MOTORCYCLE 

SAFETY

Increasing Federal

Funding Flexibility 

and Identifying 

Research Priorities 

Would Help Support 

States’ Safety Efforts

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2012

GAO-13-42

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-42, a report to

Congressional Committees 

November 2012

MOTORCYCLE SAFETY

Increasing Federal Funding Flexibility and 

Identifying Research Priorities Would Help Support 

States’ Safety Efforts

Why GAO Did This Study

According to NHTSA, per vehicle mile 

traveled in 2010, motorcyclists were 

about 30 times more likely to die in a 

traffic crash than passenger car 

occupants. States have implemented

various strategies to address the 

factors contributing to motorcycle 

crashes and fatalities, and NHTSA has 

assisted these efforts through 

guidance, grants, and research. GAO 

reviewed: (1) what is known about the 

cost of motorcycle crashes; (2) the

factors that contribute to motorcycle 

crashes and fatalities, and strategies 

states are pursuing to address these 

factors; and (3) the extent to which 

NHTSA assists states in pursuing 

strategies that address these factors. 

GAO reviewed studies, analyzed 

documents and data from NHTSA and 

other sources, and interviewed officials

in the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT) and 16 states as 

well as representatives of various 

stakeholder organizations. GAO 

selected states that were 

geographically diverse and that had 

varying fatality rates, laws and policies, 

and ridership levels. 

What GAO Recommends

Congress should consider expanding 

the strategies for which NHTSA’s

motorcyclist safety grants can be used 

to give states more flexibility in how to 

use these funds. In addition, GAO 

recommends that NHTSA identify 

research priorities for motorcycle 

safety that address gaps in knowledge 

about the effectiveness of state

strategies, particularly those strategies 

it has identified as high priority or 

promising. DOT officials agreed to 

consider this recommendation and 

provided technical comments, which 

GAO incorporated as appropriate. 

What GAO Found

GAO estimated that the total direct measurable costs of motorcycle crashes—

costs that directly result from a crash and that can and have been measured—

were approximately $16 billion in 2010. However, the full costs of motorcycle 

crashes are likely higher because some difficult-to-measure costs—such as 

longer-term medical costs—are not included. Victims and their families, as well 

as society—including employers, private insurers, healthcare providers, 

government, and others—bear these costs. The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) estimated that society bears about three-quarters of the 

measurable costs of all motor vehicle crashes. Society’s share of the costs of 

motorcycle crashes may be similar or higher, in part because injuries from these 

crashes are generally more severe than those from other motor vehicle crashes. 

Various factors contribute to motorcycle crashes and states pursue a range of 

strategies to address them. These factors include alcohol impairment; speeding;

lack of a license, training, or riding skills; and lack of motorist awareness of 

motorcycles. Another factor, lack of helmet use, does not affect the likelihood of a 

crash but increases the risk of a fatality when a crash occurs. State strategies

include: licensing approaches, training programs, enforcement of alcohol 

impairment and speed limit laws, efforts to improve motorcyclist safety 

awareness and motorist awareness, and helmet-use laws. Laws requiring all 

motorcyclists to wear helmets are the only strategy proved to be effective in 

reducing motorcyclist fatalities, but some opposition to such laws exists, and only 

19 states currently have them. According to NHTSA, proven approaches used in 

some other highway safety efforts, such as combining strong enforcement with 

public education, may hold promise for improving motorcycle safety. 

NHTSA helps states develop and implement motorcycle safety strategies through

various efforts. It has provided states with guidance, outreach, and training 

which according to state officials, has improved their ability to address 

motorcycle safety. From fiscal years 2006 to 2012, NHTSA awarded $45.9

million in motorcyclist safety grants to states; Congress has allowed these funds 

to be used for motorcyclist training and motorist awareness efforts only. 

However, major studies on motorcycle safety issues have recommended a range 

of additional strategies for reducing crashes and fatalities, some of which NHTSA 

has identified as a high priority for states to pursue. These strategies include

increasing helmet use and motorcyclist safety awareness, and educating police 

about motorcycle safety in order to strengthen enforcement. NHTSA and state 

officials noted that expanding the allowable uses for the grants would better 

enable states to use such strategies. NHTSA has conducted research—totaling 

$7.3 million in the last 5 fiscal years—to identify new and evaluate existing state 

strategies. For example, one new study will identify factors and programs that 

may be related to higher rates of helmet use in states that do not require all 

motorcyclists to wear helmets. NHTSA does not have a current plan to guide its 

motorcycle safety research efforts but intends to develop one by spring 2013. 

Given its limited funding for research, such a plan provides an opportunity for 

NHTSA to identify research priorities, based on gaps in knowledge about the 

effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies and the types of strategies it has 

identified as a high priority or promising for states to pursue. 

View GAO-13-42. For more information, 

contact Susan Fleming at (202) 512-2834 or 

flemings@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Letter 1 

Background 5

The Costs of Motorcycle Crashes to Society and Individuals Are 

Significant 9

States Are Addressing Some of the Factors That Contribute to 

Crashes and Fatalities through Various Strategies, but 

Effectiveness Is Unclear 16

NHTSA Supports States’ Motorcycle Safety Programs, but Funding 

Flexibility and New Research Priorities Would Enhance Efforts 39

Conclusions 50

Matter for Congressional Consideration 51

Recommendations 51

Agency Comments 51

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

53

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 60

Tables

Table 1: Types of Direct Measurable Motor Vehicle Costs 

Estimated in 2002 NHTSA Study 11

Table 2: Types of State Motorcycle Safety Strategies 22

Table 3: NHTSA Research and Development on Strategies to 

Improve Motorcycle Safety, Fiscal Year 2012 48

Figures

Figure 1: Example of a Crash Involving an Automobile and 

Motorcycle 5

Figure 2: Motorcyclist Fatality Rate per 100,000 Registered 

Motorcycles, 1991 to 2010 7

Figure 3: Distribution of Estimated Direct Measurable Costs of 

Motorcycle Crashes, 2010 12

Figure 4: Example of a Poster Used to Encourage Motorist 

Awareness 26

Figure 5: Helmet Use Laws in the United States as of October 2012 28

Contents
Page ii GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Figure 6: Examples of Non-Compliant and DOT-Compliant Helmets 30

Abbreviations list

BAC blood alcohol concentration

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Act: A

Legacy for Users

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

November 14, 2012

The Honorable John Rockefeller

Chairman

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Patty Murray

Chairman

The Honorable Susan Collins

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Latham

Chairman

The Honorable John W. Olver

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and 

Related Agencies

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

In 2010, an estimated 95,000 motorcycle crashes occurred in the U.S. 

and 4,423 of these crashes were fatal.1

 

1

The vast majority of these fatal crashes involved two-wheeled motorcycles. In addition to 

two-wheeled motorcycles, the broad definition of “motorcycles” used here includes 

mopeds, three-wheel motorcycles, off-road motorcycles, and other motored-cycles (such 

as mini-bikes, motor scooters, and pocket motorcycles). 

Motorcyclists are involved in fatal 

crashes at higher rates than drivers of other types of motor vehicles, both 

per registered vehicle and vehicle miles traveled. In 2010, while 

motorcycles accounted for only about 3 percent of all registered vehicles, 

they were involved in about 15 percent of all fatal vehicle crashes. Not 

only can motorcycle crashes result in injury to or death of the victims, but 

they can impose costs for medical treatment, property damage, and loss 

of productivity. Various factors, such as alcohol impairment, have been 

identified as contributing to the occurrence of such crashes, while others, 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

particularly the lack of helmet use, affect the likelihood of a fatality when a 

crash occurs. States have responsibility for developing and implementing 

strategies—such as training programs for motorcyclists and laws 

requiring helmet use—to address motorcycle safety. The National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is the federal agency that 

assists states in pursuing strategies to address the factors contributing to 

motorcycle crashes and fatalities through various activities, including 

providing guidance, outreach, and training, administering grants, and 

sponsoring research.

We conducted this work for the Senate and House Committees on 

Appropriations.2

1. determine what is known about the costs of motorcycle crashes;

The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, 

Science, and Transportation also requested that we conduct such a 

study. In this report, we:

2. identify factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and to fatalities 

when crashes occur, and strategies states are pursuing to address 

these factors; and

3. examine the extent to which NHTSA assists states in pursuing 

strategies that address these factors.

To determine what is known about the costs of motorcycle crashes, we 

reviewed studies on these costs, including the amount and types of costs 

that crashes impose and who pays those costs. Because existing cost 

estimates either only covered specific types of costs or pertained to all 

vehicle types, we developed an estimate of the total direct measurable 

costs3

 

2

A direction to perform this work is contained in S. Rept. No. 112-83, p. 66, 211th Cong. 

(2011), the conference report that accompanied the Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2012. H.R. Rept No. 112-284, p. 286, 211th Cong., (2011) directed 

that our report be filed with both the Senate and House Committees on Appropriations. 

of motorcycle crashes in 2010. We used data developed in a 2002 

NHTSA study, which provided estimates of direct measurable costs of all 

motor vehicle crashes in 2000 for various categories of costs, such as 

medical costs and costs associated with loss of market productivity (lost 

3

Direct measurable costs are those costs directly resulting from a crash that can and have 

been measured.
 

Page 3 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

wages).4 To arrive at our estimate of costs specifically for motorcycle 

crashes in 2010, we used inflation indices to convert NHTSA’s cost 

estimates to 2010 dollars and 2010 motorcycle crash data to extricate 

costs attributable solely to motorcycle crashes. To identify the factors that 

contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities and strategies that states 

are pursuing to address these factors, we conducted interviews with 

officials from NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and stakeholder organizations 

involved in motorcycle safety, including the American Association of 

Motor Vehicle Administrators, the Governors Highway Safety Association, 

the National Association of State Motorcycle Safety Administrators, the 

Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and the American Motorcyclist 

Association. We also conducted interviews with and reviewed 

documentation from state officials responsible for motorcycle safety in 16 

states. We selected these 16 states to include a range of fatality rates, 

varying types of motorcycle safety laws and policies, varying levels of 

motorcycle ridership, and geographic diversity.5

 

4

L. Blincoe et al, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000 (Washington, 

D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002). 

We analyzed data from 

NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for calendar years 

1991 to 2010 to identify characteristics of fatal crashes. In addition, we 

conducted a literature review to obtain information about the factors that 

contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities and determine the extent 

of knowledge about the effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies used 

by states. We included in our review studies that we identified based on 

certain selection criteria, including those authored or provided to us by 

5

These 16 states are Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, 

Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah, Washington, 

and Wisconsin. For five of these states—Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Texas, and 

Wisconsin—we interviewed additional agencies and organizations responsible for 

motorcycle safety, including the applicable NHTSA region, state agencies responsible for 

motorcycle licensing and training; state and local law enforcement agencies; and 

motorcycle advocacy groups. We did not include states’ motorcycle safety efforts related 

to road infrastructure or emergency response in our review. 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

federal and state agencies and organizations we interviewed and other 

studies published in the last 10 years.6

To examine the extent to which NHTSA assists states in pursuing 

strategies that address factors contributing to motorcycle crashes and 

fatalities, we reviewed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU),7 the 

Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21),8

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to November 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Further details on 

our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.

relevant 

portions of the United States Code, and federal regulations to determine 

NHTSA’s responsibilities and authority related to motorcycle safety. We 

reviewed documentation and interviewed officials in NHTSA headquarters 

and regional offices to determine what NHTSA has done to identify and 

promote motorcycle safety strategies for use by states, including 

guidance, outreach, and training; providing grants; and conducting 

research. We obtained views of state officials we interviewed on NHTSA’s 

efforts and determined the extent to which these efforts address research 

gaps we identified as well as high priority motorcycle safety strategies 

identified by NHTSA, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, NTSB, CDC, and 

the Transportation Research Board.

 

6

To assess the effectiveness of motorcycle helmet laws, we included older studies 

because many changes in helmet laws occurred and were evaluated more than 10 years 

ago. In some cases, we also included studies published more than 10 years ago when 

there was limited or no research about that strategy in the last 10 years. In such cases, we 

considered the extent to which factors may have changed over time that could affect the 

relevance of their findings.

7

Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).

8

Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat 405 (2012).
 

Page 5 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Motorcycle crashes are more likely to be fatal than other types of vehicle 

crashes. Of the estimated 5.4 million motor-vehicle crashes that occurred 

in the U.S. in 2010, less than 1 percent resulted in at least one fatality, 

while almost 5 percent of the 95,000 motorcycle crashes in 2010 resulted 

in at least one fatality. When a crash occurs, motorcycle riders are much 

more vulnerable than passengers of other vehicles. Unlike a motorcyclist, 

a passenger vehicle occupant is protected by the car’s metal frame and 

generally by a seat belt (as required by law), and usually airbags for the 

front seats.9 As a result, according to NHTSA, motorcyclists were about 

30 times more likely to die in a traffic crash than passenger car occupants 

per vehicle mile traveled in 2010.10

Figure 1: Example of a Crash Involving an Automobile and Motorcycle

 

9

As we discuss in more detail later in this report, helmets and other protective gear do 

offer some protection. 

10U. S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

Traffic Safety Facts: 2010 Data, Motorcycles. DOT HS 811 639 (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 

Background 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Over the last two decades, the number of fatalities of passenger vehicle 

occupants as a result of crashes has decreased, while the number of 

motorcyclist fatalities has increased. From 1991 to 2010, fatalities of 

passenger vehicle11 occupants dropped from 30,776 to 22,187, while 

motorcyclist fatalities rose from 2,806 to 4,502—a 60 percent increase.12

 

11Fatalities include only traffic fatalities. Passenger vehicle fatalities include drivers and 

passengers of passenger vehicles. We have defined passenger vehicles as passenger 

cars and light trucks and vans. Motorcyclist fatalities include drivers and passengers of 

motorcycles.

Much of the increase in motorcyclist fatalities is related to an increase in 

motorcyclists on the road. From 1991 to 2010, motorcycle registrations in 

the U.S. increased from about 4.2 million in 1991 to 8.2 million in 2010—a 

97 percent increase. When looking at the number of fatalities per 

registered vehicle for motorcycles, fatality rates have declined over the 

last few years (see fig. 2).

12The number of motorcyclist fatalities peaked at 5,312 in 2008, then decreased to 4,469 

in 2009 and rose slightly to 4,502 in 2010. Based on preliminary data for 2011, the 

number of motorcyclist fatalities is expected to remain about the same as in 2010. 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Figure 2: Motorcyclist Fatality Rate per 100,000 Registered Motorcycles, 1991 to 2010

Because motorcycle enthusiasts are a diverse group of people, 

motorcycle crashes and fatalities affect a wide demographic. Men still 

make up an overwhelming proportion of riders, but ridership among 

women is increasing. With regard to age, motorcyclist fatalities are not 

concentrated among younger riders. As older riders who rode in their 

youth increasingly return to motorcycling, fatalities among older 

motorcyclists have increased. From 2001 to 2010, riders 35 and older 

constituted more than half of all motorcyclist fatalities. That proportion has 

steadily increased from just over 50 percent in 2001 to 66 percent in 

2010. In fact, the largest number of fatalities in 2010 was in the 45-54 age 

group.

