Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F

Motorcycle riders’ perceptions, attitudes and strategies:

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The popularity of motorcycle riding and the results from accident analyses constitute it as a
Received 30 November 2013 major area of concern in road safety. Despite the importance of the human factor in motor-
Received in revised form 14 March 2014 cycle crashes, the need for a better understanding of the riding activity is not yet satisfied
Accepted 13 May 2014
by academic research. Focus group discussions have been carried out with riders so as to
obtain insights into the nature of riding, the risk factors that underlie this activity, as well
as strategic and tactical issues. Results concern key areas of interest in motorcycle riding
Keywords:
behaviour: riders’ individual behaviour, interactions among riders or with other road users,
Motorcycle riders
Focus group discussions
environment-related hazards and improvement suggestions for riding safety. The hazards
Motives originating from the environment and other road users that have been identified by the
Interactions riders should be considered in further quantitative research and the implementation of
Self-reflection corresponding countermeasures needs to be promoted. More communication is needed
Strategies among road user groups and stakeholders, taking into account the needs of riders. On
the other hand, the results reveal that riders might be reluctant to acknowledge the neces-
sary contribution to the improvement of riding safety by changes in individual riding
behaviour. Self-reflection should be encouraged, considering the role hedonistic objectives
may play in this context. The outcome of this study permits giving preliminary recommen-
dations on potentially beneficial education and training measures, and identifying specific
topics that should be further investigated by quantitative research, such as naturalistic rid-
ing studies.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Motorcycle riding is increasingly popular, both as a means of transport and as a recreational activity (Haworth, 2012).
However, accident statistics show that riders are a particularly vulnerable road user group, due to their elevated crash risk
and their lack of protection (Elliott, Baughan, & Sexton, 2007; Mayou & Bryant, 2003; Peden et al., 2004). Riding requires per-
manent monitoring of several types of hazards (Haworth, Mulvihill, Wallace, Symmons, & Regan, 2005), and riding safety is
particularly sensitive to the behaviour of the riders and to their interactions with other road users. Motorcycles have differ-
ent characteristics than passenger cars, especially regarding their manoeuvrability and the levels of coordination and balance
skills needed to control this vehicle type (Mannering & Grodsky, 1995). Their relative instability makes them sensitive to any
infrastructure or weather related hazard. When analysing the factors which influence riding safety it is therefore necessary

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +33 652486886.

[Link]
1369-8478/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85 75

to consider environment-related hazards as well as the riders’ strategies when facing such hazards. In addition, the spatial
characteristics of motorcycles and the expectations of other road users, which often do not include riders, lead to the fact
that motorcycles are often overlooked and have to deal with right-of-way violations as a consequence (e.g., Shahar, van
Loon, Clarke, & Crundall, 2012). Thus, the interaction of the riders with other vehicle drivers is highly relevant to riding
safety.
The typical motorcycle crash scenarios reflect these difficulties. Single vehicle crashes, where the rider loses control of
the motorcycle, are most common, followed by front-side crashes at intersections, which are mainly provoked by
right-of-violations by another vehicle (e.g. Hurt, Ouellet, & Thom, 1981; MAIDS, 2004; TRACE, 2008). Although less fre-
quent, rear-end and side-side crashes involving a motorcycle may be related to the specific types of manoeuvre a rider is
able to perform, such as lane-splitting and filtering through traffic (Clarke, Ward, Truman, & Bartle, 2004).
In order to avoid crashes, riders need to judge the road situation appropriately at any time and choose the necessary reac-
tions or preventive behaviours (DEKRA, 2010; di Stasi et al., 2009). For this reason, the riders’ perceptions and appreciations
of relevant riding situations need to be studied. The riders’ view has shown to differ from the perceptions of car drivers, espe-
cially in the ways these users appraise road hazards (e.g., Shahar, Poulter, Clarke, & Crundall, 2010), and expert opinions
often do not correspond either to the risk perception of the riders (Bellaby & Lawrenson, 2001).
A comprehensive understanding of the nature of riding and the risk factors that underlie this activity therefore also
requires assessing motorcyclists’ attitudes and beliefs regarding their own safety and examining their behavioural
strategies.
Motorcycle riding safety has been widely approached from the accident analysis perspective (e.g. Hurt et al., 1981;
TRACE, 2008), while there is little existing knowledge and information from the riders’ perspective. Although survey stud-
ies have been carried out on riders’ attitudes and behaviour (e.g., Broughton et al., 2009; Chen, 2009), the underlying
motives and behavioural strategies have not yet been explored in a qualitative way. The qualitative nature of focus group
discussions makes this method most suitable for collecting wide and in-depth information about an issue that has not yet
been explored, and allows discovering aspects that are not detectable by quantitative surveys, structured interviews or
observational studies (Fern, 2001; Huang, Zhang, Roetting, & Melton, 2006). In fact, a good qualitative approach provides
the relevant aspects the weight and/or distribution of which has to be measured, later on, with the help of quantitative
methods.
To the authors’ best knowledge, focus group interviews with riders have been reported only on the specific topic of
impaired riding (Syner & Vegega, 2001; USDOT, 2003) and riders’ acceptance of assistance technologies (Beanland et al.,
2013). This paper presents results obtained through focus group discussions that were conducted within the European Pro-
ject 2-BE-SAFE, with the aim to better understand strategic and tactical issues of riding, including motivational aspects like
risk-awareness. Herein, the specific areas of interest were the riders’ views on riding situations and determinants of risky
riding behaviour, and their perceptions and behavioural strategies when facing hazards or when interacting with car drivers
and other riders. In this context the riders were also asked to make suggestions for the improvement of riding safety. Rather
than testing a model of riders’ attitudes and behaviour, the focus groups conducted in this study followed a bottom-up
approach. The explorative character of the study and its independence from pre-defined hypotheses represents its main ben-
efit compared to existing questionnaire studies (e.g. Broughton et al., 2009; Chen, 2009). Focus group discussions allow
understanding the ‘why’ behind observable behaviour or attitudes.
This paper reports results from the focus groups conducted in Austria and Spain. These results were used to identify the
needs for further quantitative studies that may deal with specific questions derived from the present study.

