A SAFETY REVIEW OF MOTORCYCLE IN

NORFAIZAH MOHAMAD KHAIDIR ENGINEERING & ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH CENTER (REER) MALAYSIAN INSTITUTE OF ROAD SAFETY RESEARCH (MIROS) 23 APRIL 2019

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 1 INTRODUCTI ON

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 2 INTRODUCTION

Motorcycle is the most affordable and viable option of transportation in low and middle income countries Vietnam 94.7% 1 Myanmar 86.1% 2 Cambodia 84.2% 3 Indonesia 82.8% 4 Laos 77.9% 5 India 72.4% 6 Bangladesh 63.9% 7 Thailand 59.0% 8 Philippines 55.3% 9 Malaysia 46.5% 10

China 38.1% 11 Country Singapore 14.9% 12 Jepun 13.1% 13 Switzerland 12.1% 14 Korea 9.1% 15 Denmark 6.8% 16 Sweeden 6.2% 17 Australia 4.3% 18 UK 3.5% 19 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Vehicle composition (%)

Passenger Car Motorcycle Bus Heavy Vehicle Others

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 3 (Source: WHO, 2015) INTRODUCTION

Registered motorcycle are almost half (47%) of the total registered vehicle Combined with the increasing trend of motorcycle fatalities, motorcycle safety is of high interest Total registered vehicle and motorcycle fatalities 50 4500 45 2%  4000 40 3500

35 13.7

3000

12.90 12.68

30 12.09

11.63 2500 11.04

25 10.59 9.99

9.44 2000 8.94

20 6%  8.49

7.94 7.46

7.01 1500

15 6.57

6.16

30.0

5.84

28.1

5.61

27.6 26.3

10 25.1 1000

23.43

22.59

21.31

20.19

Number of motorcycle fatalitiesmotorcycle of Number

19.02

17.97 15.8 16.81 500

5 14.73

13.76

11.3

12.82 12.07 Number of registered vehicles (million) vehicles registered of Number 0 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Year

Registered Vehicle Registered Motorcycle Motorcyclist Fatalities

(Source: JPJ & PDRM, 2019) Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 4 5 INTRODUCTION

Total road fatalities and % of motorcyclist fatalities Economic loss from MC fatalities 68% 8,000 7 66% 6 66% 7,000 5 64% 4 6,000 6,284 3 62% 2 5,000 1 60% 0

4,000 (RM) loss Economic

58%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 3,000 2001 56% Year 2,000

54% (number) fatalities Road

Motorcyclist fatalities (%) fatalities Motorcyclist Economic loss from MC fatalities 52% 1,000 50% 0 In 2018, out of 6,284 road fatalities, 4,128 fatalities were recorded by motorcyclist and pillion rider Year % motorcyclists fatalities Road Fatalities Approximate of RM5.8 million losses due to motorcycle fatalities only (Source: PDRM, 2019) Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 5 INTRODUCTION

Mixed Non-exclusive Exclusive motorcycle system motorcycle lane lane (EMCL) (NEMCL) ❖ Built separately from the traffic ❖ a part of the traffic ❖ leads to complex carriageway (physical barrier) carriageway, separated with manoeuvres and ❖ Lane width: 3.0-3.5 m non-physical barrier interactions ❖ Reduce crash by 39% ❖ Lane width: 2.0 – 2.5 m between road ❖ Total length: 262.5 km (< 1% of ❖ Total length: 199.2 km users the overall road length) ❖ May reduce crash risk by 80%

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 6 NON-EXCLUSIVE MOTORCYCLE LANE IN MALAYSIA

Alor Setar - Pontian – Batu Muar Kelantan Butterworth Pahat

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 7 EXCLUSIVE MOTORCYCLE LANE IN MALAYSIA

FR02 KESAS GUTHRIE

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 8 MOTORCYCLE LANE IN OTHER COUNTRIES

Suramadu , Mandara Toll Epifanio Delos Zhongxiao Bridge, Indonesia Road, Indonesia Santos Taiwan (EDSA), Phillipines

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 9 ISSUES & CHALLENGES OF MOTORCYCLE FACILITIES IN MALAYSIA

3. Various 4. Limited design of extensive egress/ingre study ss 2. Lack of comprehens ive crash data 1. Under- utilisation

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 10 UTILISATION & COMPLIANCE OF Compliance Non-compliance MOTORCYCLE LANE

Study conducted in 2016

Misuse

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 11 12 UTILISATION AND COMPLIANCE RATE OF MOTORCYCLE LANE Motorcycle lane utilisation by location The highest KB-PP 887 (41%) volume: KT-KTN 577 (80%) • NEMCL= KB- BW-AS 511 (98%) PP NEMCL JB-ME(BP) 296 (95%) • EMCL = FHW PTN-BP 202 (89%)

Location SBA 1515 (0%) Most of NEMCL NL-BT 723 (0%)

EMCL LDP-PTJ 532 (0%) compliance rate KESAS 1333 (65%) > 80% except FHW 2689 (72%) KB-PP (41%)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 Number of motorcycle Compliance rate Compliance Non-Compliance MC volume per hour (% compliance) for FHW is 72% Designing for& Safer KESAS Two-Wheelers’ is 65%. Lane 12 MISUSE ( FOR NEMCL ONLY)

