioners
to estimate human costs (Murray, Lopez and Jamison 1994; Vos and Begg 1999; BTRE
2006; Abelson 2008; Potter Forbes, Abelson, and Driscoll 2006). The inflation-free 3%
discount rate is often applied because it is recommended by the Panel on Cost-Effectiveness
in Health and Medicine (Gold et al. 1996; Weinstein et al. 1996). The use of a higher social
discount rate results in a lower estimate of the present value of the human losses, while a
lower social discount rate results in a higher present value. Hence, the final results could
change with the assumption made to value costs that occur in future years, which brings to
attention the importance of sensitivity analysis highlighted in the next methodological
imperative.
The best costing studies are the ones that are most inclusive of all costs. The costs of road
crashes should be considered from the broadest perspective, which is commonly understood
as the societal perspective. However, it is often not feasible to consider every single cost and
consequence of an intervention to all members of society, and some items may have to be
excluded for practical reasons. Some cost data may be too resource intensive to collect. The
effort to collect such data may not be justifiable especially if they tend to be so small that
they are unlikely to make any difference to the overall result (Drummond et al. 2005). The
quality of the costing study may be increased with more investment in the study but this extra
investment may not be worthwhile in situations where the benefits clearly outweigh the costs
and extra costs added may not change this fact for example. Cost items in Table 5.4 are
broadly listed in decreasing order of cost magnitude within fatalities, injuries, and other costs
respectively, as found for Australian road crash costs in 2006 by BITRE (2009). Another
option might be to exclude cost items that are too resource intensive to collect for the overall
value of the study results. However, any exclusion of societal cost items must be justified or
assumptions could be made based on previous empirical evidence (e.g. utilise figures from
other states or countries and convert them to AUD values in the present value of the study).
Although the estimation of them might not be pursued in great detail, it is still worthwhile to
identify such cost items (Drummond et al. 2005).
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
71
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Sensitivity analysis is necessary to adequately reflect uncertainty in evidence in the
conclusions of the analysis. Economic evaluation methods are not without limitations but
they can be managed in the methods. The limitations are largely due to the potential
fluctuations in monetary values assigned to the costs and gains. This is especially true when
the intervention evaluated requires an investment now but produces gains in the future when
the money values have changed. Discount rates are used to express values across different
years in the same single year to accommodate the temporal changes in money value. For
example, discount rates are used to estimate workplace and household losses over the years.
However, the final outcome of economic evaluation can change largely depending on the
discount rate used (e.g. 3% versus 10%). While the most appropriate discount rate is
unknown, conduct of sensitivity analysis using different discount rates is critical to
demonstrate the robustness of the cost estimates. It is important to present how much the
results would have changed if the discount rates of say 2% and 5% were used instead of 3%.
For example, BITRE estimates of total crash costs based on 3% discount rate would increase
by approximately $1.5 billion (8.4%) with a discount rate of 2%, and would decrease by
approximately $2 billion (11.2%) with a discount rate of 5% (BITRE. 2009). What sensitivity
analysis to conduct would depend on the nature of the data for each study. However the
results will commonly be sensitive to the discount rate used, gender, and age.
Options
1. Collect the most recent available data based on the definition of road crashes and
classifications of injuries used by either:
a. BITRE (2009);
b. Each and every jurisdiction or a representative jurisdiction/s;
c. The CTP schemes:
i. in the non-fault based states i.e. TAC of Victoria and ACC of New Zealand in the
fault-based states i.e. MAA of NSW.
ii. in all states and territories of Australia.
2. Some or all of the cost items in Table 5.3 may be used to quantify the crash costs
involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers. The inclusion and/or exclusion may be
based on:
a. The perspective taken in the study;
b. The relative cost saving impact they have in respect to increased use and quality of
protective clothing; and/or,
c. The likely impact of the items on the overall costing results in terms of the cost
magnitude;
d. The approach taken to value human life.
3. Approach taken to value human life:
a. Use the HCA approach and ignore the intangible costs of road crashes in the total
estimate; or,
b. Use the WTP approach; or,
c. Use the hybrid of HCA and WTP approach to include both the tangible and intangible
costs of road crashes.
4. Methods of valuing intangible costs of road crashes involving motorcyclists and pillion
passengers:
a. Contingent valuation survey or revealed preference studies may be developed to
obtain a WTP value; or,
b. The amount paid out by CTP insurance schemes may be used to obtain the proxy
value of the intangible costs.
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
72
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing 5. Number of road crashes involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers could be obtained
from
a. Police crash records of each jurisdiction; (This may confront the perhaps slight
differences between the states in their definitions, and in the data they collect on crash
injury severity. Most states only distinguish minor and serious injuries without a clear
medical basis for this distinction.)
b. ABS;
c. CTP insurance data;
d. The Infrastructure Australian Road Deaths Database;
e. Hospital data; or,
f. A combination of all of the above.
6. Cost computation options:
a. Use the data sources and computation methods listed in Table 5.4 to value each cost
items relevant for road crashes involving motorcyclists and pillion passengers;
b. The most direct and simplest option may be to use BITRE (2009) data on crashes and
costs for 2006 and update it to 2010 values, given their use of sound definitions and
reasonably comprehensive ratings of severity. The adjustments could be made
through:
i. CPI adjustments and updating crashes by adjusting to the rates of motorcycle
crashes from 2006 to 2010. This in effect assumes the same ratio of injuries
occurred in 2010 as in 2006;
ii. CPI adjustments and research what other factors could have played a role in
changing these values besides CPI.
7. The final estimate:
a. Derive a single national estimate through collation of data from each and
every jurisdiction;
b. Make national range estimates from particular states;
c. Assume one of the jurisdictions as the representative value of Australia e.g.
Victoria
8. Assumptions:
a. When making national estimates from sum of each state and territory of Australia,
some data may be missing in particular jurisdictions. In such cases, use average
estimates from the jurisdictions that have the data.
b. When considering costs that occur in future years, use the recommended discount rate
of 3% and conduct sensitivity analysis of the results using other rates.
c. Other assumptions depend on the choices made in relation to other aspects of this
document. For example, if the expedient option of extrapolation from 2006 crash data
is adopted, then the assumptions entailed there must be spelt out.
9. Sensitivity analysis:
a. Investigate in the study what factors are most likely to influence the final results and
conduct sensitivity analysis accordingly.
b. Do not conduct sensitivity analysis.
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
73
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing OPTIONS FOR QUANTIFYING THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS OF IMPROVED
QUALITY AND UPTAKE OF PROTECTIVE CLOTHING.
While costs are always quantified in monetary units, benefits can be quantified in various
units of measurement. Economic evaluation is a method of assessing different interventions
in terms of their relative costs and benefits. It is broadly categorised into four types
depending on the unit of measurement used for the benefits. When the benefits are expressed
in terms of the effectiveness of the intervention such as lives and/or injuries saved, or number
of life years gained the economic evaluation is called ‘cost-effectiveness analysis’ (CEA).
When the benefits are measured in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) or disabilityadjusted life years (DALYs), it is called ‘cost-utility analysis’ (CUA). When the benefits can
be expressed in monetary terms the economic evaluation is called ‘cost-benefit analysis’
(CBA). The default economic evaluation when the interventions under comparison are found
to have the same level of benefits, it is termed ‘cost-minimisation analysis’ (CMA).
The most apt unit of measurement for the benefits would depend on the nature of the
intervention, the availability of data, and the decision-making context. The aim of CBA is to
value the full range of health and other consequences of an intervention option and compare
this with resource costs (Briggs et al. 2006). When there are effects with several dimensions,
CBA is more suitable than CUA or CEA. For example, road safety interventions have effects
on mobility, environment, travel times, and safety against each other and against the costs
(Wijnen et al. 2009). Neither CEA nor CUA answer the question of whether an investment is
socially profitable while CBA does. The aim of CEA and CUA is to look at each and every
use of resources and select the intervention which maximises the health objective subject to
the budget constraint (Stinneett and Palitel 1996). Both CEA and CUA are useful when a
given end is deemed worthwhile (e.g. number of life years saved) and the remaining question
is what the best way is to achieve that end (e.g. primary prevention program A versus primary
prevention program B).
Benefits of protective clothing have been quantified in various ways in previous studies
(Table 5.5). Benefits of increased quality and uptake of protective clothing can be quantified
in similar ways. The most relevant and critical road safety gain to be had from protective
clothing is injury reduction benefits. These injury reduction benefits could also be monetised
through the WTP approach described in the costing section above. It is important to outline
three methodological implications that must be taken into consideration in order to quantify
the benefits of improved quality and uptake of protective clothing. The options to quantify
them will then be listed in light of these methodological imperatives.
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
74
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Table 5.5 The units of measurement used in previous studies to quantify the benefits of
protective clothing in comparison to no protective clothing
Outcome investigated
Hospital admission
Days in hospital
Days until return to work
Permanent physical defect
Soft tissue injury
Deep and extensive injury
Fractures (e.g. complex leg fractures, upper body,
hand/wrist, lower body, ankle/feet)
Cuts and abrasions
References
de Rome et al, 2011
Schuller et al. 1986, de Rome et al, 2011
Schuller et al.1986, de Rome et al, 2011
Schuller et al. 1986, de Rome et al, 2011
Schuller et al. 1986; de Rome et al, 2011
Schuller et al. 1986
Otte et al 2002; de Rome et al, 2011
Schuller et al, 1986; Pegg & Mayze,1983;
Otte & Middelhauve, 1987; Hell & Lob,1993;
de Rome et al, 2011
METHODOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE 1:
The current usage level of protective clothing by its current quality must be
measured.
Quantification of the gain from improved quality and uptake of protective clothing requires
the measurement the total injury reduction benefits as a function of quality and usage. Quality
of protective clothing would ideally be measured in terms of injury reduction efficacy. That
is, a piece that could reduce the injury risk by a larger margin (e.g. 30%) would have to be by
definition better quality than a piece that could reduce it by a lesser margin (e.g. 5%). A piece
of protective clothing may be capable of reducing the risk of injuries by 10% if it is worn at
the time of crash. However, this effect amongst motorcyclists would not be observed unless
all the motorcyclists wore this protective clothing every time they ride (100% usage rate). If
the uptake of protective clothing with an injury reduction capacity of 10% is increased from
50% to 80%, the overall injury reduction is increased by 3% from 5% to 8%. If the injury
reduction capacity is doubled to 20%, the usage rate only needs to increase from 50% to 65%
to obtain the same level of overall increase of 3% in injury reduction benefits. If the current
injury risk reduction capacity of protective clothing is 10% and the usage rate is 50%, either
the usage rate must be increased to 80% or the injury risk capacity (quality) must be
improved to 16% to gain the same overall injury reduction benefit. That is, the injury level by
the current level of quality and usage must be determined in order to measure the extent of
benefit gained from the improvement in quality and usage. Without the knowledge of the
current usage rate of protective clothing by each quality level, the costs and benefits
associated with the improvements in quality and usage cannot be determined.
METHODOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE 2:
The injury reduction benefits that arise from each type of protective clothing must
be determined independently in order to estimate the overall benefits of protective
clothing.
Quantification of the potential benefits of protective clothing per se is nearly impossible
without consideration of the differential benefits of each type of protective clothing for three
significant reasons.
First, the current usage rate for each type of clothing is likely to be vary (Table 5.6). For
example, a survey of 1300 Australian motorcyclists indicated that most riders wore a helmet
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
75
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing (97-98%) and motorcycle jacket (82-95%), but fewer riders wore motorcycle pants and boots
(de Rome 2006). The usage rate also seems to vary with the purpose of the riding trip. The
same survey found that riders were most likely to wear more protective clothing when they
went on recreational rides followed by riding to work, and the least for short rides to the local
shops (de Rome 2006). To allow for such variations, the survey conducted for this project
asked riders which items of protective clothing they always wore when riding (see Table 5.6).
Second, the types of injuries prevented by the different types of clothing also vary according
to the region of the body protected (Table 5.6).
Third, the baseline rate of each injury type is highly variable. Reasons could include
differences in the clothing usage rate and differences in the sensitivity of the body region to a
motorcycle crash. For example, the variability in the body areas where injuries are sustained
by motorcyclists has been observed in previous studies (Otte and Middelhauve
1987){ACEM, 2004 #729. Therefore, the injury reduction benefits will to vary depending on
the type of clothing and part of the body protected
Table 5.6 Differences in the usage rate, region of injury protection, current injury rate,
and the possible reduction levels in relation to motorcycle protective clothing^
Type of protective
clothing
Current usage rate
Region of injury
prevented
Proportion of
unprotected
riders uninjured
Proportion of
protected riders
uninjured
Helmet
98%
Head
40%
84%
Jacket
78%
Chest & arms
8%
19%
Gloves
79%
Hands
33%
59%
Pants
61%
Legs
15%
31%
Boots
41%
Feet/ankles
57%
67%
^Source: de Rome et al, 2011
METHODOLOGICAL IMPERATIVE 3:
The impact of protective clothing use on risk taking behaviour amongst
motorcyclists must be accounted for in the injury reduction benefits measurement.
A motorcyclist who wears protective clothing may believe they can take more risks than
without it. Such a phenomenon known as the risk compensation theory has been theoretically
and empirically investigated for other road user behaviours (Wilde 1989; Wilde 2005).
If such increased risk were to be associated with usage of protective clothing this could
counteract the injury reduction effect reducing or even reversing the overall benefit of usage.