NHTSA, states, and, to some extent, local governments, have a role in 

improving motorcycle safety. NHTSA aims to reduce deaths, injuries, and 

economic losses resulting from motor vehicle crashes, including 

motorcycle crashes, through the efforts of its headquarters and 10 

regional offices. NHTSA does so primarily through grants to state 

governments meant to support state and local safety programs. As part of 

that effort, NHTSA headquarters conducts research on motorcyclist 

behavior and safety strategies and provides guidance, outreach, and 

training to states. NHTSA headquarters is also responsible for evaluating 

those programs, collecting data, and promulgating regulations. NHTSA’s 
 

Page 8 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

regional offices monitor states’ spending and provide assistance to states’ 

motorcycle safety programs.

Each state must have a highway safety program that is approved by the 

Secretary of Transportation and in accord with uniform guidelines issued 

by the Secretary.13

• a motorcycle licensing system that provides among other 

components, educational information and penalties for violations of 

licensing requirements; 

Under these guidelines, states are expected to 

develop a centralized motorcycle safety program, among other things, 

and to implement projects to reach the goals and objectives that reflect 

their states’ demographics and needs. States’ motorcycle safety 

programs should include:

• a state motorcycle rider education program;

• safety communication campaigns; and

• data on the frequency and types of motorcycle crashes in their state.

Also, each state should ensure that programs addressing impaired driving 

include an impaired-motorcyclist component.

Congress has also taken steps to support states’ efforts. In 2005, 

SAFETEA-LU established a $25 million motorcyclist safety-grant program 

to encourage states to adopt and implement programs to reduce the 

number of crashes involving motorcyclists. States received the first year 

of these grants at the end of fiscal year 2006.14 To be eligible to receive 

this grant, a state had to meet certain criteria, including implementing a 

statewide training program for motorcycle riders and an awareness 

program for motorists.15

 

1323 U.S.C. § 402(a), as amended by MAP-21, § 31102, 126 Stat., 734-739.

Funds granted under the program could be used 

for motorcyclist training and motorist awareness programs, such as 

improving training curriculums, delivering training, recruiting or retaining 

motorcyclist safety instructors, and establishing and conducting public 

awareness and outreach programs. States were not required to provide 

14SAFETEA-LU, § 2010, 119 Stat., 1535, repealed by MAP-21, § 31109(g). 

15All states have been eligible to receive these grants each year, except for Alabama and 

Mississippi (only eligible in 2009), South Carolina (ineligible in 2006, did not apply in 2007 

and 2008, eligible and received grants in 2009 and 2010), and the District of Columbia 

(has never applied).
 

Page 9 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

matching funds. Additionally, states could use the State and Community 

Highway Safety Grant Program for motorcycle safety efforts, if those 

efforts are included in their state highway safety plan. This grant program 

provides highway safety program funds for states through a formula 

based on each state’s population and public road miles.16

In July 2012, the President signed MAP-21 into law, amending section 

405 of title 23, United States Code, to establish National Priority Safety 

Program grants, including motorcycle safety grants formerly authorized by 

SAFETEA-LU section 2010.17 MAP-21 authorized continuing funding for 

these grants,18

Studies indicate that the costs of motorcycle crashes are significant, but 

have only estimated specific types of these costs. We conducted our own 

analysis, using data from a 2002 NHTSA study on the costs of all motor 

vehicle crashes as well as some additional data, and estimate that the 

direct measurable costs of motorcycle crashes—those costs that directly 

result from a crash and that can and have been measured—were 

approximately $16 billion in 2010. However, accurately determining the 

full costs is difficult because some—such as long-term medical costs and 

intangible costs related to emotional pain and suffering—are difficult to 

measure. Thus, the full costs of motorcycle crashes are likely higher than 

our estimate. Victims and their families as well as society—including 

employers, private insurers, healthcare providers, government, and 

others—bear these costs. NHTSA estimated that society bears about 

three-quarters of the measurable costs of all motor vehicle crashes.

Society’s share of the costs of motorcycle crashes may be similar or 

higher, in part because injuries from these crashes are more severe.

at about half the SAFETEA-LU funding level, through the 

end of fiscal year 2014. States may continue to use their State and 

Community Highway Safety Grant funding for motorcycle safety efforts.

 

16See 23 U.S.C. § 402, discussed above.

17MAP-21, § 31105, 126 Stat., 741-755, codified as positive law at 23 U.S.C. 

§ 405(a)(1)(E). The terms and requirements for motorcyclist safety grants under 23 U.S.C. 

§ 405 are substantially similar to those under SAFETEA-LU § 2010. NHTSA classified 

motorcycle safety as a National Priority Program Area under 23 C.F.R. § 1205.3 for 

purposes of administering the highway safety grant program under 23 U.S.C. § 402(c), 

and reflecting the role of § 402 as a second source of funding for motorcycle safety 

programs. See, also, 23 C.F.R. § 1205.4.

18MAP-21, § 31101(a)(3), 126, Stat. 732-733.

The Costs of 

Motorcycle Crashes 

to Society and 

Individuals Are 

Significant 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Studies we identified on the costs of motorcycle crashes indicate that the 

costs are significant, but the studies estimated only specific types of direct 

measurable costs. Direct measurable costs are those costs directly 

resulting from a crash that can and have been measured. One study, 

conducted by CDC and Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 

estimated three categories of costs associated with motorcycle crashes: 

medical costs, costs associated with the loss in market productivity (lost 

wages), and costs associated with the loss in household productivity 

(costs of hiring someone to perform household tasks). The study 

estimated that the total for these cost categories for all motorcycle 

crashes nationwide in 2005 was $12 billion.19

Lacking a comprehensive study of the costs of motorcycle crashes, we 

conducted our own analysis and estimate that the direct measurable 

costs of motorcycle crashes in 2010 were about $16 billion. To develop 

our estimate, which is a rough approximation of these costs, we began 

with a 2002 NHTSA study that provided a comprehensive examination of 

the direct measurable costs of all types of motor vehicle crashes in 2000, 

estimating nine categories of costs (see table 1).

A number of the studies we 

identified estimated only the motorcycle crash victims’ medical costs. One 

such study estimated that the total hospital charges for the initial 

treatment of motorcyclists injured in traffic crashes in Florida in 2010 was 

$348 million.

20

 

19Naumann RB, Dellinger AM, Zaloshnja E, Lawrence BA, and Miller TR, “Incidence and 

total lifetime costs of motor vehicle-related fatal and nonfatal injury by road user type, 

United States, 2005,” Traffic Injury Prevention, vol. 11, no.4 (2010).

We used data 

developed in the 2002 NHTSA study, which provided estimates for each 

of these cost categories across various levels of injury severity. We 

updated these cost estimates to 2010 values by adjusting for inflation. We 

then applied the updated motor vehicle crash cost estimates to NHTSA’s 

2010 data on motorcycle crash incidence, which included a breakdown of 

crashes by severity classifications. This provided our aggregate estimate

20L. Blincoe et al, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes (Washington, D.C.: 

NHTSA, 2002). NHTSA estimated the costs of all motor vehicle crashes—not just those 

involving motorcycles—to be $230 billion in 2000 (or $280 billion in 2010 dollars). 

Overall Costs Are 

Substantial, but Some Cost 

Elements Are Difficult to 

Measure
 

Page 11 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

of the cost of motorcycle crashes in 2010.21 (See app. I for further 

description of our methodology.) NHTSA is in the process of updating its 

motor vehicle crash cost estimates and, as part of that effort, plans to 

separately calculate the direct measurable costs associated with 

motorcycle crashes.22

Table 1: Types of Direct Measurable Motor Vehicle Costs Estimated in 2002 NHTSA Study

Type of cost Description

Medical Costs of all medical treatments, including those during ambulance transport. It includes costs of 

emergency room, inpatient costs, follow-up visits, physical therapy, rehabilitation, prescriptions, 

prosthetic devices, and home modification.

Emergency services Costs of police and fire department response services. 

Loss in market productivity Total lost wages of the victim.

Loss in household productivity Costs associated with lost productive household activity, valued at the market price for hiring 

another person to accomplish the same tasks.

Insurance administration Administrative costs of processing insurance claims and defense attorney costs.

Workplace Costs of workplace disruption that are due to the loss or absence of an employee. 

Legal Legal fees and court costs of civil litigation resulting from crashes.

Travel delay Value of travel time delay for all road users as a result of a crash.

Property damage Value of vehicles, cargo, roadways and other items damaged in a crash.

Source: NHTSA, Economic Impact Report, 2002.

Our estimated $16 billion in direct measurable costs of motorcycle 

crashes can be broken down according to the nine different types of costs 

identified by the NHTSA study. As shown in figure 3, loss in market 

productivity was the largest cost element, constituting 44 percent of the 

estimated total direct measurable costs. This category is followed by 

 

21Various factors account for differences between our cost estimate of $16 billion and the 

previous estimate produced by CDC and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation 

of $12 billion. Our estimate covers the nine types of direct measurable costs developed in 

the 2002 NHTSA study, whereas CDC and the Pacific Institute for Research and 

Evaluation estimate covers only three types of costs, as noted above. Given that medical 

and productivity costs constitute almost 80 percent of all costs (see fig. 1), our estimate is 

very similar to theirs as 80 percent of $16 billion is about $12 billion. Furthermore, CDC’s 

estimate accounted for unreported crashes whereas ours did not, and its estimate was in 

2005 dollars and ours is in 2010 dollars. Accounting for all of these differences, the two 

estimates are somewhat consistent. 

22NHTSA’s current effort to update its crash cost estimates will provide a more accurate 

estimate of motorcycle crash costs and will consider various environmental costs, such as 

congestion costs. NHTSA plans to issue its report in spring 2013. 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

medical costs (18 percent), household productivity costs (14 percent), 

legal costs (9 percent), and insurance administration costs (7 percent). 

The remaining 8 percent is divided among workplace costs, travel delay 

costs, and costs resulting from property damage.

Figure 3: Distribution of Estimated Direct Measurable Costs of Motorcycle Crashes, 

2010

In addition to our overall estimate that the direct measurable costs of 

motorcycle crashes were about $16 billion in 2010, we found that crash 

costs varied dramatically based on injury severity. In 2010, 82,000 

motorcyclists were injured in motorcycle crashes, and these injuries 

ranged from minor to very severe; the direct measurable costs for nonfatal crashes ranged from $2,500 for the most minor injury to about $1.4 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

million for the most severe injury, on average.23

Although prior studies and our analysis suggest that the costs of 

motorcycle crashes are significant, it is difficult to determine the full costs 

with accuracy because some types of costs are difficult to measure. For 

example, the treatment for serious injury can be long and costly, but 

follow-up analyses are conducted only for a few years to calculate longterm medical costs. Also, other costs of long-term injury consequences 

such as change in employment and living status cannot be fully 

measured. Moreover, intangible costs—such as emotional pain and 

suffering of the victim and family members resulting from a changed 

quality of life of the victim—are also significant but are difficult to measure 

in financial terms. Thus, the full costs of motorcycle crashes are likely 

higher than our estimate because we could not account for such difficult 

to measure costs. Also, we did not account for the costs of unreported 

crashes.

As noted previously, in 

2010, 4,502 motorcyclists died in motorcycle crashes. The average cost 

for a fatal crash was estimated to be about $1.2 million. That a fatality can 

cost less than the most severe injury is partly because severe injuries can 

result in total incapacitation. Some victims, such as those with severe 

brain injuries, cannot be productive and require ongoing care and medical 

expenses.

Victims and their families bear many of the direct measurable costs of 

motorcycle crashes. They may pay medical expenses that are not 

covered by insurance, suffer the loss of income of the victim and lost 

productivity at home, incur the costs of family members caring for the 

victim, and suffer losses for property damage not covered by insurance. 

Because motorcycle accidents are often severe, victims might not return 

to work for some time or not at all. According to a 2006 NHTSA study 

based on a survey of motorcycle crash victims who entered inpatient 

 

23This represents lifetime costs associated with a crash. However, this might be an 

underestimate for very serious injuries as calculations of long-term medical costs rely on 

follow-up analyses of these costs for only 2 to 3 years post-injury.

Individuals as well as 

Society Bear the Costs of 

Motorcycle Crashes
 

Page 14 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

rehabilitation, of those employed at the time of the crash, 51 percent were 

no longer employed at the time of discharge.24

In addition to victims and their families, other members of society—

employers, private insurers, healthcare providers, government, and 

others—bear a significant amount of the direct measurable costs of 

motorcycle crashes. Both state and federal governments pay some of 

these costs through Medicaid and other assistance programs. Private 

insurers often bear significant costs for covered treatment—which are 

largely paid through their customer base. Healthcare providers—such as 

hospitals—may bear some unpaid charges. The victims’ co-workers and 

employers may need to temporarily work overtime or hire and train new 

employees to cover the work of lost employees and other administrative 

costs of personnel changes. Even road users can be affected if travel 

delays result during the emergency response to and cleanup of the crash.

NHTSA’s 2002 study, based on data on all motor vehicle crashes in 2000, 

estimated that three-quarters of the direct measurable costs appear to be 

borne by society. Although NHTSA’s analysis of the societal burden 

associated with crashes was based on all types of motor vehicle crashes, 

there is some evidence that society’s share of costs for motorcycle 

crashes may be similar or even higher, for example:

• Motorcyclists have a greater likelihood of a more severe injury in a 

crash compared to other motorists. Based on a 2008 NHTSA study, 

about 43 percent of motorcyclist crash victims suffered moderate to 

critical injuries when involved in a crash.25 In contrast, based on 

NHTSA’s 2002 study, less than 8 percent of all motorists suffered 

from such injuries in a crash.26

 

24Ted Miller et al, Rehabilitation Costs and Long-Term Consequences of Motor Vehicle 

Injury (Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 2006). A total of 237 motorcycle crash victims were 

surveyed. Length of stay in inpatient rehabilitation ranged from 10 to 71 days.

As previously noted, direct measurable 

costs increase substantially with the degree of accident severity.

25Lawrence J. Cook et al, Motorcycle Helmet Use and Head and Facial Injuries, Crash 

Outcomes in CODES-Linked Data, DOT HS 811 2008 (Washington, D.C.: National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2008). Moderate to critical injuries are injuries that 

fall in the maximum abbreviated injury scale categories 2 to 5, and these proportions were 

calculated from a NHTSA 2008 study, which evaluated combined data from 18 states on 

89,086 motorcycle crashes and 104,472 motorcyclists between 2003 and 2005.