Number of misuse vehicle by location 100 90 ❖ NEMCL provided along traffic 80 carriageway with non-physical 70 60 barrier (road marking). Thus, 50 there are potentials of other 40 vehicle to encroach into the

30 EMCL - Possible conflict is high. Number Number of vehicle 20 10 ❖ The highest misuse 0 ▪ Weekday : KT-KTN PTN-BP JB-ME BW-AS KT-KTN KB-PP (BP) ▪ Weekend : BW – AS Location ▪ Overall : BW – AS Weekday Weekend Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 13 SPEED OF MOTORCYCLE ON MCL & TRAFFIC CARRIAGEWAY

85th percentile speed of motorcycle 120 Exclusive motorcycle lane Non-exclusive motorcycle lane 100 Speed limit on 90 km/h 80

60 Speed limit 60 km/h 40

20 85th percentile speed (km/h) speed percentile 85th

0 Federal KESAS Batu Pahat - Senggarang Pontian Ayer Baloi Location

Motorcycle lane Traffic carriageway The risk posed by motorcycle using the main carriageway is

higher due to higher speed and exposed to the other trafficDesigning for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 14 mode SATISFACTION INDEX

Study conducted in 2016

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 15 USING AND NOT USING MOTORCYCLE LANE

Factors for not using motorcycle lane 50% 45% 40%

Not 30% Using 22% 20% 17% 13% 10% 6% 8% 2% 4% Percentage (%) Percentage 0% Not safe Influence Distance Time Crowded No MC Others (Crime) lane Using provided 83% Factors Respondent 1. No motorcycle lane provided at their 45 % who not area 22% Total sample: 1,835 using MC 2. Motorcycle lane is not safe 312 respondents are not Respondent 1. To avoid congestion on the traffic 43 % using motorcycle lane who use carriageway 29 % (17%) EMCL 2. Safety purposes

Respondent 1. To avoid congestion onDesigning the traffic for Safer Two-Wheelers’26 Lane % 16 who use carriageway 47 % PERCENTAGE OF SATISFIED RESPONDENTS Percentage of satisfied respondent (%) Egres ❖ NEMCL Paveme Main- Roadsi Location Lightin s/ Securit • Security attribute has the highest nt tenanc de g ingres y surface e safety percentage of satisfied respondents s (50%) PNTN-BP 13 50 58 50 56 58 • Pavement surface condition has JB-MLKA 33 33 42 33 42 33 the lowest percentage of satisfied respondent (22%) BW-AS 0 24 42 24 24 36 • Butterworth–Alor Setar road has

KT-KTN 24 18 41 35 44 53 the lowest average score for NEMCL NEMCL KB-PSR 42 26 58 53 53 68 PTH ❖ EMCL • OVERALL 22 30 48 39 44 50 Roadside safety attribute has the highest percentage of satisfied FHW 2 8 10 3 6 4 respondents (18%) KESAS 8 13 14 5 10 9 • Pavement surface condition has LDP-PTJ 5 9 17 4 9 7 the lowest percentage of satisfied respondent (3%)

EMCL NL-BT 0 11 33 11 17 11 • FederalDesigning Highway for Safer has Two the-Wheelers’ lowest Lane 17 SBA 0 22 17 11 8 6 average percentage of satisfied SATISFACTION INDEX

Overall Satisfaction

60%

46% • Total number of respondents = 1,835 • Overall satisfaction score for

EMCL is 46% while for NEMCL is Percentage of score (%) score of Percentage 60%

EMCL NEMCL Motorcycle lane type

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 18 COMMON SAFETY DEFICIENCIES ON NEMCL

Pavement surface Misused Improper termination Parked vehicle

Faded road marking Non-standard lane width Water ponding

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 19 COMMON SAFETY DEFICIENCIES ON EMCL

Pavement surface Dark Various design of Roadside hazard ingress/egress

Horizontal & vertical Rubbish on the lane Unmaintained guardrail Debris alignment Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 20 EGRESS & INGRESS Study conducted in 2017

Egress Ingress Point of exiting from EMCL Point of entering into EMCL

EMCL – motorcycle traffic only

Main carriageway – mixed traffic vehicle

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 21 TYPES OF EGRESS & INGRESS

EMC Directio Egres Ingres L n s s F02 KL – 17 19 Klang – 16 19 KL Skewed or Y- KESA KL – 21 18 shape access S Klang Entry radius < Klang – 15 Presence19 of than 90 KL auxiliary lane degree, Length > 15m Entry radius < than 90 degree, Length < 15m Entry radius of 90 degree

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 22 23 EGRESS

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 23 24 INGRESS

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 24 25 INGRESS

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 25 CAPACITY

• Capacity of the road network are closely related with the capacity at access and capacity at access influenced by critical gap value

• Critical gap: minimum time interval between two consecutive vehicles in the major road that allows entry of one minor road vehicle

• Longer critical gap means less vehicle can pass through the access and therefore capacity will reduce. It may create back lock traffic condition on the departure lane.

