Photo: Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

Addressing the Motorcyclist 

Advisory Council Recommendations: 

Synthesis on Intelligent Transportation 

System Applications and Automated 

Technologies for Motorcyclists
Notice 

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards 

and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its 

information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to

ensure continuous quality improvement.
Technical Documentation Page 

 1. Report No. 

FHWA-SA-22-033

 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. 

 4. Title and Subtitle 

Addressing the Motorcyclist Advisory Council Recommendations: Synthesis on 

Intelligent Transportation System Applications and Automated Technologies for 

Motorcyclists 

 5. Report Date 

April 2022 

 6. Performing Organization Code 

 7. Author(s) 

Margaret Fowler, Tina Geiselbrecht, Robert Brydia, Georgene Geary, Michael 

Manser 

 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 

Texas A&M Transportation Institute 

The Texas A&M University System 

College Station, Texas 77843-3135

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) 

11. Contract or Grant No. 

693JJ320D000023 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Highway Administration 

Office of Safety 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered 

Final Report 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code 

15. Supplementary Notes 

Task order manager for this report is Guan Xu. 

Project Title: Addressing the Motorcyclist Advisory Council Recommendations 

16. Abstract 

Motorcyclists and their specific issues have been largely overlooked in the discussion of connected and automated vehicle 

technologies and their corresponding applications This synthesis details the general recent history of this technology area related to 

specific motorcycle safety concerns and reports findings from motorcyclist focus groups and a federal agency listening session. 

Areas of safety concerns that can potentially be enhanced or mitigated are identified across the various facets of information 

researched for this synthesis. 

17. Key Words 

Motorcycle safety, advanced rider assistance systems, 

connected and automated vehicle, motorcycle applications, 

motorcycle ITS 

18. Distribution Statement 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through 

the National Technical Information Service Alexandria, Virginia 

22312 

19. Security Classif.(of this report) 

Unclassified 

20. Security Classif.(of this page) 

Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages 

44 

22. Price 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized 
ii
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1

Terminology ............................................................................................................................... 1

Connected Vehicle Technology............................................................................................... 2

Automated Vehicle Technology .............................................................................................. 2

Understanding the Need ........................................................................................................... 4

Research Objectives .................................................................................................................. 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................... 7

Literature Search ...................................................................................................................... 7

Literature Review Results ........................................................................................................ 8

Motorcycle Risk and Crash Causation .................................................................................... 8

ADASs and CVs That Can Benefit Motorcyclists .................................................................. 9

ARASs in Use .......................................................................................................................... 9

CV Applications .................................................................................................................... 12

ARAS and CV Challenges .................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 3: STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK........................................................................ 17

Motorcyclist Focus Group ...................................................................................................... 17

Focus Group Methodology .................................................................................................... 17

Focus Group Results .............................................................................................................. 18

Listening Session with FHWA and NHTSA Staff ................................................................ 23

Listening Session Methodology ............................................................................................ 23

Listening Session Findings .................................................................................................... 23

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................ 26

The Motorcycle Safety Bubble ............................................................................................... 26

ITS Technology Applications from Prior Research ............................................................. 27

Summary of ITS Technologies ............................................................................................... 29

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................ 30
iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Relationship between CV applications and ARAS. ...................................................... 13

Figure 2. Participant current riding frequency. ............................................................................. 19

Figure 3. Motorcycle safety bubble. ............................................................................................. 27

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Keywords and phrases for literature review. .................................................................... 7

Table 2. CMC use cases. ............................................................................................................... 14

Table 3. ARAS concerns and benefits. ......................................................................................... 20

Table 4. Summary of identified areas to include in motorcycle CV research and 

development. .................................................................................................................. 29
v

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

ABS Anti-lock Braking System 

ACEM European Association of Motorcycle Manufacturers (Association des 

Constructeurs de Motocycles)

ADAS Advanced Driving Assistive System

ADS Automated Driving System

ARAS Advanced Rider Assistance System

AV Automated Vehicle

B2V Bike to Vehicle 

B2X Bike to Everything

CBS Combined Braking System

CAV Connected and Automated Vehicle

C-ITS Cooperative Intelligent Transportation System

CMC Connected Motorcycle Consortium

ConVeX Connected Vehicle to Everything of Tomorrow 

C-V2X Cellular Vehicle to Everything

CV Connected Vehicle

DSRC Dedicated Short-Range Communications

FCC Federal Communications Commission

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

GPS Global Positioning System

IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

ITS Intelligent Transportation System

M2V Motorcycle to Vehicle

M2X Motorcycle to Everything

MAC Motorcyclist Advisory Council

MAIDS Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer

SAE Society of Automotive Engineers

SEE Search, Evaluate, and Execute

TTI Texas A&M Transportation Institute

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

V2I Vehicle to Infrastructure

V2M Vehicle to Motorcycle

V2P Vehicle to Pedestrian

V2V Vehicle to Vehicle

VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled

WHO World Health Organization
1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

The Motorcycle Advisory Council (MAC) was reestablished by the United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) Office of the Secretary of Transportation as part of the Fixing

America’s Surface Transportation Act, Section 1426. The purpose of MAC is to improve 

motorcyclist safety by providing the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) with 

recommendations involving infrastructure-based countermeasures. In 2020, MAC provided its 

recommendations report to the former USDOT Secretary of Transportation Elaine L. Chao 

(Sayre et al., 2020). A recommendation from that report entails examining the use of intelligent 

transportation system (ITS) technology (e.g., connected vehicles, automated vehicles, and 

communications) to enhance motorcyclist safety. 

This report is part of a series of reports related to motorcycle-specific safety issues, all of which

are available on FHWA’s motorcycle safety website (https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/motorcycles/). 

The first report focuses on roadside safety hardware and barriers in relation to motorcycles and 

motorcyclists (Silvestri-Dobrovolny et al., 2021). The second report covers the current state of

the practice related to roadway geometrics, maintenance practices, and pavement design and 

their impact on motorcyclists (Geary et al., 2021). This current report, which focused on ITS 

technology and applications, in the third in the series. The final report focused on noteworthy 

practices that can be employed by practitioners. Advanced systems have considerable potential 

to reduce motorcyclist fatalities and injuries if motorcycles are included in design requirements. 

Any ITS technology must be developed with motorcycles as a specific vehicle class and must 

address motorcycles with specific written policies, guidelines, and procedures to ensure that the 

unique operational behaviors and vehicle characteristics of motorcycles are taken into account 

during development, testing, and deployment of ITS technology. The purpose of this document is 

to continue the expansion and documentation of research relating to motorcyclist safety with a 

specific focus on ITS technologies. Motorcycles are a class of vehicles that have been largely left 

out relative to many of the ITS technologies, especially advancements such as connectivity and 

autonomy. Documenting current practices relating to implementing these developments within 

the motorcycle community and industry will further advance research and identify potential 

opportunities for integration. 

TERMINOLOGY

The USDOT ITS Joint Program Office recognizes connected vehicle (CV) and automationrelated technologies as the future of transportation in its online ITS ePrimer (USDOT, 2021). 

The ITS ePrimer defines ITS as “an engineering discipline that encompasses the research, 

planning, design, integration, and deployment of systems and applications to manage traffic and 

transit, improve safety, provide environmental benefits, and maximize the efficiency of surface 

transportation systems.” ITS encompasses a wide range of technologies, from advanced traffic 

management systems (e.g., traffic incident response and coordinated signal timing) managed by 

transportation management centers, to active parking management and smart city applications. 

Some of the emerging technologies recognized in the ITS arena are unmanned aerial systems, 

artificial intelligence, and connected and automated vehicles (CAVs) (USDOT, 2021).

Connected vehicle and automated vehicle technology either assist the driver or transfer the 

driving task to the technology. It should be recognized that a vehicle can be connected but not 
2

automated, and automated but not connected, and different types of connectivity and levels of 

automation exist. Moreover, the terminology has changed since the inception of these concepts, 

thereby confusing matters further. While the language describing connectivity is continually 

evolving, terms like vehicle to vehicle (V2V), vehicle to infrastructure (V2I), vehicle to network 

(V2N), and vehicle to everything (V2X) are still used. Due to continuing rapid changes in this 

arena, the following section defines and clarifies the terminology used in this document, 

including V2V, V2I, V2N, and V2X.