26Data on all motorists is for the year 2000. 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Furthermore, according to a 2008 report by the Pacific Institute for 

Research and Evaluation, for each category of injury severity, 

government cost per crash is higher on average for motorcycle crash 

victims than for all motor vehicle crash victims.27

• Motorcyclists may insure against fewer risks than their motor vehicle 

driver counterparts. According to a 2003 report by the Pacific Institute 

for Research and Evaluation conducted for NHTSA, legal and lender 

insurance requirements force most motorists to insure against a broad 

range of risks, but the requirements for motorcycle insurance 

coverage are usually less stringent.28 In particular, the study found 

that, for the insurance companies included in the study, only 15 

percent of motorcycle insurance policies in 1999 included personal 

injury protection or coverage of the motorcyclist’s own medical 

expenses, while 98 percent of the insurance policies for other vehicles 

included these types of coverage. Our review did not identify any 

more recent studies on this topic. However, we did identify estimates, 

provided by Florida state officials that, in 2010, 51 percent of the costs 

of motorcyclist hospitalizations and emergency department visits in 

their state were not covered by commercial insurance. Also, we 

identified a 1999 study of uninsured vehicles in California that found 

that 66 percent of motorcycles were uninsured compared with only 19 

percent for automobiles.29

With respect to difficult-to-quantify costs, determining the share paid by 

victims and their families versus society is difficult. NHTSA’s estimates of 

To the extent that motorcyclists have less 

insurance coverage than other motor vehicle drivers, a greater 

proportion of medical costs associated with motorcycle crashes may 

need to be paid from public funds.

 

27Ted Miller et al, Cost of Crashes to Government, United States, 2008. (Washington, 

D.C.: Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, 2008). For different severity of 

injuries, total government cost on average ranged from $5,200 to $30,000 for motorcycle 

crashes and from $3,500 to $21,000 for all motor vehicle crashes. For fatalities, the cost 

was the same for motorcycles and all motor vehicles. For the no-injury category, the cost 

was higher for all motor vehicles than for motorcycles. 

28The study analyzed data collected from insurance companies that specialize in 

motorcycle insurance and the nation’s five largest motor vehicle insurers. See Ted R. 

Miller and Bruce A. Lawrence., Motor Vehicle Insurance in the United States: A 1998-

1999 Snapshot with Emphasis on Motorcycle Coverage, Final Report to the National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Washington, D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, 2003). 

29Robert O. Bernstein, California Uninsured Vehicles as of June 1, 1997, Policy Research 

Bureau, California Department of Insurance (1999). 
 

Page 16 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

the shares of all motor vehicles crash costs borne by individuals and 

society only covered direct measurable costs, and society’s share of the 

difficult-to-quantify costs of motorcycle crashes is unclear. For example, 

while victims and their family are likely to bear most, if not all, of the 

intangible or nonfinancial costs in terms of emotional pain and suffering 

resulting from loss in quality of life of the victim or from psychic 

repercussions of victim’s injury, society may pay a significant portion of 

the victims’ long-term rehabilitation costs. A 2006 NHTSA study found 

that inpatient rehabilitation costs for motorcycle injuries averaged $13,200 

per patient for the year 2002 ($16,000 in 2010 dollars) and that almost 20 

percent of this was paid by public funds.30 A 1988 study pointed out that 

since many insurance policies typically do not cover long-term 

rehabilitation or nursing home needs, most of these additional charges 

are paid for by public funds, such as through Medicaid.31

Various factors—including alcohol impairment; speeding; lack of a 

license, training, or riding skills; and lack of motorist awareness of 

motorcycles on the road—contribute to motorcycle crashes; another 

factor, lack of helmet use, contributes to the likelihood of a fatality when a 

crash occurs. States pursue a range of strategies to address these 

factors, including licensing approaches, training programs, law 

enforcement, efforts to improve motorcyclist safety awareness and 

motorist awareness, and helmet-use laws. Laws requiring all 

motorcyclists to wear helmets are the only strategy proven to be effective 

in reducing fatalities, but only 19 states have such laws. The 

effectiveness of the other strategies in reducing motorcycle crashes and 

fatalities is unclear because research has been limited and results of 

studies have been mixed or uncertain. However, according to NHTSA 

officials, approaches that have been proven to be effective in some other 

highway safety efforts—such as combining strong enforcement with 

public education to reduce driver alcohol impairment generally—may hold 

promise for improving motorcycle safety.

 

30Ted Miller et al, Rehabilitation Costs and Long-Term Consequences of Motor Vehicle 

Injury.(Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 2006). 

31Frederick P. Rivara et al, “The Public Cost of Motorcycle Trauma,” Journal of the 

American Medical Association, voI. 260. no..2 (1988).

States Are Addressing 

Some of the Factors 

That Contribute to 

Crashes and Fatalities 

through Various 

Strategies, but 

Effectiveness Is 

Unclear 
 

Page 17 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Various factors contribute to the likelihood that a motorcyclist will crash.

Often, a combination of factors can work together to increase the 

likelihood.32 While the extent of evidence concerning each factor’s 

importance varies, the four factors identified most frequently by the 

federal officials, selected state officials, and stakeholder organizations 

that we spoke to were alcohol impairment; speeding; lack of a motorcycle 

license, training, or skills; and lack of motorist awareness of 

motorcyclists.33

Alcohol impairment is associated with a large portion of fatal motorcycle 

crashes. In 2010, 28 percent of motorcycle drivers involved in fatal 

crashes had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08 grams per 

deciliter—the legal limit in all states for operating a vehicle—or higher. 

This is compared to 23 percent of drivers of passenger vehicles.34

 

32While these factors affect the likelihood that an individual will experience a crash, 

exposure—the time and miles motorcycles are driven on the road and the number of 

motorcycles on the road—affects the overall number of crashes and fatalities in each 

state. Weather and the length of the riding season, which vary from state to state, 

influence the amount of time motorcyclists spend riding.

A BAC 

level at or above this limit impairs the judgment of motorcyclists, making 

33These factors were also identified in the following reports on motorcycle safety issues 

and strategies: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Countermeasures That 

Work: A Highway Safety Countermeasure Guide for State Highway Safety Offices. Sixth 

Edition. DOT HS 811 444. (Washington, D.C.: NHTSA, 2011); Motorcycle Safety 

Foundation and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Agenda for 

Motorcycle Safety (Washington, DC.: NHTSA, 2000); Transportation Research 

Board/National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 500: Guidance 

for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, Volume 22: A Guide 

for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles. (Washington, D.C.: Transportation 

Research Board, 2008); Governors Highway Safety Association, by State: 2011 

Preliminary Data. (Washington, D.C.: Governors Highway Safety Association, 2012). 

Some of these reports identify additional factors. In particular, the National Agenda for 

Motorcycle Safety identified a range of human, social, vehicle, and environmental factors 

affecting the likelihood of crashes and the severity of crash outcomes.

34Estimates of the percentage of drivers with BAC levels greater than 0.08 grams per 

deciliter with their 95 percent confidence intervals (CI) are for motorcycle drivers 27.8 

percent (95 percent CI of 26.1 percent to 29.4 percent) and for drivers of passenger

vehicles, 22.8 percent (95 percent CI of 22.3 percent to 23.4 percent). See appendix I for 

more information about these estimates. 

Various Factors Contribute 

to Motorcycle Crashes and 

Fatalities

Factors Contributing to a Crash
 

Page 18 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

them more likely to engage in risky behaviors such as speeding. Some 

studies have also found that motorcyclists who are intoxicated are less 

likely to wear helmets.35 In addition to judgment, alcohol also affects the 

riding skills of the motorcyclist. A NHTSA study assessing the effects of 

alcohol on rider performance showed that motorcyclist riding performance 

was significantly impaired at a BAC level of 0.08, and somewhat impaired 

at a lower BAC level of 0.05.36 Drug impairment was also cited by some 

state officials as a factor contributing to crashes.37

Speeding is a major factor contributing to motorcycle crashes, according 

to federal and state officials and stakeholder groups we interviewed.

NHTSA has estimated that more than a third of motorcyclist fatalities 

involve speeding. However, quantifying the contribution of speeding to 

crashes and fatalities is a challenge, because information about the 

speed of the motorcycle at the time of the crash often is unreliable.

Officials in two states told us that certain sections of highways are popular 

sites for speeding by motorcyclists. According to the Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety, riders of the increasingly popular “supersport” 

motorcycles, which can reach higher speeds than other motorcycles,38

Lack of a motorcycle license, training, or skills were cited by federal 

and state officials and stakeholders as significant factors associated with 

crashes and fatalities. Licensing programs measure the readiness of 

motorcyclists to drive safely and can encourage or require that beginning 

tend to be younger than 30 and are more likely to be involved in crashes 

where speed was a factor.

 

35Carley Sauter et al, “Increased Risk of Death or Disability in Unhelmeted Wisconsin 

Motorcyclists,” Wisconsin Medical Journal, Vol. 104 , No. 2 (2005), pp. 39-44. Timothy 

Pickrell and Marc Starnes, An Analysis of Motorcycle Helmet Use in Fatal Crashes, 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Washington, D.C. 2008). Thomas S. Dee, 

“Motorcycle helmets and traffic safety,” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 28 (2009), pp. 

398-412.

36Creaser, J. I. et al. Effects of Alcohol on Motorcycle Riding Skills. (Washington, D.C., 

NHTSA, 2007).

37A 2007 survey of alcohol and drug use by drivers found about twice the prevalence of 

drug use by motorcyclists as passenger vehicle drivers. See John H. Lacey et al, A 2007 

National Roadside Survey of Alcohol and Drug Use by Drivers, Drug Results (Washington, 

D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2009). 

38Supersport motorcycles are built on a racing bike frame and can reach speeds of nearly 

190 miles per hour.
 

Page 19 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

riders take training prior to receiving a license. Twenty-two percent of 

motorcycle riders involved in fatal crashes in 2010 were driving their

vehicles without a valid motorcycle license, compared to 12 percent for 

passenger vehicles. Agency officials in eight of the states we covered in 

our review reported that some crashes occur as a result of riders 

departing from their lane, making improper turns, or following the vehicle 

in front too closely. Such riding behaviors may be because of lack of skill 

or experience. In addition, agency officials in 10 states reported that older 

motorcyclists returning to motorcycling after years of not riding have

contributed to crashes in their state. Some of these officials explained that 

many of these older motorcyclists have maintained their motorcycle 

licenses for a number of years because they are automatically renewed, 

their riding skills have decreased, and they are not required to 

demonstrate their skills when returning to riding. This is a possible 

explanation for the previously mentioned statistics on fatalities among 

older “returning” riders.

Lack of motorist awareness of motorcyclists is a major factor 

contributing to crashes, according to many of the federal and state 

officials and stakeholders we interviewed. In 2010, 54 percent of all 

motorcyclist fatalities were the result of multi-vehicle crashes. A main 

problem cited by some of those who noted this factor is that drivers make 

a left turn without noticing an oncoming motorcyclist coming from the 

opposite direction. Distracted driving can contribute to this problem.

According to NHTSA officials, there are no studies to support the extent 

to which motorists are at fault in two-vehicle crashes with motorcycles 

because, in part, fault is very challenging to definitively determine.

Related to this issue, motorcyclists who do not wear bright colors can be 

less conspicuous to drivers.

Some additional, less frequently cited factors can also contribute to the 

likelihood of a motorcycle crash. According to NHTSA officials, judgment 

is an overriding factor that affects the likelihood of crash involvement.

Lack of good judgment about actions related to safety can lead to driving 

a motorcycle while under the influence of alcohol, speeding, or 

aggressive driving. In addition, the design and function of the motorcycle 

can affect the likelihood of a crash. According to the Insurance Institute 

for Highway Safety, anti-lock braking systems on motorcycles reduce the 

likelihood of a crash. Some have also cited road conditions as a main 

factor that can lead to a crash. Problems include uneven road surfaces 

and rural roads with narrow or no shoulders. According to FHWA officials, 

while roadway conditions do contribute to crashes, it is currently unknown 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

how frequently this occurs.39

Other factors that we identified do not affect the likelihood of a crash 

occurring but can affect the severity of injuries when a crash does occur.

Other factors cited include encounters with 

wildlife (especially deer) and weather conditions.

Lack of helmet use, most notably, is an important factor contributing to 

an increased risk of fatality or serious brain injury when a motorcycle 

crash occurs. Several studies have estimated that helmet use reduces 

motorcyclist fatality risk, with reductions ranging from 34 to 39 percent.40

Further, according to NHTSA, the latest studies have found that helmets 

reduce the incidence of motorcycle rider brain injuries by 41 to 69 

percent.41 Head injuries account for a significant percentage of 

motorcyclist injuries resulting in fatality. NHTSA has estimated that 

helmets saved the lives of 1,550 motorcyclists in 2010.42 DOT has 

established standards for motorcycle helmets to ensure a certain degree 

of protection in a crash.43

 

39For further information on this issue and approaches used by state governments to deal 

with it, see Richard Schaffer et al, Scan 09-04, Leading Practices for Motorcyclist Safety

(NCHRP Project 20 68A) (Washington, D.C.: National Cooperative Highway Research 

Program, 2011).

Use of helmets that are not compliant with 

these standards can pose a risk to riders, as wearing non-compliant 

helmets is associated with a higher likelihood of receiving a head injury

when a crash occurs. 

40Williams Deutermann, Motorcycle Helmet Effectiveness Revisited, National Highway 

Traffic Safety Administration (Washington, D.C.: 2004). Thomas S. Dee, “Motorcycle 

helmets and traffic safety” Journal of Health Economics, vol. 28 (2009), pp. 398-412. 

Daniel C. Norvell and Peter Cummings, “Association of Helmet Use with Death in 

Motorcycle Crashes: A Matched-Pair Cohort Study,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 

Vol. 156 (2002), No. 5, pp. 483-48. 

41NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work, 2011.

42CDC has reported that, in 2010, approximately $3 billion in costs were saved as a result 

of helmet use in the U.S. and another $1.4 billion could have been saved if all 

motorcyclists had worn helmets. See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

“Helmet Use Among Motorcyclists Who Died in Crashes and Economic Cost Savings 

Associated With State Motorcycle Helmet Laws—United States, 2008-2010,” Morbidity 

and Mortality Weekly Report, Vol. 61 No. 23 (2012), pp. 425-430.

43Approved helmets must meet the DOT’s Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 218 

which requires that helmets provide minimum levels of performance to protect the head 

and brain in the event of a crash.

Factors Affecting the Severity 

of Crash Outcomes
 

Page 21 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Other factors can also affect the outcome of crashes. According to 

NHTSA officials, protective clothing can help prevent “road rash”44

Except for alcohol impairment and helmet use, the relative importance of 

these various factors contributing to crashes and fatalities is not well 

understood. Challenges to determining the contribution of these factors to 

crashes and fatalities include unavailable or unreliable information about 

key factors such as the speed of the vehicle, driver behavior, road 

conditions, and various precipitating factors. Also, factors can be 

interrelated, making it difficult to determine causal relationships and 

relative contributions to risk. Several studies currently under way are 

expected to provide much better information on the causes of motorcycle 

crashes.

as a 

result of a crash, which, in extreme cases, can result in death. They 

noted, however, that little research has been performed on the effects of 

such clothing on injuries and fatalities. An important factor in victims’ 

survival after a crash is the availability of emergency services. CDC, a 

state agency, and an association cited crashes on rural roads as being 

especially treacherous, given the longer time required to get the victims to 

medical care.