The increased quality of products may not necessarily have an increasing monotonic
relationship with injury reduction benefits. Observational studies of injury rates amongst
motorcyclists wearing clothing of different quality levels determined in labs may account for
the impact of clothing on risk taking behaviour. However there is little empirical evidence of
this phenomena and a recent Australian study found no association between other indicators
of risk taking (e.g. a history of traffic violations, pre-licence riding etc) and usage of
protective clothing by novice riders (de Rome, Ivers et al. 2011). The existence of risk
compensation amongst those who wear protective clothing may be examined with a research
design used in previous studies (Streff and Geller 1988; Underwood, Jiang et al. 1993;
Noland 1995; Weegels and Kanis 2000)
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
76
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Options
1. Approach to quantify the benefits of improved quality and uptake of protective
clothing:
a. If the choice is between two consumer information programs (e.g. star rating
system versus educational media campaign), CEA or CUA would be the most
appropriate economic evaluation to conduct.
b. On the other hand, if the decision is whether or not to introduce a consumer
information program at all while the current practice is no consumer program
information program, CBA would be the most appropriate.
2. The unit of measurement to quantify the benefits of improved quality and uptake of
protective clothing:
a. If CEA is used, outcome data such as the number of injuries saved by
protective clothing, number of days in hospital, and number of days taken to
return to work may be used to quantify the benefits of protective clothing.
b. If CUA is used, QALY or DALY gained may be used to quantify the benefits
of protective clothing.
c. If CBA is used, a monetised value of injuries and fatalities prevented by
protective clothing can be used to quantify the benefits of protective clothing.
The monetised value can be estimated through the HCA or WTP approach.
3. Computation of the benefits: The benefits of increased quality and uptake of
protective clothing can be quantified as:
a. The sum of the benefits of each type of protective clothing; or,
b. The benefits of at least one protective clothing worn versus none; or,
c. The benefits of at least one upper torso protective clothing versus benefits of
at least one lower torso protective clothing versus none.
Note: For the various methodological implications outlined above the first option
is strongly recommended.
4. Data collection:
a. A new study may be conducted to measure current usage rate and quality of
protective clothing products in the current market or data from previous
studies may be used.
b. A new study of the impact of increased quality of protective clothing on
motorcyclist riding behaviour may be conducted to measure the net benefit of
increased quality and uptake of protective clothing.
5. Sensitivity analysis:
a. Conduct sensitivity analysis of the benefit estimates. For example, in CUA
utility weights used to estimate QALYs can have a large influence on the final
outcome.
b. Do not conduct sensitivity analysis
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
77
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing References
AAAM, (1990). The Abbreviated Injury Scale. Association for the Advancement of
Automotive Medicine, Des Plaines, IL.
Abelson, P. (2008), Establishing a Monetary Value for Lives Saved: Issues and
Controversies, Working Paper 2008–02, Office of Best Practice Regulation, Department
of Finance and Deregulation, Canberra.
ABS (2004), Disability, ageing and carers: Summary of findings, Australia 2003, Catalogue
number 4430.0, Canberra
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/[email protected]/DetailsPage/4430.02003?Open Document
ACEM (2004), MAIDS In-depth investigation of accidents involving powered two wheelers.
Association of European Motorcycle Manufacturers (ACEM), Brussels.
Alfaro, J.-L., Chapuis, M., Fabre, F. (Eds.), (1994). Socioeconomic cost of road accidents.
Transport Research COST 313. Report EUR 15464 EN, Commission of the European
Communities, Brussels.
Ashenfelter, O., (2006). Measuring the value of a statistical life: problems and prospects. The
Economic Journal 116, C10–C23.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008). Survey of motor vehicle use: 12 months ended 31
October 2007. Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics. 9208.0.
Australian Bureau of Statistics (2011). 9208.0 - Survey of Motor Vehicle Use, Australia, 12
months ended 31 October 2010. Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics.
Berry, J. G. and Harrison, J. E. (2008), Serious injury due to land transport accidents,
Australia, 2005–06, Injury Research and Statistics Series Number 42, Australian Institute
of Health and Welfare, Canberra
http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/reports/2008/injcat113.pdf
BTE (2000), Road crash costs in Australia, Report 102, Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport
and Regional Economics, Canberra http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/47/Files/r102.pdf
BITRE (2009). Cost of road crashes in Australia 2006. Report 118,
http://www.bitre.gov.au/publications/48/Files/Cost_of_road_crashes_in_Australia.pdf.
Canberra, Australia, Bureau of Infrastructure Transport and Regional Economics.
BTRE (2006), Cost of Aviation Accidents and Incidents, BTRE Report 113, Bureau of
Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics, Canberra
http://www.btre.gov.au/publications/36/Files/BTRE_R113.pdf
Burkhead, J. and Miner, J. (1971), Public Expenditure, Chicago, Aldine Atherton.
Briggs AH, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K. (2006) Decision modelling for health economic
evaluation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Connelly, L. B. and R. Supangan (2006). "The economic costs of road traffic crashes:
Australia, states and territories." Accident Analysis & Prevention 38(6): 1087-1093.
de Rome, L. and Brandon, T. (2007) A Survey of Motorcyclists in NSW, 2006, A report to
the Motorcycle Council of NSW, November
de Rome, L., Ivers, R., Fitzharris, M., Du, W., Richardson, D., Haworth, N., Heritier, S.,
2011. Motorcycle protective clothing: Protection from injury or just the weather? Accident
Analysis and Prevention 43 (6), 1893-1900
de Rome, L (2006) Planning for motorcycle safety: measures of success,
www.rsconference.com , Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference,
Brisbane (unpublished).
Drummond, M. F., Sculfer, M. J., Torrance, G. W., O’Brien, B. J., & Stoddard, G. L. (2005).
Methods for the Economic Valuation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
EEVC (1993). Report on Motorcycle Safety. An EEVC Paper, Report of the Ad-hoc Group
on Motorcycle Safety, 1993. Brussels, European Experimental Vehicles Committee 75.
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
78
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Elvik, R. (1995). An analysis of official economic valuations of traffic accident fatalities in
20 motorized countries. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27(2), 237–347.
Elvik, R. (2000). How much do road accidents cost the national economy? Accident Analysis
and Prevention, 32(6), 849–851.
Evans, A. (2001). The economic appraisal of road traffic safety measures in Great Britain.
Paper for ECMT Round Table 117 ‘‘Economic evaluation of road traffic safety
measures’’. Paris: ECMT.
Gafni A. Using willingness-to-pay as a measure of benefits: What is the relevant question to
ask in the context of public decision making about health care programs. Med Care
1991;29: 1246–1252.
Garthe, E.A., Ferguson, S.A., Early, N., (1996). A method for converting injury severity in
NASS93 (AIS90) to NASS88 (AIS85). In: 40th Annual Proceedings. Association for the
Advancement of Automotive Medicine (AAAM), Des Plaines, IL, pp. 477–494.
Gold, M.R., Siegel, J.E., Russell, L.B., Weinstein, M.C., (1996). Cost-Effectiveness in Health
and Medicine. Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
Hensher, D. A. (2010). Hypothetical bias, choice experiments and willingness to pay. [doi:
10.1016/j.trb.2009.12.012]. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 44(6), 735752.
International Classification of Diseases Australian Modification version 10 (ICD-10 AM)
Koopmanschap, M.A., van Ineveld, B.M., (1992). Towards a new approach for estimating
indirect costs of disease. Soc. Sci. Med. 34 (9), 1005–1010.
Koopmanschap, M.A., Rutten, F.F.H., van Ineveld, B.M., van Roijen, L., (1995). The friction
cost method for measuring indirect costs of disease. J. Health Econ. 14 (2), 171–189.
Lin, M. R. and J. F. Kraus (2008). "Methodological issues in motorcycle injury
epidemiology." Accident Analysis and Prevention 40(5): 1653-1660.
Max, W., Stark, B., & Root, S. (1998). Putting a lid on injury costs: the economic impact of
the California motorcycle helmet law. Journal of Trauma-Injury Infection & Critical Care,
45(3), 550-556.
McClure, R. J. and R. M. Douglas (1996). "The public health impact of minor injury." Accid
Anal Prev 28: 443-451.
Ministry of Transport. (2004). Nota Mobiliteit; Naar een betrouwbare en voorspelbare
bereikbaarheid. Mobility Policy Document; Towards a Reliable and Predictable
Accessibility. The Hague: Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management.
Murray, C. J. L., Lopez, A. D., Jamison, D. T. (1994), The Global Burden of Disease in 1990:
Summary Results, Sensitivity Analyses, and Future Directions, Bulletin of the World
Health Organization 72(3), pp.495–5 08
Noordzij, P., E. Forke, et al. (2001). Integration of needs of moped and motorcycle riders into
safety measures. Review and statistical analysis in the framework of the European
research project PROMISING, Workpackage 3, Report D-2001_5. Leidschendam, The
Netherlands, SWOV Institute for Road Safety Research. Report D-2001_5: 212.
Otte, D. and V. Middelhauve (1987). Quantification of protective effects of special synthetic
protectors in clothing for motorcyclists. Proceedings of the International Conference of the
Research Council on the Biomechanics of Impact. D. Cesari and A. Charpenne.
Birmingham, UK, IRCOBI: 1-18.
Persson, U., & Odegaard, K. (1995). External cost estimates of road traffic accidents: An
international comparison. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 29(3), 291–304.
Potter, M., Abelson, P. and Driscoll, T. (2006), Valuing the mortality and morbidity of work
related injury and illness: a life–cycle costing of incidents reported in NSW in 2000–2001,
Injury Risk Management Research Centre, The University of New South Wales, Sydney
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
79
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing http://www.irmrc.unsw.edu.au/documents/IRMRC%20Work%20Cover%20Report%20Se
pt06.pdf
Ride (2005). Two piece leathers. Essential Gear Guide. T. Hoare. London, Ride Magazine.
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/Products/productsresults/ Last accessed 24 April
2011. UK, Bauer Media.
Ride (2008). All season boots. Ride Magazine, http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/
Products/productsresults/ Last accessed 24 April 2011. UK, Bauer Media..
Ride (2009a). Textile Suits. Ride Magazine, http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/
Products/productsresults/ Last accessed 24 April 2011. UK, Bauer Media.
Ride (2009b). Winter Gloves. Ride Magazine, http://www.motorcyclenews.com/MCN/
Products/productsresults/ Last accessed 24 April 2011. UK, Bauer Media.
Rosman D.L. (2001), The Western Australian road injury database (1987 – 1996): Ten Years
of linked police, hospital and death records of road crashes and injuries. Journal of
Accident Analysis and Prevention. Vol. 33(1), pp.81–88.
Rosman, D. L. and M. W. Knuiman (1994). "A comparison of hospital and police road injury
data." Accident Analysis and Prevention 26(2): 215-222.
Streff, F. M. and E. S. Geller (1988). "An experimental test of risk compensation: Betweensubject versus within-subject analyses." Accident Analysis & Prevention 20(4): 277-287.
Underwood, G., C. Jiang, et al. (1993). "Modelling of safety measure effects and risk
compensation." Accident Analysis & Prevention 25(3): 277-288.
Vos, T. and Begg, S. (1999), The Victorian Burden of Disease Study: Mortality, Department
of Human Services, Melbourne
Weegels, M. F. and H. Kanis (2000). "Risk perception in consumer product use." Accident
Analysis & Prevention 32(3): 365-370.
Wijnen, W., Wesemann, P., & de Blaeij, A. (2009). Valuation of road safety effects in costbenefit analysis. Evaluation & Program Planning, 32(4), 326-331.
Wilde, G. J. S. (1989). "Accident countermeasures and behavioural compensation: The
position of risk homeostasis theory." Journal of Occupational Accidents 10(4): 267-292.
Wilde, G. J. S. (2005). On the homeostasis of risk. Contemporary Issues in Road User
Behavior. D. A. Hennessy and D. L. Wiesenthal. New York, Nova Science Publishers,
Hauppauge: 3-12.
Zaloshnja, E., T. Miller, et al. (2004). "Crash costs by body part injured, fracture
involvement, and threat-to-life severity, United States, 2000." Accident Analysis &
Prevention 36(3): 415-427.
Chapter 5 – Options for cost benefit analysis of increased usage of protective clothing
80
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing CHAPTER 6 – CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
INTRODUCTION
The options for providing improved consumer information about motorcycle clothing have
been derived in consideration of a number of factors. These include the features of existing
consumer information programs both in relation to motorcycle clothing and other types of
products, the features of the local motorcycle clothing market and the availability of test
facilities.
CURRENT SOURCES OF CONSUMER INFORMATION ABOUT MOTORCYCLE SAFETY CLOTHING
Six types of consumer information provision about motorcycle protective clothing were
identified. The only sources to currently provide independent evidence based information
about the protective performance of individual products are described at (d.) CE labels on
certified products and (f.) product test results published by Ride magazine (UK).
The six types of information programs are:
a.
Programs which promote usage of protective clothing in general as a means of
preventing injury, but do not distinguish between the types or qualities of different
products. Media used include advertisements, print products and websites (e.g. ,
ACEM Protective Equipment for Riders, VicRoads, TAC, QLD TMR and RTA).
b.
Programs which provide detailed information on the features to look for when
buying specific items of protective clothing. The information is provided to help
identify and avoid those garments least likely to provide injury protection, but
emphasises that only evidence from independent tests is an assurance of a product’s
likely performance in a crash. These include websites (e.g. ACC Ride for ever, TAC
SPOKES, MCC Protective Clothing, MACSA Gear Up) and print products (e.g.
Good Gear Guide).
c.
Advertising and marketing material provided by manufacturers and retailers about
the features and benefits of their products, but which does not include evidence of
independent assessment (e.g. standards numbers, CE marked labels).
d.
Appropriately numbered CE labels attached by manufacturers which provide
independent evidence of their compliance with the European standards for
motorcycle protective clothing.
e.
Product reviews published by motorcycle magazines and websites. The majority of
protective clothing product reviews rely on information provided by the
manufacturer. Many include the results of rider assessments from road tests under
different riding conditions. They relate to comfort and practicality but do not include
any assessment of injury protection performance.
f.
Product test results published by Ride (UK) motorcycle magazine. No other similar
objective assessments were identified as being currently available. Motorrad
motorcycle magazine (Germany) uses the European Standard’s test for impact
protectors (EN-1621-1), but relies on rider wearer assessments from road tests under
different riding conditions for other features reviewed but do not include any
assessment of injury protection performance.
