1 

Motorcyclist Advisory Council 

Meeting #3 Summary 

December 12, 2018 

The third meeting of the Motorcyclist Advisory Council (MAC) was held on Wednesday, December 

12, 2018 in the Virginia Room at the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) National Highway 

Institute offices in Arlington, VA. The meeting was attended by 26 people, including 9 MAC 

members, 9 U.S. Department of Transportation staff, 6 members of the public, and 2 contractor 

staff. The following document provides a summary of the presentations, discussions, and comments 

received during the meeting. 

Morning Session

1. Opening Remarks 

Mr. Mike Griffith, Office of Safety (FHWA), opened the meeting at 8:30 am. Mr. Griffith welcomed 

the MAC members and other attendees on behalf of FHWA. He briefly explained the MAC’s purpose 

is to address infrastructure issues related to motorcycle safety. Mr. Griffith then introduced Dr. Bob 

Scopatz (VHB).

Dr. Scopatz reviewed the agenda, meeting ground rules, and general housekeeping. He noted time 

was available for public comments in the afternoon and although individuals were to notify FHWA 

of their interest prior to the meeting, remaining time would be open for additional commenters. At 

FHWA’s suggestion, during the discussion period following each block of presentations, any 

remaining time left after the MAC members’ questions and comments was designated for members 

of the audience to ask questions or make comments.

Introductions 

Dr. Scopatz led a round of introductions, beginning with the FHWA project team: Mr. Michael 

Griffith (FHWA) who serves as the Designated Federal Officer (DFO), Dr. Gabe Rousseau (FHWA), 

Ms. Guan Xu (FHWA), and Ms. Bethany Turner (VHB).

Next, Dr. Scopatz introduced the MAC members. The following individuals make up the MAC:

• Mr. Michael Sayre, MAC Chairperson, American Motorcyclist Association (DC)

• Mr. Joel Provenzano, MAC Vice Chairperson, Florida Department of Transportation (FL)

• Mr. James Baron, American Traffic Safety Services Association (VA)

• Dr. Chanyoung Lee, University of South Florida, Center for Urban Transportation Research 

(FL)
MAC Meeting #3 Meeting Summary 

2 

• Mr. Eric Line, Michigan Department of Transportation (MI)

• Dr. Shane McLaughlin, Virginia Technical Transportation Institute (VA)

• Ms. Jane Lundquist, Texas Department of Transportation (TX)

• Dr. Craig Shankwitz, Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University (MT)

• Ms. Fay Taylor, Ohio Department of Transportation (retired) (OH)

Other meeting attendees included the following individuals:

• Ms. April Canter (Harley-Davidson)

• Ms. Tiffany Cipoletti (MRF)

• Dr. Eric Emery (National 

Transportation Safety Board [NTSB])

• Mr. Mike Fox (NTSB)

• Ms. Callie Hoyt (Motorcycle Industry 

Council)

• Dr. Michael Jenkins (Charles River 

Analytics)

• Mr. Andrew Kelly (MRF)

• Mr. John Marshall (NHTSA)

• Mr. Andy Mergenmeier (FHWA)

• Mr. Yusuf Mohamedshah (FHWA)

• Dr. Bob Scopatz (VHB, facilitator)

• Ms. Carol Tan (FHWA)

• Mr. Dillard Taylor (private attendee) 

• Mr. Craig Thor (FHWA) 

• Ms. Beth Turner (VHB, facilitator)

2. Presentations

NTSB Safety Report: Select Factors Associated with Causes of Motorcycle Crashes (Eric B. 

Emery, PhD., NTSB)

Dr. Eric Emery (NTSB) was the first speaker of the meeting. Dr. Emery presented current research 

results from the Motorcycle Crash Causation Study conducted by FHWA. The study analyzed crash 

and activity data from National and State sources. Dr. Emery reported 64 percent of multiplevehicle crashes are attributed to other vehicle drivers, not the motorcycle rider. To address these 

crashes, shared vehicle-based crash warning and prevention systems need to be designed to detect 

motorcycles. He also noted Antilock Braking System (ABS) technology and stability control systems 

could help reduce run-off-the road crashes for motorcycles, which is one of the crash types with the 

highest fatalities in the MCSS. Following the presentations, the MAC had a roundtable discussion.

The discussion was open to the public. No comments were received. 