2. Method

2.1. Focus group interviews

Focus group have been defined as a ‘‘carefully planned discussion designed to obtain perceptions on a defined area of
interest in a permissive, non-threatening environment’’ (Krueger, 1994; p. 6). Both the group situation and the guidance
by a moderator stimulate discussions on the issues of interest and help to get insights into opinions and the motives that
underlie attitudes and behaviour (Greenbaum, 2000; Hyden & Bulow, 2003; Maykut & Morehouse, 1994). As a result of
the social interaction of the group and its synergy, the data obtained is richer and deeper than those stemming from one-
to-one interviews (Rabiée, 2004).
The participants of focus group discussions are selected on the basis of purposiveness for a given topic rather than rep-
resentativeness. They are able to provide relevant information on the topic of interest and provide insights that are person-
ally important to them. The group consists of different profiles of riders (age, riding motives, etc.) and discussion is held until
no new ideas are raised any more. That way, a list of relevant issues is gathered that, according to the principle of saturation
(e.g., Mason, 2010), can be considered as important to a wider group or riders.
Furthermore, exploratory focus group studies provide data that is of crucial importance for the design of subsequent
quantitative studies, which will be able to focus on truly relevant issues when analysing the topic with a larger population.
The results of focus groups can thus be used to formulate and design valid large-scale studies that will close relevant knowl-
edge gaps.
76 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85

2.2. Procedure

The focus group sessions with motorcycle riders were conducted between September and November 2010. Each session
lasted about 2 h. A moderator introduced each focus group discussion, explaining that the objective of the study was to learn
more about behaviours of riders related to certain situations and to explore the underlying reasons for this behaviour. The
riders were informed that the data would be used to give recommendations on how riding safety could be enhanced. The
moderator reminded the participants that there were no right or wrong statements and that any information was welcome,
including opposed opinions among the participants. The moderator assured that the data would be treated confidentially
and asked the participants to sign an informed consent form.
A topic guide was then followed, in order to evoke the research themes during the discussion. The guide covered the key
areas, triggered by video material and initial questions. Whenever the participants were unable to answer to these open
questions, the moderator used prompts consisting in more detailed questions. All focus group sessions were audiotaped
and a member of the research team took detailed notes of the discussions.

2.3. Participants

Altogether, 42 participants were recruited through motorcycle clubs, notices in motorcycle shops and supermarkets, as
well as by emails using the snowball principle. In Austria, four focus group sessions were conducted with a total of 19 riders
and 23 riders attended the four focus group sessions in Spain. 38 male and four female riders took part in the study. Recre-
ational riding was the principal riding motive for 22 participants (including 18 members of a motorcycle club), while 20 rid-
ers mainly used their motorcycle for commuting. Since these two categories of participants were not clearly exclusive, the
results from the recreational riders and the commuters are not treated separately. The age of the participants ranged from 24
to 70 years (M = 42,88; SD = 11,50).

2.4. Tools

A topic guide was specifically created for this study, approaching the key areas of interest that had been deduced from the
current state of the art in motorcycle riding safety. The topic guide was designed to elicit conversation among the partici-
pants on the determinants of risky riding situations (criticality of the individual riding behaviour), on the interaction with
other riders and car drivers, on environment-related hazards and on improvement needs for riding safety. Four short videos
showing risk-encumbered motorcycling situations, conflicts and interactions with other road users were integrated in the
topic guide. According to the most typical motorcycle accidents identified in the literature, the scenarios were related to
managing a curve, right-of-way situations and filtering through traffic. After each video an open question was placed to stim-
ulate discussions among the participants and guide them, without directly questioning them (Hughes & DuMont, 1993;
Massey, 2011; Morgan, 1997). From the combination of the videos and the questions, the key areas of interest were evoked:
The riders were asked to judge the behaviour seen in the videos and explain how they behave in similar contexts. Thus, infor-
mation on hazard perception, attitudes and strategies related to these specific settings was gathered. In order to cover a wide
range of influence factors on riding safety and collect improvement suggestions the riders have, an additional discussion on
safety was triggered subsequently to the conversations related to the videos. Here, an opening question drew the partici-
pants into a discussion on their riding safety and further sub-questions were optionally given to guide the participants
towards the research objectives. This semi-structured pattern has been consolidated in previous research (Krueger &
Casey, 2000; Newman, 2002) and allows the conversation to naturally flow beyond the given questions and leaves room
for emerging additional topics (Flores & Alonso, 1995; Massey, 2011).

2.5. Analysis

The notes taken during the focus group discussions were used for the analysis of the collected data. Whenever clarifica-
tions of these notes were needed, the audiotapes were consulted. The data was analysed employing the thematic analysis
approach, where patterns are identified through careful reading of the data and the data is structured thematically into cat-
egories (Fuller et al., 2008; Rice & Ezzy, 1999). This method provides a systematic tool for the analysis of patterns within
qualitative data, without losing the rich details of the data set. It has been described as a method that is suitable to reflect
reality and to go beyond the surface of this reality (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Thematic analysis does not require a pre-existing
coding frame, but identifies patterns in a bottom up procedure. The method applied in the present study is data-driven and
goes beyond its semantic content, focussing on the latent level of the data by identifying underlying ideas and concepts. Data
analysis is based on researcher judgement rather than on quantifiable measures (cf. Braun & Clarke, 2006). Themes consist of
patterned responses related to the research question and are not subject to a prevalence threshold. They help understanding
the phenomenon under study by bringing meaning to a situation (Krueger & Casey, 2000).
The analysis followed the six systematic steps shown in Fig. 1, based on the method described by Braun and Clarke (2006).
In the familiarisation phase, the data was read repeatedly with the aim to search for meanings and latent themes. Verbal data
was transcribed in this phase so as to obtain a consistent level of abstraction throughout the material (cf. Mayring, 2003).
During the phase of initial coding, data elements that appeared relevant to the research question were identified and
 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85 77

Fig. 1. Phases of thematic analysis based on Braun and Clarke (2006).

organised in meaningful groups. The search for themes (phase 3) implied sorting the coded data extracts into potential
themes and subthemes using mind maps. These themes were then reviewed (phase 4) regarding the coherence of the struc-
ture and the contents. During phase 5 the themes and subthemes were defined and named. Reporting (phase 6) involved
developing an analytic narrative that includes rich detail of the data and argues in a coherent and logical way, focussing
on the study aims.
Although the key areas of interest had been defined previously to guide data collection, data analysis was carried out
working through the complete data set. The themes that result from the study do not totally correspond with the pre-defined
topics and additionally include subthemes that categorise the contents of a theme more specifically (e.g., ‘‘infrastructure’’ as
a subtheme of ‘‘improvement suggestions’’). Given that the number of the focus group sessions was relatively small and the
responses did not obviously differ in a systematic way among the groups, the data was merged into one comprehensive anal-
ysis including both countries.