Connected Vehicle Technology 

CV technology refers to vehicles capable of communicating with other vehicles and/or the road’s 

infrastructure to provide the motorist (or motorist’s vehicle) with accurate information in real

time. According to USDOT (n.d.), CVs have the potential to decrease the number of vehicle 

crashes, reduce traffic and travel time, and in turn, reduce fuel consumption and emissions. There 

are several trial deployments currently across the United States demonstrating the wide variety of 

safety applications connectivity offers. However, most research conducted in this arena has only 

been specific to four-wheel vehicles.

Connectivity can be between vehicles (V2V), between vehicles and infrastructure (V2I), or 

between vehicles and other devices (V2X). The exchanges of data and information can result in 

increased system performance. CV technology supports a variety of information, warning, and 

assistance services that can aid in decision-making to reduce congestion and improve safety. In 

Europe, the term cooperative intelligent transportation system (C-ITS) is more commonly used 

instead of CV (European Telecommunications Standards Institute, 2022).

Automated Vehicle Technology

Automated vehicle (AV) technology employs hardware and software capable of automatically 

performing driving tasks for the driver and is described by the level of automation and the 

vehicle. The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) International J3016 standard is widely used 

in the AV arena and defines six levels of driving automation (0 = no automation, 1 = driver 

assistance, 2 = partial automation, 3 = conditional automation, 4 = high automation, and 5 = full 

driving automation) (SAE International, 2021).

Automated Driving Systems

The SAE standard defines automated driving systems (ADSs) specifically as the hardware and 

software that are collectively capable of performing to Level 3, 4, or 5.

Advanced Driver Assistance Systems

The SAE standard recognizes advanced driver assistance system (ADAS) as a term in common 

use but notes that it is “too broad and imprecise” to be used in the standard. For the purposes of 

this document, ADASs are advanced safety features integrated into a vehicle’s design that assist 

a driver with various driving and parking tasks and are considered Level 1 and 2 features by the 

SAE J3016 standard. These features do not replace the driver but are meant to support and help 

with tasks such as blind-spot monitoring or rear cross-traffic alerts. They can automate and/or 

enhance vehicle systems to improve driving performance and safety, reduce the workload on the 
3

driver, and avoid potential crashes. In some instances, an ADAS provides information to a 

driver, and some functions are automated in more advanced systems.

The terminology used for ADASs can also be confusing. AAA, J.D. Power, the National Safety 

Council, and Consumer Reports have jointly published a document with recommended common 

terminology for ADASs (including terms like adaptive cruise control, lane-keeping assistance, 

blind-spot warning, and forward collision control) in an attempt to reduce confusion, especially 

for consumers (see https://advocacy.consumerreports.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/CRADAS-Common-Naming-One-pager.pdf).

Advanced Rider Assistance Systems 

Advanced rider assistance systems (ARASs) are not recognized in the SAE standard, but they are 

defined in this document as systems capable of helping a motorcyclist with riding tasks through a 

variety of applications and methods. The term advanced rider assistance system was coined in 

2010 by the European SAFERIDER project (Dodge & Halladay, 2008; Bekiaris et al., 2009; 

Lumiaho, 2012). ARAS denotes equipment that supports and assists the operator of a powered 

two-wheeler and/or reduces the stress and strain for a motorcyclist (Kuschefski et al., 2011). In 

essence, ARASs are ADASs specific to motorcycles and motorcyclists. The assistance an ARAS 

provides can potentially help motorcyclists overcome human capability limitations in terms of 

cognitive ability or skill. Examples of ARASs include anti-lock braking systems, combined 

braking systems, blind-spot assist, adaptive headlights, curve warning systems, lane-keep assist, 

and so forth.

Automated Vehicle Technology and Connectivity

ADAS technology can be supported by connectivity. For example, forward collision warning 

systems can be supported via vehicle-based sensors or connectivity, or both. This is similar for 

motorcycles and ARAS technology. However, connectivity presents challenges when 

implemented on a motorcycle. The ultimate outcome of this integration for passenger vehicles is 

expected to someday lead to fully automated driving, SAE Level 5, which does not require a 

human driver. Since motorcycles are fundamentally different than passenger cars and 

motorcyclists often ride for pleasure, not just for basic transportation, it is somewhat difficult to 

envision an SAE Level 5 fully automated motorcycle without some human component. As 

recently as this past year, it was recognized that “mixing automation with humans is much more 

difficult than designing for a wholly automated environment. The AV industry faces several 

human factors challenges concerning humans who are not in the vehicle—drivers of other 

vehicles, motorcyclists, bicyclists, and pedestrians” (Hart, 2021). Currently, bicyclists and 

pedestrians are prohibited from interstate facilities due to safety and mobility concerns.

Motorcycles, on the other hand, are quite capable of maneuvering in the vehicle stream. 

However, the concept of a fully automated interstate of the future introduces questions pertaining 

to the visibility of motorcycles (or other vehicles) without up-to-date technology that can 

mitigate such challenges. While one solution would be a prohibition of motorcycles from the

future interstate, the practicality of such a declaration would be suspect. What must be done is to 

address the detection, design, and mobility challenges with motorcycles that will enable them to 

continue to interact with the vehicle stream. This is the primary reason motorcyclists need to be 

specifically considered in the future of connected and automated applications. 
4

UNDERSTANDING THE NEED

The World Health Organization (WHO) stipulates that injury among motorcyclists is a global 

health problem, with nearly 300,000 annual deaths worldwide (WHO, 2015; Savino et al., 2020). 

Despite this fact, motorcycles are a class of vehicles that have been generally excluded from 

safety advancements, like infrastructure-based countermeasures, and other technological 

developments, such as CV technologies. Since passenger vehicle drivers make up 97 percent of 

registered vehicles in the United States, it is reasonable that past research about connectivity and 

other assistive vehicle systems has mostly focused on serving this group. 

Nevertheless, although motorcycles make up the remaining 3 percent of registered vehicles, 

motorcycle fatalities are overrepresented and account for nearly 14 percent of all traffic deaths in 

the United States (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA], 2021). In 

addition, in 2019, USDOT reported a rate of 25.47 motorcyclist fatalities per 100 million vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT), while passenger vehicles totaled a rate of 0.89 passenger car deaths per 

100 million VMT (NHTSA, 2021). These data strongly suggest that significant opportunities 

exist to improve overall transportation safety by addressing this vulnerable road user group.

Initiatives such Road to Zero, managed by the National Safety Council, seek to end roadway 

deaths, including motorcyclists, through accelerating the advancement of technology in vehicles 

and infrastructure (National Safety Council, 2022). CV and ARAS advancements can help 

prevent motorcycle crashes since these applications can enhance motorcyclists’ and drivers’ 

attention and perception of their surroundings, including each other’s presence on the roadway

(Flanigan et al., 2018). 

CV technologies have the potential to make the unseen motorcyclist “seen” by other drivers. In a 

study conducted by the European Association of Motorcycle Manufacturers (ACEM), research 

personnel found that 51 percent of motorcycle crashes were caused by perception and decision 

failures of another vehicle driver (ACEM, 2009). Similarly, FHWA found that nearly 43 percent

of motorcycle crashes were caused by an attention failure, distraction, or stress of the other 

vehicle driver (Nazemetz et al., 2019).

ARAS technologies also have the potential to contribute to reducing motorcycle crashes. The 

same ACEM study noted above showed that 37 percent of motorcycle crashes were caused by 

the motorcyclist. Among these accidents, nearly 73 percent were due to a perception failure, 

while 19 percent were caused by a decision failure of the motorcyclist (ACEM, 2009). Similarly, 

FHWA found that motorcyclists’ inattention contributed to 32 percent of crashes (Nazemetz et 

al., 2019). Although assistive driving systems have reduced crash rates in four-wheeled vehicles, 

significant design differences exist between motorcycles and passenger vehicles. Motorcycles 

cannot adopt ADAS features without special consideration and research. For instance, compared 

to passenger vehicles, motorcycles are less stable, less visible, and smaller in general. Because 

motorcycles possess less stability than a passenger vehicle, hard braking may cause the wheels to 

lock, increasing the motorcyclist’s chance of falling. Additionally, any small changes in the 

environment, or motorcyclist’s attention, can exacerbate instability. Integrating connectivity or 

systems like ADASs must involve consideration of these factors and assurance that systems 

promote safety rather than risk. Designers will have to confirm that systems that may control the 

motorcycle’s speed or direction will not cause instability with sudden movements. Furthermore, 

designers may also have to consider sensor and camera placement carefully for CV applications. 
5

Since motorcycles can sit lower than passenger vehicles, research must investigate if it will 

interfere with detection accuracy. These concerns are just a few examples of the many special 

design considerations that are necessary for incorporation of assistive systems in motorcycles.