BARRACUDA: Enabling Safer Riding Decisions via Technology (Michael Jenkins, Ph.D., Charles 

River Analytics)

Dr. Michael Jenkins (Charles River Analytics) presented on enabling safer riding decisions via 

technology, which is -funded through the USDOT Small Business Innovation Research program. Dr. 

Jenkins and his team are evaluating over 50 hazards to motorcyclists and how they could be 

mitigated through visual, haptic, and audio alerts. The team is using rider reporting (crowd 

sourcing) information, DSRC radio communications, computer vision (on-bike camera-based 

detection), and motorcycle telemetry (on-bike detection) to identify hazards. Initial findings 

suggest computer vision and on-board equipment like a GoPro can identify hazards, but present

issues determining the distance from a hazard. Data collection is ongoing, and his team is 

implementing revisions as needed and will be pushing for commercialization via strategic 

partnerships. Following the presentations, the MAC had a roundtable discussion.
MAC Meeting #3 Meeting Summary 

3 

Dr. McLaughlin asked Dr. Jenkins if his team is using four-wheeled vehicles to help detect vehicleto-infrastructure (V2I). Dr. Jenkins replied they have mostly been working with motorcycles. 

Dr. Shankwitz asked Dr. Jenkins if the on-board cell phone could screen vehicles to detect a 

swerving method of surrounding vehicles to show if there was a pothole or hazard. Dr. Jenkins 

replied his team does not want to show the entire ride, they are looking to display information like 

speed and location, although it may be possible to set thresholds that only show hazards. Dr. 

Jenkins also added working with normal crowd sourcing has been an issue because it is tough to get 

people to buy in and provide data when they are not getting anything in return. 

Dr. Shankwitz followed up and noted users may be more inclined to provide data if it had a way to 

show police officer/speed-trap locations. Dr. Jenkins replied that this was not possible since the 

project is FHWA funded and the purpose is to identify potential hazards, not show riders where not 

to speed. Dr. Jenkins also noted that their product may not take riders the shortest route, but rather 

the safest route. 

Dr. Shankwitz asked how gravel and sand are detected. While there is no prototype, Dr. Jenkins 

explained his team have theorized calculated vibration frequency, so the device will alert you of a 

hazard when there is a change in vibration. This hypothesis is based on similar work with 

unmanned ground vehicles and terrain type sensing. 

The discussion was open to the public. No comments were received. 

3. Presentations

CUTR Florida Study on Curves (Chanyoung Lee, Ph.D., University of South Florida)

Dr. Chanyoung Lee (University of South Florida) gave a presentation on motorcycle safety 

improvement with dynamic speed feedback signs (DSFS) on horizontal curves. Dr. Lee and his team 

compared motorcycle crashes before and after implementing DSFS and found that DSFS for curves 

were not able to detect the motorcycles until the motorcycle is essentially parallel with the sign. Dr. 

Lee and his team noted that the sample size for their study was too small, so a further study is 

needed, as well as updates to the distance between DSFS and the curve to provide better reaction 

time. Following the presentations, the MAC had a roundtable discussion.

A MAC member commented that quantifying the benefit for motorcycles (which are only 1 percent 

of roadway users) in conjunction with benefit for vehicles to determine cost benefit analysis would 

help show the benefit to cars and improve the cost benefit ratio. 

Mr. Line asked Dr. Lee if the DSFS sign is in the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD). Dr. Lee replied the MUTCD does not have specific guidance on where the DSFS signs need 

to be placed. 

The discussion was open to the public. No comments were received. 
MAC Meeting #3 Meeting Summary 

4 

Friction Measurement (microtexture and macrotexture) and Pavement Treatments (Andy 

Mergenmeier, FHWA Resource Center)

Mr. Mergenmeier (FHWA) presented on network-level friction testing for 60 locations that received 

High Friction Surface Treatments (HFSTs) in Kentucky and shared updates on FHWA’s ongoing 

pavement friction management study. Mr. Mergenmeier shared Kentucky locations that received 

HFST saw a total average crash reduction of 87 percent, a 98-percent crash reduction for ramps, 

and an 82-percent reduction for curves. He then provided updates to the ongoing FHWA study, 

where FHWA has assisted four States in development and demonstrating Pavement Friction 

Management Programs to obtain data, define friction demand categories, and set investigatory 

levels of fiction/texture. At this point, FHWA has collected data on some locations and created 

definitions for macrotexture and microtexture; protocols for network-level macrotexture 

measurement will be delivered in 2019. Following the presentations, the MAC had a roundtable 

discussion.