45

States use a range of strategies to address the factors that contribute to 

motorcycle crashes and fatalities. The importance of these factors varies 

among states, and accordingly, states pursue varying strategies—

including some innovative ones—to address the factors that are of 

greatest importance to them. Furthermore, states vary in terms of fatality 

rates, ridership, and the length of the riding season, and therefore some 

may choose to carry out more extensive motorcycle safety efforts than 

others. However, at a minimum, all states that we included in our review 

had some type of motorcycle licensing and training program in place and 

 

44Road rash injuries, or road burn injuries, are painful scrapes and bruises that occur when 

motorcyclists are thrown or dragged by their motorcycles.

45These include a crash causation study sponsored by FHWA, NHTSA, and the American 

Motorcyclist Association and two naturalistic studies of motorcyclists, one sponsored by 

NHTSA and one sponsored by the Motorcycle Safety Foundation. The crash causation 

study will investigate at least 280 crashes to determine causes and rider characteristics. 

The naturalistic studies will track a total of 260 motorcyclists, using equipment attached to 

their motorcycles that will acquire a broad range of data on routine riding behavior, as well 

as crashes and near-crash events. According to NHTSA officials, the results of these 

studies will become available in several years. 

States Have Implemented 

Various Strategies to 

Address These Factors
 

Page 22 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

included motorcyclists in their overall efforts to enforce alcohol 

impairment and speed limit laws. Some strategies aim to prevent crashes 

and other strategies aim to reduce the severity of crashes when they 

occur (see table 2).

Table 2: Types of State Motorcycle Safety Strategies

Strategies to prevent crashes 

Strategies to reduce the severity of crash 

outcomes

• Licensing

• Training

• Enforcing alcohol impairment and 

speed limit laws

• Efforts to increase motorcyclist safety 

awareness

• Efforts to increase motorist 

awareness of motorcyclists

• Helmet laws

• Enforcing use of DOT-compliant 

helmets

• Promoting voluntary helmet use

Source: GAO.

Licensing. According to NHTSA, all states require motorcyclists to obtain 

a motorcycle license in order to ride.46 Licensing programs aim to ensure 

that motorcyclists have the minimum knowledge and skills needed to 

operate a motorcycle safely. All of the 16 states that we covered in our 

review required a written test and demonstration of riding skills to obtain a 

license. Some states imposed additional requirements, particularly 

training requirements, for younger riders. Ten of the 16 states that we 

covered in our review require riders under a certain age to successfully 

complete a basic rider course before obtaining a motorcycle license. Two 

states that we covered—Texas and Florida—require all riders to 

successfully complete a basic rider course to be eligible for a motorcycle 

license.47

Utah has an innovative approach to motorcycle licensing with a tieredlicensing system that was implemented in 2008. Utah provides four types 

of motorcycle licenses based on the size—or more specifically, the 

engine size—of the motorcycle motorcyclists test on. To obtain a license 

to operate a motorcycle with a certain engine size, and thus more or less 

 

46NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work, 2011.

47Information on licensing requirements for the 16 states in our review is based on 

documentation on these states’ programs and interviews with state officials.

Strategies for preventing 

crashes 
 

Page 23 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

power, motorcyclists must demonstrate their ability to ride that size of 

motorcycle during the licensing test.48

Some states that we included in our review have taken steps to increase 

the number of licensed riders. For example, 4 of the 16 states that we 

covered in our review—California, Maryland, Wisconsin, and 

Washington—have used databases to identify individuals with a 

registered motorcycle but no motorcycle license. Letters are then sent to 

these individuals describing the potential consequences of not obtaining a 

license. The officials that we interviewed said that these programs were 

somewhat successful in increasing the number of individuals with a 

motorcycle license.

The idea behind the program was 

to encourage new riders to learn to ride on smaller, lighter bikes before 

moving on to large, powerful motorcycles. Also, Utah officials told us that 

this strategy helps address the problem of riders testing on a motorcycle 

that was smaller than the one they intended to ride.

Training. Motorcycle-training programs aim to provide motorcyclists with 

the knowledge and skills necessary to safely operate a motorcycle. Most 

states use the training curriculum developed by the Motorcycle Safety 

Foundation.49

Some state officials that we interviewed described their training programs 

as being innovative. For example, New Hampshire offers a training 

course specifically for returning riders, which, as noted previously, can be 

a contributing factor in crashes and fatalities. According to state officials 

in New Hampshire, returning riders are a challenge because many have 

retained their motorcycle license during the period when they were not 

riding and they are not required to take additional training or testing 

before they begin riding again.

All of the states that we included in our review offer basic 

rider courses for new riders and advanced courses to encourage 

experienced riders to refresh their skills and learn advanced-riding 

techniques. Some states operate training programs while others rely on 

private contractors.

 

48By engine size, we mean the engine capacity in cubic centimeters. Licenses are granted 

for motorcycles with an engine size of 90 cc or less, 249 cc or less, and 649 cc or less. 

Riders who pass the test on a motorcycle that is 650 cc or larger are not restricted. 

49The Motorcycle Safety Foundation is an internationally recognized not-for-profit 

foundation, supported by motorcycle manufacturers, that provides leadership to the 

motorcycle safety community through its expertise, tools, and partnerships.
 

Page 24 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

In addition to developing training courses, states have used various 

strategies to encourage riders to take training. According to a Governors 

Highway Safety Association survey of state motorcycle programs 

conducted in 2007, at least 33 states offer a waiver for the riding-skills 

portion of the licensing test for individuals who complete a basic skills 

course. Some states have tried other strategies. For example, Wisconsin 

has purchased a mobile-training facility called the Transportable HighEnd Rider Education Facility that travels around the state to encourage 

motorcycle riders to take formal training, among other things. Likewise, 

Texas has purchased two trailers that are used to deliver training to riders 

in rural areas who do not have access to local training facilities. Officials 

in Wisconsin and Texas told us that they have received favorable 

reactions from motorcyclists when they take the trailers to motorcycle 

rallies and other events.

Enforcing alcohol impairment and speed limit laws. Enforcement 

strategies are designed to 1) identify motorcyclists who are not adhering 

to the states’ laws and 2) increase law enforcement officers’ awareness of 

laws and issues that affect motorcycle safety. All of the states that we 

included in our review include motorcycles in their overall alcoholimpairment and speed-limit enforcement efforts. For example, Maryland 

and Missouri have used helicopters for surveillance in areas that are 

known to be popular for speeding. Iowa and Florida target law 

enforcement efforts in areas identified as having a large number of 

crashes. However, less than half of the states included in our review 

mentioned specific enforcement strategies aimed at motorcyclists who 

are driving while impaired or speeding. Some states have developed 

materials to educate law enforcement officers on motorcycle specific 

issues, such as identifying impaired riders. States used a number of 

methods to educate law enforcement officers about issues related to 

motorcycle riding, including training courses, pamphlets, and reference 

guides listing motorcycle violations.

However, according to some state and law enforcement officials, 

enforcement efforts are limited because of state laws, limited resources, 

and complaints by motorcycle groups. Some states have “no chase” laws 

that prohibit officers from chasing speeding motorcycles to avoid 

accidents with other motorists. According to one NHTSA regional official, 

some states, such as Texas, do not allow sobriety checkpoints, so 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

detecting and stopping alcohol-impaired motorcyclists can be difficult.50

Efforts to increase motorcyclist safety awareness. These strategies 

aim to encourage motorcyclists to ride safely and take actions, such as 

wearing brightly colored clothing, to increase their visibility to other motor 

vehicle drivers. The strategies address a number of factors that contribute 

to motorcycle crashes and fatalities, including alcohol impairment, 

speeding, lack of rider conspicuity, and lack of licensing, training, and 

skills. Nearly all of the state officials that we interviewed described making 

such efforts, including using billboards, electronic messaging, and printed 

materials, or using contact among state motorcycle safety officials, law 

enforcement, and motorcyclists to encourage safety awareness among 

motorcyclists.

Additionally, some state and law enforcement officials that we interviewed 

told us that states lack funding to train law enforcement officers on 

motorcycle-specific issues. As a result, officers may be hesitant to 

enforce laws related to motorcycles, because they may not be familiar 

with all of the specific requirements and may lack some of the training 

that would help them determine if a rider is complying with laws.

Furthermore, some NHTSA regional, state, and law enforcement officials 

whom we interviewed said that states are often reluctant to focus 

enforcement on motorcyclists because of complaints by motorcycle 

groups that they are being unfairly targeted.

51

During our interviews, some state officials identified some of their 

approaches as being innovative. For example, Florida produced a peerto-peer video to convince motorcyclists to ride safely based on research 

that riders are more receptive to messages from their peers than from 

police or others. In addition, starting in 2008, Colorado kicked off its Live 

Several state and law enforcement officials whom we 

interviewed emphasized that this contact can be particularly valuable in 

developing relationships with motorcyclists during rallies and other 

events, so that motorcyclists will be more receptive to safety messages.

One state official, however, noted that some members of the motorcycling 

community are high risk takers and more resistant to safety messages.

 

50At a sobriety checkpoint, law enforcement officers stop vehicles at a predetermined 

location to check whether the driver is impaired. According to the Governors Highway 

Safety Association, in 12 states sobriety checkpoints are not conducted because they are 

prohibited by law or the state lacks authority to conduct them.

51Promotion of helmet use is also intended to increase motorcyclist safety awareness. We 

will discuss this strategy below.
 

Page 26 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

to Ride campaign. The campaign is a comprehensive safety program 

aimed at motorcyclists. Each year the campaign focuses on a different 

theme, such as the importance of training or riding unimpaired.

Efforts to increase motorist awareness of motorcyclists. Motorist 

awareness strategies educate and remind drivers of other motor vehicles 

to be aware of motorcycles on the road and to drive safely near 

motorcycles. Nearly all of the states that we included in our review 

reported having a strategy to increase motorists’ awareness of 

motorcycles. Some states use informational campaigns that deliver 

messages, such as media messages and promotional materials (See fig. 

4). These may be provided by NHTSA through its Share the Road 

campaign that reminds drivers to look out for motorcycles. All of the 

states in our review observe May as motorcycle safety month during 

which they use media to broadcast public awareness messages to remind 

drivers of other motor vehicles to look out for motorcyclists.

Figure 4: Example of a Poster Used to Encourage Motorist Awareness
 

Page 27 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Some state officials identified some of their approaches as being 

innovative. For example, California and Texas use electronic billboards to 

display motorist awareness messages. Other states, such as Arizona and 

Wisconsin, partner with motorcyclist groups to teach students about 

motorcyclist awareness during driver education courses. In addition, while 

it is not mandatory to discuss motorcyclist awareness in drivers’ 

education classes, California has updated its drivers’ education handbook 

to include a discussion about motorcycles.

Helmet laws. States have one of two types of helmet laws: universal 

helmet laws (helmets required for all riders) or partial helmet laws 

(helmets required for certain riders, most often age 17 and under). 

Currently, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 19 

states have universal helmet laws and 28 states have partial helmet laws 

(see fig. 5). For example, California and New York have universal helmet 

laws requiring all riders to wear helmets while Arizona and Wisconsin 

have partial helmet laws that only require riders age 17 and under to wear 

helmets. Two states, Florida and Michigan, with partial helmet laws allow 

motorcyclists over the age of 21 to ride without a helmet if they have a 

certain level of medical insurance coverage.52

 

52In Florida, motorcyclists over the age of 21 can choose not to wear a helmet if they carry 

$10,000 in medical insurance coverage. Riders in Michigan who are over the age of 21 

and have less than 2 years of experience or have passed a motorcycle safety course are 

not required to wear a helmet as long as they also have at least $20,000 in medical 

insurance coverage per person including any rider.

Three states—Illinois, 

Iowa, and New Hampshire— have no laws requiring helmet use by riders.

Strategies for reducing the 

severity of crashes 
 

Page 28 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Figure 5: Helmet Use Laws in the United States as of October 2012

In part due to controversy surrounding motorcycle helmet laws, states 

have a history of enacting and repealing them over the years.53

 

53From 1992 to 1995, as part of an incentive package for states to pass laws requiring all 

riders to wear helmets, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Pub. 

L. No. 102-240, § 1031, 105 Stat. 1914, 1970, added 23 U.S.C. § 153 to require states to 

pass such laws or lose funds for highway construction. The helmet law requirement was 

repealed in 1995 (

According 

to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, no state has enacted a 

universal helmet law since Louisiana did in 2004. NHTSA and state 

Pub. L. No. 104-59, § 205(e), 109 Stat. 568, 577) which was followed by 

repeal of helmet laws in a number of states. 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

officials whom we interviewed said that it was unlikely that any state with 

a partial helmet-use law or no helmet law would consider strengthening 

requirements for helmet use. In 2011, according to a recent report by the 

CDC, bills were introduced to change or repeal helmet laws in 10 of the 

20 states that had universal helmet laws at the time,54

Enforcing use of DOT-compliant helmets. States with universal helmet 

laws face challenges in getting riders to wear DOT-compliant helmets. 

According to NHTSA’s National Occupant Protection Use Survey 

conducted in 2011, 12 percent of riders in states with universal helmet 

laws used non-compliant helmets.

and in 2012, 

Michigan changed its universal helmet law to a partial helmet law. Many 

government entities and safety organizations—like NHTSA, CDC, and the 

Motorcycle Safety Foundation—promote helmet use, citing its benefits. 

The CDC also cites the social and economic costs of motorcycle crashes 

and fatalities. However, some motorcycle groups, like the American 

Motorcycle Association, advocate helmet use but oppose mandating it. 

Some motorcycle groups maintain that these mandates violate 

motorcyclists’ personal liberties and their right to assume the risk 

associated with riding without a helmet. They also point out that helmet 

laws do nothing to prevent crashes and that resources are therefore 

better spent on crash prevention efforts such as training and motorist 

awareness.

55

 

54Rebecca Naumann and Ruth A. Shults, Ph.D, “ Helmet Use Among Motorcylists Who 

Died in Crashes and Economic Cost Savings Associated With State Motorcycle Helmet 

Laws—Unite States, 2008-2010,” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Division of 

Unintentional Injury Prevention, National Center for Injury and Prevention and Control, 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, June 15, 2012.

In states with universal helmet laws, 

some states have used innovative strategies to address this issue. For 

example, officials in California told us that they have developed a video 

that law enforcement officers distributed to motorcycle clubs across the 

state. The video takes an educational and informational approach to 

emphasize the importance of wearing a compliant helmet. Also, New York 

officials told us New York has used safety checkpoints to verify 

compliance with safe motorcycle-operating practices, including use of 

55The National Occupant Protection Use Survey is the only survey that provides 

probability-based data on helmet use by motorcycle drivers and passengers in the U.S. 

and is conducted annually by NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. The 

survey observes helmet use as it actually occurs at randomly selected roadway sites. See 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Traffic Safety Facts: Motorcycle Helmet 

Use in 2011—Overall Results (Washington, D.C.: 2012). 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

compliant helmets. State officials told us that these checkpoints combine 

education with enforcement. Officers distribute information about safety 

practices but enforce state laws if violations are found.56

Figure 6: Examples of Non-Compliant and DOT-Compliant Helmets

A challenge that 

law enforcement officers face in states with universal helmet laws is that it 

can be difficult to identify and cite riders wearing non-compliant helmets.