Despite the potential benefits these advanced solutions offer, motorcycles have been considered

in discussions of connectivity, but due to the challenges with the V2V rule and Federal 

Communications Commission (FCC) action that has contributed to uncertainty regarding 

spectrum activities, various motorcycle activities were not completed. The National 

Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) recognized the potential benefit of CV technologies (e.g.,

V2V and V2I) and enhanced braking and stability control (i.e., ARASs) for motorcyclist safety 

but also noted that motorcycles are not currently being fully designed into the CV systems, and 

the ARASs need to be more widely available (NTSB, 2018).

Research and industry leaders have expressed that this discrepancy is partly due to the design 

challenges associated with motorcycles, like their inherent instability and ability to lean. These 

issues have not been fully researched, and how advanced countermeasures can be integrated is 

unknown. Other challenges include developing user and vehicle requirements that satisfy users 

and yield acceptance among the community. Additionally, motorcycles are subject to the same 

roadway design parameters of larger vehicles, which have seen significant technical innovations

that are not well represented and/or utilized in the motorcycle arena. Specifically, motorcycles 

are not considered a design vehicle for any safety design. USDOT’s automated vehicle 2.0

through 4.0 activity reports (USDOT, 2017, 2018, 2020) recognize motorcycles and 

motorcyclists but do not provide any specific plans related to automated and/or connected 

motorcycles. 

Motorcycle-specific automated and/or connectivity plans have yet to be developed, and research

examining the interaction between equipped vehicles and non-equipped motorcycles is very 

limited. Research is also limited on user acceptance and integration of multiple assistive systems,

and there is a general lack of data about ARAS effectiveness on roadway safety, especially for 

newer ARASs. Given the current uncertainty with the connectivity technology and spectrum, it is 

difficult to determine aspects of a research program that would benefit from these challenges 

being addressed with light vehicles.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES

Given the disproportionality between passenger vehicle and motorcycle traffic-related death

rates, it is essential to research new methods to increase motorcycle safety. Technology 

innovations such as connectivity (CVs) or assistive vehicle systems for motorcycles (ARASs)

have not advanced as rapidly as passenger vehicles and, in many instances, have been mostly 

excluded from these discussions altogether. Research examining CVs and ARASs is warranted 

to improve safety for this vulnerable road user group. This synthesis addresses the gap in 

research and knowledge by reviewing the current state of practice of motorcycle connectivity 

and other assistive motorcycle devices, synthesizing what key stakeholders see on the horizon, 

and outlining future research. 
6

Specific research goals of this project were to: 

• Understand the current state of practice of ARASs and CVs for motorcycles. 

• Understand the current state of knowledge of ARASs and CVs among motorcyclists, 

original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), and key federal agencies. 

• Identify challenges and research gaps and provide recommendations for future research 

paths. 

This report presents findings relating to motorcycle connectivity and other assistive system 

research. It discusses the methodology for the research; documents feedback from crucial 

stakeholders like motorcyclists, OEMs, and key federal agencies; and synthesizes the findings 

and provides recommendations for additional research. 
7

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

LITERATURE SEARCH

Since the primary research goal of this project was to understand the current state of practice and 

knowledge of motorcycle connectivity (CVs) and ARASs, it was essential to conduct a wellrounded literature review to fully capture the breadth of technology and associated benefits that 

may support motorcyclist safety. Because motorcycles have been mostly omitted from these 

research areas, it was important to perform two separate searches relating to CVs and ARASs. 

The first search focused on academic research publications, while the second focused on topical 

publications in the motorcycle arena. Topical publications were considered non-scholarly content 

written for the general public. These publications were inclusive to motorcycle forums, technical 

and nontechnical magazines, newspaper articles, and websites. 

Like any tight-knit community, the motorcycle community has its own vernacular. The 

familiarization phase of the literature review was essential to the project team to ensure the 

appropriate use of keywords and phrases since that input would determine the literature search 

output. Choosing these keywords was challenging for several reasons. The language used 

between manufacturers was often not consistent, most likely due to branding and marketing 

purposes. Some manufacturers and researchers applied terms (e.g., ADAS) typically used for 

passenger vehicles to motorcycles, while others did not, instead using ARAS. There were also 

instances where key phrases were used interchangeably or meant something different depending 

on the source. For instance, connectivity is often used interchangeably with autonomy, even 

though as noted earlier, these terms are separate concepts. 

Project team members developed a comprehensive list of terms. Table 1 outlines the search 

terms and phrases that were used in the literature review. The search yielded nearly 60 academic 

and topical articles relating to motorcycle connectivity or ARASs. Findings from these articles 

were used to identify challenges, discover research gaps, and inform future research avenues. A 

summary of these findings is presented in later sections of this report.

Table 1. Keywords and phrases for literature review.

Search Keywords and Phrases

Common phrases to use 

in conjunction with 

primary searches

Motorcycle, Powered Two-Wheeler, Powersport Vehicle, Motorbike, 

Scooter, Moped

Connectivity

Connected Vehicles, Connected Motorcycle, CAV, Vehicle-to-Vehicle 

Communications, Vehicle-to-Infrastructure Communications, Dedicated 

Short-Range Communications (DSRC), Intelligent Transportation Systems

(ITS), C-ITS, Cooperative Intelligent Transport Systems, Automated 

Control, Connected Helmet, V2I, V2V, Bike to Vehicle (B2V), Bike to 

Everything (B2X), Vehicle to Motorcycle (V2M), Motorcycle to Vehicle 

(M2V), Motorcycle to Everything (M2X), Riderless, Autonomous

ARASs

Advanced Rider Assistance System (ARAS), Advanced Driver Assistance 

System + Motorcycle, Adaptive, Warning, Information, Autonomous, 

Automated, Active, Passive, Warning, Braking, Accelerating, Lane, 

Adaptive Cruise Control, Active Cruise Control, Blind Spot, Collision TwoWheeled Vehicle
8

LITERATURE REVIEW RESULTS

Motorcycle Risk and Crash Causation

Motorcyclists face more severe consequences for much more minor errors than do drivers of 

passenger vehicles. Advanced countermeasures like connectivity and ARASs may help the 

motorcyclist maintain a higher margin of safety given the environmental and cognitive stressors 

motorcyclists face. For instance, environmental factors such as light, vibrations, noise, and 

climate can affect motorcycles far more significantly than a passenger vehicle since motorcycles 

are less stable and do not possess as much traction. Thus, there is a greater burden for operation 

on the motorcyclist. In one study (Kuschefski et al., 2011), researchers asked participants to 

compare their motorcycle to their car and evaluate different sensory strains. Over 200 responses 

showed that motorcyclists experience more strain by a factor of at least 1.7 times for every 

sensory input, such as smell, light, vibrations, noise, climate, and comfort. Results also found 

that change in climate affected motorcyclists by a factor of 4.6 compared to when in their 

passenger vehicles.

Considering the overload of sensory inputs, physical stamina and strength, and minimal margin 

of error that must be maintained while riding, it is understandable why motorcycle crash rates are 

overrepresented. Common precrash scenarios identified in the literature include limited time for 

motorcyclists to take any evasive action (Penumaka, 2014), inadequate braking (Sporner &

Kramlich, 2001; Rizzi et al., 2009), scan errors (ACEM, 2009), low saliency (Hurt et al., 1981), 

and loss of control (Penumaka et al., 2014). Furthermore, an in-depth study of motorcyclerelated accidents was conducted in partnership with ACEM and the European Commission. The 

study entailed examining accidents from 1999–2000 and included five sampling locations in 

France, Germany, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy, thus creating the Motorcycle Accidents InDepth Study (MAIDS) database. Results found that nearly 88 percent of motorcycle crashes had 

been identified as an operator error by either the motorcyclist or driver (ACEM, 2009). Findings 

showed that these specific errors were classified as either perception, comprehension, decision,

and/or reaction failures (ACEM, 2009). Perception errors were classified as ones in which a 

motorcyclist or driver failed to detect dangerous conditions altogether. Comprehension errors

involved perceiving a dangerous situation, but not comprehending the danger associated with the 

situation. Decision failures included the operator making the incorrect decision to avoid a 

dangerous roadway scenario. Finally, a reaction failure included the operator failing to react to a 

dangerous condition. 