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
83
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing MOTORCYCLE CLOTHING TEST AND EVALUATION REGIMES
The only comprehensive testing systems for motorcyclists’ protective clothing found worldwide, are the European Standards produced by standards agency CEN (Comité Européen de
Normalisation). The European Standards for Motorcycle Protective Clothing include separate
standards for each type of garment: jackets and pants, boots, gloves, impact protectors for the
limbs and impact protectors for the back. Standards for impact protection for the chest and
inflatable body protectors (airbags) are currently under development. (See Appendix A).
Each of the European Standards specify the test methodology and equipment required to
assess the protective performance of garments in relation to: abrasion, cut, tear resistance,
burst strength and impact resistance as defined appropriate according to garment type. The
Standards also include basic ergonomic assessments that replicate a series of movements
commonly used when riding a motorcycle, to provide an indication of comfort and fitness for
purpose. In addition they evaluate the innocuousness of the materials used in the garments, to
ensure exposure to these does not constitute a hazard to the health of the wearer. However the
European Standards do not consider issues of heat, cold or cost. The footwear standard – EN
13634 – is the only document to consider waterproofing and only then as an optional test.
The standards do not evaluate the compatibility of the various garments, for example the
integration of the gloves with the cuffs of the jackets.
There are a number of international and Australian standards that specify tests for the
suitability of clothing for various weather conditions, which could be used to complement the
tests included in the European Standards for motorcycle clothing. (See Appendix G).
TEST FACILITIES
Injury protection performance: There are a number of accredited test facilities in Europe
with the current capacity to conduct the tests required under the European Standards for
motorcycle clothing, but none in the Southern Hemisphere. (See Appendix F).
Thermal comfort assessment: Thermal comfort tests require the use either of human
subjects or thermal manikins to measure heat loss/gain in an environmental chamber using
different conditioning such as heat, cold, wind and solar load.
There are a number of test facilities with environmental chambers in Australia, some of
which use human subjects and others use thermal manikins. (See Appendix H). A sweating
thermal manikin would be the preferred option in terms of obtaining reliable results although
initial set up costs would be higher than with human subjects. Whereas there may be added
advantage of human subjects as they are required for the ergonomic tests under the European
standards for protective clothing.
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
84
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing RELEVANT FEATURES OF THE MOTORCYCLE CLOTHING MARKET IN AUSTRALASIA.
a. The motorcycle clothing and accessories industry operates in an international market
with a substantial proportion of that sold in Australia and New Zealand being
imported, principally from Europe and the US although mostly manufactured in
Taiwan, Vietnam or Pakistan. Hence any rating or testing system would need to be
locally based to capture products regardless of their origins.
b. Tailor-made clothing accounts for a small proportion of the market but is essential for
those riders who are unable to buy ready-made garments that fit appropriately.
Correct fit is an important factor in order to ensure that protective features (impact
protectors or abrasion resistant linings) stay in place during the crash. This is a
particular issue for women riders, as the majority of the garments available are
designed to be worn by men, who comprise between 80-90% of the customer market
c. There can be a wide range of models within each manufacturer’s range of protective
clothing (jackets, pants, gloves and boots). Unlike helmets, riders require different
garments for different riding conditions (hot, wet and cold weather). For example, one
Australian brand currently has over 40 different garments in their range including 10
different models of motorcycle fabric jackets/pants, 15 models of leather suits/pants
and 6 models of gloves.
d. Most of the research and development leading to technological advances in protective
clothing has been conducted in Europe. Any quality control or standards system
implemented here would need to be sufficiently flexible to accommodate new
technologies so as not to preclude the availability of improved products in the local
market.
e. Survey results suggest that a substantial proportion of riders would be willing to pay
higher prices for protective clothing that has been independently tested and accredited
(see Chapter 4, page 58).
MODELS OF CONSUMER INFORMATION PROGRAMS
Consumer information programs were examined in terms of whether they assess products on
single or multiple dimensions, how the ratings are communicated to consumers, whether the
system is mandatory or voluntary, the related issue of the completeness of coverage, how the
program relates to any existing standards and who funds the assessment program. Five
distinct mechanisms or business models were identified:
A. Performance League Tables. Analysis of real-world safety performance of products
and publication of results as league tables (e.g. Used Car Safety Ratings) by external
stakeholder organisation (e.g. motorists associations)
B. Independent Stakeholders Funded Tests. Purchase and testing of products funded
by external stakeholder organisations (e.g. road authorities, motorists associations).
Tests generally based on standards and results made available to the public though
stakeholder communication networks (e.g. ANCAP, CREP, CRASH).
C. Consumer Funded Tests. Purchase and testing of products funded by consumer
organisations and results made available to members (e.g. Australian Consumer
Association (Choice magazine), Ride (UK motorcycle magazine).
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
85
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing D. Voluntary Industry Funded Tests. Voluntary system under which individual
companies pay to have their products assessed by an independent organisation with
results published and often displayed (e.g. EU Standards for Motorcycle Protective
Clothing, AAA accommodation ratings).
E. Mandatory Industry Tests. Mandatory testing and display of ratings (e.g. appliance
energy ratings, vehicle fuel consumption) at the cost of industry and conducted either
by industry or independent facilities (e.g. Australian Consumer Association (Choice
magazine)).
THE FEASIBILITY IN THE AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND CONTEXT
Model A – Performance league tables - would require the comprehensive and available
crash and injury data that identified the items of motorcycle protective clothing used in crash
to be available. This model is not viable for motorcycle protective clothing due to the
impracticality of sourcing crashed clothing and obtaining reliable information about the crash
kinematics (impact types and forces involved).
Model B - Independent Stakeholders Funded Tests is commonly used in road safety and
requires external organisations to provide funding for purchase, testing to specified
performance criteria and promotion of results. Tests are generally based on standards and
results made available to the public though stakeholder communication networks. While this
model requires significant input of resources from the accrediting body, it has several
important advantages. It is not dependent on the support of either industry or consumers but,
as the ANCAP program has demonstrated, this approach operates most effectively by
educating consumers and thus shaping market demand for higher quality products. Over time
the changing market demand would be expected to create a more inviting business case for
industry to engage proactively with the program. As with ANCAP it would be recommended
that manufacturer be encouraged to take part by paying for the testing of their product rather
than waiting to be independently selected.
Model B also has the potential to avoid the problems that have arisen in Europe where many
of the largest manufacturers have avoided the requirements of compliance with the European
Standards by not describing their motorcycle clothing products as protective.
With a funding base that is independent of industry, a star system may be more able than a
voluntary industry standard to withstand pressure to water down the performance
requirements for award of particular numbers of stars. Thus, the independent star system
would potentially have greater safety benefits for motorcyclists.
Current examples include ANCAP, CREP, CRASH which are based on the test
methodologies of the relevant standards, but use a higher performance level than the
minimum required. A standard is useful to set the minimum performance levels but does not
need to be mandatory in a market-driven rather than regulatory-driven model. The essential
features are that the tests are objectively validated and the methodology and criteria
transparent.
Model C- Consumer Funded Tests is similar to Model B and has the same constraints but is
conducted and funded by consumer organisations. The disadvantage of this system is that it is
dependent on the commercial capacity of the organisation to cover the range of products
required. In addition such consumer organisations restrict access to the testing outcomes to
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
86
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing those who subscribe or purchase their magazine. This limits the range of consumers to whom
the information is available.
Model D - Voluntary Industry Funded Tests would perhaps be easy to introduce but would
only be useful if a large proportion of motorcycle protective clothing industry were
committed to this approach. The extremely low up-take by the industry in Europe, over ten
years after their standards were released, suggests that this is unlikely to have sufficient reach
to be useful. However, there are grounds to believe that consumer demand may lead to
change over time, as increasing numbers of the European companies have been putting
garments through the European tests although not using the results to market their products
with the CE mark.
Consultation with the local industry indicates that there may be some support for a program
of testing to determine the relative protective performance and quality of products. A
potential benefit being a possible reduction in competition from cheap low quality imports
particularly those bought on-line. There was significant concern and resistance to any
suggestions that industry should fund the tests.
Model E - Mandatory Industry Tests has the advantage of covering the widest range of
products and ensuring that purchasers are aware of the performance of the products. This was
the intention for the European Standards for Motorcycle Protective Clothing, however as the
European experience has demonstrated, there are a number of significant disincentives and
barriers.
A standards approach distinguishes only between those that failed and those that passed, but
does not give any indication of relative or superior performance. Such systems exclude failed
products from sale, but do not enable consumers to identify superior products from those
available, nor does it offer any incentive to industry to improve performance.
Mandatory testing would require the development of an Australian standard against which
products would be tested. The process of developing a standard, or even the adoption of the
existing European Standards, is very time consuming and expensive, and would require the
cooperation of industry.
The European Standards took some 11 years to be approved from the time of initial
development, largely due to the difficulties of obtaining agreement between stakeholders,
particularly industry and the rider community. Whereas the industry did not wish to be
regulated, the focus of rider concern was that standards would be used by authorities and
insurance companies to mandate rider usage. This is also a concern that has been expressed in
Australia and will need to be addressed in order to persuade the rider community of the
benefits of such a system.
Mandatory testing would also impose a heavy cost burden on the local industry, including
both manufacturers and importers in what is a very small market. This is due to the wide
variety of motorcycle clothing products (jackets, pants, gloves and boots). The process and
cost of testing could price many products out of the market particularly for importers and
those who provide tailor-made clothing. Imports represent a substantial proportion of the
products locally available, but the Australasian market is relatively small and unlikely to
provide an incentive to international companies (e.g. Europe and US), to comply with our test
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
87
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing requirements. Due to the wide range of types of clothing products involved, the situation
cannot be compared to helmets.
The outcome would not just reduce the range of products locally available to riders, but
would also reduce local access to new developments and technological advances in protective
clothing, most of which research is conducted in Europe. The outcome could be to subvert
the objectives of the testing program by encouraging riders to buy un-tested clothing on-line
from other countries.
It would require a strong degree of government commitment to its introduction and to devise
the means of monitoring, labeling and enforcement, which is difficult to justify when the
objectives of increasing usage of protective clothing may be achieved through other means.
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
88
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing RECOMMENDED APPROACH AND MECHANISMS
BUSINESS MODEL
Model B is the model recommended to meet the objectives of this project. Testing for this
model relies on some independently determined criteria such as a standard and while there
are no Australasian standards for motorcycle protective clothing, the European standards
provide a viable alternative when complemented by the recommended user comfort
standards.
ADMINISTRATION
1. Products to be purchased anonymously and tested by an independent body under
contract to the administering agency/-ies.
2. Funding by independent stakeholder agencies – CTP insurers, health insurance
companies and motoring organizations.
3. Program to be overseen by a steering committee of stakeholders including
representatives of the industry and rider community.
TESTING
1. Ratings to be based on two separate dimensions A. injury protection and B. user
comfort (including weather protection, water penetration, thermal comfort and
ergonomics).
2. Injury protection performance and ergonomics to be evaluated using the equipment
and test methodologies specified for the European standards for motorcycle protective
clothing.
3. The volume of testing required for the rating scheme makes it necessary to have a
local test facility able to test to the European standards for motorcycle protective
clothing.
4. Once established, the capability of this local test facility to test to the European
standards for motorcycle protective clothing will require qualification with the test
results of other international laboratory/ies. A possible inter-laboratory comparison
could make use of the of the motorcycle jackets test results being done for the TAC
by SATRA in the UK as a comparison.
5. Water penetration testing will simply extend the test methodology already used in the
European motorcycle boot standard to the other garments. This test will expose the
garment when worn by an assessor to a controlled spray of water.
6. The selection of the thermal comfort test method for the evaluation of the user
comfort of the protective equipment by means of a sweating thermal manikin will be
made by comparison with the results obtained from the manikin with a group of
volunteers . The expertise to do this work is possessed by the group under Associate
Professor Nigel Taylor at the University of Wollongong. This group has an
environmental test facility which allows control of temperature, humidity, wind speed
and solar load. For Australian use of the garments the emphasis of the testing will be
on hot weather use. The assessor for the ergonomic testing of the garments to the
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
89
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing European standards will also investigate the compatibility of the various garments,
such as gloves and jacket sleeve and boots and pant leg.
7. The star scheme for reporting the user comfort (including weather protection, water
penetration, thermal comfort and ergonomics) results will be similar in concept to that
for the injury protection tests.
8. A rolling program of tests by type of garment (e.g. summer jackets), be established
over a twelve month cycle so that consumers can predict and base their purchasing
decisions on when results for a specific type of product will be available.
9. The selection of items for testing should be determined to reduce the risk of bias.
Minimum sample sizes should be determined using statistical methods and may be
stratified to compare garments of specific type. (e.g. winter versus summer weight).
10. Testing methodology, results and rating systems to be transparent and made publically
available as a part of the assessment.
PUBLICATION OF RESULTS
1. Results to be published and promoted through the internet, using a variety of
stakeholder website including motorcycle community networks.
2. Print material requirements for promoting the program results are likely to be minimal
due to the limited range of suitable outlets where such materials would be acceptable
for commercial reasons. Posters promoting the program and the internet sites for the
results may be the only print materials required.
3. Opportunities to recover costs may include the provision of detailed reports on results
made available to manufacturers on request and payment of a fee. Labels certifying
test results could also be made available for display at the point of sale.
RATING AND REPORTING
As discussed earlier, test results may be reported in terms of the relative performance of
different products or a pass/fail criteria.
Relative performance scores report the actual numerical outcome (e.g. time for abrasion to
destruction). This approach allows for comparisons to be made between different products
and encourages consumer demand for higher levels of performance.
Pass/ fail assessments report only whether the item passed at the minimum level of acceptable
performance, below which the product is deemed to have failed (i.e. a standards approach). A
standards approach distinguishes only between those that failed and those that passed, and
does not give any indication of relative or superior performance. Such systems exclude failed
products from sale, but do not enable consumers to identify superior products from those
available, nor do they offer any incentive to industry to improve performance.