A Governors Highway Safety Association survey of state motorcycle 

programs found that in 2007, nine states with universal helmet laws 

provided training to law enforcement officers to help them identify noncompliant helmets.

Note: DOT-compliant helmets have an energy-absorbing layer between the comfort liner and outer 

shell and include a chin strap with sturdy rivets; furthermore, they generally weigh about 3 pounds.

Promoting voluntary helmet use. In states that have a partial helmet 

law or no helmet law, finding ways to encourage riders to wear helmets 

can be challenging. According to the NHTSA survey mentioned above, in 

 

56The use of checkpoints is controversial. Officials in some states told us that that they are 

prohibited from using checkpoints to enforce motorcycle laws.
 

Page 31 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

2011, use of DOT-compliant helmets was much lower in these states than 

in states with universal helmet laws: 50 percent versus 84 percent. 

Officials in some states try to promote helmet use through education. For 

example, officials in Iowa—a state with no helmet law—told us that they 

host an annual conference for motorcycle riders to discuss motorcycle 

safety issues. One of the recent conference themes was centered on the 

use of proper protective gear, including helmets. Officials in several other 

states, however, told us that there was such strong sentiment from 

motorcyclists in their state about their right to choose whether to wear a 

helmet that they do not promote helmet use.

We found, based on our review of studies, that the effectiveness of most 

of the strategies used by states in reducing motorcycle crashes and 

fatalities is unclear. Although helmet laws are controversial and some 

states have repealed their universal helmet laws in recent years, such 

laws are the only strategy proven, by a number of studies, to be effective 

in reducing motorcyclist fatalities. The effectiveness of most other 

strategies on reducing motorcycle crashes or fatalities is uncertain or 

unknown because evidence is limited, mixed, or not of a high quality.57 In 

identifying studies to include in our research review, we used selection 

criteria aimed at ensuring that we included only high quality studies that 

provided valid results.58

Some newer strategies and strategies that have been proven to be 

effective in addressing other highway safety issues, such as teen driver 

safety, may hold promise for improving motorcycle safety. However, while 

 

57NHTSA and the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies have also 

reported on limitations of existing research on motorcycle safety strategies. See National 

Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Countermeasures That Work, (2011) and David F. 

Preusser, Allan F. Williams, James L. Nichols, Julie Tison, and Neil K. Chaudhary, 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, 

NCHRP Report 622: Effectiveness of Behavioral Highway Safety Countermeasures, 

(Washington, D.C.: Transportation Research Board, 2008).

58We included studies that (1) were conducted in the U.S., (2) were peer-reviewed or 

prepared by or for federal or state agencies, (3) included an original analysis of data, 

using an experimental or quasi-experimental design, (4) addressed either motorcycle 

crashes or motorcycle fatalities as an outcome, and (5) were published in the last 10 

years. In some cases, older studies were included if more recent studies of a particular 

strategy were not available. We did not include strategies related to road infrastructure, 

emergency response, or vehicle safety. For further details on our methodology, see app. 

I.

Effectiveness of Most 

Strategies Used by States 

Is Unclear
 

Page 32 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

some of the states that we included in our review are trying innovative 

approaches, few of these states have conducted their own evaluations of 

these approaches. Some state officials noted that their state had not 

conducted evaluations of its motorcycle safety strategies because of 

resource constraints or the difficulty in carrying out such studies. Some 

state officials expressed concerns to us over gaps in knowledge about the 

effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies. Some noted that this 

knowledge gap makes it difficult to decide how to target safety resources 

given state budget constraints.

Licensing. Although licensing is an important component of a state’s 

motorcycle safety program and lack of a valid license by many 

motorcyclists is a problem, we found that limited research has been done 

on the effectiveness of specific types of licensing strategies on preventing 

motorcycle crashes or fatalities. Randomized controlled studies of 

Maryland’s and California’s efforts to increase motorcycle licensing by 

comparing vehicle registration and driver licensing files found that this 

method did increase the number of licensed motorcyclists in both states, 

but most (almost 90 percent) unlicensed motorcyclists remained 

unlicensed.59 Also, the strategy did not appear to have an effect on crash 

risk.60 We identified only one study that evaluated the effect of motorcycle 

licensing laws on motorcycle driver mortality in the United States. Results 

of this study, which covered the years 1997 through 1999, suggested that 

some stricter licensing requirements used by states, such as those that 

require a skill test for obtaining a permit, were associated with lower 

motorcyclist fatality rates compared to other states that did not have these 

requirements.61

 

59Braver et al, “Persuasion and licensure: A randomized controlled intervention trial to 

increase licensure rates among Maryland motorcycle owners,” Traffic Injury Prevention, 

Vol. 8, No. 1, 2007, pp. 39-46; Braver et al, Understanding and Addressing the Problem of 

Unlicensed Motorcycle Operators in Maryland (2007): and Limrick and Masten, 

Preliminary Evaluation of a Pilot Program to Increase Licensure Among Improperly 

Licensed California Motorcycle Drivers, (October 2011). 

NHTSA has noted in its 2011 Countermeasures That 

Work report, which summarizes current research on the effectiveness of 

various strategies for addressing major highway safety problems, that the 

60Limrick and Masten, Preliminary Evaluation, 2011.

61G. McGwin, J. Whatley, J. Metzger, F. Valent, F. Barbone, L.W. Rue. “The effect of state 

motorcycle licensing laws on motorcycle driver mortality rates,” Journal of Trauma, Injury, 

Infection, and Critical Care, Vol. 56, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 415–419. 

Strategies for Preventing 

Crashes 
 

Page 33 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

effectiveness of current licensing approaches on motorcycle crashes has 

not been evaluated.62

According to NHTSA’s Countermeasures that Work report, research has 

found that graduated licensing systems can be highly effective in reducing 

teen driver crashes and fatalities.63

Training. Although motorcycle training is important for teaching riding 

skills needed to operate a motorcycle safely and a number of 

stakeholders we interviewed cited lack of training or skills as a factor 

contributing to crashes, results of studies on the effectiveness of 

motorcycle training programs in reducing crashes and fatalities are

uncertain. For example, findings of a 2008 study that examined the 

effects of various alcohol and traffic policies—including mandatory rider 

education programs—on motorcycle safety in the continental U.S. from 

1990 to 2005 suggested that mandatory rider education programs were 

associated with a significant reduction in non-fatal injury rates, but did not 

find these programs to influence fatality rates.

Based on these results, NHTSA has 

identified graduated driver’s licensing as a promising strategy for 

motorcycle safety. Graduated driver’s licensing is a three-phase system 

for beginning drivers, consisting of a learner’s permit allowing driving only 

under supervision, an intermediate license allowing unsupervised driving 

with restrictions, and a full license. While 49 states have such systems in 

place for licensing to operate motor vehicles, according to NHTSA 

officials no state currently has such a system in place for licensing 

motorcyclists. 

64

 

62See NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work, 2011. 

A 2007 study of 

63See NHTSA, Countermeasures That Work, 2011. We have also reported that research 

has shown graduated licensing systems to be associated with improved teen driver safety. 

See GAO, Teen Driver Safety: Additional Research Could Help States Strengthen 

Graduated Driver Licensing Systems, GAO-10-544 (Washington, D.C: May 27, 2010).

64See M.T. French, G. Gumus, and J.F. Homer, Public policies and motorcycle safety. 

Journal of Health Economics, 28(2009) 831-838. Non-fatal injury data in this study are not 

available for all years from all states and are from different sources across states, and 

thus, results may be biased to the extent that the effect of these factors on measurement 

of injury rates is systematically correlated with policy changes over time. 
 

Page 34 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

motorcyclist training in Indiana65 and a 1998 study of such training in 

California66 both found that trained riders did not have lower crash rates 

than untrained riders. Various methodological limitations of evaluations, 

which we and others67 have reviewed, make it difficult to determine the 

effectiveness of training programs.68

NHTSA has also reported that based on existing research, the 

effectiveness of motorcycle training is uncertain. According to NHTSA 

officials, the reason why studies have not been able to link basic 

motorcyclist training with crash involvement may be because the training 

often teaches riders how to operate their vehicle; it does not necessarily 

produce the good judgment that would lead to safe riding behavior. Also, 

the officials pointed out that studies of teen drivers have found that some 

teens actively choose to drive in an unsafe manner, contrary to their 

driver education.

In addition, effectiveness of training 

can vary across states, and even within states.

69

Enforcing alcohol-impairment and speed-limit laws. Overall, there has 

been little research on the effectiveness of strategies focused on 

 

65P. Savolainen and F. Mannering, “Effectiveness of Motorcycle Training and 

Motorcyclists’ Risk-Taking Behavior,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the 

Transportation Research Board, No. 2031, (Washington, D.C., 2007), pp. 52–58. The 

study found that beginning motorcyclists who took a basic training course were more likely 

to be involved in a motorcycle crash than those who did not take the course. The authors 

offered possible explanations including that riders who take the course might be less 

skilled than those who do not, or their risk perception might change from taking the 

course, or that the course might be ineffective.

66J.W. Billheimer,” Evaluation of California Motorcyclist Safety Program,” Transportation 

Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, vol. 1640, 

Transportation Research Board (1998), pp. 100–109. The study found no significant 

differences in crash rates between trained and untrained riders 6 months, 1 year, and 2 

years after training. 

67See, for example, A. Daniello, H.C. Gable, and U.A. Mehta, “Effectiveness of Motorcycle 

Training and Licensing,” Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation 

Research Board, vol. 2140 (2009), 206-213; and J. Brock, A. Robinson, B. Robinson, and 

J. Percer, “Approaches to the Assessment of Entry-Level Motorcycle Training: An Expert 

Panel Discussion,” Traffic Safety Facts. DOT HS 811 242. 

68For example, evaluations have 1) not accounted for important differences between 

individuals who take motorcycle training and those who do not, 2) not accounted for other 

factors that may have affected crash rates, and 3) relied on self-reported data.

69We have previously reported that research on driver education has produced mixed 

results regarding its effectiveness in reducing crashes. See GAO-10-544. 
 

Page 35 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

enforcement of alcohol-impairment or speed-limit laws on motorcycle 

safety specifically. However, according to NHTSA’s report 

Countermeasures that Work, research has shown that enforcement and 

sanctions—such as sobriety checkpoints, extensive patrolling of certain 

locations for a set period of time, and impounding vehicles—are effective 

for reducing instances of impaired driving and crashes for motor vehicles 

generally. Also, automated enforcement—such as cameras that detect 

speeding and crossing red lights—has been shown to be effective in 

reducing crashes because of speeding and aggressive driving by all types 

of motor vehicles.70 We identified six studies on motorcycles that met our 

selection criteria and examined the association between different types of 

laws and sanctions related to impaired driving or speeding and 

motorcyclist fatalities.

71 These studies provided mixed levels of evidence 

on the effectiveness of these approaches. For example, findings from a 

2003 study of alcohol impairment laws suggest that these laws are 

associated with lower overall motorcycle fatality rates,72 but findings from 

another study did not show this association.73

 

70Specifically, according to NHTSA, summary reviews of research conclude that red-light 

cameras reduce side-impact crashes and overall crash severity, but increase rear-end 

crashes. The reduction of side-impact crashes (the target group of crashes and of higher 

severity) are slightly offset by increases in rear-end crashes (which are generally of lower 

severity), thus, red-light cameras were found to be more effective at intersections with a 

higher ratio of side-impact to rear-end crashes. National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, Countermeasures That Work, 2011.

An additional study 

examined the effect of state speed limits and found that speed limits on 

71Villaveces et al, “Association of alcohol-related laws with deaths due to motor vehicle 

and motorcycle crashes in the United States, 1980-1997,” American Journal of 

Epidemiology, 2003: French et al, “Public policies and motorcycle safety,” Journal of 

Health Economics, 2009; Houston and Richardson, “Motorcyclist fatality rates and 

mandatory helmet-use laws,” Accident Analysis & Prevention, 2008; Houston and 

Richardson. “Motorcycle safety and the repeal of universal helmet laws,” American 

Journal of Public Health, 2007; and Houston; “Are helmet laws protecting young 

motorcyclists?” Journal of Safety Research, 2007. The latter three studies by Houston use 

the same data over the same time period to examine the effect of universal helmet laws 

and other state policies on motorcyclist fatalities. These studies vary only in the type of 

analyses carried out, and in one case, the population examined (i.e., motorcyclists 15 to 

20 years of age).

72 Villaveces et al, “Association of alcohol-related laws”, 2003. 

73Houston and Richardson, “Are helmet laws protecting,” 2008.
 

Page 36 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

rural interstates were associated with lower rates of non-fatal motorcycle 

injuries.74

NHTSA’s Countermeasures That Work report states that some 

enforcement and sanction strategies to reduce alcohol-impaired driving 

may be especially effective for motorcyclists, while other strategies may 

be less effective. According to NHTSA officials, law enforcement activities 

for motorcycles are analogous to those for passenger vehicles, so high 

visibility enforcement, which has been shown to be effective for 

passenger vehicles, should work for motorcycles. High visibility 

enforcement combines intensive enforcement of a specific traffic safety 

law—such as using sobriety checkpoints to enforce the 0.08 BAC limit—

with extensive communication, education, and outreach informing the 

public about the enforcement activity. We have previously reported that 

high visibility enforcement campaigns have been found effective in 

reducing two primary risk behaviors—not using safety belts and impaired 

driving—associated with fatal vehicle crashes.75

Efforts to increase motorcyclist safety awareness and motorist 

awareness of motorcyclists. Our research review did not identify any 

studies of the effectiveness of strategies to increase motorcyclist safety 

awareness that met our selection criteria. We also did not identify any 

studies of the effectiveness of strategies to increase other driver 

awareness of motorcycles that met our criteria.

NHTSA has also noted 

that vehicle impoundment as a sanction for impaired driving is a 

promising strategy based on a study that showed that motorcyclists are 

highly concerned about the safety and security of their motorcycles.

76

 

74 French et al, “Public policies,” 2009.

NHTSA has also found, 

as noted in its Countermeasures That Work report, that these areas have 

not been evaluated. NHTSA officials told us that based on prior studies 

on efforts in other highway safety areas—such as efforts to increase seat 

belt use—to influence driver behavior through education alone, the 

75See GAO, Traffic Safety: Improved Reporting and Performance Measures Would 

Enhance Evaluation of High-Visibility Campaigns, GAO-08-477 (Washington, D.C: Apr. 

25, 2008).

76In 2011, NHTSA did sponsor several studies on the effect of daytime running lights on 

motorcycle conspicuity. See, for example, James Jenness et al, Motorcycle Conspicuity 

and the Effect of Auxiliary Forward Lighting, NHTSA (Washington, D.C.: 2011). However, 

since these studies dealt with enhancements to vehicles to improve safety, they were 

outside of our scope.
 