• Shorter critical gap value may contribute for more vehicle to pass through the access and increase in the Egress: Point of Ingress: Point of capacity. However,exiting from it may EMCL lead to safety issue where poorentering gap acceptance into EMCL decisions will increase the likelihood of crash to happen. EMCL – motorcycle traffic only

Main carriageway – mixed traffic vehicle Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 26 CRITICAL GAP VALUE

Only critical gap for Motorcycle are small in passenger car was size – do not require proposed in HCM (6.2 sec much space for at and 4.1 maneuvering sec at ) Motorcycle have no body frame – field of view is not restricted It is anticipated that critical gap for Critical gap for motorcycle remains motorcyclist is shorter than as the missing link passenger car

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 27 STUDY LOCATION

E1-01: KESAS – E3-01: Padang E4-01: Amcorp I1-01: Susur I3-01: Seksyen I4-01: Susur Subang Jaya Jawa Mall Batu Tiga 7 NPE

E4-02: Ke I4-02: Dari E1-02: KESAS – E3-02: Subang I1-02: Petronas I3-02: Setia Bulatan Bulatan Taman OUG Airport Jaya Kayangan Kayangan EGRESS INGRESS

High volume of No sight distance Straight & flat terrain motorcycle at access issue

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 28 DATA COLLECTION

Video recording technique

• Video was mounted on a special pole with height 3m – 4m from ground • Capture the motorcyclist exiting or entering EMCL and type of oncoming vehicle on the intended lane Time

• 2 hours peak (7.00 – 9. 00 am) • 2 hours off-peak (10.00 – 12.00 am) • A total of 48 hours video playback

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 29 DATA COLLECTION

Ingress Egress

t2 EMCL – motorcycle traffic only

t1

t1

t2

Main carriageway – mixed traffic vehicle e.g. passenger car and heavy vehicle

• Gap time: The difference between arrival time (t1) and crossing time (t2), measured in seconds.

• Other data collected alongside are accepting or rejecting gaps decision and type of oncoming vehicle on the intended lane.

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 30 RESULTS

Grand Accept Reject • A total of 3,538 samples were observed total n (%) n (%) (1,532 samples at egress and 2,006 samples at N ingress) Egress 1462 (95) 70 (5) 1532 Passenger Car 1240 (96) 54 (4) 1294 • 93% were observed to accept the available gap Heavy Vehicle 138 (91) 13 (9) 151 time at the first attempt and only 7% of rejection Motorcycle 84 (97) 3 (3) 87 was observed Ingress 1826 (91) 180 (9) 2006 Motorcycle 1826 (91) 180 (9) 2006 • Rejection at ingress (9%) is higher than at egress Grand total 3288 (93) 250 (7) 3538 (5%). This is inline with findings on critical gap Egress Ingress value where longest gap obtained in this study Statistic Accep Accep was at ingress. t Reject t Reject Number of • At egress, higher rejection was observe when observations 1462 70 1826 180 oncoming vehicle is heavy vehicle (9%) Minimum (sec) 2.50 0.00 2.50 0.15 Maximum (sec) 57.31 30.19 46.66 36.43 • Mean gap at egress is higher than ingress – less Mean (sec) 8.26 2.92 6.61 1.05 risky gap accepting behaviourDesigning for atSafer egress Two-Wheelers’ Lane 31 Standard deviation RESULTS

The value corresponding to probability of 0.5 is termed as critical gap value where motorcyclist have equal chances to accept or reject the gap time.

Using binary logit models, the critical gap was found to be 2.28 seconds when the oncoming vehicle at egress is passenger car.

The critical gap determined from Model 2 was 2.42 seconds which is 0.14 seconds higher than critical gap value when the oncoming vehicle is passenger car.

The critical gap determined from Model 3 was 2.43 seconds which is slightly higher than critical gap value at egress when the oncoming vehicleDesigning is heavy for Safer vehicle Two-Wheelers’ (the Lane 32 longest critical gap time) RESULTS

Motorcyclist choose longer critical gaps Small size of Wider angle of entry at when oncoming vehicle Longest critical gap was motorcycle required egress and ingress is heavy vehicle - size determined at ingress – less space for leads to a lower critical arrival effect which motorcycles on the maneuvering – easier gap – contrary to the indicates that the larger EMCL were found to for motorcycle to forced complete stop vehicle was perceived ride more than one-line squeeze through any required at typical closer within the same lane – offered gap or occupy intersection limited lateral space lateral space efficiently Big size of heavy vehicle reduce the available lateral space

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 33 CONCLUSION

The high volume, increasing growth and crash rate indicating the needs for more motorcycle lane

Inconsistency designs of egress and ingress needs to be reviewed

Critical gap for motorcycles is smaller than for four-wheel vehicles

Applying motorcycle’s critical gap is believed to be able optimise the space required for the construction of EMCL

Designing for Safer Two-Wheelers’ Lane 34 THANK YOU

Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research Lot 125 – 135, Jalan TKS 1 Taman Kajang Sentral 43000 Kajang Selangor, Malaysia

Tel: +603 8924 9200 Fax: +603 8733 2005 Site: http://www.miros.gov.my Contact: [email protected]