However, where multiple factors are involved (e.g. abrasion, burst, tear and cut strength and
impact resistance), a star rating system can more readily be calculated on the basis of pass/fail
criteria (standards) on each factor than on relative performance scores (ratings). Accordingly
it is recommended that:
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
90
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing 1. Results for performance on each individual test (abrasion resistance, impact
resistance, water penetration, etc) to be reported as a score (for example - time to
destruction).
2. Scores to also be converted into pass/fail criteria in order to construct relative
performance ratings (star ratings) on the two dimensions (injury protection and user
comfort).
3. Pass/fail ratings for abrasion, cut, burst and impact resistance to be based on those
required under the European Standards at Levels 1 and 2. Note: it is proposed that
performance on the two levels could be represented as corresponding to Silver and
Gold stars. However, further work, including market testing, would be required to
develop the most appropriate means of representing test results visually.
4. Integrity of design to be based on compliance with all of the restraint and coverage
requirements specified under the European Standards.
5. Products that have already been tested and accredited under the European Standards
to be rated on injury protection measures without further testing, but would still
require water penetration and thermal comfort tests.
6. Products tested by other consumer organisations (e.g. Ride magazine), may also be
included if a commercial arrangement for exchange of test results and consistency of
test methodologies can be agreed.
7. Performance on the user comfort dimension to be based on the relevant test standards
and reported in comparable format to the injury protection test results as both a
numerical score and a star rating for user comfort.
Table 6.1 illustrates how the test results for the injury protection dimensions may be
converted into star ratings
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
91
Improving consumer information about motorcycle protective clothing Table 6.1
Test specifications for injury protection star rating scheme
Fail
Level 1
Silver stars
Level 2
Gold stars
< 4 secs
> 25 mm
4 ≥ 6 secs
≤ 25 mm
7 ≤ secs
≤ 15 mm
< 700 kPa
No
≥700 kPa
Yes
≥800 kPa
Yes
Fail
Exposed
Fail
Pass
Covered
Pass
Pass
Covered
Pass
> 35 kN and
> 50 kN
≤ 35 kN and
≤ 50 kN
≤ 35 kN and
≤ 50 kN
< 2.5 secs
> 25 mm
≥ 2.5 secs
≤ 25 mm
≤ 2.5 secs
≤ 15 mm
<600 kPa
<40 N
≥600 kPa
≥40 N
≥600 kPa
≥40 N
Fail
Exposed
Fail
Pass
Covered
Pass
Pass
Covered
Pass
>4 kN
≤4 kN
≤4 kN
JACKETS AND PANTS AS PER EN 13595-1:2002
Abrasion resistance (Zone 1 & 2 only)
Impact cut resistance - maximum knife penetration
(Zone 1 & 2 only)
Minimum burst strength (seams and fastenings)
Impact protection present in Zone 1 and conforming to
EN 1621_1
Integrity of design as per EN 13595-1:
Fit & ergonomics
Coverage
Restraint systems
IMPACT PROTECTORS (LIMBS) AS PER EN 1621-1*
Impact resistance – force of transmission
Mean of 9 points tested
Highest single value
GLOVES AS PER EN 13594: 2002
Abrasion resistance
Impact cut resistance - maximum knife penetration as
per EN 388:1994
Burst strength (seams and fastenings)
Tear strength as per EN 388:1994
Integrity of design as per EN 13594: 2002
Fit & ergonomics
Coverage
Restraint systems
Impact energy attenuation – Knuckles (Optional) Impact energy 5 J.
Mean peak transmitted force for 5 points tested
FOOTWEAR AS PER EN 13634: 2002
Abrasion resistance - Upper
< 5 secs
≥ 5 secs
≥ 12 secs
Upper cut resistance – minimum blade cut resistance
> 2, 5
≤ 2,5
≤ 5,0
as per EN 388:1994
Transfers rigidity
>1.5 kN
≤ 1.5kN
≤ 1.5kN
Integrity of design as per EN 13594: 2002
Pass
Fail
Pass
Fit & ergonomics
Covered
Coverage
Exposed
Covered
Pass
Restraint systems
Fail
Pass
Impact energy attenuation – Ankle and shin (Optional)
- Impact energy 10 J.
Transmitted force
>5 kN
≤5 kN
≤5 kN
*Note: In relation to Impact protection an option to be considered for the impact test could be to award points
on the basis of five impacts – at the shoulder, elbow, hip, knee and shin – and awarded up to three
points per test based on the force transmitted. One mark to show the armour meets the CE standard
(35kN or less transmitted), two marks go to armour transmitting 25kN or less and three marks go to
protectors that transmit 15kN or less. The transmission limits to be in accord with the proposed
changes to the CE standard if these do come into force. This is intended to reflect and accommodate
improvements in armour technology.
Chapter 6 – Options for a consumer rating system
92
APPENDICES
A.
European Standards for Motorcycle Protective Equipment (PPE)
93
B.
RIDE test results
94
C.
Rating schemes - decision matrix
103
D.
Rider survey
113
E.
Data for cost estimates
123
F.
Test Facilities for EU Motorcycle PPE Standards
128
G.
Standards for Thermal and Water Penetration test
129
H.
Facilities for Thermal and Water Penetration tests
130
Appendices
92
APPENDIX A EUROPEAN STANDARDS FOR MOTORCYCLE PERSONAL
PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
Standard
Number
Standard Name
Protective gloves for
professional motorcycle riders
EN 13594
- Requirements and test
methods
Protective clothing for
professional motorcycle riders
EN 13595
- Jackets, trousers and one
piece or divided suits
Test Parameter
Injury Prevention
Relevance
1: no effect, 2: some
effect, 3: effective
Dye Fastness
1
pH of Leather
1
Chromium (VI) content of leather
1
Hard Inclusions (e.g studs, buckles)
3
Ergonomic requirements
2
Sizing
2
Coverage
2
Restraint
3
Tear Strength
3
Strength of seams
3
Cut resistance
3
Abrasion resistance
3
Optional additional protection, impact
energy attenuation
Effect of Cleaning
3
Tear Strength
3
Impact energy absorption
3
Impact protector attachment
3
Abrasion resistance
3
Impact cut resistance
3
Burst strength
3
Dye Fastness
1
pH of Leather
1
Ergonomics
2
Restraint
3
Design and zoning
2
2
Appendix A - European Standards for Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment
93
Standard
Number
Standard Name
Protective footwear for
professional motorcycle riders
EN 13634
- Requirements and test
methods
EN 340
Protective clothing – General
requirements
EN 471
High-visibility warning
clothing for professional use.
Test methods and
requirements
EN 1621
Motorcyclists' protective
clothing against mechanical
impact
Test Parameter
Injury Prevention
Relevance
1: no effect, 2: some
effect, 3: effective
Design
2
Whole Footwear
3
Uppers pH Value
1
Linings
3
Insoles
2
Outsoles
3
Fit and Ergonomics
2
Size Marking
1
Dye fastness
1
Abrasion resistance of the upper
3
Cut resistance of the upper
3
Transverse rigidity of footwear bottom
3
Impact energy protection of ankle and
shin
3
Zones of Protection
2
Water resistance
1
Resistance to fuel oil of outsole
2
Innocuousness
Surface of Fluorescent and
Retroreflective Material (3 Levels)
Quality of the Retroreflective Material
(2 Levels)
Testing of impact protection inserts in
clothing
3
Back Protector impact testing
3
Appendix A - European Standards for Motorcycle Personal Protective Equipment
94
APPENDIX B - REVIEWS OF MOTORCYCLE CLOTHING PRODUCTS AS
REPORTED BY CONSUMER TESTING PROGRAMS.
The latest available product test reviews were obtained from Ride magazine in the UK. These
included reviews of eleven two piece leather suits (2005), ten two-piece textile suits (2008),
fourteen pairs of winter gloves (2009) and twelve pairs of boots (2008). The results of testing
are reported as a 50 word review, test results are reported as separate scores for each test but
the actual test results are not provided.
CONSUMER TESTS FOR MOTORCYCLE JACKETS, PANTS OR SUITS
The description of the testing and how the results are reported is based on articles
accompanying the test results in Ride magazine (Hoare 2005a, 2008b, Hull 2010).
Abrasion resistance
Three samples from each suit, one each from the shoulder, elbow and hip, were tested on the
abrasion rig specified in EN 13595-2:2002 for impact abrasion. The rig impacts the sample
against an abrasion belt at a controlled amount of force and then measures the time it takes to
wear through. The longer the time, the higher the score that was achieved.
Seams burst resistance
Seams strength was tested using the rig specified in EN 13595-3:2002. Seamed samples of
material from the hip and elbow were clamped over diaphragm which is inflated until the suit
seam either bursts or the machine is in danger of breaking. The rig measures how much force
was required to burst the seam. The higher the pressure required, the higher the score that was
achieved.
Impact resistance
Using the impact strength test specified in EN 1621-1:1998, body armour was tested to assess
how much energy it absorbed. The armour is placed over an anvil and a striker is dropped
onto it from a controlled height using a standard amount of force each time. A sensor in the
anvil works out how much force was transmitted through the armour.
Impacts were conducted at the shoulders, elbow, hip, knee and shin and awarded three points
per test based on the force transmitted. Under EN 1621-1:1998, the average force transmitted
over the combined tests cannot exceed 35 kN and no single impact may exceed 50 kN.
Waterproof test
The suits were worn by a tester who was also wearing winter gloves, boots, a neck warmer
and a helmet. Printed sheets of paper are also placed in the suits’ external pockets to see how
effective they were at keeping out water. The tester was sprayed all over with a pressure
washer while sitting on a motorcycle. After five minutes the suits were removed to check for
patches of water on light-coloured clothing worn underneath. Points were awarded based on
how much water got through. There are no requirements set for water proofing performance
under the European Standards, for motorcycle clothing.
Warmth
Mannequins fitted with thermal sensors were warmed in a 20°C room, then suited and placed
in a room with a temperature of -20°C. Thermocouples measured the rate and amount of heat
loss over a 90-minute period. Jackets and pants were ranked separately into three groups
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
93
according to results. There are no requirements set for thermal protection performance under
the European Standards.
Road test
Suits were worn by Ride staff over two months and a minimum of 1000 miles to assess
practicality in use. Points scores were based on general impression, comfort, warmth and
breathability.
TWO PIECE LEATHER SUITS, 2005
The scoring system conducted in 2010 on two-piece leather suits, used results from four
laboratory tests for abrasion, burst and impact resistance, based on those specified under the
European Standard EN 13959 1-4:2002 (Hoare 2005b, Hull 2010). The actual scores on
abrasion, burst and impact test were not reported but were scaled as scored out of 20 each for
jacket and pants. The relationship of scores to the requirements of the EU standards was not
described. Comfort tests were also conducted by being worn by a member of the Ride team
for a minimum of 1000 miles. The total possible score achievable was 140 including 20 for
the comfort test.
Of the thirteen suits, none achieved full marks and the average was only just over half of the
possible score (71.5/140) with particularly poor performances on the abrasion and impact
tests.
Table 1
Product tests comparing two-piece leather suits, Ride, 2005
Abrasion
Burst
Impact
Comfort
Price £
20
Total
Score
140
Model/ Possible score
40
40
40
Hein Gericke PSX competition
40
40
28
13
121
£500
Hideout Classic
37
40
21
15
113
£800
BKS Lynx
23
40
23
15
101
£510
Weise
18
36
24
15
93
£350
RST Razor
28
34
11
15
88
£330
Frank Thomas T1 11
21
40
11
7
79
£480
Held Street
20
35
16
16
87
£418
Richa TG-1
19
40
10
12
81
£530
Berik 8323
21
30
14
17
82
£400
Alpinestars SP-1
24
10
20
18
72
£700
Spada Predator
16
30
8
8
62
£360
Bering Rafal
23
26
3
19
71
£554
Dainese Stripes
14
21
15
18
68
£660
Scores on injury protective performance and cost
Figure 1 shows the scores on comfort, injury protection and price. Higher scores for comfort
tended to associated with lower scores on injury protection, particularly low abrasion
resistance. It was also apparent that cost was not a predictor of protective performance for the
majority of suits. In fact the suit with the highest protective performance score was almost
half the price of the second best performer. Three of the most expensive suits had the lowest
scores.
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
94
Figure 1.
Performance score and price of leather two-piece suits, Ride, 2010
Injury protection
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Comfort
Price
900
800
£800
700
£700
£660
600
£554
£530
£510
500
£500
£480
£418
108
400
£400
98
£360
86
£330
78 £350
73
72
71
300
69
65
54
54
52
50
200
17
19
18
18
16
15
15
15
15
13
100
12
8
7
0
TWO PIECE TEXTILE SUITS, 2008
The tests of two-piece textile suits in 2008, used a different scoring system although the test
methodologies were those specified by European Standards for abrasion, burst and impact
resistance (Hoare 2008b). As in 2005, the authors used test performance to produce relative
scores rather than pass/fail criteria. Table 3 shows scores on each test for the ten textile twopiece suits.
Table 2
Product tests comparing textile two-piece suits, Ride, 2008
Abrasion Burst Impact
Water
proof
Warmth
Road Total
Price
test Score
Model/ Possible score
15
10
15
10
10
10
70
£
1. Spada Highland/Milan
4
4
6
10
7
4
35
£180
2. Dainese Panama/Hooper
10
2
5
8
6
6
37
£520
3. Alpinestars Jet Road Gore-Tex
8
3
4
8
6
8
37
£560
4. Rukka Armax
10
0
6
9
4
10
39
£1,400
5. Halvarssons Medusa/Cobra
8
5
8
8
3
8
40
£370
6. Held Oasis/Dakar
5
5
7
9
8
10
44
£314
7. Weise Dynastar II/Psycho
7
8
7
10
4
10
46
£310
8. BMW Streetguard 2
12
4
9
10
3
8
46
£690
9. Aerostich Roadcrafter two-piece
10. Hein Gericke Master V GTX
ProShell
15
8
9
5
4
6
47
£400
12
4
12
7
6
10
51
£850
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
95
Abrasion resistance
Samples were taken from the shoulders, elbows, hips, knees and shins of each suit and scored
on a scale between 1 and 5. Samples that lasted seven seconds or more scored five out of five.