3. Findings

The analysis of the data revealed five themes with several sub-themes (Fig. 2). The first theme embraces the perceptions,
attitudes and strategies regarding the individual riding behaviour, ranging from determinants for the criticality of riding
behaviour to examples of protective and risky behaviour. The second theme deals with several aspects of the interactions
with other road users as perceived by the riders, comprising behaviours and attitudes of other road users and of the riders
themselves. In the third theme, the particularities of riding in a group are discussed, contrasting related risks and strategies.
Environment-related risk factors and the strategies the riders apply to handle them represent the fourth theme that arose
from the focus group discussions. Finally, explicit suggestions for the improvement of riding safety that were made by
the participants, referring to different pillars of road safety, constitute the fifth theme.

3.1. Individual riding behaviour

Regarding the individual riding behaviour, the focus group participants reported determinants of the appropriateness of
behaviour. According to them, a riding behaviour is not critical per se but depending on the specific characteristics of the
rider, the vehicle and the road situation. The riding style should be adapted to the skills and experience of the rider and
to the group the motorcyclist is riding with. The rider must both be in control of the vehicle and of the situation. Depending
on the motorcycle used, different riding styles may be appropriate: some manoeuvres can only be performed with certain
bike types (e.g., lane split) and the riding speed may also be chosen according to the vehicle. Correspondingly, the manoeu-
vrability and the engine capacity play a role for the criticality of certain behaviours (e.g., a quick overtaking manoeuvre).
Being equipped with technologies such as ABS or with special tyres may further influence the riders’ choice of behaviour.
Moreover, the specific setting and road section determines the appropriateness of riding behaviour, according to the
participants. This factor concerns the road type, the traffic density and the clarity of the situation. In particular, the possibility
to carry out evasive manoeuvres or compensative reactions seems to be crucial. It is determined by aspects of time, space,
riding skills and the manoeuvrability of the bike. Finally, the judgement on the riding behaviour showed to be associated to
78 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85

Fig. 2. Overview of themes (bold) and sub-themes resulting from the thematic analysis.

the underlying motivations. The participants distinguished between behaviours that are carried out for comfort or timesav-
ing reasons, for a necessity (e.g. to follow a group) or just for fun.
Besides, attitudinal and behavioural factors that are of a protective character for the riding activity were emerging
themes. Concerning the attitudes, motorcyclists should be aware of their lack of protection and, accordingly, refrain from
pushing the limits of their skills and their vehicle. Importantly, they should neither be influenced by the capacity of their
bike nor by their fellow riders. They need to be aware of their own skills and be able to judge whether certain behaviour
is possible and free of risk. Regarding the behaviour, distinctions were made between erroneous behaviour and damage-
causing behaviour, and between common behaviour and safe behaviour. Being sober and in good physical condition was sta-
ted as an important premise for riding safely. Likewise, riding when tired should be avoided, considering that:
‘‘Fatigue is less salient to a rider than a driver. But riding tired is more dangerous than driving tired.’’
Experience allows to better control situations, i.e. to be able to react in good time, and improves the riders’ ability to antic-
ipate hazards including the actions of other road users. The required flexibility to adapt to changes in the situation is pro-
moted by speed choice, sufficient time margins and appropriate headways. In certain situations, the riders said, acceleration
can be an alternative to braking.
The participants also identified behaviours, which carry particular risk. Related to lane keeping behaviour these include
invading the opposite lane when leaning and crossing a solid line. Overtaking despite a solid line, especially in cities, was
mentioned as dangerous, and braking was keyed out as a critical element of riding. Further risk-prone behaviour relates
to traffic rule violations, not only regarding solid lines but also headways and legal speed limits, for example. According
to the participants, less experienced riders should be especially careful in this respect.

3.2. Interaction with other road users

The interaction with other road users showed to be an issue of considerable magnitude. Subthemes raised by the riders
were the hazardous behaviour of other road users, the related attitudes of car drivers and motorcycle riders, hazardous
behaviour of riders and the strategies to protect themselves when sharing the road with other users.
The behaviour of other road users apprehended by the riders was mainly characterised by unexpected actions. Conflicts
could arise from cars that are suddenly cutting into the riders trajectory, for instance because they have not seen the motor-
cycle, or from opening doors of standing cars. In intersection situations, crossing cars can obstruct the visibility of other cars
to the motorcycle. Participants also deplored that car drivers often put the riders at risk by behaving recklessly, breaking the
traffic rules (e.g., maintaining short headways, overtaking while approaching red traffic lights) and showing erroneous
behaviour (e.g., performing abrupt manoeuvres, start overtaking while a motorcycle is overtaking them). Some of those
 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85 79