Other studies analyzed the European MAIDS database to understand the causation factors 

leading to these human errors (Penumaka et al., 2014). Results showed that motorcyclists 

typically made perception and execution failures, while passenger vehicle drivers primarily made 

perception and comprehension failures. Furthermore, of the execution errors, specifically braking 

maneuvers, made by motorcyclists, the analysis revealed that in 41.1 percent of accidents 

examined, hard braking resulted in wheel locking. It was also noted that researchers found a 

difference in braking patterns between novice and experienced riders. In 76.5 percent of cases, 

weak braking was typically due to either rider panic or lack of skills to perform maximum

braking (Penumaka et al., 2014). Research also identified other common crash factors for 

motorcycles, such as limited time for motorcyclists to take evasive action. Studies have shown 

that brake reaction times are slightly lower for motorcyclists than for passenger vehicle drivers. 
9

However, this result is most likely due to the operator’s proximity to a brake pedal versus a lever 

on motorcycles (Dinges & Durisek, 2019). Penumaka et al. (2014) also noted that many of these 

crashes occurred at a traffic intersection, which is a finding supported by other work (Savino et 

al., 2020). Specifically, the most common intersection crashes were sideswipe crashes occurring 

as the vehicle turned right or left (Savino et al., 2020).

ADASs and CVs That Can Benefit Motorcyclists 

ADAS and CV technologies in other vehicles can ultimately improve motorcyclist safety. Due to 

known conspicuity issues, motorcycles have an innate propensity to benefit from the ability to 

communicate with other vehicles or to be automatically detected by other vehicles. 

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) looked at three ADASs (lane-keeping 

assistance, blind-spot warning, and forward collision warning) in relation to the benefit they 

could provide for motorcycles (Teoh, 2017). Using national transportation crash data from 2011–

2015, IIHS analyzed the potential impact of these technologies on motorcycle safety and 

estimated that the technologies could potentially eliminate 8,000 two-vehicle crashes per year 

involving motorcycles. Of course, these benefits are dependent on the technologies recognizing a 

motorcycle. A 2014 AAA study found that the systems that were offered at that time detected 

motorcycles on average 26 percent later than typical full-size sedans were recognized (AAA, 

2014). 

ARASs in Use 

Advanced technologies may help motorcyclists overcome unavoidable environmental factors, 

perception and attention issues, and other factors, such as experience level, that might hinder 

them. Unlike connective applications that are currently more relevant solely on the infrastructure 

side (e.g., connected signal systems), ARASs are in public use and are becoming more common. 

Motorcycle OEMs and designers are still relatively behind in adopting advanced safety features 

in general, but there have been some recent advances in ARASs. For example, anti-lock braking 

systems for motorcycles have been in use long enough for research studies to have been 

performed on their safety, but only recently have motorcycle designers and manufacturers started 

to include adaptive cruise control in their design. Touted as one of the most advanced 

motorcycles on the market, the Ducati 2021 Multistrada V4 is the first of its kind to possess both 

front and rear radar and offers adaptive cruise control, blind-spot detection, traction control, and 

Bluetooth and Wi-Fi capability (Rais, 2020). Other industry leaders, like Bosch and Honda, have 

also submitted patents for steering assist and collision warning systems, respectively. 

The literature review identified various ARASs. Below is a list of ARAS features that emerged 

from the team’s review (Beanland et al., 2013; Basch et al., 2015; Rizzi, Kullgren et al., 2015; 

Rizzi, Strandroth et al., 2015; Savino et al., 2020). 

• Anti-lock Braking System (ABS)—Advanced braking system that prevents wheels from 

locking when braking, especially on wet or slippery road surfaces. 

• Combined Braking System (CBS)—Autonomous braking system in which the 

application of one brake control will activate both front and rear brakes. 
10

• Autonomous Emergency Braking—Autonomous braking system that in an emergency 

ensures maximum braking power is applied. 

• Active Cruise Control—A system that relieves motorcyclists from having to manually 

adjust to the speed of the vehicle they are following when cruise control is set. 

• Traction Control—An autonomous system that intervenes and limits power to maintain 

traction to the wheels if a slip is detected, especially on loose or slippery road surfaces. 

• Stability Control—An autonomous system that intervenes and limits power to the 

wheels if the possibility of instability is detected. 

• Blind-Spot Assist—A system that uses cameras and other sensors to detect and provide a 

visual warning of vehicles traveling in the blind spot or alongside the motorcyclist.

• Adaptive Headlights—Headlights that will adapt in real time to illuminate dark space 

left or right of the motorcycle while cornering. 

• Forward Collision Warning System—A system that warns the motorcyclist of an 

impending collision by detecting stopped or slowly moving vehicles ahead. 

• Curve Warning System—A warning system used to alert motorcyclists they are 

approaching a curve too fast. 

• eCall—A system that uses a cell phone network connection to contact dispatch to send 

help if a crash is detected. 

• Lane-Keep Assist—An alert that warns motorcyclists if they drift out of their respective 

lane. 

• Global Positioning System (GPS) Navigation—A system that provides someone’s 

current location, travel route, and general traffic information. 

• Tire Pressure Monitoring System (TPMS)—A system that informs motorcyclists if 

their tires have too much or too little air pressure. 

Several studies showcasing the benefits of ABSs for motorcyclists were identified. The ABS for 

motorcycles is similar to the ABS used for cars, which controls and cycles the braking to prevent 

locking the brakes. The CBS is specific to motorcycles in that it has different controls for front 

and rear brakes, but the CBS activates both brakes. A motorcycle may have ABS, CBS, or both. 

An NHTSA study of six different types of ARAS-equipped motorcycles (some equipped with 

CBS and some with ABS) compared to non-equipped motorcycles found improved stopping 

distance could be attained with either CBS or ABS technology (Green, 2006). ABS-equipped 

motorcycles have also been the focus of crash safety studies. Using fatal crash data from 2003–

2011, IIHS-supported research found a statistically significant difference in crash rates for 

motorcycles with ABS (3.8) compared to motorcycles without ABS (5.2) (rate is per 10,000 

registered vehicles). This finding constituted a 31 percent lower fatal crash rate for ABSequipped motorcycles (Teoh, 2013, 2021a). ABS use on motorcycles has increased from 

0.2 percent in 2002 to 16.1 percent in 2021 (Teoh, 2021b).

The literature review identified industry manufacturers Honda, Bosch, Ducati Motor, BMW, 

Suzuki, Garmin, and Yamaha as leading the development of ARASs. OEMs have been 

advancing and implementing ARAS technologies to remove strain from motorcyclists and 

reduce the risk of injury. Research has suggested that ARASs could reduce crashes by upward of 

40 percent (Füssl et al., 2012). There are also many different types of assistance ARASs can 

provide. For instance, researchers have denoted the difference in ARASs by whether they are 

active or passive. An active system will provide user support by using crash avoidance 
11

technologies, such as blind-spot detection, lane-keep assist, parking assist, and so forth, to 

hopefully prevent a crash from occurring. Passive systems, on the other hand, are meant to 

reduce the effects of a crash once it has occurred (i.e., airbags, seatbelts, whiplash protection, 

etc.) (Bayly et al., 2006). Passive systems, except for potentially as related to riders’ apparel, are 

not relevant for motorcyclists. For this report, the project team denoted the difference in 

assistance an ARAS provides by the system’s purpose and level of autonomy, like what was 

described by Kuschefski et al. (2011) and is explained below. The taxonomy provided included 

the following (some of the above ARASs are noted as examples): 

• Comfort Assisting Systems—These systems reduce strain on motorcyclists in terms of 

ergonomics and environmental conditions. Posture comfort is provided through systems 

such as adjustable seats, handlebars, and levers. Other comfort systems meant to combat 

severe environmental conditions, light, or vibration include adaptive cornering lights, 

heated grips, or motorcycle fairing used to reduce air drag. 

• Informing Systems—Information systems provide information to motorcyclists to help 

them prepare and optimize their decision-making. These systems provide information 

relating to the motorcyclist’s location, upcoming traffic, or motorcycle information (e.g., 

fuel gauge, GPS, etc.). 

• Warning Systems—Unlike informing systems, warning systems will only signal or warn 

the motorcyclist in specific, risky scenarios. These warnings may emerge if a motorcycle 

is experiencing issues or dangerous roadway conditions are up ahead. However, the 

information provided by both warning and informing systems may be ignored by the 

motorcyclist and do not necessarily invoke action (e.g., collision warning system, curve 

warning system). 

• Assisting Systems—Assisting systems indicate that a riding error has occurred. 

Motorcyclists may receive this information visually, audibly, or haptically (e.g., lanekeep assist, etc.). 

• Partly/Fully Autonomous Systems—Partly (e.g., adaptive cruise control) and/or fully 

(e.g., ABS) autonomous systems are systems that can maneuver the motorcycle’s 

direction and speed. The system has the capability to intervene with the driving task, but 

partly autonomous systems still require the driver’s attention to monitor the roadway and 

system. 