Page 37 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies using outreach and 

communications alone is likely to be low.

Helmet laws. In contrast to the lack of information on the impacts of 

strategies to prevent crashes, a number of studies have demonstrated 

that universal helmet laws are an effective strategy for mitigating the 

severity of crashes when they do occur. Such laws have been shown to 

be associated with lower motorcycle fatality rates. We identified nine 

studies that met our selection criteria and examined the association 

between motorcycle helmet laws and motorcyclist fatalities. All nine 

studies provided evidence that universal helmet laws significantly 

decrease the rate of motorcyclist fatalities,

77

• One nationwide study for 1975-2004 found that universal helmet laws 

were associated with at least a 22 percent reduction in motorcyclist 

fatalities.

for example:

78

• A study, using data from the 48 contiguous states for 1988 to 2005, 

found that state laws mandating helmets reduced fatalities by 27 

percent.79

Research has also shown universal helmet-use laws to effectively 

increase the rate of helmet use among motorcyclists. In states without 

universal use helmet laws or where such laws were repealed, helmet use 

rates were lower than in states with universal helmet-use laws. Studies 

 

77 M.T. French, G. Gumus, J.F. Homer, “Public policies and motorcycle safety,” Journal of 

Health Economics. 28(2009); D.J. Houston and L.E. Richardson. “Motorcycle Safety and 

the Repeal of Universal Helmet Laws,” American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 97, No.11. 

2007; D.J. Houston. “Are helmet laws protecting young motorcyclists?” Journal of Safety 

Research. 38(2007); T.M. Pickrell and M. Starnes. “An Analysis of Motorcycle Helmet 

Use in Fatal Crashes,” National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Technical Report. 

DOT HS 811 011. (August 2008); C.C. Morris. “Generalized linear regression analysis of 

association of universal helmet laws with motorcyclist fatality rates,” Accident Analysis and 

Prevention.38(2006); G. McGwin, et al, “The Effect of State Motorcycle Licensing Laws 

on Motorcycle Driver Mortality Rates,” The Journal of Trauma Injury, Infection, and Critical 

Care. 56(2004); A. Villaveces et al, 2003: D.J. Houston and L.E. Richardson, 

“Motorcyclist fatality rates and mandatory helmet-use laws,” Accident Analysis and 

Prevention. 40(2008); and T.S. Dee, “Motorcycle helmets and traffic safety,” Journal of 

Health Economics. 28(2009) 398-412. 

78D.J. Houston and L.E. Richardson, “Motorcyclist fatality rates and mandatory helmet-use 

laws,” Accident Analysis and Prevention. 40 (2008). 

79T.S. Dee, “Motorcycle helmets and traffic safety,” Journal of Health Economics. 28

(2009) 398-412.

Strategies for Reducing the 

Severity of Crashes 
 

Page 38 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

we reviewed of observed helmet use rates in four states that repealed 

their universal helmet laws estimated helmet use of 90 percent or higher 

when helmet-use laws were in effect, compared to 66 percent or lower 

following the repeals.

Enforcing Use of DOT-Compliant Helmets and Promoting Voluntary 

Helmet Use. We did not identify any studies of the effectiveness of 

enforcement efforts aimed at increasing the use of compliant helmets or 

of programs to promote motorcycle helmet use in states without universal 

helmet laws. NHTSA has also noted in its Countermeasures That Work

report that these strategies have not been evaluated.

Sound evaluations of motorcycle safety strategies are challenging to carry 

out, a situation that may help explain why research on some strategies 

has been limited and why results of some studies have been mixed or 

uncertain. NHTSA officials told us that evaluating the effects on crashes 

and fatalities of strategies other than helmet laws has been challenging, 

particularly since there are fewer motorcycles than passenger cars or 

trucks. Also, the complexity of the relationship between various factors 

and existing strategies that may affect crashes and fatalities makes it 

difficult to isolate the effects of a single strategy. Although limited 

evidence exists on the effectiveness of particular strategies states are 

using for addressing motorcycle safety and the results of studies are 

sometimes mixed or uncertain, the use of a range of strategies is 

important. As we discuss in the next section, major studies on motorcycle 

safety issues and NHTSA have emphasized that states should approach 

motorcycle safety with a comprehensive range of strategies to address 

the various factors that contribute to crashes and fatalities.80

 

80See, in particular, Motorcycle Safety Foundation and National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration, National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (2000); Transportation Research 

Board/National Cooperative Highway Research Program, NCHRP Report 500: Volume 

22: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles (2008); U.S. Department of 

Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Uniform Guidelines for 

State Highway Safety Programs: Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 3- Motorcycle 

Safety. Washington, D.C. (2006).
 

Page 39 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

NHTSA has provided guidance, outreach, and training to help states 

improve their motorcycle safety programs. Although NHTSA provides 

grants for states to use for these programs, Congress imposed limits on 

the grants, allowing states to use them only for motorcyclist-training and 

motorist-awareness activities. NHTSA has also conducted research on 

motorcycle safety strategies, but has not researched or developed plans 

to research certain strategies that it has identified as promising or a high 

priority for improving motorcycle safety.

NHTSA has provided states with a variety of guidance, including written 

guidelines and technical assistance that identifies and promotes 

strategies states can use to address the key factors contributing to 

crashes and fatalities. In particular, NHTSA’s 2011 Countermeasures 

That Work report, discussed previously, provides states with information 

on various highway safety strategies available to them—including 

motorcycle safety strategies—and what is known about the effectiveness 

of these strategies. NHTSA intends this information to help states select 

safety strategies that have been proved effective through research or that 

have shown promise.81

• Issued guidelines for state highway safety programs that recommend 

that states adopt a comprehensive approach to addressing 

motorcycle safety.

In addition, NHTSA has:

82 Strategies that the guidance encourages include 

those discussed in our report. Conducted assessments of individual 

state safety programs based on these guidelines, at the request of 

individual states.83

• Developed model standards for states and curriculum developers to 

incorporate into motorcycle training courses.

• Developed guidelines for states regarding motorcyclist licensing, in 

cooperation with the American Association of Motor Vehicle 

 

81National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Countermeasures that Work, 2011. 

82National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Uniform Guidelines for State Highway 

Safety Programs: Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 3- Motorcycle Safety (2006). 

83Since 2006, 15 states have had these assessments conducted. 

NHTSA Supports 

States’ Motorcycle 

Safety Programs, but 

Funding Flexibility 

and New Research 

Priorities Would 

Enhance Efforts

NHTSA Has Provided 

Guidance, Outreach, and 

Training to States
 

Page 40 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Administrators,84

• Conducted campaigns on motorist awareness and impaired-riding 

prevention that make available marketing materials, such as radio 

advertisements and posters that states can use in their motorcycle 

safety programs.

and is working with the association to revise a 

manual that states can provide to motorcyclists receiving their 

licenses.

NHTSA also partnered with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation and others 

to produce a key report, the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, in 

2000 and has produced subsequent guidance based on this report.85 The 

report contained 82 recommendations aimed at improving motorcycle 

safety, about half of which applied to states and communities.86 In 2006, 

NHTSA produced a guide to provide states with specific steps for 

implementing the recommendations that applied to the state.87 NHTSA is 

currently updating this guide. In 2010, in response to a National 

Transportation Safety Board 2007 recommendation, NHTSA prioritized 

the recommendations based on impact, cost, time, and obstacles and 

produced a set of 22 high priority recommendations, including 10 aimed 

at states and communities. The agency is in the process of developing an 

action plan for states based on these 10 recommendations.88

 

84National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, A Guideline Document for Motor Vehicle 

Administrators On Motorcycle Operator Licensing (2009). 

85Transportation Research Board/National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 

National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety (2000).

86The other recommendations were made to national agencies, such as NHTSA, and 

organizations. These recommendations addressed research, program evaluation, data 

collection, regulation, motorcycle design and manufacture, and motorcycle operator 

insurance.

87U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. DOT 

HS 810 680. Implementation Guide: National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety. Washington, 

D.C (2006).

88The 10 recommendations, in order of priority, are to 1) use effective strategies to 

increase use of DOT-compliant helmets; 2) educate police and judges on motorcycle 

safety issues; 3) educate police on alcohol-related behavior of motorcyclists; 4) 

discourage mixing alcohol or other drugs with motorcycling; 5) provide training to all who 

need or seek it; 6) provide additional education/training on proper braking techniques; 7) 

merge rider education/training and licensing into one-stop operations; 8) encourage states 

to issue motorcycle endorsements immediately upon course completion; 9) encourage 

motorcyclists to increase conspicuity; and 10) communicate helmet use benefits and work 

toward greater voluntary use of DOT-compliant helmets. 
 

Page 41 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

In addition to guidance, NHTSA has provided outreach to states.

According to NHTSA officials, staff in NHTSA’s regions work with the 

states daily, helping them to identify highway safety problems and 

countermeasures, such as enforcing individual state laws or finding ways 

to increase helmet use. However, according to NHTSA officials, some 

motorcyclist advocacy groups have been critical when NHTSA has 

promoted helmet use. NHTSA regional officials told us that they do not 

actively seek the passage of universal helmet laws by states, but they do 

appear before state legislatures to discuss the benefits of helmet use, 

when invited to speak.89

Finally, NHTSA has provided motorcycle safety-related training courses 

for state officials and law enforcement agencies. One such course is for 

state highway safety staff responsible for setting up and managing state 

motorcycle-safety programs. This course is currently available 

electronically and, according to state officials, has provided insights and 

tools to help them better understand their responsibilities. NHTSA also 

developed and provided training on motorcycle safety for instructors at 

law enforcement training academies in 2011 and 2012. State law 

enforcement officials stated that this training helped educate law 

enforcement personnel on motorcycle safety and their role in reducing 

motorcycle crashes. NHTSA expects to deliver the law enforcement 

training electronically in fiscal year 2013 to increase its availability to law 

enforcement personnel.

Some NHTSA regions have collaborated on 

motorcycle safety conferences. For example, in 2010, three regions held 

a conference for their states to discuss motorcycle safety issues.

Additionally, NHTSA regional officials we met with told us that they 

periodically hold conference calls or meet with states in their respective 

regions to discuss motorcycle safety issues and share information.

In general, state and local officials told us that they were satisfied with the 

assistance they receive from NHTSA. Officials we interviewed in 11 of the 

16 states we covered noted that NHTSA efforts—including guidance, 

outreach, and training—were helpful.

 

89DOT, like all federal agencies, is prohibited from lobbying using appropriated funds 

without express congressional authorization. In addition, under 23 U.S.C. § 402(c), no 

state highway safety program may be approved by the Secretary if it requires the state to

adopt or enforce adult safety helmet requirements. 
 

Page 42 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Although NHTSA provides funding to states through the Motorcyclist 

Safety Grant Program, the funding can only be used for limited purposes. 

As noted previously, this program, established under SAFETEA-LU, 

provides grants to states that can be used to support (1) motorcyclist 

training and (2) motorist awareness efforts. Specifically, states can use 

grant program funds to improve training curricula, deliver training, and 

recruit or retain motorcycle safety instructors, as well as for public 

awareness and outreach programs to improve motorist awareness. The 

new surface transportation legislation, MAP-21, continued the program 

with similar requirements, but at a reduced annual amount. States were 

awarded a total of $45.9 million from fiscal years 2006 through 2012, 

including $7 million in both fiscal years 2011 and 2012.

90

To pursue strategies other than motorcyclist training and motorist 

awareness, states can use other sources of funding, including other 

federal grants. In particular, states have used some State and Community 

Highway Safety Grant Program funds for motorcycle safety efforts and, as 

noted previously, may continue to do so under MAP-21.

The funding 

awarded to individual states during these fiscal years ranged from 

$100,000 to just over $500,000, although most states were awarded from 

$100,000 to $200,000. Under MAP-21, the total grant amount exclusively 

authorized for motorcycle safety has been reduced by almost 50 percent, 

to roughly $4 million annually.

91

 

90Originally, $25 million was authorized under SAFETEA-LU through fiscal year 2009. 

MAP-21 eliminated individual safety grant programs, including motorcycle safety, and 

incorporated them together under an overall highway safety program, as National Priority 

Safety Grants, at 23 U.S.C. § 405. Section 405 provides for a series of grants that are 

similar to other preexisting individual grant programs. The amounts an individual state 

received under SAFETEA-LU and that they will receive under MAP-21 are determined by 

formula and cannot exceed 25 percent of the amount a state receives under the State and 

Community Highway Safety grant program.

According to 

NHTSA funding data, however, states used a small portion of this grant 

funding—about $16.5 million of the total of $1.13 billion states received 

(about 1.5 percent)—on motorcycle safety efforts from fiscal years 2006 

91See 23 U.S.C. § 402, discussed in footnote 13.

NHTSA’s Motorcyclist 

Safety Grants May Only Be 

Used for Training and 

Motorist Awareness 

Strategies
 

Page 43 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

through 2011.92

States may also use state funding to pursue motorcycle safety strategies 

although this funding can also be limited. Officials in eight states told us 

that state resource constraints limit the ability to fund motorcycle safety 

activities in their states. Additionally, officials in two NHTSA regional 

offices as well as a highway safety association and an association 

representing state motorcycle-safety agencies told us that limited state 

funding for motorcycle safety efforts is a problem. In particular, they noted 

that obtaining funding for enforcement efforts is challenging for states.

Some states do have dedicated funding available for motorcycle safety; 

however, much of this funding is devoted to training. State officials in 13 

of the states that we included in our review told us that their motorcycle 

safety programs receive funding from fees for motorcycle-related 

registration or licensing, training, or penalties. For example, according to 

officials in Florida, New Hampshire, and Utah, amounts ranging from $1 

to $5 from each motorcycle registration are directed toward training 

programs as well as other motorcycle safety purposes.

Officials in five states told us that they are reluctant to 

use State and Community Highway Safety Grant funding within their state 

for motorcycle safety efforts because allocating such funding for 

motorcycle safety would reduce the amount available for their state’s 

other highway safety program priorities, such as teen driver safety, 

aggressive and distracted driving, and safety belt enforcement. Officials in 

two states noted that competition for the use of these grant funds is 

rigorous; consequently officials would prefer not to use the moneys to 

fund some desired motorcycle safety activities, such as training police 

officers on motorcycle safety issues. Officials in another state indicated 

that although they do use these grant funds for motorcycle-related 

enforcement, they must prioritize their limited resources and cannot 

provide this funding at the level they believe is needed. Officials in one 

state said the state has elected not to use State and Community Highway 

Safety Grant funding for programs specifically targeted to motorcyclists.

 

92States have also used other NHTSA grant programs for motorcycle safety, such as the 

Safety Belt Grant Program and the Impaired Driving Program, but to a lesser extent. 