driver errors were said to be specific to the interaction with a motorcycle and would not happen in the interaction with other
cars. Drivers getting into the opposite lane were identified as particularly hazardous. Driver distraction by a mobile phone
was mentioned to endanger motorcyclists and the speed of other road users was identified as a further critical issue. Speak-
ing about cyclists, some participants claimed that they should ride close to the shoulder of the road, in order to avoid forcing
the rider into risky behaviour.
The participants attributed car drivers’ missing respect for riders to a general lack of awareness, comprising an insuffi-
cient understanding of the riders’ vulnerability and of motorcycle manoeuvres. As stated by a rider,
‘‘car drivers behave irresponsibly because they are not able to assess the performance of riders.’’
For example, car drivers might not consider that motorcycles can use narrower spaces. In addition, car drivers tend to
underestimate the speed of the motorcycle and, consequently, to overestimate time gaps. It was also bewailed that some
drivers’ expectations only include cars and not motorcycles. Correspondingly, an Austrian rider stated:
‘‘The difficulties in the interactions might be due to the relatively low number of motorcycles on the road.’’
In this context it was also assumed that road users interact more and consider each other better in southern countries
than in Austria. In general, a lack of knowledge between user groups and a traffic culture, where user groups do not consider
each other and do not feel responsible for each other, was deplored. Importantly, it was commented that riders and drivers
differ in their view of a crash. The participants were afraid that drivers might only evaluate crashes in terms of financial costs,
whereas riders would easily pay the crash with their life. Accordingly, the attitudes riders adopt in the interaction with other
road users were judged as rather prudent. Riders stated that they always consider unexpected manoeuvres and errors of
other road users and never trust them. Statements as:
‘‘Always assume that a car has not seen you or will not respect your priority’’
or:
‘‘Expect the worst from other road users, regardless of your priority situation’’
reveal the defensive attitude the riders use to take up. The riders were of the opinion that the degree of confidence in
other road users is directly reflected in a rider’s behaviour. The participants classified not considering the possibility of unex-
pected manoeuvres by other road users as over-confidence. The riders’ lack of protection increases the need to predict pos-
sible actions of other road users and to be prepared for avoidance manoeuvres at any time. Experience was said to be crucial
in this context, since it helps developing a sort of sixth-sense to anticipate safety–critical events by detecting relevant signals
and it trains the rider for reacting appropriately and in good time to a situation. Well-developed anticipation abilities are
especially needed at intersections, so the participants said.
On the other hand, the riders’ attitudes should be characterised by respect of other road users. For instance, this implies
the avoidance of lane splitting that involves manoeuvring (drivers might be worried for their cars), of making excessive noise
with the bike and of crossing the solid line with oncoming traffic. In this regard, participants lamented that some riders were
to blame for the bad image of riders in general.
Hazardous behaviour of riders that can negatively affect other road users includes breaking the traffic rules, cutting the
curve and not blinking. Overtaking a cyclist on the right side was judged as extremely hazardous. Erroneous behaviour might
be trained over the years and applied in critical situations as well. Yet, critical behaviour can also result from necessary
avoidance manoeuvres due to missing respect of car drivers. In this context, tiredness was identified as an aggravating factor,
since it negatively influences the rider’s ability to react to other road users’ errors.
Accordingly, paying attention to possible actions of other road users and actively looking for signals from car drivers were
mentioned as relevant protective strategies chosen by the riders. For instance, the lane keeping behaviour of cars can give
hints on the distraction of drivers and the wheels of the cars may predict vehicle movements. Moreover, the presence of pas-
sengers in stopped cars indicates that doors could be opened. The possibility of a car cutting into the trajectory of the rider is
higher if there is space between cars in a line and special alertness is required when a car puts the indicator. The participants
affirmed that they paid more attention to traffic when they were riding than when they were driving a car, given that being
on a motorcycle implies fewer distractions and a higher awareness of the likely consequences of a crash. They pointed out
the relevance of using the mirrors for monitoring the traffic situation. Most importantly, anticipatory riding implies choosing
lower speed levels. Specific situations that were mentioned in this context were
‘‘to reduce speed in the presence of oncoming traffic (even more for trucks than for cars)’’
and
‘‘to slow down at intersections so as to be able to perform evasive manoeuvres.’’
However, the participants said that manoeuvres such as overtaking should be carried out quickly. The anticipatory strat-
egies reported to avoid crashes or mitigate the consequences also included the preparation of avoidance behaviour, e.g. by
keeping the fingers on the brake or considering possible escape routes. On a related note, a participant argued not to respect
red traffic lights in fear of a rear-end crash by the following car. In addition, the strategies referred to the adaptation of the
80 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85

lane keeping to expected hazards, e.g. to ride on the far-side of junctions where cars do not merge and thus be able to
manoeuvre in conflict situations. Some riders stated to filter between cars only if they are standing, others affirmed to
use the emergency lane on highways since they considered it safer than riding between cars.
According to the participants, before overtaking, a rider always needs to make sure the car driver has perceived the
motorcycle. The corresponding behavioural strategies include avoiding riding in the blind spot, making the headlights visible
in the rear mirror of the car, riding behind the car for a while, making sure that the driver has looked at the rider through the
mirror, putting the indicator and flashing the headlights before overtaking. Furthermore, the acceleration noise of the motor-
cycle was said to be useful to achieve visibility and to startle other road users. Compared to the signal horn, which can attract
the drivers’ attention as well, the acceleration noise clearly allows distinguishing motorcycles from cars. Still, riders stated to
use the horn along with hand signs and flashing headlights to interact with other road users, both to attract their attention
and to indicate intended actions.

3.3. Riding in a group

Within this theme, the participants explained some aspects of group riding and pointed out the related strategies and
risks. It was said that groups should have fixed positions, at least for some riders of the group. The most skilled and expe-
rienced rider who knows the route should usually be the lead rider, followed by the weakest rider. It needs to be considered
that the riding conditions of the different members of the group vary. While the lead rider has the best visibility, the con-
ditions use to be the worst for the last rider. The riding style in a group changes with the level of experience of the riders, and
some behaviour is only possible if the riders know the riding styles and skills of each other well. Fundamentally, it is nec-
essary to have rules within a group and to trust the lead rider. The riders in the group should take the lead rider as a reference
but be careful with imitating the behaviour (e.g. speed choice). Riders should act according to their individual skills and sep-
arate from the group if necessary. The group, in turn, should care for the last rider and respect riders who separate from the
group. Consequently, it is advantageous for riders to choose a group according to their individual skill level. The optimal
group sizes that were mentioned comprised three to 15 riders. They should be riding behind each other rather than stag-
gered and no overtaking should take place within the group. Sufficient headways should be kept between the members
of a group as a protective behaviour and the headways should be increased accounting for inexperience of the riders. A fur-
ther important factor that was mentioned is the speed choice. Collective overtaking was seen as a challenge and a strategy
for such a situation was described as follows:
‘‘The group should ride behind the car until the driver has recognized it. The lead rider decides when to start overtaking and each
rider decides when to follow. The first rider stays on the left side of the lane and blinks to indicate that overtaking is possible.’’
Corresponding with the behavioural strategies mentioned by the participants, the risks of riding in a group were identi-
fied. The fact to be riding in a group was seen as a potentially critical aspect in some situations. For instance, bigger groups
can cause difficulties to drivers who intend to overtake the group and collective overtaking of cars by the rider group rep-
resents a challenge as well. Riders might go beyond their means and ride recklessly pushed by their intent to adapt to the
group behaviour. According to the participants, the temptation of less experienced riders to orientate themselves towards
the lead rider and copy the manoeuvres can lead to risky situations. They also stated that small headways between motor-
cycles and riding under the influence of alcohol should be avoided.