Those that lasted only one and half seconds scored 1 out of 5. Total possible score for a suit
was 15. As the actual times are not reported, this scoring system does not allow for
interpretations as to likely compliance with the European Standards, Level 1 (minimum
required 4 seconds), but may imply compliance with Level 2 for those suits which lasted
seven or more seconds. It was apparent from these tests that at least 5 of these suits were
unlikely to have provided the abrasion resistance required for compliance with Level 1 and
only one suit met the higher requirement of seven seconds,
Seams burst resistance
No information was provided as to any correspondence between the burst strength
performance required for compliance with the Standard and scores reported on these tests.
The range of performance suggests wide variability in the quality of construction, particularly
with less than half the suits achieving more than half the potential score.
Impact resistance
Impacts were conducted at the shoulders, elbow, hip, knee and shin and awarded three points
per test based on the force transmitted. Under EN 1621-1:1998, the average force transmitted
over the combined tests cannot exceed 35 kN and no single impact may exceed 50 kN.
Armour that met this standard scored one points, two points were awarded for transmitting
25kN or less and three marks for transmitting 15kN or less. The last two scores were in line
with proposals to change the CE standard to reflect improvements in armour technology.
All but one of the suits met the EU standard, and it would appear that most achieved at least
the higher level of 25kN.
Waterproof test
The suits were worn by a tester who was also wearing winter gloves, boots, a neck warmer
and a helmet. Printed sheets of paper are also placed in the suits’ external pockets to see how
effective they were at keeping out water. The tester was sprayed all over with a pressure
washer while sitting on a motorcycle. After five minutes the suits were removed to check for
patches of water on light-coloured clothing worn underneath. Points were awarded based on
how much water got through.
There are no requirements set for water proofing performance under the European Standards,
for motorcycle clothing. In these tests, most of the suits received good or acceptable
waterproofing scores with only one product considered to have been poor.
Warmth
Mannequins fitted with thermal sensors were warmed in a 20°C room, then suited and placed
in a room with a temperature of 20°C. Thermocouples measured the rate and amount of heat
loss over a 90-minute period. Jackets and pants were ranked separately into three groups
according to results. The warmest jackets or pants were given a score of five, the next group
scored three and the lowest received two. The total maximum score for a suit was 10.
There are no requirements set for thermal protection performance under the European
Standards. Half of the suits tested achieved less than half of the possible score.
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
96
Road test
Suits were worn by Ride staff over two months to assess practicality in use. Points scores
from 10 are based on general impression, comfort, warmth and breathability. Four suits
scored full marks, but there appeared to be little relationship between these subjective
judgements and scores on injury protection
Scores on injury protective performance and cost
As with the leather suits, it was apparent that cost was not a predictor of protective
performance for the majority of suits. See Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Performance score and price of textile two-piece suits, Ride, 2008
Injury protection
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Comfort
Price £
£1,400
£1,400
£1,200
£850
£690
£520
£180
14
4
17
15
6
£800
£560
8
16
10
£370
21
8
32
£314
17
£310
22
10
10
£1,000
25
28
£600
£400
8
£400
6
10
£200
£0
CONSUMER TESTS FOR MOTORCYCLE GLOVES
The following outlines the testing and scoring procedures used to review winter gloves as
reported in Ride magazine (Hoare 2009). Test results were provided in a 50 word review with
separate scores for palm abrasion, knuckle impact, seam strength, wrist restraint,
waterproofing, warmth and road test.
The tests for abrasion, burst and impact used the procedures specified under the European
Standards EN 13594:2002. The authors did not report the actual test performance results but
scaled them to produce relative scores.
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
97
Table 3
Product tests comparing winter gloves, Ride, 2009
Impact
Water
Abrasion Wrist
Warmth Road Total s
restraint protection proofing
testing
Model/ Possible score
1. Oxford Bone Dry
10
10
10
Price
10
10
10
70
£
1
1
3
10
4
6
26
£18
2. Lewis Glacier
4
3
2
4
4
8
30
£35
3. Komeni
2
1
6
10
8
6
34
£15
4. Joe Rocket Nitrogen
2
7
1
10
9
7
39
£60
3
10
3
10
1
9
42
£70
5
1
8
10
8
9
43
£60
2
9
3
10
8
9
43
£65
8. Tech 7 Sonic
7
2
9
6
10
8
48
£30
9. Tuzo TZG-5
8
4
10
10
10
6
51
£30
6
8
10
7
9
10
52
£60
10
7
9
10
7
7
53
£45
3
10
6
10
9
9
53
£100
6
4
10
10
6
9
55
£120
9
10
10
10
3
9
57
£140
5. Hein Gericke X-Trafit
Leather
6. Frank Thomas Force
Aqua
7. Ixon Pro Special
10. Triumph Sympatex
Expedition
11. Spada Enforcer
12. Racer Pluvio
13. Dainese Jerico-R
Gore-Tex
14. Alpinestars 365
Gore-Tex
Abrasion resistance
Gloves were opened flat and secured, palm down, on a metal anvil. The anvil was then
dropped onto a moving abrasive belt and the time it took for the glove to wear through was
recorded. Under EN 13594, gloves are required to last a minimum of 2.5 seconds. Any glove
that failed to achieve 2.5 seconds was scored 0, others score higher the longer they lasted.
The total possible score was 10. While none of the gloves scored zero, half scored less than
five out of a possible ten, only one achieved full marks.
Seams burst
Seam strength was tested by clamping gloves samples over a rubber diaphragm, which was
inflated under the seam until either the material tore or the stitching gave way. The rig
measures the pressure required to burst the seam. The higher the pressure required, the higher
the score achieved. Eight gloves scored three or less out of ten and only one achieved full
marks.
Wrist restraint
Straps are done up comfortably tight, then a digital balance is taped to the fingers and pulled
to remove the glove. The balance records the separation force required to remove the gloves.
The test is repeated three times for each glove. Under EN 13594, glove restraint systems are
required to resist a force of 35 N to minimise the danger of being pulled off in a crash. Half
of the gloves achieved less than half the possible score but three did achieve full marks.
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
98
Impact strength.
Gloves are tested to see how much energy they transmitted through the knuckles in an
impact. The test involves placing the glove over a knuckle shaped anvil and dropping a 2.5kg
striker onto the first and second knuckles and then the third and fourth knuckles, using a
standard drop energy each time. A sensor beneath the anvil measured how much force was
absorbed by the glove armour and how much would be transferred to the rider’s hand. Four
gloves achieved full possible marks and a further three scored eight or nine out of ten. Five
scored three or less.
Waterproofing
Gloves were worn by a tester on a stationary bike and subjected to a controlled, three-minute
jet-washer torrent. While being doused, the tester operated the bike’s controls to aggravate
seams. The tester wore satin inner gloves so leaks could be detected and recorded. A
waterproof over suit was worn over the glove cuffs to eliminate cuff leakage.
The majority of gloves scored full marks on these tests and only one failed to achieve even
half marks.
Warmth
Steel rods were inserted into the middle finger of each glove which was then placed in a chest
freezer. With the cuff sealed and temperature sensitive probes attached to the steel rod, the
drop in temperature was recorded over a five-minute period.
The majority of gloves scored reasonably well on these tests with only four pairs achieving
less than half marks.
Road testing
Gloves are road tested to check for feel and comfort. Testers check fit with leather jacket
sleeves and whether armour restricts movement. Each glove is worn well after wearing-in so
it is not assessed for initial discomfort. Testers then complete a questionnaire so all gloves are
assessed on the same criteria. All the gloves achieved over half the possible scores on these
tests.
Scores on injury protective performance and cost
While three gloves scoring highest on injury protection were also the most expensive, there
were also much cheaper gloves with similar protective scores. As noted earlier it appears that
price is not predictive of protective performance. See Figure 3.
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
99
Performance score and price of winter gloves Ride, 2009
Injury protection
Total score
Price £
£140
250
140
£120
120
£100
200
100
150
£60
100
50
26
£18
6
£35
30
34
14
£15
10
£70
39
42
13
22
£60
£65
43
43
16
16
48
51
£30
£30
24
25
£60
52
26
53
£45
53
55
29
25
30
57
35
80
60
40
20
0
0
CONSUMER TESTS FOR MOTORCYCLE BOOTS
Tests of 12 motorcycle boots were reported in Ride magazine (Hoare 2008a). Results were
reported as a 50 word review with separate scores for abrasion, impact, sole crush, sole
durability, waterproofing, warmth and road testing, Table 4. The tests for abrasion resistance,
impact, cut and crush were based on the applicable European Standards procedures. The test
performance scores were not reported, but relative scores were determined on a scale from
one to ten and one to twenty for waterproofing and road testing.
Table 4 Product tests comparing boots, Ride, 2008
Water
Abrasion impact Sole Sole
Warmth Road Total Price
cut
crush durability proofing
testing
£
Model/ Possible score
1. Oxford Bone Dry
10
10
10
10
20
10
20
90
1
5
1
1
10
6
16
40
£60
2. Frank Thomas Aquatec
2
6
2
7
11
1
15
44
£100
3. Forma Arrow SX Dry
3
1
2
3
15
5
19
48
£130
2
6
3
7
20
4
11
53
£70
1
1
6
5
20
8
13
54
£55
2
5
5
9
20
3
14
58
£140
4
3
2
7
17
6
19
58
£200
4. RS Performance
Protection Eagle Pro
5. Spada Thunder Boot
6. Hein Gericke Tour
GTX
7. Alpinestars SMX3 R
Gore-Tex
8. Axo Primato
4
6
1
8
16
6
18
59
£110
9. Sidi Vertigo Gore
3
9
2
9
20
3
13
59
£230
10. BMW Santiago
2
9
8
10
15
5
19
68
£205
6
1
10
10
20
8
15
70
£180
10
10
7
10
20
10
13
80
£190
11. Alt-Berg Clubman
Roadster
12. TCX Infinity GTX
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
100
Abrasion resistance
Samples of the outer material was tested on the abrasion rig specified in EN 13634:2002
which is the same test rig as specified in EN 13595-2:2002. The rig impacts the sample
against an abrasion belt with a force of 100 Newtons and measures the time it takes to wear
through. Under EN 13634, boot uppers are required to last a minimum of 5 seconds. While
the presentation of scores does not allow for direct comparison with the performance required
under the Standard, it is apparent that the majority of these boots performed poorly in this
test.
Impact cut
This is conducted at a point on the inside of the leg, where the boots are considered to give
the lowest level of protection. The samples are placed over a modelling clay base and a 1 kg
mass, with a sharp blade is dropped on to the boot sample. The less penetration, the better.
Sole crush
The test requires the boots to be crushed between two parallel plates using a compressive test
machine, the peak force being recorded as the structure of the boot gradually deformed. The
higher the recorded force, the greater the protection offered by the boot. The peak force
required is measured to provide a score. Under EN 13634, transverse rigidity is required to be
not less than 1.5 kN.
Sole durability
A sample from the sole was lowered onto an abrasive drum, and travelled 40 metres under a
load of 10 Newtons. The lower the amount of material abraded, the more durable the sole.
Water proofing
A jet washer is used to drench boots for four minutes and any leakage on socks noted. A
second test involves boots being soaked in ankle deep water (65 mm) for twelve hours and
any leakage points noted. These tests are more stringent than those required by EN 13634:
2002.
Warmth
A temperature probe is inserted into each boot, which is then filled with 4 kg of 3mm
stainless steel ball bearings and placed in a freezer at -17°C for 30 minutes. The temperature
drop in the foot area is measured.
Road testing
Each boot was worn for hundreds of miles in all sorts of weather. The ease of putting them on
and the walk and riding comfort was investigated. The testers were asked whether the soles
were slippery, their feet were warm and whether they had enough feel for gear changes and
braking.
Scores on injury protective performance and cost
As with the other products tested it was apparent that cost was not a predictor of protective
performance for the majority of boots. See Figure 4.
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
101
Figure 3.
Performance score and price of boots Ride, 2008
Injury protection
Total score
Price £
£230
250
250
£205
£200
£180
200
£130
150
£140
£190
200
150
£110
£100
100
50
£60
40
8
44
17
48
9
£70 £55
58
54
53
21
18
13
58
59
59
68
70
16
19
23
29
27
0
80
37
100
50
0
REFERENCES
Hoare, T., 2005a. All Weather Suits Test. Ride
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/ride/product-tests/ Bauer Consumer Media Limited,
Peterborough, UK, Pp. 80-86.
Hoare, T., 2005b. Two Piece Leathers. Ride http://www.motorcyclenews.com/ride/producttests/ Bauer Consumer Media Limited, Peterborough, UK, Pp. 84-92.
Hoare, T., 2008a. All Season Boots http://www.motorcyclenews.com/ride/product-tests/ Ride
Bauer Consumer Media Limited, Peterborough, UK,, Pp. 48-52.
Hoare, T., 2008b. Textile Suits. Ride Magazine,
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/ride/product-tests/ Bauer Consumer Media Limited,
Peterborough, UK, Pp. 62-67.
Hoare, T., 2009. Winter Gloves. Ride Magazine,
http://www.motorcyclenews.com/mcn/products/productsresults/ Last Accessed 24 April
2011. Bauer Consumer Media Limited, Peterborough, UK, Pp. 57-61.
Hull, M., 2010. Two Piece Leathers. Ride. Bauer Consumer Media Limited, Peterborough,
UK, Pp. 35-42.