Based on NHTSA’s funding data, states used about $800,000 of the safety belt grant 

funds on motorcycle safety from fiscal years 2006 to 2011. States with a primary safety 

belt law received this funding, which could be used for any other highway safety effort, 

including motorcycle safety. NHTSA’s grant system does not track how states spend 

Impaired Driving Program funding but, according to NHTSA officials, the amounts used for 

motorcycle safety are likely even smaller. Under MAP-21, states may also continue to use 

certain non-motorcycle grant funds for motorcycle safety.
 

Page 44 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

The limitations on spending Motorcyclist Safety Grant funds affect states’ 

ability to pursue a range of strategies or try new approaches to 

motorcycle safety. GAO has reported on the potential benefits of allowing 

states more flexibility in using NHTSA’s safety incentive grant programs.

Specifically, we reported that the structure of highway safety grants since 

SAFETEA-LU did not always allow states sufficient flexibility to direct 

funding toward safety priorities as identified in highway safety plans.93 We 

also reported that flexibility could become a key issue in the future as 

emerging issues become more critical.94

Furthermore, as previously noted, major studies on motorcycle safety 

issues as well as NHTSA have identified the need for states to approach 

motorcycle safety with a comprehensive range of strategies. In particular, 

the highest-priority recommendations of the National Agenda for 

Motorcycle Safety recently identified by NHTSA recommend a range of 

strategies states should pursue to improve motorcycle safety. These 

recommendations include

• using effective strategies to increase use of DOT-compliant helmets,

• improving motorcyclist training and licensing,

• educating police about motorcycle safety issues in order to strengthen 

enforcement,

• increasing the safety awareness of motorcyclists (including 

discouraging them from mixing alcohol and other drugs with 

motorcycling and encouraging them to increase conspicuity), and

• promoting voluntary helmet use.

Guidelines for states on addressing motorcycle safety prepared by 

NHTSA and the Transportation Research Board also recommend various 

strategies to address motorcycle safety.95

 

93 GAO, Traffic Safety: Grants Generally Address Key Safety Issues, Despite State 

Eligibility and Management Difficulties, 

Additionally, both the National 

GAO-08-398 (Washington, D.C.: March 2008).

94GAO, Traffic Safety Programs: Progress, States’ Challenges, and Issues for 

Reauthorization, GAO-08-990T (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2008).

95National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Uniform Guidelines for State Highway 

Safety Programs: Highway Safety Program Guideline No. 3- Motorcycle Safety (2006); 

and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Countermeasures That Work, 2011; 

Transportation Research Board/National Cooperative Highway Research Program, 

NCHRP Report 500: Volume 22: A Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles 

(2008). 
 

Page 45 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Transportation Safety Board and CDC have highlighted increasing the 

use of DOT-compliant helmets as a high priority for saving lives on the 

nation’s highways.96

The restrictions in how states can use their motorcyclist safety grants may 

impede states’ ability to fund some motorcycle safety activities they 

believe are needed. In fiscal year 2013 budget estimates, NHTSA 

proposed amending the Motorcyclist Safety Grant Program to provide 

states additional flexibility. Specifically, NHTSA proposed amending the 

program so that states could use these funds to promote the use of DOTcompliant motorcycle helmets, increase efforts to reduce impaired riding, 

and reduce the number of improperly licensed motorcyclists. According to 

a NHTSA official, expanding the possible uses for the grants would allow 

states to develop and implement additional countermeasures specific to 

the motorcycle safety-related problems in their states. Officials we 

interviewed in 14 of the 16 states said that the grant program is too 

restrictive. State officials cited a variety of activities that they would 

enhance or undertake in order to improve motorcycle safety in their state 

if they could use the grant funding for those purposes. These include 

activities related to enforcement as well as alcohol impairment, training 

law enforcement officers, increasing safety awareness through outreach 

to motorcyclists,97

 

96National Transportation Safety Board, NTSB Most Wanted List: Critical Changes Needed 

to Save Lives (2011); U. S Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for 

Disease Control, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Motorcycle Safety, 

How to Save Lives and Save Money, (Atlanta, GA). CDC’s report emphasizes universal 

helmet laws as the only approach proven to be effective in reducing motorcycle fatalities.

enforcing the use of compliant helmets, and promoting 

voluntary helmet use. One state with a universal helmet law explained 

that the state needs more funding to train police officers about motorcycle 

safety issues, especially how to work with motorcyclists to increase safety 

awareness or how to recognize non-compliant helmets. According to a 

highway safety association official, each state’s motorcycle safety efforts 

would benefit greatly from convening a summit of stakeholders to develop 

a state strategic plan for motorcycle safety, but funding for such an 

activity is generally not available.

97The types of motorcyclist outreach efforts envisioned by state officials included those 

emphasizing the importance of riding unimpaired and of wearing safety gear and 

conspicuous clothing, accomplished through various mechanisms such as conferences, 

bumper stickers, or public service announcements. 
 

Page 46 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

NHTSA has conducted motorcycle safety research on various topics and 

has used the results to provide states and others with information on 

factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities, the 

effectiveness of existing strategies, and new strategies that may have 

potential to improve motorcycle safety. Funding allocated to motorcycle 

safety research from fiscal years 2007 to 2012 totaled $7.3 million, of 

which $2.5 million was for research conducted in fiscal year 2012.98

Some of NHTSA’s research addresses the factors that contribute to 

motorcycle crashes and fatalities. In fiscal years 2008 through 2011, 

NHTSA’s research on factors included studies on the effects of alcohol on 

motorcycle-riding skills and on motorcycle rider braking control behavior, 

among other topics. One study currently under way—the Instrumented 

On-Road Study of Motorcycle Riders—will use instrumentation mounted 

on motorcycles to record information about motorcyclists’ riding 

behaviors, such as acceleration, position in lane, and braking. According 

to NHTSA officials, participants will also provide information about their 

attitudes, personality, and risk-taking behaviors before the 

instrumentation is installed. According to NHTSA officials, this study could 

result in a broad range of findings that could provide additional 

information on factors that could contribute to motorcycle crashes and 

fatalities and possibly identify improvements needed in strategies, such 

as training, rider conspicuity, road infrastructure, or the design of 

motorcycles. NHTSA also plans to use this information to determine 

relationships between riders’ attitudes and crash involvement as well as 

other riding behaviors. NHTSA expects to complete this study in the fall of 

2015.

Conducting research is part of NHTSA’s overall mission. According to 

NHTSA officials, states do not have sufficient resources to evaluate the 

strategies they are using and expecting them to do so is not realistic.

Other NHTSA research focuses on strategies that states currently use or 

on new strategies being considered. In fiscal years 2008 through 2011, 

NHTSA’s research on strategies included a study on youth motorcyclerelated brain injury by helmet law type, an expert panel on evaluating 

motorcycle training and a demonstration program to educate 

motorcyclists about the dangers associated with operating a motorcycle 

 

98These funds came out of NHTSA’s behavioral safety research budget, which totaled $9.9 

million in fiscal year 2012.

NHTSA Has Conducted 

Some Studies on 

Motorcycle Safety 

Strategies, but Gaps Exist
 

Page 47 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

while under the influence of alcohol.

99 NHTSA’s research on strategies in 

fiscal year 2012 could help to address some of the current limitations in 

knowledge, discussed previously, about the effectiveness of motorcycle 

safety strategies that states have used or could use. This research 

emphasized identifying ways to improve law enforcement efforts, training, 

licensing, and promotion of helmet use (see table 3). According to 

NHTSA officials, this research should produce new information about the 

effectiveness of high visibility enforcement, which NHTSA has identified 

as a promising strategy. It should also produce new information on an 

innovative method to increase licensing among motorcyclists that 

includes outreach to law enforcement and the motorcyclist community. 

Additionally, NHTSA’s research should provide information that may lead 

to improvements in training for motorcyclists. Finally, NHTSA recently 

initiated a research project to determine whether there are states without 

universal helmet-use laws that have higher helmet-use rates than other 

states without such laws and to identify factors and programs that may be 

related to higher helmet use in these states. Such information could help 

identify ways to promote voluntary use of helmets in the 31 states that do 

not have universal helmet laws.

 

99NHTSA also funded several studies on the effects of daytime running lights (on both 

motorcycles and motor vehicles) on motorcycle conspicuity. These focused on vehiclebased strategies rather than strategies that could be implemented by states. 
 

Page 48 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Table 3: NHTSA Research and Development on Strategies to Improve Motorcycle Safety, Fiscal Year 2012 

Title

Actual or planned 

completion Type of strategy studied

Motorcycle High Visibility Enforcement Demonstrations 

(Partnership with Georgia State Patrol)

Spring 2013 Law enforcement related to alcohol 

impairment, licensing, and use of DOTcompliant helmets 

Study to Improve Crash Avoidance Skills Winter 2013 a Training

Effect of Sight Distance Training on Motorcycle Skills Winter 2013 Training 

Examination of Washington State’s Vehicle Impoundment 

Law for Motorcycle Endorsements

Winter 2013 Law enforcement related to licensing

Examine the Puerto Rico .02 BAC for Motorcycle Riders Winter 2013b Law enforcement related to alcohol 

impairment

 

Examination of the Feasibility of Alcohol Interlocks for 

Motorcycles

Fall 2013 Law enforcement related to alcohol 

impairment

Demonstration to Increase the Number of Properly 

Endorsed Motorcyclists (Partnership with Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts)

Fall 2013 Licensing

High Visibility Impaired Riding Crackdown Demonstration in 

Four States

Fall 2013 Law enforcement related to alcohol 

impairment

Study on Influential Factors for Helmet Usage in States 

Without Universal Helmet Laws

Uncertain Promotion of voluntary helmet use c

The Effect of Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider Training on 

Motorcycle Crashes

Spring 2015 Training

Source: GAO analysis of NHTSA information,

a

This study is evaluating the impacts of motorcyclist training over time to assess its effectiveness.

b

According to NHTSA officials, this study has been completed ,but insufficient data were available to 

draw meaningful conclusions from the analysis. Consequently, NHTSA does not plan to issue a 

report.

c

This research could increase knowledge about which motorcycle safety 

strategies would be effective or promising for states to use. However, 

NHTSA has not researched two strategies it has identified as a high 

priority or promising. In particular, NHTSA has not researched how to 

encourage motorcyclists to increase their conspicuity to motorists. The 

agency has identified this strategy as a high priority, based on its recent 

assessment of the recommendations of the National Agenda for 

Motorcycle Safety. Furthermore, among the high priority National Agenda 

for Motorcycle Safety recommendations identified by NHTSA is a 

recommendation for the federal government to develop and evaluate a 

According to NHTSA officials, the estimated completion date for this project is uncertain at this time 

because of the nature of the project and could range from Spring 2013 through Fall 2015.
 

Page 49 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

graduated-licensing model for motorcyclists. Although NHTSA and the 

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators have developed 

such a model,100

NHTSA officials pointed out that the agency’s highway safety research 

budget is limited, and the agency must prioritize its investments in 

research. According to NHTSA officials, they have prioritized their 

research efforts based on problems identified through crash data and the 

factors on which the agency can have the most impact. The officials 

explained that they have not studied how to increase motorcyclists’ safety 

awareness, including encouraging riders to increase their conspicuity,

because experience in other highway safety areas has shown the 

effectiveness of public education alone, without enforcement, to be low.

an evaluation of the model has not been performed. As 

noted previously, NHTSA considers graduated licensing a promising 

strategy for improving motorcycle safety.

101

Nevertheless, in the report on its prioritization of the National Agenda for 

Motorcycle Safety recommendations, the agency reported that efforts to 

increase motorcyclist conspicuity could have an impact if they were wellresearched and supported by rider groups.102

As previously noted, some states have expressed concerns about gaps in 

knowledge regarding the effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies 

and have noted that these gaps make it difficult to decide how to target 

NHTSA officials also 

explained that they have not evaluated a model graduated-licensing 

system for motorcyclists because no states are currently using the 

approach the officials have proposed. They noted that they are 

considering the possibility of conducting a demonstration project to 

evaluate such a model-licensing system, but would need to identify a 

state that would be willing to participate.

 

100See National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, A Guideline Document for Motor 

Vehicle Administrators On Motorcycle Operator Licensing, 2009.

101Officials also explained that NHTSA has not researched motorist awareness strategies 

for similar reasons. 

102National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Prioritize Recommendations of the 

National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety, Final Report (2010). NHTSA determined the 

potential impact of motorist awareness campaigns in addressing the problem of multivehicle motorcycle crashes to be lower than that of increasing motorcyclist conspicuity, 

noting that such campaigns share many characteristics of traffic safety communications 

campaigns that have been found to be ineffective. In particular, they promote a passive 

message (“be aware”) rather than focus on changing behaviors. 
 

Page 50 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

constrained resources. While helmet laws have been proved effective in 

reducing motorcyclist fatalities and NHTSA’s current research could help 

to broaden the range of strategies that are shown to be effective, further 

research on high priority strategies or promising strategies that have been 

proved successful in other highway safety areas could help states make 

more informed choices as they make decisions about what motorcycle 

safety strategies to pursue.

NHTSA does not have a current comprehensive plan for motorcycle 

safety to guide its research efforts in this area. In 2007, DOT issued a 

plan to reduce motorcyclist fatalities that identified research NHTSA had 

under way as well as research that it planned to conduct in the future.

According to NHTSA officials, the 2007 plan is still relevant as they are 

working on items identified in that plan. They do, however, intend to begin 

developing a new plan for motorcycle safety in spring 2013. According to 

NHTSA officials, this plan will cover a range of NHTSA initiatives, 

including research on motorcycle safety strategies, but NHTSA officials 

have not yet decided what types of research to include. Given NHTSA’s 

limited resources for research, developing and publishing a new plan 

provides an opportunity for NHTSA to identify research priorities for 

motorcycle safety, based on gaps in knowledge about the effectiveness of 

motorcycle safety strategies and the types of strategies that have been 

identified as high priorities. NHTSA officials agreed that the new plan 

provided this opportunity.

Motorcycle crashes can result not only in serious injuries or death but 

also can impose significant costs that are borne by the victims and their 

families as well as by society, including the government, employers, 

private insurers, and healthcare providers. While universal helmet laws 

are the only strategy proved to be effective in reducing motorcyclist 

fatalities, such laws can be controversial and it is uncertain whether the 

number of states with such laws, currently 19, will increase or decrease in 

the future. It is important that states approach motorcycle safety in a 

comprehensive manner, in order to address the various factors that 

contribute to crashes as well as fatalities. By providing states with greater 

flexibility in how they can use their Motorcyclist Safety Grants, Congress 

could increase states’ ability to pursue the combination of strategies 

states believe is needed to prevent crashes and reduce fatalities. 

Furthermore, the gaps in knowledge about the effectiveness of various 

types of strategies other than universal helmet laws impede states’ ability 

to make informed decisions about what combination of strategies to 

pursue with their limited resources. NHTSA has researched a variety of 

Conclusions 
 

Page 51 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

motorcycle safety strategies. Given its limited funding for research, 

however, NHTSA could better fulfill its role as a leader in identifying 

strategies states can use to address motorcycle safety by reexamining its 

research priorities in light of the factors that contribute to crashes and 

fatalities and gaps in knowledge regarding motorcycle safety strategies. 