3.4. Environment-related risk factors

This theme includes a number of environment-related aspects that the riders consider as being decisive for riding safety
and that influence their behavioural choices as a consequence. The infrastructure plays a role in terms of road characteristics,
in particular the characteristics of curves and protective elements such as guardrails. Further concerns about the conditions
of the riding environment were related to traffic density, light, visibility, overview and predictability of a situation.
The road surface turned out to be a major concern for riders. They stated that uncertainty about the conditions of the road
surface makes a situation critical. Bad maintenance, oil, dirt, manhole covers, grit and alternating road surfaces were judged
hazardous. A specific setting was described as follows:
‘‘One has to be careful at curves in the proximity of petrol stations, because oil might have spilled from the full tanks of the bikes
and there is danger to slip.’’
Wet pavement makes avoidance manoeuvres difficult and slippery road markings especially represent a hazard when it is
raining. Furthermore, braking with rain was said to be primarily difficult if the asphalt does not drain the water. Unfavour-
able weather conditions were also reported to be problematic due to bad visibility, which implies a higher difficulty to detect
hazards. The participants apprehended distractive effects of having to concentrate on the road surface and of an excessive
number of road signs. Further environment-related risk factors that were identified were obstacles on the road, crossing ani-
mals (such as deer), a loss of conspicuity due to daytime running lights of cars and guardrails that are not designed for riders.
The corresponding protective factors mainly referred to behavioural strategies of the riders. They reported avoiding riding
at night and in bad weather conditions, so as not to be confronted with slippery road surfaces and bad visibility. The reported
adaptation of riding behaviour in rainy conditions was characterised by more cautious manoeuvres, greater safety margins,
 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85 81

reduced speed and avoidance of braking. ABS was indicated as a protective element for braking on wet pavement, but some
riders prefer to perform evasive manoeuvres or release the throttle and use the engine brake in such situations. A constant
monitoring of the pavement conditions and infrastructure elements, including road markings, was said to be vital, and riding
far away from shoulders was stated be used as a strategy to reduce the risk of being surprised by an animal.

3.5. Improvement suggestions for riding safety

The theme on improvement suggestions for riding safety was classified into the following subthemes: education and
training, law and enforcement, infrastructure and equipment and technologies. The expressed need for specific education
and training for car drivers originates from the idea that other road users should also contribute to motorcycle safety. Car
drivers’ understanding of motorcycles should be improved and campaigns could encourage drivers to use their mirrors more
and raise their awareness of riders. The education at the driving school should comprise information about riders so as to
improve the understanding and cooperation among different road users. The participants also recognised the importance
of rider training and suggested that regular training courses should be mandatory. Alternatively, low-priced courses before
the riding season starts or insurance benefits related to rider training were evoked. In this context, the participants com-
mented on the danger of false confidence, with the awareness of the own skills as a decisive aspect for riding safety.
Regarding laws and enforcement, some participants were of the opinion that existing traffic rules should be enforced
more strictly (e.g., ‘‘crossing at yellow traffic light should be prosecuted in order to train obedience’’), rather than creating addi-
tional rules. Others suggested to have more speed restrictions and to ban any usage of the mobile phones from the wheel. A
participant expressed the opinion that the law should be adapted so as to give responsibility for any motorcycle crash that
involves a car to the driver in general. Lane-splitting should be allowed for riders, owing to its benefits for the traffic flow,
and similarly, car drivers should give way to riders in order to improve the traffic flow. Finally, it was suggested that novice
riders use motorcycles with smaller engine capacities and are allowed to improve their vehicles with increasing experience.
In order to improve the safety conditions from an infrastructural point of view, it was suggested to create special zones that
riders can use. These could originate from prohibitions for cars to use parts of the road, permissions for riders to use emer-
gency lanes, tramway rail tracks or bus lanes and the implementation of separate stop lines and dedicated spaces at traffic
lights. Besides, several points were made on the surface condition. Unnecessary road markings should be avoided and the
characteristics of road markings (material or design) should be improved in order to reduce their slipperiness. A rider stated:
‘‘Road markings in cities are supposed to be fluted and non-slippery, but actually they are worn-out quickly.’’
In general, it was claimed that the best available technology and material should be used for the infrastructure and appro-
priate maintenance should be warranted. Besides, grit on the road should be avoided at road works. The participants argued
that the road often seems to be designed for car traffic without considering the needs of riders. Specifically, they claimed
checks of the appropriateness and good conditions of guardrails.
Equipment and technologies that were considered to be beneficial for riding safety were better protective clothing and
helmets (especially, the visor should not fog up or freeze) and the improvement of motorcycle headlights. The use of reflec-
tive vests was controversial, though. Moreover, the riders pointed out the importance of regular maintenance checks of the
motorcycle, which may well be carried out by the riders themselves. The importance of equipping bikes with ABS, especially
scooters that are used daily, was recognised and new technologies, such as systems which inform the drivers of the presence
of riders or the possibility to safely change the lane, were mentioned. An overall claim referred to the need of having a stron-
ger lobby to advocate for the riders’ rights and protection.

4. Discussion

The outcomes of the focus group discussions with the riders encourage adopting a holistic view of riding situations,
including the human, the vehicle and the environment. Corresponding with the pre-crash phase in the Haddon Matrix
(Haddon, 1968), in a comprehensive systemic approach the three factors provide opportunities to improve riding safety.
With regard to the human element, the participants of the focus groups demonstrated awareness of the relevance of
speed choice and security margins (e.g., headways) for the ability to adapt to a situation that represents a hazard to the
motorcyclist. Criteria for the appropriateness of behaviour were mainly derived from the prevailing driving context.
Although it makes sense not to judge behaviour in absolute terms, this attitude could easily imply a relativisation of the
criticality of certain behaviours and provide arguments to justify them. This is especially problematic since failures in
appropriately judging the situation occur frequently, constituting human error as a primary cause of motorcycle accidents
(MAIDS, 2004). For example, the riders recognise speed as a decisive element in motorcycle safety, but it is still a major cause
of accidents. Similarly, the importance of rider state is acknowledged. This result corresponds with the findings from a recent
Europe-wide survey (SARTRE4, 2012), which also revealed the contrast of this awareness with actual behaviour of motorcy-
clists. In this study, almost every fourth rider still declared having ridden after having drunk even a small amount of alcohol.
The authors conclude that other influence factors, such as feeling in control and descriptive social norms, may outweigh risk
awareness and promote the behaviour. By consequence, campaigns need to be designed in accordance with these determi-
nants of behaviour.
82 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85