Appendix B – Reviews of motorcycle clothing products
102
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes A. SAFETY PERFORMANCE
PPE type
Body
Region
EN 13595
Clothing
EN 13594
Type of injury
Test method
Does this replicate real world injury?
Torso, arms Abrasions, cuts contusions,
and legs
bruising
Impact abrasion, impact cut, burst strength, tear
strength, design features (sizing and coverage),
restraint, ergonomics, dye-fastness and chemical
innocuousness to wearer
Correlation with data provided by
examination and assessment of crashdamaged suits
Gloves
Hands and
wrists
Impact abrasion, impact cut, strength of seams,
Yes.
tear strength, design features (sizing and
coverage), restraint, ergonomics, dye-fastness and
chemical innocuousness to wearer
EN 13634
Boots
Feet, ankles, Specified as ambient and
lower legs
'mechanical' (impacts with
obstacles, parts of the
motorcycle and the road
surface).
EN 1621-1
Limb protectors
Shoulders, Not specified in standard, but Impact energy attenuation
elbows, hips, inferred as bruising, contusions
knees
and some minor fractures
Ambient weather conditions,
abrasions, cuts, impacts
Impact abrasion, impact cut resistance, tear
strength, construction performance, transverse
rigidity, design features (sizing and coverage),
restraint, ergonomics, breathability, dye-fastness
and chemical innocuousness to wearer. Optional
impact protection, waterproofness and resistance
to fuel oil of outsole.
pages 103-112
Yes.
Yes.
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes A. SAFETY PERFORMANCE
EN 1621-2
PPE type
Body
Region
Type of injury
Test method
Does this replicate real world injury?
Back protectors
Back
Bruises and strains specified.
Neurological spinal injuries
excluded.
Impact energy attenuation
Yes.
As specified by standards plus additional
journal;istic opinion and feedback from
consumers.
Yes
Torso, arms Not specified
and legs
Abrasion, tear
No
Head to foot Not specified
None
Unknown
prEN 1621-3 (in Chest protectors
preparation)
prEN 1621-4 (in Inflatable body protectors
preparation)
(in preparation)
Chest
Torso
Head to foot As specified by standards
RiDE (consumer Helmets, clothing
magazine)
(including fitted limb
protectors as components of
clothing), boots, gloves and
back protectors.
SFI 40.1 (SFI
Foundation,
Inc.)
Clothing
FIM (Federation Helmets, clothing, boots,
Internationale de gloves, back protector
Motorcycling)
pages 103-112
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes B. USER PERFORMANCE
Comfort
Weight
Fit
Waterproofing
Heat
Heat/cold
Not assessed.
Not assessed.
Some ergonoic
penalties may be
involved.
Ease of use
Noise
Basic ergonomic assessment
based on a range of
movements which are
commonly used in the
operation of a motorcycle.
Not applicable
EN 13595
Some weight and
See comfort Sizing requirements
movement restriction
scaled pro rata user
penalties, increasing
body dimensions
through performance
levels recognised by the
standard
Assessed by
other PPE
standards not
normatively
referenced in EN
13595
EN 13594
Assessed in Annex B
Not assessed Normative reference
to glove standard
EN 420 and hand
length as defining
measurement for
glove size.
Assessed by
Not assessed
other PPE
standards not
normatively
referenced in EN
13595
Not assessed.
Annex B provides a basic
Not applicable
ergonomic assessment based
on a range of movements
which are commonly used in
the operation of a motorcycle.
EN 13634
Assessed in Annex A
Not assessed Established
footwear sizing
standards quoted.
Optional
requirement.
Not assessed
Not assessed.
Annex A provides a basic
Not applicable
ergonomic assessment based
on a range of movements
which are commonly used in
the operation of a motorcycle.
EN 1621-1
Not assessed
Not assessed Minimum sizes
specified. No
assessment of
adaptation to user
morphology
Not applicable
Not assessed.
Not assessed.
Some ergonoic
penalties may be
involved.
pages 103-112
No assessment
Not applicable
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes B. USER PERFORMANCE
13595
EN 1621-2
Comfort
Weight
Fit
Waterproofing
Assessed in Annex A
Not assessed Sizing requirements Not applicable
scaled pro rata user
body dimensions.
Heat
Heat/cold
Ease of use
Noise
Not assessed.
Not assessed.
Annex A provides a basic
Not applicable
ergonomic assessment based
on a range of movements
which are commonly used in
the operation of a motorcycle.
prEN 1621-3 (in
preparation)
prEN 1621-4 (in
preparation)
RiDE (consumer Yes
magazine)
Yes, as a
component
of comfort.
Yes (although
comments may be
subjective).
Where applicable Yes, as a
(generally on
component of
textile clothing, comfort.
boots and winter
gloves).
Where
Yes, as a component of
applicable
comfort.
(generally when
winter-weight
textile clothing,
boots and gloves
are subject of
the reports).
In helmet evaluations
only.
Not assessed
Not assessed Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not applicable
FIM (Federation Not assessed
Internationale de
Motorcycling)
Not assessed Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
Not assessed
SFI 40.1 (SFI
Foundation,
Inc.)
pages 103-112
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes C. USER EDUCATION - DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS
Explanation of assessment. Explanation of results.
Transparency of
results.
Level of results available to user. Advice given on important things to look
for when purchasing?
EN 13595
None for consumers unless
covered in manufacturer's
information or in press
features
Some mandatory provision a Independent third party Low to moderate
requirement within
assessment
manufacturer's information to
users
Dependant upon manufacturer's information
and retailer advice, therefore may be subject
to inaccuracy, bias and lack of objectivity.
EN 13594
Minimum requirements
specified in clause 8 of the
standard
Minimum requirements
specified in clause 8 of the
standard
Independent third party Moderate
assessment
Dependant upon manufacturer's information
and retailer advice, therefore may be subject
to inaccuracy, bias and lack of objectivity
EN 13634
Minimum requirements
specified in clause 8 of the
standard.
Minimum requirements
specified in clause 8 of the
standard.
Independent third party Moderate
assessment.
Dependant upon manufacturer's information
and retailer advice, therefore may be subject
to inaccuracy, bias and lack of objectivity.
EN 1621-1
None for consumers unless
covered in manufacturer's
information or in press
features
No requirements
Independent third party Low to moderate
assessment
Dependant upon manufacturer's information
and retailer advice, therefore may be subject
to inaccuracy, bias and lack of objectivity
(although less pronounced than for EN
13595).
pages 103-112
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes C. USER EDUCATION - DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS
Explanation of assessment. Explanation of results.
Transparency of
results.
Minimum requirements
specified in clause 8 of the
standard
Minimum requirements
specified in clause 8 of the
standard
Independent third party Low to moderate
assessment
Dependant upon manufacturer's information
and retailer advice, therefore may be subject
to inaccuracy, bias and lack of objectivity
(although less pronounced than for EN
13595).
Yes. Explanatory text and
star rating system.
Independent laboratory Moderate to good
testing plus
publication's remarks.
Good, although extent of objectivity versus
subjectivity may vary.
No
No
No
No
No
FIM (Federation No
Internationale de
Motorcycling)
No
None
No
No
13595
EN 1621-2
Level of results available to user. Advice given on important things to look
for when purchasing?
prEN 1621-3 (in
preparation)
prEN 1621-4 (in
preparation)
RiDE (consumer Yes. Side column to article
magazine)
explaining parameters.
SFI 40.1 (SFI
Foundation,
Inc.)
pages 103-112
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes D. HISTORY
E. PRICE
History or
Is price
recalls/problems assessed?
available?
F. AVAILABILITY/SELECTION
Previous results
remain available?
How often is the
review done?
EN 13595
No. Manufacturer's
test results are
commercially
confidential.
Five yearly systematic Limited or no
review.
information.
No
Limited choice as only a
few specialist
manufacturers have
manufactured conforming
garments.
EN 13594
No. Manufacturer's
test results are
commercially
confidential
Five yearly systematic Limited or no
review
information
No
No. Possibly only one or
two manufacturers have
produced conforming
products
EN 13634
No. Manufacturer's
test results are
commercially
confidential.
Five yearly systematic Limited or no
review. May also be information.
significantly affected
by reviews of
normative reference
documents.
No
Possibly ranked third after
limb and back protectors in
terms of industry
compliance. Conforming
models generally form
niche ranges within
manufacturer's full product
ranges.
EN 1621-1
No. Manufacturer's
test results are
commercially
confidential
Five yearly systematic Limited or no
review
information
No
Yes. Protectors fitted as
standard feature to a
significant number of
garments
pages 103-112
Easily accessible to users? Range of models
tested?
Garment manufacturers
determine type of
protectors fitted to their
products. Several
independent
manufacturers exist and
can supply retro-fit
components.
Popular models choosen?
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes D. HISTORY
13595
EN 1621-2
E. PRICE
History or
Is price
recalls/problems assessed?
available?
F. AVAILABILITY/SELECTION
Previous results
remain available?
How often is the
review done?
Easily accessible to users? Range of models
tested?
No. Manufacturer's
test results are
commercially
confidential
Five yearly systematic Limited or no
review
information
No
Yes.
Originally on an
annual basis. Up to
date information
requested.
Question not
entirely relevant
to scheme.
Yes
Yes
Bi-annually
No information
No
Unknown
Annual
No information
No
Yes, where regulations
incorporated into national
sporting codes. Available
on the Internet.
Popular models choosen?
prEN 1621-3 (in
preparation)
prEN 1621-4 (in
preparation)
RiDE (consumer Yes. Regularly
magazine)
referred to in
subsequent evaluation
reports.
SFI 40.1 (SFI
Foundation,
Inc.)
No
FIM (Federation No
Internationale de
Motorcycling)
pages 103-112
Leading brands with
test purchases when
suppliers have proven
reluctant to participate.
Popular models or those in a
particular price bracket or
where specifications are
comparable with competing
products.
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes G. RATING SCHEME
EN 13595
H. DEGREE OF OBLIGATION
I. JURISDICTION
How are the rated? Eg score, pass/fail, star
rating etc.
Voluntary/ mandatory
International/ nationa// sub-national
Pass/fail based on conformity to specified
minimum performance values.
Voluntary - compliance carries a presumption of conformity with European, although quoted internationally
EU Directive 89/686/EEC where products claimed to be protective
clothing and equipment.
EN 13594
Voluntary - compliance carries a presumption of conformity with European
EU Directive 89/686/EEC where products claimed to be protective
clothing and equipment. (although this appears to have been
widely ignored by industry and unenforced by the authorities).
EN 13634
Pass/fail on normative and optional requirements. Voluntary - compliance carries a presumption of conformity with European
EU Directive 89/686/EEC where products claimed to be protective
clothing and equipment.
EN 1621-1
Pass/fail based on conformity to specified
minimum performance values.
Voluntary - compliance carries a presumption of conformity with European, although quoted internationally
EU Directive 89/686/EEC where products claimed to be protective
clothing and equipment.
pages 103-112
Appendix C- Rating Schemes - Decision Matrix
Rating Schemes G. RATING SCHEME
13595
EN 1621-2
H. DEGREE OF OBLIGATION
I. JURISDICTION
How are the rated? Eg score, pass/fail, star
rating etc.
Voluntary/ mandatory
International/ nationa// sub-national
Pass/fail based on conformity to specified
minimum performance values
Voluntary - compliance carries a presumption of conformity with European, although quoted internationally
EU Directive 89/686/EEC where products claimed to be protective
clothing and equipment.
prEN 1621-3 (in
preparation)
prEN 1621-4 (in
preparation)
RiDE (consumer Star rating with highest scoring products awarded Consumer magazine initiative.
magazine)
'Best Buy' or 'Recommended' (when price is also
factored into decision to award these accolades).
SFI 40.1 (SFI
Foundation,
Inc.)
Pass/fail based on conformity to specified
minimum performance values.
National (UK only)
Voluntary. (SFI) is a non-profit organization established to issue
USA
and administer standards for specialty/performance automotive and
racing equipment.)
FIM (Federation Subjective assessment by FIM Technical Director Mandatory
Internationale de or Chief Scrutineer.
Motorcycling)
International
pages 103-112
Confidential
Page 1 of 10
Motorcycle Protective Clothing - Consumer Information
Project
If you ride a motorcycle or scooter in Australia or New Zealand, we are interested in your views about motorcycle
clothing and the information that is available to you as a consumer.
This five minute survey is part of a wider study into the potential for an Australasian program to provide evidence-based
information on the quality and effectiveness of motorcycle protective clothing products. We are also looking at consumer
ratings and testing systems used overseas and their applicability in Australasia. The study will not make
recommendations about regulating or mandating motorcycle clothing.
You will not be asked for your name or contact details. The survey includes questions about you, your opinions and
experience with motorcycle clothing. Your answers will be used to assist in finding the best ways to provide and promote
reliable information to riders about effective motorcycle protective clothing.
Taking part in this survey is voluntary. You can withdraw at any time prior to submitting your completed survey, however
your responses cannot be withdrawn once you have submitted them.
The study has been commissioned by the Motor Accidents Authority(NSW) and is being conducted by The George
Institute for Global Health, University of Sydney. If you would like to know more about the study, please feel free to
contact Liz de Rome (02) 9657 0300 or email: [email protected]
Any person with concerns or complaints about the conduct of a research study can contact the Manager of Human
Ethics, Office of Research Integrity, University of Sydney onTelephone +61(02) 8627 8111; Facsimile: +61 (02) 8627
8177 or email: [email protected]
Q1.Do you currently own a motorcycle or scooter?
Yes
No
Q2.Have you ridden a motorcycle or scooter on a
public road at least once in the last 12 months?
Yes
No
Q3. What is your age?
__________________________________
(Years)
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 2 of 10
Section 2
If you have answered 'No' to Q1 or Q2 or if you are aged under 16 years, you are not eligible to take part in this survey.
Thank you for your interest.
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 3 of 10
Please tell us a little about your self as a rider
Q4. What is your sex?