Ms. Lundquist asked Mr. Mergenmeier if testing had been done only with “flat-bottom” vehicle tires 

and if there been any testing using the “round-bottom” motorcycle tires on the Next Generation 

Concrete Surfaces (NGCS). Mr. Mergenmeier replied that he was unaware of any testing with 

motorcycle tires. 

Dr. Shankwitz asked if Mr. Mergenmeier and his team collect specific data on the skidding (from the 

trailer test sample). Mr. Mergenmeier replied that they do measure side force friction, but they do 

not measure longitudinal friction. As a follow-up, Dr. Shankwitz asked if there were optimal 

patterns for the grooving (spacing width or groove width) for noise control. Mr. Mergenmeier 

replied different textures create different pavement noises. 

Dr. McLaughlin asked if the spots that were investigated are based on crash rates and is there any 

vehicle-to-infrastructure (V2I) to help crash safety locations. Dr. Shankwitz replied ABS indicates 

low friction, and this can be detected with V2I. 

Mr. Provenzano asked if there has been any friction testing on an open milled surface. Mr. 

Mergenmeier said this has not been done, but Georgia Tech has done some macro-friction 

measurements. 

Mr. Griffith stated that HFST has been a safety innovation within FHWA’s Everyday Counts initiative

as a safety treatment, but not specifically for motorcyclists. 

Mr. Sayre asked Mr. Mergenmeier if testing of HFST was occurring at intersections. Mr. 

Mergenmeier replied the testing has been primarily at curves but has been done at some 

intersections. Intersections are damaged more due to braking and accelerating.

Dr. Shankwitz concluded the roundtable discussion by noting that half the States do some level of 

network friction testing annually. Mr. Mergenmeier shared they use the locked wheel trailer, which 

cost $250,000, with a water tank, which is required to do the testing. The size of the tank 

determines the number of miles of the skid test. The real cost of the testing is how many people are 

on the team, because the operational costs are much more than the equipment costs. 
MAC Meeting #3 Meeting Summary 

5 

The discussion was open to the public. No comments were received. 

Break for Lunch 

Afternoon Session

4. Discussion of MAC Work

The afternoon session was dedicated to MAC members’ open discussion on topics of interest and 

projects. The following is a synthesis of the open discussion topics. 

Surveying the State of Motorcycle Safety

Dr. Shankwitz initiated the conversation on a proposed survey to better understand the state of 

motorcycle safety. As presented at MAC #2, Dr. Shankwitz previously conducted a review of all 

State Strategic Highway Safety Plans. He noted that of the States with motorcycle emphasis areas, 

efforts were limited almost entirely to behavioral strategies (e.g., surveys and public service 

announcements on speed) rather than infrastructure-related strategies. He proposed the MAC 

conduct a survey of State traffic engineers to better understand why motorcycle crashes were 

occurring. 

The MAC discussed the feasibility of the survey and other points for consideration for implementing 

the survey. First, the group decided the State Safety Engineers would be most familiar with the 

State’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan and motorcycle issues. Dr. Scopatz stated that AASHTO has a 

master list of contacts and Mr. Sayre volunteered to contact the organization for assistance. 

Additional potential respondents may include Safety Engineers, Maintenance Engineers, and ITS 

Engineers. 

MAC members posed the following topic areas to include in a survey of State motorcycle 

representatives:

• How does the State provide staff to support motorcycle-safety related issues?

• How many motorcycle routes are in the State?

• Does the State have mandatory rider education?

• What shoulder treatments/ maintenance procedures does the State use to improve 

motorcycle safety?

• How would the State use a motorcycle design vehicle? 

• How does the State use the NCHRP 500 series for motorcycle in roadway design practice?

• What would the State like to see included in the updated NCHRP 500 related to Motorcycle 

V2I/V2X?

Additionally, the MAC considered the appropriateness of questions about low-volume, high crash 

risk roads. Prior to developing the survey, Dr. Rousseau suggested MAC members review TRB’s 

National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Program Guidance for Implementation 

of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan: A Guide for Assessing Collisions involving Motorcycles

(http://www.trb.org/Publications/Public/Blurbs/A_Guide_for_Addressing_Collisions_Involving_Mo

torc_160626.aspx). The document contains a section on infrastructure issues specific to 
MAC Meeting #3 Meeting Summary 

6 

motorcycles and could act as the basis for the survey questions. MAC members can use this 

information to further refine the proposed questions. 