More in general, it cannot be assumed that awareness of risk-prone behaviour is translated into own behavioural choices.
Firstly, the riders’ perception could be biased. Discrepancies between acknowledging the risk inherent to certain behaviours
and the feeling to be personally at risk have been found for car drivers (Deery, 1999; Sibley & Harré, 2009) and might well be
transferable to motorcycle riders. In the focus group discussions it is not clear, whether the participants refer to riders in gen-
eral or themselves. There might be a self-enhancement bias based on an overestimation of own riding ability and riding cau-
tion (cf. Deery, 1999). The high relevance the participants attribute to riding experience supports this hypothesis. According to
the participants, riding errors and violations of traffic rules are strongly related to insufficient skills due to lack of riding expe-
rience. The association of risks to less experienced riders could result in overconfidence in individual skills once a rider has
attained a certain level of experience. The awareness of personal vulnerability despite experience needs to be enhanced so
as to counteract this psychological effect. The protective behavioural strategies put into practice by some riders, who are
aware of their high vulnerability, should further be promoted through their integration in rider training and campaigns.
Although riders recognise that common behaviour is not necessarily safe, they justify some behaviour by distinguishing
erroneous from damage-causing behaviour. However, this line is difficult to objectively draw and judging behaviour by its
consequences does not consider lucky escapes or compensatory actions by other road user affected by the riders’ behaviour.
Another justification can be found in the argument that bad habits can turn into critical behaviour in certain situations.
On the other hand, the fact to be speaking about other (especially inexperienced) riders could represent a projectivity
effect. Riders might refer to others when reporting behaviour that they would not admit carrying out themselves. This could
avoid cognitive dissonance related to their risk awareness and to their failure to admit that they pursue other motives than
those driven by safety aspects or rule keeping. This possible gap between safety awareness and other motives could also be
related to the concept of extra-motives as postulated by Näätänen and Summala (1976). In motorcycle riding intrinsic moti-
vations often outweigh extrinsic motivations such as practicality. Extra-motives include hedonistic objectives related to rid-
ing sensations and the feeling of freedom, the excitement of riding at speed and risk taking for enjoyment. These motives
could contribute to the tendency to be unwilling to modify behaviour and to succumb to the temptation of expressive riding
in certain contexts.
Specific manoeuvres that have been identified as hazardous include the invasion of the opposite lane by the rider. Pre-
vious studies have shown that this occurs particularly often in left bends and might help explaining the overrepresentation
of left bends as compared to right bends in accident statistics (Huth, Diez, & Martín, 2012). Furthermore, braking has been
identified as a sensitive point of riding and alternative strategies have been reported by the participants. Overtaking is a
major issue for riders in their interaction with other road users.
Riders are especially aware of the threat that other road users represent, viewing their interaction with motorcycle riders
as a relevant source of conflict. In particular, they understand the problem of cognitive conspicuity (cf. Crundall, Crundall,
Clarke, & Shahar, 2012; Rogé, Douissembekov, & Vienne, 2012) and claim awareness raising measures for car drivers. Riders
have developed a range of protective attitudes and strategies in order to cope with this hazard and to gain visibility, which
can be increasingly put into practice if they gain more experience and improve their anticipation abilities. Again, it needs to
be considered that the importance of practical experience attributed to the ability to flexibly manage changing interaction
situations might lead to overconfidence as experience increases. In addition, protective behaviour that is carried out in antic-
ipation of possible collisions with cars may create new critical situations, e.g. when the rider does not stop at a red traffic
light or adapts the lane keeping behaviour (as reported in the focus group discussions). Similarly, the participants stated that
other road users might force the rider into risky behaviour. While this could again be seen as a justification of inappropriate
behaviour, riders raised topics that demonstrate their understanding of car drivers’ views and their own willingness to show
cooperative behaviour towards other road users. To a certain extent, they recognise the challenges car drivers face when
sharing the road with motorcyclists and the lack of knowledge they may have. On the other hand, riders also perceive dis-
respect and missing willingness of drivers to share the road with them. While attitudes to avoid creating disturbances and
risks for other road users exist among riders, disrespectful behaviour is attributed to a minority of riders who promote ste-
reotypes. This complaint needs to be contrasted with objective data. In any case, there is a need to improve the traffic culture
and promote mutual understanding of road user groups.
When reflecting their interactions with other riders, the participants of the present study recognised the relevance of
social influence among riders. Social norms have shown to be a powerful predictor of riders’ behavioural intentions, for
example in the context of speeding or the use of assistance systems (Elliott, 2010; Huth & Gelau, 2013). Again, the focus
group discussions could suggest the presence of a self-enhancement bias regarding the riders’ personal tendency to be
affected by such social influence.
Riding in a group has been described along with the group processes it entails. The participants have demonstrated good
insights into the strategies and risks related to riding in a group: they have discussed the influence of group behaviour on
individual riding behaviour, the social aspect of riding and interactions between riders. This topic has been largely disre-
garded when analysing motorcycle safety, and more research is needed so as to better understand the risks and benefits
of group riding. Given that group riding is a common habit in a recreational context, relevant aspects of group riding should
be integrated into rider education and training. On-road workshops for motorcycle riders that have been proposed in
Germany already integrate this aspect into their program and could thus represent an interesting supplement to classical
rider training (DVR, 2010).
The participants in the present study were also aware of the relevance of the second element of the systemic approach to
riding safety, the vehicle. However, at some point it seems that riders could count on the characteristics of the motorcycle to
 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85 83