In particular, by focusing on researching high priority and promising 

strategies that it has identified, NHTSA could better assist states in 

targeting their resources and prioritizing their efforts to improve 

motorcycle safety.

In order to provide states with greater flexibility to pursue a range of 

strategies to address the various factors contributing to motorcycle 

crashes and fatalities, Congress should consider allowing states to use 

the Motorcyclist Safety Grants for purposes beyond motorcyclist training 

and raising motorist awareness of motorcycles.

To provide the states with information that could better enable them to 

effectively address the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and 

fatalities, NHTSA should

• as part of its expected comprehensive plan for motorcycle safety, 

identify research priorities that address these factors as well as gaps 

in knowledge about the effectiveness of state strategies, particularly 

those that it has identified as a high priority or promising.

• in addition to setting these research priorities, conduct research on 

the following strategies that it has identified as a high priority or 

promising:

• encouraging motorcyclists to increase their conspicuity, and

• implementing a graduated-licensing model for motorcyclists.

We provided a draft of this report to DOT for review and comment. DOT 

officials agreed to consider our recommendations and provided technical 

comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. DOT also noted that, 

while additional research focus by NHTSA on motorcycle safety 

strategies may be useful in the future, state universal helmet laws are the 

one strategy that has been proved to be effective in saving lives, as 

stated in our report.

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration 

Recommendations 

Agency Comments
 

Page 52 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Transportation. In addition, this report 

will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to 

this report are listed in appendix II.

Susan Fleming

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 53 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

This report addresses: 1) what is known about the costs of motorcycle 

crashes; 2) the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes, and to 

fatalities when crashes occur, and strategies states are pursuing to 

address these factors; and 3) the extent to which NHTSA assists states in 

pursuing strategies that address these factors.

To determine what is known about the costs of motorcycle crashes we 

reviewed research related to the costs of these crashes, including the 

amount and types of costs they impose and who pays them. We included 

studies authored or provided to us by federal and state agencies and 

independent research organizations that we interviewed and other 

relevant studies on this topic published in the last 10 years. In some 

cases, we also included studies published more than 10 years ago when 

there was limited or no research about that topic in the last 10 years. 

Because existing estimates were either for vehicles as a whole or only 

covered specific types of motorcycle crash costs, we developed an 

estimate of the total direct measureable costs specifically for motorcycle 

crashes in 2010. To arrive at this estimate, we used data developed in a 

2002 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) study, 

which provided estimates of direct measurable costs of all motor vehicle 

crashes in 2000 for each of nine cost categories across various levels of 

crash severity.1

Specifically, to develop our 2010 motorcycle safety cost estimate, we first 

updated NHTSA’s 2000 cost estimates for all motor vehicles to 2010 

values by adjusting for inflation using the Bureau of Labor and Statistics’ 

These categories include medical costs, costs associated 

with emergency services, loss in market productivity and household 

productivity, insurance administration, legal, travel delay, property 

damage, and workplace costs. We reviewed NHTSA’s methodology for 

calculating costs and decided to use NHTSA’s cost estimates for our 

purposes because they provide the most detailed estimates of crash 

costs using the most comprehensive data and are used by the Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and others to develop and 

report on crash costs.

 

1

L. Blincoe et al, The Economic Impact of Motor Vehicle Crashes, 2000 (Washington, 

D.C.: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 2002).

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 54 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

consumer price index.2 Subsequently, to estimate the costs attributable 

solely to motorcycle crashes, we applied these updated motor vehicle 

crash cost estimates to NHTSA’s 2010 data on motorcycle crashes. We 

obtained the number of fatal motorcycle crashes from NHTSA’s Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System (FARS) dataset and obtained the number of 

property-damage-only crashes and other non-fatal crashes from NHTSA’s 

General Estimates System data.3 To estimate the number of non-fatal 

crashes by injury severity, we constructed an injury profile of these nonfatal crashes based on findings from NHTSA’s 2009 report on helmet use 

and head and facial injuries;4 the constructed injury profile from that 

report contains the proportion of non-fatal crashes in various injury 

severity categories for non-fatal crashes, based on the maximum 

abbreviated injury scale.5

 

2

This estimate inflates the medical costs estimated in the 2002 study by the general 

consumer price index rather than the one for medical costs. According to researchers in 

NHTSA and the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation who have conducted 

analyses of crash costs, even though the medical costs in general have risen faster than 

the consumer price index, due to both improvements in injury management and data 

collection, the medical costs for crashes have likely not risen as fast as the economy-wide 

rise in medical costs. Therefore, for our primary analysis, we use the general consumer 

price index to adjust the 2000 costs estimates to 2010 levels. However, one researcher

told us that the same dollar figure used in 2000 may be the best representation of medical 

costs for these crashes today—that is, without any adjustment for inflation. 

This allowed us to estimate the number of nonfatal crashes by level of injury severity in 2010. The number of fatal 

motorcycle crashes, property-damage crashes and non-fatal crashes by 

injury severity were multiplied by their specific average per-person costs 

(in 2010 dollars), and aggregated to yield the total direct measureable 

cost of motorcycle crashes. To check for consistency, we compared 

various components of costs that are also covered in other existing 

estimates identified in our literature review as these estimates might apply 

to some specific costs such as medical costs. We also adjusted for the 

time periods under consideration because these existing estimates might 

be based on data from time periods different from ours.

3

NHTSA’s General Estimates System is part of its National Automotive Sampling System 

database. The data comes from a nationally representative sample of police-reported

motor vehicle crashes of all types, from minor to fatal.

4

NHTSA (2009), Motorcycle Helmet Use and Head and Facial Injuries: Crash Outcomes 

in CODES-Linked Data. The report evaluated combined data from 18 states on 89,086 

motorcycle crashes and 104,472 motorcyclists between 2003 and 2005.

5

The maximum abbreviated injury score represents the maximum injury severity level 

experienced by the victim and ranges from 0, for no injury, to 5, for critical injury.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 55 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Our cost analysis uses the following assumptions and has the following 

limitations:

• We assumed that the injury profile of motorcyclists did not change for 

non-fatal crashes from the 2003–05 period to 2010.

• We assumed the average severity of a particular injury category 

based on the maximum abbreviated injury scale score is the same for 

both motorcyclists and other motor vehicle crash victims. However, 

motorcycle crash victims often suffer very different injuries from other 

motor vehicle crash victims. As a result, the consequence and 

treatment costs could vary significantly even if the resulting injuries 

had the same score6

• The abbreviated injury scale scores used in the NHTSA report are not 

always accurate predictors of long-term injury outcomes. Some 

injuries with low scores, such as lower extremity injuries, can actually 

result in serious and expensive long-term outcomes.

• The analysis also implicitly assumes that the distribution of costs 

across the category types stayed constant from 2002 to 2010. We 

thus assume all cost components grew at the same rate as the 

general consumer price index.

• The analysis does not include costs of unreported crashes and 

environmental costs, because those data were not available.

• The analysis does not include other difficult to quantify costs such 

as longer term costs of treatment and intangible costs associated 

with emotional pain and suffering.

To identify the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities 

and strategies that states are pursuing to address these factors, we 

interviewed NHTSA, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), CDC, 

the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and key stakeholder 

organizations involved in motorcycle safety, including the Motorcycle 

Safety Foundation, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS), the 

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, the 

American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Governors 

Highway Safety Association, the National Association of State Motorcycle 

 

6 For example, a motorcycle crash victim may suffer a brain injury, and a motor vehicle 

crash victim may suffer a back injury. While both victims’ injuries might have the same 

injury severity score and the same assumed severity, in reality, the medical costs of 

treating a brain injury could be higher than treating a back injury of similar severity. As a 

result, our estimates of the total costs of motorcycle crashes would underestimate the true 

direct measurable costs.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 56 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Safety Administrators, and the American Motorcyclist Association.

Furthermore, we conducted interviews with and reviewed documentation 

from the state agencies that have lead responsibility for motorcycle 

safety, generally the Highway Safety Office, in the following 16 states: 

Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maryland, Mississippi, 

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Texas, Utah, 

Washington and Wisconsin. We selected states representing a range of 

fatality rates, varying types of motorcycle safety laws and policies, varying 

levels of ridership, and that are geographically diverse. For five of these 

states—Florida, Iowa, Maryland, Texas, and Wisconsin—we interviewed 

additional agencies and organizations responsible for motorcycle safety, 

including the applicable NHTSA region, state agencies responsible for 

motorcycle licensing and training; state and local law enforcement 

agencies; and motorcycle advocacy groups.7

In addition, we conducted a literature review to obtain information on the 

factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes and fatalities as well as to 

determine the extent of knowledge about the effectiveness of motorcycle 

safety strategies used by states. We identified studies for our review 

through a search of numerous bibliographic data bases (including 

searched EMBASE, SocialSciSearch, SciSearch, MEDLINE, ProQuest, 

Transportation Research International Documentation, BIOSIS, and 

National Technical Information Service); interviews with NHTSA, the 

FHWA, CDC, NTSB, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and IIHS; and 

bibliographic references in NHTSA’s Countermeasures that Work report, 

as well as other documents reviewed. From this search, we screened the 

identified studies for relevance to our report and selected studies that met 

the following criteria: (1) conducted in the U.S., (2) peer-reviewed as well 

as by or for federal or state agencies, (3) included an original analysis of 

data, and (4) published in the last 10 years. In order to assess the 

effectiveness of motorcycle helmet laws, we also considered studies 

published more than 10 years ago because many changes in helmet laws 

occurred and were evaluated more than 10 years ago. In some cases, for 

other strategies we also included studies published more than 10 years 

ago when there was limited or no research about that strategy in the last 

10 years. In such cases, we considered the extent to which factors may 

have changed over time that could affect the relevance of their findings.

 

7

We did not include states’ motorcycle safety efforts related to road infrastructure or 

emergency response in our review. Also, we were unable to schedule an interview with 

an advocacy group in Maryland and law enforcement officials in Texas and Florida.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 57 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

In addition, for motorcycle helmet laws, we limited studies to those 

including the entire U.S. population (and met the criteria listed above). 

This was done in part to limit the scope to larger studies that provided 

more power to detect effects of helmet laws while controlling for other 

important factors.

Furthermore, for studies of the factors associated with motorcycle 

crashes and fatalities, we restricted our review to studies that addressed 

either crashes or fatalities. For studies of the effectiveness of strategies, 

we restricted our formal review to studies that met the following criteria: 

(1) examined the effectiveness of motorcycle safety strategies covered in 

our review8

Finally, to identify characteristics of crashes we reviewed NHTSA reports 

covering calendar years 1991 through 2010 based on their analyses of

data from their FARS database. To identify characteristics that were not 

available in NHTSA’s published reports (primarily from 2010 FARS data), 

we analyzed data on vehicle fatalities from FARS and data on vehicle 

registrations from the FHWA. We reviewed existing documentation about 

the data and interviewed officials knowledgeable about the data and their 

limitations in order to assess the extent which the data are accurate and 

complete. In addition, we conducted data comparisons, logic tests, and 

tests for missing data and errors. We estimated missing blood alcohol 

concentration (BAC) test results using NHTSA’s method of multiple 

(2) addressed either motorcycle crashes or motorcyclist 

fatalities as an outcome: and (3) used an experimental (e.g., 

randomization of individuals or communities to receive the program) or 

quasi-experimental design (e.g., statistically controlling for individual, 

community, or state exposure to the program policy) to evaluate the 

effects of the strategy. Out of the 117 studies we screened, we identified 

20 studies that met these screening criteria, including 18 studies of 

motorcycle safety strategies. Each of these studies was evaluated for 

relevance and reviewed by social science specialists to ensure that any 

findings presented reflected the methodological approaches and 

limitations of each study.

 

8

We covered the following strategies in our review: licensing, training, enforcement of 

alcohol impairment and speeding laws, efforts to increase motorcyclist safety awareness, 

efforts to increase motorist awareness of motorcyclists, helmet laws, enforcement of use 

of DOT-compliant helmets, and promotion of helmet use. These strategies are generally 

aimed at changing the behavior of motorcyclists and motorists. We did not include 

strategies related to road infrastructure, emergency response, or vehicle safety.
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 58 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

imputation.9

To determine the extent to which NHTSA assists states in pursuing 

strategies that address the factors that contribute to motorcycle crashes 

and fatalities, we reviewed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users

We found FARS data, vehicle registration data, and 

NHTSA’s published reports to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes.

10 and the Moving Ahead 

for Progress in the 21st Century Act11 and relevant portions of the United 

States Code to determine NHTSA’s responsibilities and authority related 

to motorcycle safety. We also reviewed reports, studies, and other 

documentation and interviewed officials in NHTSA headquarters and 

regional offices to determine what NHTSA has done to assist states to 

identify and promote motorcycle safety strategies for use by states. We 

also analyzed data on Motorcyclist Safety Grant funds awarded to 

states12

 

9 When the alcohol test results are unknown, BAC values have been assigned to drivers 

and non-occupants involved in fatal crashes, using NHTSA’s method of multiple 

imputation that was revised in 2002 (NHTSA Technical Report DOT HS 809 403, 

Transitioning to Multiple Imputation: A New Method to Estimate Missing Blood Alcohol 

Concentration (BAC) Values in FARS.) 

and interviewed state officials from states in our selection to 

determine how and the extent to which they have used the Motorcycle 

Safety and other grant programs to address motorcycle safety and 

challenges they have faced in using the grants. We also reviewed 

information on NHTSA’s research and development related to motorcycle 

safety for the last 5 years to identify the extent to which they addressed 

factors that contribute to crashes and fatalities and strategies to address 

those factors. In addition, we interviewed the stakeholder groups cited 

above and state officials in the 16 states we selected to obtain their views 

on NHTSA’s efforts. Finally, we reviewed key reports on motorcycle 

safety, such as reports by the Transportation Research Board, and the 

Motorcycle Safety Foundation, and pertinent GAO reports, as well as 

NTSB recommendations, in evaluating NHTSA’s efforts. We limited our 

work to NHTSA’s efforts to identify and promote motorcycle safety 

strategies for states to use and did not cover other NHTSA motorcycle 

10Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).

11Pub. L. No. 112-141, 126 Stat 405 (2012).

12SAFETEA-LU established a Motorcyclist Safety grant program, also known as the 

Section 2010 grant program. MAP-21 eliminated individual safety grant programs, 

including Section 2010, but established a National Priority Safety Program, which among 

other things includes provisions for motorcycle safety grants. 
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

Page 59 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

safety efforts, such as data collection, research on vehicle safety, or 

helmet standards.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2011 to November 

2012 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 60 GAO-13-42 Motorcycle Safety

Susan Fleming, (202) 512-2834 or flemings@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Judy Guilliams-Tapia (Assistant 

Director), Namita Bhatia-Sabharwal, Leia Dickerson, Sharon Dyer, 

Lorraine Ettaro, Lynn Filla-Clark, Bert Japikse, Terence Lam, Janet Lee, 

Stephanie Purcell, and Amy Rosewarne made important contributions to 

this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(541084)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our . Podcasts

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.