Based on the leading causes of motorcycle crashes discussed previously, ARASs could 

potentially increase motorcyclist safety by providing improved reaction times to critical 

scenarios and increased roadway visibility. However, acceptance of these systems has been a 

major topic of contention identified throughout both the literature review and motorcyclist focus 

groups. If primary users do not accept this technology, it will not be utilized, and the safety 

benefits of ARASs may not be realized. 

Research in this field has shown that acceptability depends on the type of assistance an ARAS 

provides. Füssl et al. (2012) found from a literature review, focus group interviews, and online 

surveys that acceptability will be higher for systems that are primarily used in emergency 

situations. Acceptability was highest for systems that displayed high reliability and did not 

interfere with the riding task, such as anti-lock braking systems, lane-keep assist, adaptive cruise 

control, and intelligent speed assistance (Montanari et al., 2011; Füssl et al., 2012; Beanland et 

al., 2013). Beanland et al. (2013) also found that acceptability will depend on how well known 
12

the system is, like ABS. Motorcyclists also expressed worry that these systems would increase 

the cost of motorcycles and make riding an impractical mode of transportation (Füssl et al., 

2012; Beanland et al., 2013). However, even if the cost of these systems were reasonable, 

researchers indicated a worry on behalf of their focus group participants that if motorcyclists 

become too dependent on technology, they will not develop important skills to ride safely 

(Montanari et al., 2011; Füssl et al., 2012; Beanland et al., 2013). Instead, motorcyclists believed 

that research should focus on motorcycle safety training and educational outreach for both 

motorcyclists and passenger vehicle drivers to improve safety. However, it is important to note 

that user acceptance may be low in the beginning stages of newer technology and change over 

time. For example, the motorcycle community displayed low acceptance in the early adoption 

stages of ABS. Still, over time, motorcyclists have come to view ABS as a major consideration 

in purchasing a motorcycle. In a study conducted by Nordqvist and Gregersen (2011), 82 percent

of riders reported that they would choose an ABS-equipped motorcycle. 

CV Applications

Unlike with ARASs, not as many advancements relating to CV applications or automated 

features for motorcycles have been made in recent years. While it is known that research and 

development activities are taking place, these activities have been proprietary. Although fourwheeled vehicle applications have and will continue to progress, especially as safety 

deployments operate and continue to be planned across the United States, motorcycles can 

benefit to some extent from the application of advanced technology. Integrating connectivity,

however, will enhance current ARASs. Some studies have estimated major positive impacts from 

incoming vehicle information and intersection safety connectivity applications (Silla et al., 

2018).

ARASs currently rely on one source of information—the use of on-vehicle sensors and 

technology. Providing more information through connectivity can increase safety by increasing 

awareness time and optimizing the system and motorcyclist’s decision-making abilities. 

Although one limitation of connectivity is the dependence on a good GPS signal, which can be 

degraded by various obstacles in the environment such as trees or roadway structures, 

connectivity can increase the ability to sense the environment even when the driver or 

motorcyclist’s visual line of sight is obstructed (Anaya et al., 2017). Figure 1 illustrates an 

expanded vehicle environment in which information from infrastructure (V2I) and/or other 

vehicle signals (V2V) help the system and motorcyclists operate in a more robust roadway 

information environment. As described in the figure, informational inputs are received by the 

ARAS, which then informs either a particular system component of a motorcycle or a rider to 

perform an evasive action. 
13

Figure 1. Relationship between CV applications and ARAS. 

The literature review showed that while research in the CV applications and ARAS motorcycle 

field is limited, several emerging projects, stakeholders, and challenges are noteworthy. Key U.S. 

involvement includes: 

• Motorcyclist Advisory Council to the Federal Highway Administration.

• NHTSA Motorcycle Safety Program.

• USDOT ITS Joint Program Office. 

A USDOT-sponsored study on motorcycle safety and ITS applications identified the need for 

funding for motorcycle safety research in the United States and noted that most of the research 

related to ITS applications and motorcycles was being performed outside the United States 

(Flanigan et al., 2018). The following section discusses some of these efforts. 

European Initiatives 

In the literature review for this project, European activities involving ACEM and the Federated 

European Motorcycle Association were identified in support of advancing motorcycle 

connectivity. The Connected Motorcycle Consortium (CMC) is a group of manufacturers, 

suppliers, and researchers based in Germany working together to advance CV applications in 

motorcycles. The group has produced significant work in this field, such as various 

specifications and other guidelines to achieve motorcycle connectivity. CMC has also developed 

performance standards for connected application requirements for such systems. The standards 

and requirements related to system, activation, real-time, reliability, and compatibility 

requirements are documented in its Basic Specification Evaluation Report, version 1 (CMC, 

2020). These documents and guidelines appear to be the first of their kind. 

CMC developed multiple use cases for motorcycle connectivity (Table 2). Each use case 

describes when motorcyclists might be most vulnerable if they lack even the smallest piece of 
14

traffic information. Examples of these use cases are separated into categories of seeing or 

warning the motorcyclist and motorcyclist comfort. 

Table 2. CMC use cases. 

Aimed at Driver (Seeing) Aimed at Motorcyclist (Warning) 

Motorcycle Approach Indication 

Motorcycle Approach Warning 

Intersection Movement Assist 

Left Turn Assist 

Forward Collision Warning 

Do Not Pass Warning 

Emergency Electronic Brake Light 

Traffic Jam Warning 

Adverse Weather Warning 

Approaching Emergency Vehicle Warning 

Slow or Stationary Vehicle Warning 

Broken Down Vehicle Warning 

Lane-Change/Blind-Spot Warning 

Road Works Warning 

Aimed at Motorcyclist (Comfort) 

In-Vehicle Signage 

Green Light Optimal Speed Advisory 

CMC has also developed a set of performance standards that include (CMC, 2020, p. 85): 

a) Percentage of successfully avoided collisions: this is the number of collisions that didn’t 

happen . . . for which a warning is given compared with the total number of collisions 

that occurred . . . when there was no intervention by the algorithm. 

b) Percentage of too-late detected collisions: this is the ratio between the number of 

collisions occurred . . . for which a warning is given, and the total number of collisions 

occurred . . . when there is no intervention by the algorithm. 

c) Percentage of not-detected collisions: this is the ratio between collisions occurred . . . for 

which no warning is given and the total number of collisions occurred . . . when there is 

no intervention by the algorithm. 

d) Percentage of true positives: this is given by the ratio between the number of detected 

collisions (avoided or not) and the total number of collisions that occurred . . . when there 

is no intervention by the algorithm. The number of detected collisions is the sum of the 

successfully avoid collisions plus the too-late detected collisions (represented by a and b 

in this list). 

e) Percentage of false positives: this is defined as the percentage of non-dangerous 

situations for which a warning is given. 

f) Percentage of false negatives: this is equivalent to the percentage of not-detected 

collisions (c). 

g) Percentage of true negatives: this is defined as the complementary of the percentage false 

positives. 

Much of the current work relating to motorcycle connectivity has involved identifying the 

potential benefits CV applications can offer to improve motorcyclist safety. While the number of 

deployments and demonstrations has been limited, some significant efforts have been identified 

in Europe. Industry leaders like Honda, BMW, and Ducati have made announcements regarding 

V2M technology deployments. Using DSRC, in 2013, Honda demonstrated motorcycle 

connectivity in the development of its V2M system. Honda’s V2M system can alert a driver if a 

motorcycle is nearby (Japan Products, 2013). 
15

In 2016, news emerged that BMW was making similar efforts. In BMW’s Connected Ride 

System, motorcyclists, by using a smartphone connection, can receive crucial roadway 

information. Examples of this information include road weather warnings, obstacle detection, 

camera-based collision warnings, adaptive headlights, and intersection assistance, which alerts 

motorcyclists if the signal is about to change (BMW Press, 2016). At the 2019 Consumer 

Electronics Show, Ducati rolled out a Multistrada 1260 motorcycle that, along with Audi and 

Ford passenger vehicles, was equipped with cellular vehicle-to-everything (C-V2X) technology 

to demonstrate how C-V2X can be used to negotiate the right of way at a four-way, nonsignalized intersection (McMahon, 2019). FCC is currently developing requirements for multiple 

communications technology, and there is an ongoing cooperation between governmental 

agencies to examine aspects of safety, latency, and performance. 