perform risky manoeuvres. A bias in feelings of control combined with extra-motives such as sensation seeking could pro-
mote unsafe behaviour. On the other hand, the participants claimed for improvement of equipment and technology for
motorcycles. When developing new technology (e.g. assistance systems) for riders, compatibility with rider needs and pref-
erences have to be taken into account so as to ensure user acceptance (cf. Huth, 2014).
Riders are remarkably sensitised to the third element of the holistic view of riding safety, the environment. Among all
environment-related factors that carry risk for motorcyclists, the road surface plays a major role. Some issues, such as the
number of road signs or crossing deer correspond to hazards that car drivers face. The greater instability of motorcycles
and the narrower margins of error recovery increase the significance these hazards have for riders. In addition, the road
and riding environment is generally not designed according to rider needs. This creats additional hazards for riders, for
example guardrails without skid plate or daytime running lights of other vehicles that impair rider conspicuity. A more
adapted road environment could also help decrease rider workload due to the monitoring of the road surface and road signs.
The awareness of weather- and night-time-related hazards revealed in this study is reflected in accident figures
(Winkelbauer et al., 2010). They confirm the strategies reported in this study referring to the avoidance of exposure to
adverse weather conditions and the adaptation of the riding style.
However, it has to be considered that the three factors (human, vehicle, environment) might also bear a risk of behav-
ioural adaptation. According to the findings of the focus group discussions, the appropriateness of riding behaviour might
be misjudged when riding with experience, a good bike and favourable environmental conditions.
The qualitative method used in this study represents its main strength, but as any other method it also implies some
limitations. Focus groups allow collecting details on the topics that are studied but do not permit statistical inference, nor
are the results generalisable to all motorcyclists. The participant sample covered only a limited geographical area (Vienna
in Austria, Valladolid in Spain), it was non-randomised and a self-selection effect cannot be ruled out. It was not the aim
of this study to collect data that are generalisable or exhaustive. The data gathered are subjective and reflect the perceptions,
attitudes and reported behaviour of the participants, which can be influenced by respondent biases. Perceptions and atti-
tudes can be biased by social desirability, and self-reported behaviour does not necessarily correspond accurately to actual
behaviour. Yet, the method serves to ensure that following quantitative studies measure relevant issues. Thus, the value of
this focus group study lies in the hints it gives for further research on motorcyclists’ behaviour. Its exploratory character
allows defining specific hypotheses that should be tested with quantitative data from questionnaire surveys or riding stud-
ies. Given that self-reported behavioural responses can suffer from biases or inaccuracies, direct observations on the basis of
the focus group outcomes should be planned (cf. Batool & Carsten, 2012). The findings give guidance for the generation of
research questions in the analysis of naturalistic riding studies. These should analyse the actual occurrence of the hazardous
behaviours as well as the protective strategies identified in this study and verify if actual behaviour matches the reported
behaviour. For instance, a research question could concern the analysis of how riders try to assure visibility in the interaction
with other road users. Future studies could focus on the detailed analysis of interaction processes between riders and car
drivers at intersections or other critical road sections, in order to deepen the understanding of the correlation between con-
spicuity issues and interaction processes. The resulting insights would be beneficial for the design of conspicuity enhancing
measures.
Moreover, the different findings on behaviour and attitudes should be scaled up to a wider population of riders in survey
studies. For example, group riding habits could be sampled that way. Similarly, questionnaire studies should be conducted
with the aim to verify if the underlying factors revealed in this study apply to a wider population of motorcyclists. These
studies would allow testing specific issues for inter-individual differences among rider profiles.
Although more extensive research on riders’ perceptions, attitudes and strategies is needed, recommendations for
education and training can be anticipated on the basis of the findings presented in this paper. Rider education should foster
a quick development of anticipation abilities and sensitise riders to the variety of relevant aspects for the judgement of a
situation. Accordingly, periodical rider training needs to focus on the appropriateness of a behaviour depending on several
factors and to further train riders’ awareness of hazards and their ability to appropriately judge the road situation. Although
riders seem to be aware of the hazards that other road users can generate, awareness of the hazards that riders provoke by
their own behaviour in the interaction with other road users should be increased.
The relevance of skills in reacting to hazards, especially braking and avoidance manoeuvres, confirms the importance of
classical rider training courses that aim at improving bike handling in a variety of situations, including unfavourable
conditions.
The recommendations given by the riders on necessary driver training are congruent with the finding that drivers who
hold a riding licence less frequently crash with motorcycles (Magazzù, Comelli, & Marinoni, 2006), and their claim for spe-
cific driver training is valid. Driver training needs to include awareness raising measures on the physical characteristics of
motorcycles, the vulnerability of riders, their manoeuvres and common behavioural choices. Mutual understanding between
road user groups could result in an improved traffic culture, characterised by more respectful and less hazardous
interactions.
Finally, improvements regarding infrastructure and road maintenance remain crucial issues for the enhancement of rider
safety. Hazards for riders created by dirt, slippery road surface and particularly road markings need to be taken into consid-
eration and the design of the road and traffic environment needs to be more adapted to rider needs. An adaptation of traffic
rules, but also their enforcement, could be considered with the aim to facilitate the co-existence of riders and other road
84 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85

users in a common space. In particular cases, separation of traffic flows could also be taken into account as a solution (e.g. by
providing separate lanes for specific user groups).
In conclusion, riders expressed legitimate concerns about hazards that originate from the environment and other road
users. Corresponding improvements of riding safety should be made with due regard being paid to the riders’ needs and
opinion, e.g. regarding an adapted infrastructure. Likewise, measures focusing on better communication between road user
groups are needed. By the same token, riders showed lack of acknowledgement of their own contribution to improve riding
safety through changes in their individual behaviour. Measures should be taken to tackle this important issue, taking into
consideration that hedonistic objectives of riding can represent an obstacle to thorough self-reflection.

Acknowledgements

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Programme
(FP7/2007-2013) under Grant Agreement N° 218703. It was carried out while the first author was a member of the Accident
Analysis and Human Factors Department at the Cidaut Foundation. The authors wish to thank their colleagues at Factum and
the Cidaut Foundation who have provided support in conducting the focus group study.