Male
Female
Q5a. Country of residence
Australia
New Zealand
Other country
Q5b. What is your postcode?
Q6. What type of motorcycle licence do you have?
Q6a. If other licence, please give details.
Q7. What type of motorcycle do you ride most
frequently on public roads?
Q7a. If other type of motorcycle, please specify
Q8. Are you a member of any motorcycle clubs?
Q8a. Which club do you have most contact with
Q9. Do you visit any internet motorcycle discussion
forums?
Q9a. What is the name of the forum you visit most
often?
__________________________________
Learner licence
Probationary/ Provisional licence
Restricted motorcycle licence
Full licence
Other motorcycle licence/permit
Suspended/cancelled
I do not have a motorcycle licence
Other.
__________________________________
Sports (including Super sports /super motard)
Cruiser
Standard (including Naked)
Touring (jncluding Sports tourer)
Adventure/ adventure tourer/ dual sport
Off road - Trail/ enduro/ mx
Scooter
Moped/ mofa
Other type
__________________________________
Yes
No
__________________________________
Yes
No
__________________________________
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 4 of 10
Do you own any of the following motorcycle protective clothing items? If yes, how many of each do
you have? Please count only those that you still wear.
Do not include wet weather gear.
Q10a. Motorcycle helmets (road riding)
0
1
4 or more
2
3
Q10b. Motorcycle protective jackets
0
1
4 or more
2
3
Q10c. Motorcycle protective pants
0
1
4 or more
2
3
Q10d. Motorcycle boots.
0
1
4 or more
2
3
Q10e. Motorcycle protective gloves.
0
1
4 or more
2
3
Q1f. MC one-piece suit
0
1
4 or more
2
3
Q11. Which of these items do you always wear when riding on-road?
Note: a one piece suit is equal to wearing both a jacket and pants)
MC Helmet
MC Jacket
MC Pants
MC Boots
MC Gloves
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 5 of 10
By wearing 'full rider protective gear', we mean wearing helmet, boots, gloves, jacket and pants that
are designed to protect a rider in a crash.
Q12. How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
Q12a. Full rider protective gear can reduce your risk of injury in a crash
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12b. Full rider protective gear is not necessary on short trips around town
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12c. Wearing full rider protective gear makes you feel safer
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12d. Full rider protective gear is bulky and uncomfortable to wear.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12e. It is not necessary for scooter riders to wear full rider protective gear
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12f.In summer I do not wear full rider protective gear if it is too hot
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12g. The protective gear that is available is not suitable for the sort of riding that I do on my motorcycle/ scooter
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12h. I do not wear full protective gear when riding to work because it is not suitable for wearing while at work.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12i. There is no point in spending a lot of money on protective clothing because it cannot protect you in a serious
crash.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q12j. It is too much trouble to get dressed in full rider protective gear except when I am going on a long ride.
Strongly agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q13. When did you last buy any motorcycle protective clothing? Within the last:
Month
12 months
Three years
Five years
None in the last 5 years
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 6 of 10
Q14. Thinking about the motorcycle protective clothing you have bought in the last 5 years.
Approximately how much came from each of the following types of stores. Your answers must add
up to a total of 100%
In a retail shop
__________________________________
(If none, please put zero)
On-line (Australian company)
__________________________________
(If none, please put zero)
On-line from overseas supplier (non-Australian)
__________________________________
(If none, please put zero)
On-line (dont know where)
__________________________________
(If none, please put zero)
Other
__________________________________
(If none please put zero)
Total purchases (click in box to sum your answers)
__________________________________
(Your answers must add to 100)
Please go back and check that your answers to each part of question 14 add up to 100%.
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 7 of 10
How much do you agree or disagree with the following statements?
When buying motorcycle clothing, one of the most important features is:
Q15a. Protection from rain (e.g water resistance)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q15b. Design (suitability for wear at my destination)
Strongly agree
Agree
Q15c. Brand name (reputation)
Strongly agree
Agree
Q15d. Breathability (does it make me sweat)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q15e. Riding comfort
Strongly agree
Q15f. Ease of cleaning/maintenance
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Q15g. Conspicuity (Bright colours, contrasts, reflection)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Q15h. Ease of usage (e.g. fastenings/unfastening)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q15i. Durability
Strongly agree
Q15j. Injury protection (e.g. Abrasion resistant material)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Q15k. Impact protection (i.e. body armour)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Q15l. Construction strength (seams and fabric burst and tear strength)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q15m. Protection from cold (e.g. Insulation)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Q15n. Protection from heat/hot weather comfort (e.g ventilation)
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 8 of 10
Q15o. Price
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q15p. Appearance
Strongly agree
Q16. In your opinion is adequate information about
the most important features generally available to
riders when they are deciding which motorcycle
clothing to buy?
Yes
No
Dont know
Q16a. Please explain why you think this.
__________________________________
Q17. What information do you think should be made
available to riders when they are deciding which
motorcycle clothing to buy?
__________________________________
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 9 of 10
Q18. When deciding which motorcycle clothing to buy, I can obtain reliable advice/information from:
Q18a. Websites selling motorcycle clothing
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Disagree
Strongly disagree
Q18b. Staff in motorcycle clothing shops
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Q18c. Australian motorcycle magazines product reviews
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Q18d. Overseas motorcycle magazines product reviews
Strongly agree
Agree
Neither agree or disagree
Q18e. Government websites/ print materials
Strongly agree
Agree
Q18f. Rider community websites
Strongly agree
Q18g. Other riders
Strongly agree
Q18h. Advertisements in motorcycle magazines
Strongly agree
Agree
Q18i. The Spokes website
Strongly agree
Agree
Q18j. The Good Gear Guide
Strongly agree
Agree
Q18k.The Ride Forever website
Strongly agree
Q18l. Rider trainers
Strongly agree
Q18m. Other (please give details)
__________________________________
Q19. If you needed to buy some new motorcycle
clothing, where would you look for advice/
information? Please give details.
__________________________________
Q20. Please explain why you think that would be a
good source of information?
__________________________________
Q21. Do you think anything more should be done to provide riders with independent evaluations of the quality of
motorcycle clothing before they buy?
Yes
No
Don't know
Q21a. Please explain what should be done.
__________________________________
www.project-redcap.org
Confidential
Page 10 of 10
Q21b. Please explain who you think should be
responsible.
Q22. Would you be prepared to pay more for gear that
had been independently tested and accredited?
Q23.What do you think would encourage more riders to
always wear motorcycle clothing?
Q24. Into which of the following ranges would your
gross annual household income fall, that is before
tax?
__________________________________
Yes
No
Don't know
__________________________________
Less than $30,000
$30,001-$50,000
$50,001 - $75,000
$75,001 - $100,000
$100,001 - $125,000
$125,001 - $150,000
$150,001 +
Prefer not to answer
www.project-redcap.org
APPENDIX E.
DATA VARIABLES TO COLLECT AND DATA SOURCES TO
ASSIGN VALUES FOR EACH COST ITEM BY INJURIES, AND OTHER PROPERTY
AND GENERAL COSTS .
Fatality (Cost per fatality) x (number of motorcycle fatality)
Cost item
Data to collect and calculations
Data source
Workplace and
household output
losses
Compute lifetime wage and household work
Department of Families, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs
(2007)
losses due to a death or permanent total
disability and discounted them to present
value (BITRE, 2009)
Household work can be valued based on the
cost of hiring people to perform household
tasks (e.g. cooking, cleaning, yard work) and
the hours typically devoted to each task
(BITRE, 2009).
The average annual cost of raising a child
from birth to 17 years
Plus (+ ) losses in income from employment
Plus (+ ) losses in voluntary and household
work
Quality of life
losses for the
victim
A value is not directly observable. Hence,
statutory value placed on damages paid to
100% impairment for a non-fatal road crash
casualty can be used as a proxy value (BTE,
2000; BITRE, 2009).
Transport Accident Commission
(TAC) of Victoria
Australian Institute of Health and
Welfare (AIHW)
Berry and Harrison (2008)
ABS
Pain, grief, and
suffering by the
family and
friends of the lost
one
This intangible cost can be valued as the
statutory-determined lump sum
compensation awarded to families and
dependents of a deceased person (BITRE,
2009).
NSW Victim Support and
Rehabilitation Act 1996 (NSW,
1997)
Criminal legal
costs
Costs of prosecuting individuals charged
with criminal offences following road
crashes (e.g. homicide related charges,
negligent or reckless driving charges,
culpable driving causing death).
ABS - number of victims
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
A review of the payments to relatives
in Australian jurisdictions (Standing
Committee on Legal Affairs, 2004)
Victorian Sentencing Advisory
Council - number of charges
Victorian Bar (2008) - Indicative cost
for a case that goes for a week in the
Victorian Supreme Court
123
Civil legal cost
Cost of claims for compensation (lower and
upper bounds of claims, total number of
claims, percentage of claims in dispute, legal
expenses born by plaintiff)
TAC of Victoria and relevant
literature (Latham and Playford,
2002)
Workplace
disruption and
replacement
Gross earning of the employee during the
average period that lapses before a deceased
person is replaced.
Australian Safety and Compensation
Council (2008) - Replacement period
Victorian Auditor General’s Office
(2005) - published recruitment costs
Department of the Premier and
Cabinet Western Australia (2005) published retraining costs
Imprisonment
Costs of correctional services and workplace
and household losses for imprisoned persons
due to culpable driving offences.
Victorian Sentencing Advisory
Council (2007) - Imprisonment
period
General Purpose Standing
Committee (2001) - Daily cost of
imprisonment for NSW
Workplace and household losses BITRE (2009)
Cost of processing claims for fatalities
(included in the cost of administering
statutory insurance schemes)
Auditor General’s Office
Premature
funerals
The difference between estimated cost of a
funeral at the time of premature death and the
discounted future value of a funeral at the
end of a person’s normal expected life
Costs of burials and cremations in
different jurisdictions
Fire and
emergency
response
The number of crashes requiring fire and
rescue services and their unit cost.
Victorian Metropolitan Fire and
Emergency Services Board
Number of crashes requiring fire and rescue
services
Victorian Country Fire Authority
Insurance
administration
TAC of Victoria
NSW Rural Fire Service
Multiplied by (X) Unit cost of fire and rescue
services
Ambulance costs
Aggregation of the costs of transporting
casualties from crash sites to hospitals;
providing medical and respite care to injured
persons at the crash site and until being taken
to a hospital; and transferring injured people
between hospitals where required.
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
Steering Committee for the Review
of Government Service Provision
(SCRGSP, 2006)
SCRGSP (2006)
Audit Office of NSW (2003)
Note. Significant variability across
jurisdictions in costs and crash
attendance exist due to variations in
the average number of injured people
per crash, the level of air and
helicopter ambulance use across
jurisdictions.
124
Medical and
hospital costs
Costs of treatment for casualties who
survived and were admitted to hospital, but
died within 30 days from injuries sustained in
the crash.
Berry and Harrison, 2008
Mean hospital stay
Multiplied by (X) Mean hospital cost per day
Coronial costs
Administrative costs, autopsies/pathologist
examination (for approximately 80% of
deaths), coronial inquest (for approximately
2% of deaths)
National Coroners Information
System (2008)
NSW Health (2007)
Magistrates Court Tasmania (2007)
Police services
costs
Total time costs of on-site interviews,
inspection, measurements at the crash site,
writing notes, management and other on-site
and off-site activities, plus hourly cost of
police equipment.
Howard, Young and Ellis (1977)
NT Government Budget Papers
(2004)
[Number of crashes attended by police
Multiplied by (X) Number of officers
attending a crash
Multiplied by (X) Number of hours spent per
crash
Multiplied by (X) Value of police services
per hour]
Plus (+)
[Number of crashes attended by police
Multiplied by (X) Number of hours spent per
crash
Multiplied by (X) Equipment cost per crash]
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
125
Injuries (costs are estimated by non-hospitalised and hospitalised injuries, which is further broken down
by level of disability and impairment)
Cost item
Data to collect and calculations
Data source
Workplace and
household losses
and workplace
disruption losses
Disability weights in conjunction with age and
body region are used in the estimation.
ABS
For non-hospitalised injuries, assumptions can
be made e.g. five days of lost output for each
injured person (see Australian Safety and
Compensation Council 2009).
Standard age-earnings model
described in Miller et al. (1998).
Number of disabled persons by age group and
body region affected
Multiplied by (X) Years lost due to disability by
age group and body region affected
Multiplied by (X) Average annual earnings by
gender by age group
Multiplied by (X) Average participation rate
adjusted for return to work by age group
Long-term care
cost
Costs of providing care for people who suffer a
disability (payment to carers) and the cost of
disability services (specialist accommodation,
aids and equipment, alterations to housing,
therapy and specialist services, day programs).
ABS
Price Waterhouse Coopers (2008)
Care hours can be valued by self-valuation,
opportunity cost or replacement cost
methodologies. The cost is sensitive to the
method used (Access Economics 2005). BITRE
used a replacement cost method to estimate
future care costs where the cost of both informal
and formal care is estimated using a market
benchmark.
Cost of care =
Number of persons with disability
Multiplied by (X) Average years for which care
is received
Plus (+ ) Hours of care needed per year
Multiplied by (X) Average hourly wage rate
Quality of life
losses
Costs of pain and suffering of people injured in
road crashes. Award payment can be used as a
notional value.
Sum of (number affected by type of disability)
Multiplied by (X) Average award per person)
Medical and
other related
costs (e.g.
in/outpatient
hospital and
The medical costs of treating non-hospitalised
injuries can be assumed to be the same as
treating persons with impairment ratings less
than 10 per cent (BITRE, 2009). Estimates were
made from interpolation of TAC data by BITRE
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
TAC of Victoria
AIHW
Berry and Harrison (2008)
ABS
Berry and Harrison (2008)
BITRE (2009)
TAC of Victoria
126
rehabilitation
costs)
(2009).