Other MAC Projects

In addition to the survey, the MAC discussed several topics of interest or importance. First, the 

group felt it is important to raise motorcycle awareness of motorcycle issues to State Highway 

officials. Mr. Provenzano observed there are offices at the local, State, and Federal levels dedicated 

to bicycle and pedestrian issues but not motorcycle safety. Transportation agencies have limited 

exposure to or understanding of motorcycle issues, which limits their work on the topic. Similarly, 

AASHTO develops guides for specific transportation topics but has not yet produced one for 

motorcycles and the NCHRP 500 series provides general guidance. Therefore, there is a need for 

motorcycle safety specific task forces or specific guidance. The MAC can make the recommendation 

to FHWA to develop specific guidance, task forces, or guide books. As a next step, MAC members 

will contact AASHTO to arrange a meeting to discuss the concept. 

The MAC also presented several infrastructure-related issues to explore. They would like to 

research existing studies on using motorcycles or motorcycle-type tires to assess the impact of 

milled, grooved, or grounded surfaces on rider control. They also noted even small deviations in 

pavement across lanes can create dangerous situations for riders and therefore, the MAC is 

interested in exploring standards for uneven pavement and how motorcycles are considered in 

those standards. Other design standards of interest are roadside rails and barriers. The MAC is also 

interested in published requirements for pavement conditions, smoothness, and other similar 

topics.

Motorcycles are a very small percentage of the overall vehicle fleet, so issues may not garner as 

much attention from typical transportation agency efforts. The MAC suggested technology solutions 

to improve overall safety for all users and address human factors issues (e.g., driver awareness). 

Vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and V2I systems could provide drivers with important safety information. 

Roadside crews could use tablet-based technologies to set up work zone areas according to design 

standards. That MAC will continue to explore these topics, as well as available road condition 

reporting systems. 

The MAC also discussed non-infrastructure related issues. The motorcycle community might have 

to “choose safety over freedom.” The discussion centered around the notion that motorcyclists 

want to be treated like any other road user, but simultaneously want to have their special concerns 

addressed. The label of “vulnerable road users” may imply that motorcycles should be restricted in 

some way.

5. Discussion on MAC Progress, Goals, and Final Product

To further discuss the topics explored during the meeting, the MAC is going to self-organize a series 

of preparatory-work group monthly calls. The purpose of the first meeting will be to assign roles 

and responsibilities and establish a plan for developing and implementing the survey. The MAC will 
MAC Meeting #3 Meeting Summary 

7 

also discuss plans for the final report and recommendations to FHWA. Mr. Griffith said the report 

can be as short as a “letter report” (e.g., 5 pages of a formal letter from the MAC to the DOT).

Ms. Taylor briefly discussed the topic of using candidate roadway sections as examples for the 

recommendations. She said that Ohio Department of Transportation provided her information on 

one State highway with low annual average daily traffic (AADT) but high number of crashes. The 

roadway is of interest due to the poor safety record, but the low volume is unlikely to trigger 

improvements. This location could be a good case study for a Road Safety Audit or to provide 

context for MAC recommendations. 

FHWA encouraged the MAC to develop recommendations that are practical and consider the 

feasibility of implementation by local, State, and Federal agencies. For example, manufacturers are 

responsible for testing modifications to roadside hardware. Therefore, any MAC recommendations 

on roadside barriers would not be implemented by FHWA but by manufacturer(s). 

6. Public Comment

Time was designated for public comment. The Federal Register announcement required 

commenters to send an email prior to the meeting to reserve time to speak; however, at FHWA’s 

direction, any person present who wished to speak was allowed to take the floor. 

No comments were received at the time of the meeting. Written comments can be submitted to

MAC-FHWA@dot.gov for consideration. 

7. Next Steps 

The next MAC meeting will take place virtually in June 2019. Similar to the June 2018 meeting, it is 

expected to last approximately one-half day. Mr. Griffith announced that the MAC charter is 

extended to October 2020. Current membership appointments end July 2019 but Mr. Griffith is 

working on renewing the memberships through the end of the charter. 

Mr. Sayre thanked everyone for their participation.

Adjourn 4:30 p.m.