Companies have also exhibited V2V and vehicle-to-pedestrian (V2P) safety scenarios, such as in 

the first American demonstration of the Connected Vehicle to Everything of Tomorrow 

(ConVeX) project. ConVeX is a collaboration between Ducati, Audi AG, Ericsson, and several 

other institutes and companies funded by the German Federal Ministry of Transport and Digital 

Infrastructure whose purpose is to develop a testbed for field tests of C-V2X applications to 

validate performance and feasibility (ConVeX Consortium, 2021). In the project, the V2V case 

featured the intersection movement assist scenario, which addressed angle collisions at 

intersections, while the V2P scenario exhibited how V2X can protect road users such as 

pedestrians and bicyclists. The use case scenarios included studying the interoperability between 

equipped vehicles and motorcycles. Moreover, in 2018, the ConVeX group demonstrated 

connectivity between motorcycles, vehicles, and infrastructure. They demonstrated scenarios 

such as intersection collision and across traffic turn collision risk warnings. Triumph and Bosch 

have also released cellular and Bluetooth accessible devices for motorcycle connectivity 

purposes. 

ARAS and CV Challenges 

A discussion guide by Sandt and Owens (2017) identified key areas related to pedestrians and 

bicyclists, and some of these areas could also be considered in relation to motorcycles. They 

include: 

• Detection: As noted earlier, existing technology can be slower to identify motorcycles 

than cars. 

• V2X Basics/Connectivity: Achieving connectivity will require special design 

considerations and research to obtain reliable signaling and communication. For example, 

motorcycles sit lower than vehicles, possess a small surface area, and can lean. They also 

have smaller frames upon which to mount any antennas. These factors, among others, 

will affect signaling and communication. 

The project team also noted other gaps in knowledge and work after completing the literature 

review. These research areas did not emerge in literature, but the project team believes these 

topics warrant further investigation to continue the integration of connectivity in motorcycles and 

the advancement of other safety features. These areas include: 
16

• Warning Intervention Mode and Timing—Motorcyclists need to maintain high 

situational awareness and attention while riding. The slightest change in motorcycle 

stability can easily cause a motorcyclist to fall since motorcycles are inherently unstable. 

Warnings must be carefully designed to not distract the motorcyclist’s attention for too 

long. Alerts being too frequent may be too distractive and persuade motorcyclists to 

ignore system alerts altogether. Warning modes should also be carefully considered and 

minimize the time needed for the motorcyclist to interpret them.

• Motorcycle Connectivity Advancement versus Passenger Vehicle Advancement—

Further analysis is needed to determine how to achieve maximized safety for 

motorcyclists. It is unclear whether achieving motorcycle connectivity will be as 

beneficial for motorcyclist safety as fully developed vehicle connectivity. Preliminary 

challenges with motorcycle connectivity, like warning intervention mode and timing, and 

motorcyclist acceptance may signal that ITS technology may not be suitable for 

motorcycles. Comparative research and performance modeling should determine which 

technological avenues will optimize safety for motorcyclists. 
17

CHAPTER 3: STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK 

In addition to a literature review, the project team recognized that feedback from stakeholders 

such as motorcyclists, OEMs, and certain federal agencies was essential to performing robust 

research. Focus groups generate discussion beneficial to topics that require collective views and 

supplemental meaning to facts, especially in comparison to surveys or an independent literature 

review (Morgan, 1996). 

Given motorcycle connectivity is a relatively new area of research, observing discussions among 

stakeholders provides context to the challenges slowing its progression and identifies research 

priorities. To gather this feedback, two focus groups were conducted with motorcyclists, and a 

listening session was held with personnel from FHWA and NHTSA. Agency staff from the 

federal agencies specialized in a variety of research fields, including connectivity and automation 

infrastructure research, motorcycle safety, human behavior, and human factors. A better 

understanding of the similarities and differences in each group’s opinions, goals, and 

perspectives can identify crucial next steps in research and development. 

MOTORCYCLIST FOCUS GROUP 

Focus Group Methodology 

A crucial step in addressing the motorcycle safety gap is to gather current knowledge and 

recommendations from actual motorcyclists and potential users of upcoming technology. 

Adoption and full implementation of motorcycle connectivity and other systems like ARASs will 

depend on acceptance by the motorcycle community. To address this crucial step, the project 

team hosted via Microsoft Teams two virtual focus groups with motorcyclists to further 

understand their opinions about what may influence their choice to utilize an ARAS and/or 

connectivity or not. The project team specifically recruited motorcyclists from the Texas 

Motorcycle Safety Coalition. The coalition represents a broad range of experience and includes 

instructors, educators, and enthusiasts. The project team screened each participant using a 

screener survey to get a mix of experience, age, race, and gender. The screener survey included 

questions about demographic information, riding experience, role in the motorcycle community 

(i.e., motorcycle instructor, motorcyclist, industry member, etc.), and familiarity with automated 

or connected vehicles. Participants were required to be at least 18 years of age and familiar with 

at least 30 percent of ARAS terms. The screener survey asked respondents to indicate their 

familiarity with ARAS terminology but did not define the terms for the potential participants. 

This step was done later in the context of the actual focus group to assess if there were 

discrepancies in the participants’ real and perceived knowledge. Terms used in the screener 

included: 

• Anti-lock Braking System. 

• Stability Control. 

• Combined Braking System.

• Active Cruise Control. 

• Lane-Keep Assist. 

• Collision Warning System. 

• Curve Warning System. 
18

• Traction Control.

• Autonomous Emergency Braking.

• eCall. 

• Blind-Spot Assist. 

• Adaptive Headlights.

• Cruise Control. 

• Tire Pressure Control. 

• GPS Navigation. 

Participants were compensated for their time. 

Eight to 12 participants were invited to each focus group. The discussion lasted approximately 

90 minutes and was led by a Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) moderator. Another 

researcher from TTI served as a notetaker, and the session was recorded but not transcribed. 

During the focus groups, the TTI moderator discussed several subjects designed to inform the 

research goals, including: 

• General state of knowledge and opinions regarding upcoming technology. 

• Motorcyclist trust and acceptability. 

• Current motorcyclist strategies to avoid crashes. 

• Safety needs of motorcyclists and what they desire to see in future motorcycle 

technology. 

A group exercise was also implemented during the discussion to gauge the group’s familiarity 

with connectivity, autonomy, and ARASs. First, participants were given a short, 2-minute quiz to 

quantify their familiarity with various ARASs. Participants were also asked verbally if they were 

familiar with either CVs or AVs. Once verbal and written responses were collected from the 

group, the TTI moderator presented a PowerPoint reviewing the definition of CVs, AVs, and 

various ARASs and an illustration describing the relationship between CVs and ARASs. 

Focus Group Results 

Participant Overview 

Two focus groups consisting of seven and nine motorcyclists, respectively, were hosted in 

August 2021. Nearly 88 percent of participants identified as male, with a median age of 55 plus 

years. All participants in each group had many years of riding experience. In the first focus 

group, nearly 86 percent of participants had over 10 years’ riding experience, while in the second 

focus group, 78 percent had over 10 years’ riding experience. The remaining participants in both 

groups had a minimum of 6 years of riding experience. 

Figure 2 details the frequency of the type of riding the participants in the focus groups did. A 

leisure motorcyclist was defined as someone who used their bike on the weekend and/or after 

work in their free time. Meanwhile, the regular motorcyclist had other options for transportation 

besides their motorcycle. These motorcyclists rode regularly but would opt out of riding if the 

weather were bad or if they did not want to ride that day. Finally, a motorcyclist who rode every 
19

day despite road conditions and used their bike as their primary mode of transportation was 

considered a primary motorcyclist. 

Figure 2. Participant current riding frequency. 

Everyone who participated considered themselves a motorcyclist. Half of the total participants 

had worked as either a motorcycle instructor and/or educator. One participant had experience in 

manufacturing and sales, and another participant had experience in repair work. Each participant 

was familiar with a wide variety of ARASs, and 81 percent and 75 percent had previously heard 

of AVs and CVs, respectively. 

Safe Riding Practices 

Similar reports between both focus groups were made on how to ride safely. Multiple 

participants (including some of the motorcycle instructors) often referred to the motorcycle 

training they had received to obtain their license when discussing safe riding. For example, many 

discussed “all the gear, all the time” and using the search, evaluate, and execute (SEE) system 

while riding. One motorcycle instructor described the SEE system as a method for motorcyclists 

to assess current roadway conditions for risk, maintain high situational awareness, and better 

prioritize riding tasks. Even if motorcyclists were not familiar with this acronym, almost every 

participant stated or described the importance of riding defensively and to always have 

alternative options to avoid danger (an “out”). The participants in each group considered it 

crucial to have high situational awareness to be a good motorcyclist, but to be a great and safe 

motorcyclist, it is important to always have strong predictability skills. 