AIHW
Number affected by degree of impairment
Multiplied by (X) Medical costs by degree of
impairment
Plus (+)
Total days spent in public and private hospitals
— excluding same day separations
Multiplied by (X) Average cost per day of
hospital stay
Plus (+)
Number of affected by degree of impairment
Multiplied by (X) Paramedical costs by degree
of impairment
Insurance
administration
Costs associated with administering compulsory
third party (CTP) systems.
TAC of Victoria
Number of claims made for each road crash
resulting in an injury.
Multiplied by (X) The cost of administering
injury claims
Legal costs
Road crash injury claims that are litigated.
TAC of Victoria
The number of claims in dispute for 2006 was
estimated by assuming that disputed claims are
skewed towards the higher value claims and that
the weighted average of all claims in dispute is
about 21.5 per cent (BITRE, 2009).
Latham & Playford (2002)
Sum of (Average size of claims within each
claim band
Multiplied by (X) % in dispute)
Ambulance costs
See fatality
See fatality
Emergency
services costs
Costs of police services and fire and rescue
services; See fatality.
See fatality
Recruitment and
re-training cost
[Recruitment cost per person for replacement
and training of the new recruit
Office of Workplace
Development (2004)
Multiplied by (X) Number who could not return
to work]
TAC of Victoria
ABS
Plus (+)
[Retraining cost
Multiplied by (X) Number who could have
returned to work]
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
127
Property and general costs (same definition for fatal, non-fatal injury and property damage only crashes)
Vehicle repairs
Cost to repair the damage caused to vehicles involved in
road crashes. Cost of insurance claims includes towing
costs as well.
Swan Motorcycle Insurance
(IAG, 2008)
Insurance
administration
The costs of administering the motor vehicle property
damage insurance system and processing claims
(underwriting and general administration costs)
Australian Prudential
Regulatory Authority
(APRA)
Travel delay
Non-recurrent congestion costs including time lost due
to queuing in traffic or from reduced travel speed. Total
cost per crash has been estimated by BITRE (2009)
through complex modelling and assumptions.
BITRE (2009)
Vehicle
unavailability
Costs to the owner of the unavailable vehicle. For
commercial vehicle owners costs include lost business.
For private vehicle owners costs include hiring a
replacement vehicle or inconvenience of changing to
public transport etc. Assumptions may be made for the
number of unavailable days depending on whether the
vehicle was towed or untowed.
Market value motorcycle
hiring rates including full
insurance costs (Hertz,
Budget, Europcar, Avis).
Health costs of
additional local
air pollution
Additional exhaust emissions to the atmosphere from
time queuing in traffic with the engine running,
contributing to local air pollution and imposing
additional health costs on society (BTRE 2005).
BTRE (2007)
Additional
vehicle operating
costs
Vehicle operating costs including additional petrol use
from extra time spent in congested traffic caused by road
crashes (BTRE 2005).
BTRE (2007)
Property damage
Cost of damage to non-vehicle property (often referred
to as road furniture) due to road crashes i.e. the
estimated cost of repairs or replacement of crash
damaged items.
Number and type of items
reported damaged by type of
crash in the ACT, and
various data on repair and
replacement costs published
by state and territory
governments.
Non-vehicle objects include light or telephone poles,
sign or signal poles, buildings or structures, kerbs or
guard rails, signs, guide posts and other items including
trash bins.
Motorcycle
protective
clothing
replacement cost
Failure rate of clothing worn by Australian riders (Gear
study) or of products reported by international consumer
testing programs
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
de Rome et al. (2011)
Ride Magazine (various)
128
REFERENCES
Australian Safety and Compensation Council (2008), The Health of Nations: The Value of a
Statistical Life, review undertaken by Access Economics, July.
http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/swa/aboutus/publications/researchreports/thehealthofnations
thevalueofastatisticallife.htm
Audit Office of New South Wales (2003), Ambulance Service of New South Wales, Financial
report for the year ended 30 June 2003,
http://www.audit.nsw.gov.au/publications/reports/financial/2003/vol5/679_AmbulanceServiceNS
W.pdf
APRA (2007), Statistics – Half Yearly General Bulletin, Australian Prudential Regulatory
Authority, Sydney Australia
Berry, J. G. and Harrison, J. E. (2008), Serious injury due to land transport accidents,
Australia, 2005–06, Injury Research and Statistics Series Number 42, Australian Institute of
Health and Welfare, Canberra
http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/reports/2008/injcat113.pdf
Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics [BITRE] (2009). Road crash
costs in Australia 2006, Report 118, Canberra, November.
BTRE (2007), Estimating urban traffic and congestion cost trends for Australian cities,
Working Paper No 71, Canberra ACT.BTE Report 102, BTE, Canberra, Australia,
http://www.btre.gov.au/docs/reports/r102/r102.pdf.
Department of the Premier and Cabinet Western Australia (2005), Profile of the Western
Australian State Government Workforce June 2005, Western Australia
http://www.wagiv.wa.gov.au/documents/training2005_000.pdf
Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2007), Costs of children:
Research commissioned by the Ministerial Taskforce on Child Support, Occasional Paper No. 18,
Canberra
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/about/publicationsarticles/research/occasional/documents/op18/oip18.
pdf
de Rome, L., Ivers, R., Fitzharris, M., Du, W., Richardson, D., Haworth, N., Heritier, S.,
2011. Motorcycle protective clothing: Protection from injury or just the weather? Accident
Analysis and Prevention 43 (6), 1893-1900
General Purpose Standing Committee GPSC (2001) ), Budget estimates—Fair Trading,
Corrective Services, and Sport and Recreation, report of the General Purpose Standing
Committee No.3, Government of New South Wales
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/committee.nsf/0/c6f5b03808da505cca256a6b0
023c7c8/
FILE/Fair%20Trading,%20Corrective%20Services,%20Sport%20&%20REcreation.PDF
Howard, B. V. Young, M. F. and Ellis, J. P. (1977), Appraisal of the existing traffic accident data
collection and recording system – South Australia, Office of Road Safety, Department of
Transport, Canberra
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
129
Insurance Australia Limited (IAG) (2008), Motorcycle tip–over testing repair costs, Crash
Research Centre http://www.iagresearch.com.au/content/view/72/91/, accessed 8 May 2009
Latham, C. and Playford, M. (2002), Report to the Insurance Issues Working Group of Heads of
Treasuries—Actuarial assessment of the recommendations of the IPP Report,
PricewaterhouseCoopers Actuarial Pty Ltd
Magistrates Court Tasmania (2007), Magistrates Court Annual Report 2006—2007, Magistrates
Chambers, Launceston
http://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/98320/20062007_Annual_Re
port.pdf
Miller, T. R. (2000). Variations between countries in values of statistical life. Journal of
Transport Economics and Policy, 34(2), 169–188.
National Coroners Information System (2008), The Coronial Process—web publication, National
Coroners Information System
http://www.vifp.monash.edu.au/ncis/web_pages/the_coronial_process.htm
NSW Health (2007), Ten–year services plan for forensic pathology services in NSW, Final
Consultants Report to Forensic Pathology Service Plan Steering Committee, NSW Health,
Sydney http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/pubs/2007/pdf/forensic_serviceplan.pdf
NT (2004), Northern Territory Budget Paper No. 3: The Budget, NT Government, Darwin
http://www.nt.gov.au/ntt/financial/budget04–
05/papers/bp3/nt_police_fire_emergency_services.pdf
Office of Workplace Development (2004), Consolidated business case for the acquisition
and implementation of an effective e–Recruitment System, Office of Workforce Development,
Melbourne
PNSW (1997), Second Interim Report: The long–term financial viability of the Victims
Compensation Fund, Joint Select Committee on Victims Compensation, Parliament of New
South Wales, Sydney
Price Waterhouse Coopers (2008), Critique of assessment of conventional costs and benefits,
report prepared for the Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet, Pricewaterhouse
Coopers
Standing Committee on Legal Affairs LAACT (2004) ), Victims of Crime (Financial
Assistance) Amendment Bill 2003, Standing Committee on Legal Affairs, Legislative
Assembly for the ACT, Canberra, June
http://www.parliament.act.gov.au/downloads/reports/la08victimsofcrimebill.pdf
Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision (SCRGSP), (2006),
Report on Government Services 2006, Productivity Commission, Canberra.
http://www.pc.gov.au/gsp/reports/rogs/2006
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
130
Victorian Auditor General’s Office (2005), Performance audit reports, Melbourne
http://archive.audit.vic.gov.au/reports_par/agp10503.html
Victorian Bar 2008, Review of fees paid by Victoria Legal Aid to barristers in criminal cases,
April, report by PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Victorian Sentencing Advisory Council (2007), Sentencing trends for culpable driving
causing death in Victoria, Sentencing Snapshot No.29, August.
(www.sentencingcouncil.vic.gov.au)
Appendix E – Data for cost estimates
131
APPENDIX F TEST FACILITIES FOR EUROPEAN MOTORCYCLE
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT STANDARDS
Body Type
Certification Facility Name
Country
NB 0072
Institut Français de Textile et de l'Habillement (IFTH)
France
NB 0075
CTC
France
NB 0120
SGS United Kingdom Limited
United Kingdom
nb 0160
Instituo Español Del Calzado Y Conexas, Asociacion
De Investigacion
Spain
nb 0161
Asociacion De Investigacion De La Industria Textil
Spain
nb 0162
Leitat Technological Center
Spain
mb 0164
Leitat Technological Center
Spain
mb 0193
Pfi - Prüf-Und Forschungsinstitut Pirmasens E.V.
Germany
nb 0197
Tüv Rheinland Lga Products Gmbh
Germany
nb 0299
Dguv Test Prüf- Und Zertifizierungsstelle
Fachausschuss Persönliche Schutzausrüstungen
Germany
nb 0302
Anccp - Agenzia Nazionale Certificazione Componenti
E Prodotti Srl
Italy
nb 0321
Satra Technology Centre
United Kingdom
nb 0397
Organismo Di Certificazione Europea Srl
Italy
nb 0403
Finnish Institute Of Occupational Health
Finland
nb 0426
Italcert Srl
Italy
nb 0496
Det Norske Veritas Italia Srl
Italy
nb 0499
Societe Nationale De Certification Et D'homologation
S.À.R.L. (Snch)
Luxembourg
nb 0501
C.R.I.T.T. Sports Et Loisirs
France
nb 1024
Vyzkumny Ustav Bezpecnosti Prace, V. V. I.
Czech republic
nb 1296
Vutch - Chemitex Spol. S R.O.
Slovakia
Test
Capabilities
?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Note: The Certification Facilities listed in the table above are able to certify garments to EU
Motorcycle PPE standards. Those further listed as having test capabilities are known to have
the required test facilities to perform testing to the relevant standards. This listing is correct at
time of writing but may be subject to change.
Appendix F – Test facilities for the EU Motorcycle PPE standards
132
APPENDIX G STANDARDS FOR THERMAL AND WATER PENETRATION TESTS
Standard
Number
Standard Name
Description
Test Parameter
Thermal insulation
EN 342
Protective clothing – Garments and clothing
combinations for protection against cold
Air permeability (3 Levels)
Breathing properties (3 Levels)
Waterproof Properties (3 Levels)
EN 343
Protective clothing – Protection against rain
Breathing properties (3 Levels)
Thermal insulation (3 Levels)
EN 14058
Protective clothing – Garments for protection
against cool environments
Air Permeability, optional (2 Levels)
Waterproofness, optional (2 Levels)
EN 14360
Protective clothing against rain. Test method
for readymade garments. Impact from above
with high energy droplets.
Thermal Manikin
ASTM F1291-10
Temp Controlled Environment
ASTM F2370-10
Sweating Thermal Manikin
ASTM F2371-10
Sweating Thermal Manikin
ThermoAnalytics
Human Thermal Comfort Module
Standing thermal manikin specifications
including surface area, height, average skin
temperature and measurement methods.
Controlled environment chamber
specifications, including dimensions, air
temperature, humidity and air velocity and
measurement methods.
Same as ASTMF-1291-10 thermal manikin
plus sweat generation specifications and
systems.
Same as ASTM F1291-10 and ASTM F237010 plus sweat generation example of cotton
body suit saturated with water.
Virtual heat comfort analysis system. This is
a software dummy which is useful for
designing protective clothing, but not for
producing comparative results between
different products.
Note: This listing is correct at time of writing but may be subject to change.
Appendix G – Standards for thermal and water penetration tests
133
APPENDIX H TEST FACILITIES FOR THERMAL AND WATER PENETRATION TESTS
Test
Capabilities?
Facility Name
Country
IRCM ISTITUTO DI RICERCHE E
COLLAUDI MASINI S.R.L.
Italy
(Certifies for high visibility clothing and
protective clothing against cold >-50°C)
CENTRO TECNOLÓGICO DAS
INDÚSTRIAS TÊXTIL E DO
VESTUÁRIO DE PORTUGAL CITEVE
Portugal
(Certifies for high visibility clothing and
protective clothing against cold >-50°C)
Poland
Yes
Tests to EN 342 Protective clothing – Garments
and clothing combinations for protection against
cold, using thermal mannequin and volunteers
in climatic chamber
Central Institute for Labor Protection
- National Research Institute
Scope of Capabilities
University of Wollongong
Australia
Yes
Thermal Physiology Laboratory conducting a
range of thermal testing. Includes thermal
evaluation of clothing and PPE, and a range of
thermal mannequins
Defence Science and Technology
Organisation (DSTO) Melbourne
Australia
Yes
Walking and sweating mannequin used to test
thermal insulation and evaporative cooling
properties of military clothing ensembles
Yes
Climate control chamber and thermal sweating
mannequin used in testing to simulate human
body skin responses to the wearing of clothing
and apparel.
Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology (RMIT)
Australia
Note: The Facilities listed in the table above as having test capabilities, are known to have
the required test facilities to perform testing to the relevant standards. This listing is correct at
time of writing but may be subject to change.
Appendix H– Test facilities for thermal and water penetration tests
134

Similar documents