References

Batool, Z., & Carsten, O. (2012). Driver observations contrasted with self-reported driving behaviours: A case study from Pakistan. Groningen: ICTTP.
Beanland, V., Lenné, M., Oberlader, M., Füssl, E., Joshi, S., Bellet, T., et al (2013). Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers.
Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour, 19, 63–76.
Bellaby, P., & Lawrenson, D. (2001). Approaches to the risk of riding motorcycles: Reflections on the problem of reconciling statistical risk assessment and
motorcyclists’ own reasons for riding. Sociological Review, 49(3), 368–389.
Broughton, P. S., Fuller, R., Stradling, S., Gormley, M., Kinnear, N., O’Dolan, C., et al (2009). Conditions for speeding behaviour: A comparison of car drivers and
powered two wheeled riders. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology, 12, 417–427.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Chen, C.-F. (2009). Personality, safety attitudes and risky driving behaviors—Evidence from young Taiwanese motorcyclists. Accident Analysis and Prevention,
41(5), 963–968.
Clarke, D. D., Ward, P., Truman, W., & Bartle, C. (2004). An in-depth case study of motorcycle crashes using police road accident files. In Behavioural Research
in Road Safety (pp. 5–20). London: Department for Transport.
Crundall, D., Crundall, E., Clarke, D., & Shahar, A. (2012). Why do car drivers fail to give way to motorcycles at t-junctions? Accident Analysis and Prevention,
44(1), 88–96.
Deery, H. A. (1999). Hazard risk perception among young novice drivers. Journal of Safety Research, 30, 225–236.
DEKRA Automotive GmbH (2010). Motorcycle road safety report 2010 – Strategies for preventing accidents on the roads of Europe. Stuttgart, Germany: DEKRA.
Di Stasi, L. L., Álvarez-Valbuena, V., Cañas, J. J., Maldonado, A., Catena, A., Antolí, A., et al (2009). Risk behaviour and mental workload: Multimodel
assessment techniques applied to motorbike riding simulation. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology, 12, 361–370.
DVR (Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat) (2010). Motorrad Safety Tour – Sicherheitstraining für Motorradfahrer im öffentlichen Strassenverkehr. Berlin:
Deutscher Verkehrssicherheitsrat e.V. (DVR).
Elliott, M. A. (2010). Predicting motorcyclists’ intentions to speed: Effects of selected cognitions from the theory of planned behaviour, self-identity and
social identity. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 718–725.
Elliott, M. A., Baughan, C. J., & Sexton, B. F. (2007). Errors and violations in relation to motorcyclists’ crash risk. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 39, 491–499.
Fern, E. F. (2001). Advanced focus group research. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Flores, J. G., & Alonso, C. G. (1995). Using focus groups in educational research. Evaluation Review, 19(1), 84–101.
Fuller, R., Hanningan, B., Bates, H., Gormley, M., Stradling, S., Broughton, et al. (2008). Road safety research report 94. Understanding inappropriate speed, a
qualitative analysis. London: Department for Transport.
Greenbaum, T. L. (2000). Moderating focus groups: A practical guide for group facilitation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Haddon, W. (1968). The changing approach to the epidemiology, prevention, and amelioration of trauma: The transition to approaches etiologically rather
than descriptively. American Journal of Public Health, 58, 1431–1438.
Haworth, N. (2012). Powered two wheelers in a changing world – Challenges and opportunities. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 44(1), 12–18.
Haworth, N., Mulvihill, C., Wallace, P., Symmons, M., & Regan, M. (2005). Hazard perception and responding by motorcyclists: Summary of background,
Literature Review and Training Methods, Report No. 234, ISBN 0732623049.
Huang, Y. H., Zhang, W., Roetting, M., & Melton, D. (2006). Experiences from dual-country drivers: Driving safely in China and the US. Safety Science, 44,
785–795.
Hughes, D., & DuMont, K. (1993). Using focus groups to facilitate culturally anchored research. American Journal of Community Psychology, 21(6), 775–806.
Hurt, H. H., Ouellet, J. V., & Thom, D. R. (1981). Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and Identification of Countermeasures. DOT HS-5-01160. University of
Southern California, Los Angeles: Traffic Safety Center.
Huth, V., Diez, J., & Martín, O. (2012). Is it more dangerous to ride through a bend to the right or to the left? Results from accident analyses and a behaviour
observation study. In Proceedings of the ninth international motorcycle conference, Cologne.
Huth, V., & Gelau, C. (2013). Predicting the acceptance of advanced rider assistance systems. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 50, 51–58.
Huth, V. (2014). Motorcycle riders’ acceptance of advanced rider assistance systems. In M. A. Regan, A. Stevens, & T. Horberry (Eds.), Driver acceptance of new
technology: Theory, measurement and optimisation. London, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
Hyden, L. C., & Bulow, P. H. (2003). Who’s talking: Drawing conclusions from focus groups- some methodological considerations. International Journal of
Social Research Methodology, 6(4), 305–321.
Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Krueger, R. A., & Casey, M. A. (2000). Focus groups – A practical guide for applied research (3rd ed.). Thousands Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Magazzù, D., Comelli, M., & Marinoni, A. (2006). Are car drivers holding a motorcycle licence less responsible for motorcycle—Car crash occurrence?: A non-
parametric approach. Accident, Analysis and Prevention, 38(2), 365–370.
MAIDS (Motorcycle Accidents In-Depth Study) (2004). Final report 1.2: In-depth investigations of accidents involving powered two-wheelers. Brussels: ACEM
(September 2004).
Mannering, F. L., & Grodsky, L. L. (1995). Statistical analysis of motorcyclists’ perceived accident risk. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27(1), 21–31.
Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews (63 paragraphs). Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 11(3) (Art. 8).
Massey, O. T. (2011). A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research. Evaluation and Program Planning, 34,
21–28.
 V. Huth et al. / Transportation Research Part F 25 (2014) 74–85 85

Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research. A philosophic and practical guide. London: Routledge-Falmer.
Mayou, R., & Bryant, B. (2003). Consequences of road traffic accidents for different types of road user. Injury, 34, 197–202.
Mayring, Ph. (2003). Qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Beltz, Weinheim: Grundlagen und Techniken.
Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (2nd ed.). Qualitative research methods series (Vol. 16).
Näätänen, R., & Summala, H. (1976). Road user behaviour and traffic accidents. Amsterdam: North Holland.
Newman, L. C. (2002). Macroergonomic methods: Interviews and focus groups. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th annual
meeting – 2002 (pp. 1355–1359), CD Rom. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
Peden, M., Scurfield, R., Sleet, D., Mohan, D., Hyder, A. A., Jarawan, E., et al (2004). World report on road traffic injury prevention. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
Rabiée, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63(4), 655–660.
Rice, P., & Ezzy, D. (1999). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Rogé, J., Douissembekov, E., & Vienne, F. (2012). Low conspicuity of motorcycles for car drivers: Dominant role of bottom-up control of visual attention or
deficit of top-down control? Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54(1), 14–25.
SARTRE4 (Social Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe). (2012). European road users’ risk perception and mobility – The SARTRE 4 survey. Online document,
available at <[Link] Accessed 28.11.13.
Shahar, A., van Loon, E., Clarke, D., & Crundall, D. (2012). Attending overtaking cars and motorcycles through the mirrors before changing lanes. Accident
Analysis and Prevention, 44(1), 104–110.
Shahar, A., Poulter, D., Clarke, D., & Crundall, D. (2010). Motorcyclists’ and car drivers’ responses to hazards. Transportation Research Part F, 13(2010),
243–254.
Sibley, C., & Harré, N. (2009). A gender role socialization model of explicit and implicit biases in driving self-enhancement. Transportation Research Part F:
Traffic Psychology, 12, 452–461.
Syner, J. W., & Vegega, M. E. (2001). Impaired motorcycle riding: What motorcyclists think about alcohol and motorcycling. Washington, DC: US Department of
Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (February 2001).
TRACE (Traffic Accident Causation in Europe). (2008). Deliverable 1.3: Road users and accident causation. Part 3: Summary report. Project No. FP6-2004-IST-4
027763 (June 2008).
USDOT (US Department of Transportation). (2003). Drinking, riding and prevention: A focus group study. Report No. DOT HS 809 490 (February 2003).
Winkelbauer, M., Brandstätter, Ch., Riegler, S., Steinacker, R., Tiefgraber, M., Vlahogianni, E., et al. (2010). Interactions between weather conditions and
powered two wheeler accidents. 2 BE-SAFE Project D 1.3.