Motorcyclists reported many common mistakes and general safety concerns for the community. 

Participants reported that often motorcyclists can become complacent, too comfortable, and even 

overly confident in some scenarios. To avoid this false sense of security, motorcyclists should 

always assume the worst. As one participant stated, motorcyclists should “ride as if they are 

invisible” and never ride beyond their comfort and/or skill level. In fact, some personal crashes 

discussed were due to overconfidence, and many did not improve their riding skills until they 
20

received official training. Participants commented that novice motorcyclists are most likely to 

have these issues due to lack of training and will take bigger risks, such as high-speed lane 

splitting. A major safety problem identified was unlicensed, untrained motorcyclists on shared 

roadways. According to one of the motorcycle instructors, nearly 30,000 motorcyclists ride 

unlicensed in Texas. Furthermore, educational outreach is difficult, and it is often hard to 

convince motorcyclists, especially those who are complacent, that they might need additional 

training. Other motorcyclists affirmed that it was difficult for them to take the steps to receive 

additional training for some official licensing, but they acknowledged that advanced courses can 

and had improved their skill set tremendously. 

Thoughts on Connectivity and ARASs 

A difference in tone and attitude regarding the utilization of motorcycle connectivity and 

advancing ARASs existed between the two focus groups. The first group was not as accepting of 

advanced motorcycle technology as the second group but saw the benefits of upcoming 

technology to improve motorcycle safety. In contrast, the second group had some concerns, but 

most of their feedback was generally positive. However, despite the difference in attitude, very 

similar motorcycle connectivity and ARAS concerns and benefits were still discussed among the 

two focus groups. As shown in Table 3, the focus groups identified several concerns and 

potential benefits related to ARASs. 

Table 3. ARAS concerns and benefits. 

Concerns Potential Benefits 

• Overreliance on Technology. 

• Warning Display Distraction.

• Motorcyclist Interaction with 

Autonomous Features. 

• User Acceptance. 

• System Reaction Times. 

• Improvement of Novice Motorcyclist 

Confidence. 

• Preventive Measure. 

As many of the focus group participants related, part of being a great motorcyclist is maintaining 

high situational awareness and predicting future events. Integrating technology that inherently 

enhances situational awareness may prevent motorcyclists from naturally developing 

fundamental situational awareness skills and cause deskilling. A few participants mentioned that 

a motorcyclist being too unfamiliar with riding an unequipped motorcycle might put them at a 

higher risk of injury. Participants feared that if motorcyclists became too reliant on assistive 

technology, they would not be prepared for situations when assistive technology was unavailable 

or malfunctioned. Similar findings were found in previous studies using motorcycle rider focus 

groups (Montanari et al., 2011; Füssl et al., 2012; Beanland et al., 2013). Additionally, group 

members expressed concern that technological advancements would increase the cost of the 

motorcycle and make it an unreasonable mode of transportation. Focus groups conducted by 

Füssl et al. (2012) and Beanland et al. (2013) also received the same feedback from their 

participants regarding cost increases. 

Others focus group members were worried that even if motorcycles were able to receive 

warnings, these warnings would be distracting, especially at high speeds. Unlike vehicles, 

motorcycles are less forgiving. Because motorcycles only have two wheels and are not as stable, 

motorcyclists are more sensitive to any system or environmental change and have a slim margin 
21

of error. Because of the lack of stability—and as a result, increased sensitivity—motorcyclists 

face higher risks and even more significant consequences for smaller errors in comparison to a 

passenger vehicle. These same concerns led both groups to be against active systems and bikes 

with autonomous features. Multiple participants expressed concern that if a system were to 

noticeably take over the stability, direction, and/or speed of the motorcycle, the motorcyclist 

might have an adverse physical reaction, putting them at risk for dropping their bike. 

Motorcyclists believe that if the community is to accept these systems, the system must not 

produce any jerky movements. 

Participants worried that any hard system actions might cause motorcyclists to believe they are 

losing stability and negatively react, thereby increasing their chance of falling. The first focus 

group, however, mentioned that these features should still be integrated with passenger vehicles 

and can help improve motorcycle safety as a result. Implementing these advanced features will 

help motorcycles become more visible to drivers. Focus group participants described fourwheeled vehicle drivers as always being distracted. One focus group member even described 

four-wheeled vehicle drivers as typically inattentive due to texting, eating, or other tasks that do 

not involve driving. Another participant also observed that four-wheeled drivers typically do not 

expect motorcyclists on the road. Active systems in four-wheeled vehicles would benefit drivers, 

especially at times when they lack vigilance, and since a passenger vehicle has higher traction, 

drivers will not have to fear losing stability if the system takes over automatically. 

Although many had concerns for motorcycle connectivity and ARASs, participants on average 

agreed that these systems can improve safety if their concerns were addressed. The first group 

believed that some systems may be more effective than others, while the second group was more 

accepting of all systems on the stipulation of system flexibility. In other words, it would 

primarily depend on the context and the specific motorcyclist’s goals. One example given was 

ABS may provide the motorcyclist improved safety on highways, but if the motorcyclist were

off-road, ABS would not be helpful. Participants agreed that having the option to turn these 

features off and on at their convenience might help increase user acceptance if similar scenarios 

emerge. Additionally, it would help give novice motorcyclists more confidence and experience 

since they would have the ability to gradually learn how to ride a bike without safety features at 

their own pace.

Some motorcyclists indicated that some ARASs would provide them more confidence while 

riding. They were still adamant that motorcyclists should always be extremely aware and 

familiar with their equipment but recognized sometimes situations emerge that are unavoidable 

even when the motorcyclist has done everything correctly. These situations include braking for 

unforeseen objects in the roadway or roadway surfaces that are more slippery than anticipated. 

The second group even discussed that these systems might be able to respond faster than the 

actual motorcyclist to a high-risk scenario, especially if something unexpected emerges. 

The first focus group also discussed concerns for how motorcycles would convey ARAS and 

C-ITS alerts to motorcyclists. They recognized ARAS and ITS applications could be useful in 

unexpected scenarios but feared the system warning mode might be too distracting and increase 

the motorcyclist’s risk of injury. Due to the small surface area of a motorcycle, one participant 

mentioned they could only receive warnings on their bike’s small display or in a heads-up 

display within their helmet. They said that taking a motorcyclist’s attention off the roadway, 
22

even if only briefly, and especially at high speeds, may put the motorcyclist in danger. They also 

expressed concern that the time needed to interpret the alert on the display may be distracting to 

the motorcyclist and infringe on safety. The same participant mentioned that passenger vehicles 

might be more forgiving to drivers who briefly take their eyes off the road. However, for 

motorcyclists, doing so could prove fatal. 

Other Recommendations from the Focus Groups 

At the conclusion of the focus group session, motorcyclists were asked if they had other safety 

concerns that did not emerge in the earlier discussion. The list below presents issues mentioned 

by participants that could benefit from motorcycle connectivity. 

• Roadway Maintenance in Construction Zones—Both focus groups discussed roadway 

maintenance in construction zones as a significant safety problem for motorcyclists. They 

explained that motorcyclists often struggle to identify loose gravel in the road unless a 

warning sign is available. Participants also explained they fear approaching loose gravel, 

knowingly or unknowingly, because it can increase their crash risk since loose gravel 

may cause their motorcycle to lose traction with the road’s surface. Participants urged 

that construction workers be more diligent about cleaning the roadways to avoid these 

problems altogether. Other roadway conditions resulting from construction were also 

noted, such as uneven lanes. If the motorcyclist must change lanes, the unevenness may 

cause difficulty if the difference between the lanes is substantial. 

• Barrier Design—A few participants mentioned their fear of specific barrier designs 

found on roadways. They believed current guardrails are not designed for motorcyclists,

especially if they were to crash. One participant even mentioned a fear of decapitation if 

they were to hit a cable barrier. The group recommended safer barrier designs be 

explored to prevent further injury or damage if a motorcyclist were to crash. 

• Lane Splitting and Filtering—The second focus group discussed the legalization of lane 

filtering and lane splitting to avoid motorcycle crashes. Lane splitting refers to a 

motorcyclist traveling between lanes of traffic, while lane filtering is a similar situation 

occurring only at a stopped, signalized intersection, which then allows the motorcyclist to 

bypass the queue of vehicles. If motorcyclists are filtering, they will ride between 

vehicles to the front of the intersection to avoid a rear-end collision. Several participants 

agreed that lane splitting should be made legal. However, one participant agreed more 

with the legalization of lane filtering rather than lane splitting because they felt lane 

splitting would be abused too often. The participant acknowledged that other 

motorcyclists might also abuse lane filtering, which is why the member speculated it had 

not been made legal in many states. Participants did agree that if both are used 

appropriately, safety will increase. 

• Unlicensed Riders and Training—A major topic initiated by participants in the first 

focus group was the number of unlicensed motorcyclists in Texas and the lack of 

training. According to one participant, also a former motorcycle instructor, there are 

nearly 30,000 unlicensed riders in Texas. The high number of unlicensed riders, as the 

group discussed, may be due to the ease of purchasing a motorcycle when a license is not 

required. Furthermore, the same participant mentioned that one could often spot 

motorcycle riders who have not received proper training. Other participants reported that 
23

those who received a three-wheel training course somehow obtained a full M class 

license rather than a restricted license and believe incorrect licensing is a major problem. 

Many of the concerns mentioned from the focus group sessions are consistent with MAC 

recommendations. Reports have been produced discussing and addressing these issues and their 

impact on motorcyclists, including roadside safety hardware and barriers (Silvestri-Dobrovolny 

et al., 2021), roadway geometrics, maintenance practices, and pavement design (Geary et al., 

2021). Further information is available for review on FHWA’s motorcycle safety website 

(https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/motorcycles/). While these issues may not seem related to 

motorcycle connectivity, they can all be impacted by the adoption of C-ITS technologies for 

motorcycles, which can increase motorcyclists’ awareness of their surroundings. Motorcyclists 

can receive advance warnings of construction obstacles and barrier areas; technology can alert 

motorcyclists and drivers in the event of lane splitting or filtering; and the effective and proper 

use of technology can be addressed in all required training.

LISTENING SESSION WITH FHWA AND NHTSA STAFF 

To better understand the direction and development of federal policy and research related to 

motorcycle connectivity, a listening session was convened with federal agency staff. The 

listening session included representatives from FHWA and NHTSA who are currently working 

on initiatives designed to advance C-ITS and ARAS safety applications for motorcycles. The 

listening session sought to gain insight into specific activities at the federal level and gather 

information from state departments of transportation about policy goals and directions and 

identified research areas. The listening session supported the research objectives by allowing the 

project team to learn firsthand about the initiatives undertaken in this research area and how they 

may support policy goals as well as the potential gaps when considered in context with the 

findings from the motorcyclist focus groups. 

Listening Session Methodology 

Working with FHWA staff, the project team compiled a list of people working in applicable 

research fields of motorcycle connectivity and safety to participate in the listening session. 

Applicable research fields included research into connectivity and automation infrastructure, 

motorcycle safety, human behavior, and human factors. The session, which lasted approximately 

90 minutes, began with the moderator providing background information about the project and 

the purpose of the research. The intent of the session was to learn what initiatives each 

department of each agency was undertaking regarding C-ITS for motorcycle safety. Further, the 

project team was interested in what the participants identified as the challenges in addressing 

motorcycle safety and the current research gaps. The project team identified broad questions to 

ask the group, but the group was encouraged to talk among themselves and let the discussion 

related to research needs and policy questions develop organically. 

Listening Session Findings 

Listening Session Summary

The listening session with federal agencies validated the earlier literature review findings of a 

major gap in research regarding motorcycle connectivity and other advanced applications to 
24

improve motorcycle safety. Participants acknowledged that there are not currently any research 

efforts, to their knowledge, aimed at investigating and assessing the technology necessary to 

achieve motorcycle connectivity and/or automation. Instead, this research arena has focused only 

on four-wheeled vehicles thus far. Participants speculated that delays in advancing research and 

policy initiatives may be due to ongoing debates and discussions over which wireless 

communication, DSRC versus LTE-CV2X, will be utilized to achieve connectivity. Motorcycle 

manufacturers may be hesitant to invest in this technology until these decisions are made. As one 

participant phrased the problem, the connectivity among passenger vehicles must be addressed 

and established first, and then motorcycles will be an add-on feature.

Although motorcycles have not been the primary focus in discussions or research of connectivity 

and/or autonomy, many participants stated that there have instead been research initiatives 

focusing on motorcycle interactions with equipped, automated, or connected passenger vehicles. 

One participant mentioned that NTSB has even recommended that equipped vehicles should not 

only be capable of detecting other vehicles but also able to specify vehicle or user type 

(motorcycle, pedestrian, bicyclists, etc.). Furthermore, according to NTSB, this level of accuracy 

in detection systems should be incorporated as part of the performance standards of future 

connected passenger vehicles. Federal agency stakeholders in the listening session also expressed 

the general concern the infrastructure needed for passenger vehicle connectivity and roadway 

adaptions will potentially increase motorcyclists’ risk of a crash or injury.

The group of participants agreed that motorcycles would benefit from connectivity. A few 

examples were given during the discussion, such as that motorcyclists are not always the best at 

anticipating a curve correctly and will make a mistake in their lean angle or speed. Additionally, 

motorcyclists lack saliency, or noticeability. Drivers often do not anticipate motorcyclists, and 

the size of motorcycles makes them harder to see. Furthermore, some listening session

participants expressed the opinion that motorcyclists wearing dark clothing may increase the 

likelihood of not being seen by another vehicle. By integrating motorcycle connectivity, these 

issues may be avoided altogether and improve safety, but there are other technical issues to 

consider first. 

Identified Research Gaps and Challenges 

Difficult design decisions will have to be made to achieve motorcycle connectivity, like antenna 

or sensor placement. Helmet laws vary among states and not all motorcyclists wear helmets, so it 

has been recommended to place the antenna on the bike. However, even if the antenna is placed 

on the motorcycle, the motorcyclist or passenger might cause interference. Designers and 

manufacturers will have to consider these types of problems in future prototypes, as well as the 

number of sensors needed and placement since motorcycles sit lower than passenger vehicles. 

Participants suggested that Honda, as a major industry leader, may serve at the forefront of 

motorcycle connectivity. The group was unaware of any connected or automated vehicle 

deployments focused on motorcycle safety or interactions.

Future Research Areas

At the end of this discussion, the TTI moderator asked all participants to share their first research 

priority on motorcycle connectivity. The list below is presented in descending order, from the 

most often mentioned research topic to the least.
25

• Equipped Vehicle and Driver Detection of Motorcycles and Accuracy—Many 

participants agreed that understanding the ability of current machine vision systems and 

passenger vehicle drivers to detect motorcycles accurately is of utmost importance. 

Understanding the perception limits of the sensors or connectivity provides researchers 

with a better grasp of how ADASs may assist drivers with motorcycle-related interactions 

and how an ADS that replaces a human driver may perceive motorcycles and navigate 

safely. Assessing current machine vision systems will guide design and further 

performance standards for any connected and/or automated system and other features like 

ADASs and ADSs to improve interactions between vulnerable road users, not just 

motorcyclists. 

• User Acceptance—A major concern expressed during the listening session was whether 

motorcyclists may oppose connectivity altogether. Some participants suggested, based on 

past project experience, that motorcycle connectivity may go against motorcyclists’ 

ultimate goals as owners of motorcycles. Motorcyclist concerns such as cost, design 

aesthetics, and increased visibility may deter them from utilizing these features. Research 

in this field must establish if there will be market acceptance.

• Warning Displays—More research needs to be conducted on how motorcyclists receive 

warnings or signals. These messages can indicate pavement conditions, upcoming 

construction zones, traffic, traffic light status, nearby vehicles, and so forth. However, it 

is important to assess how to provide motorcyclists with the most accurate information to 

increase their safety without taking their attention away from the roadway. Developing a 

better understanding of this issue will be a major step in achieving motorcycle 

connectivity. 

• Performance Standards—There is a gap in research as to how automated and connected 

vehicles operate in a heterogenous mix of vehicles. Performance standards for advanced 

vehicles should focus on the interaction between the various types of vehicles, including 

motorcycles, and include the necessary design and technical requirements that ensure all 

road users’ safety, especially in detection accuracy.

• Motorcyclist Trust—Motorcyclists will not use assistive technology, even if it decreases 

the risk of crash or injury, if they do not trust the system. Trust is essential, especially 

during times the motorcyclist needs extra assistance. These situations may include the 

system providing motorcyclists with crucial safety information they cannot obtain on 

their own or taking over specific riding tasks if a motorcyclist is experiencing a 

dangerously high workload. On the other hand, motorcyclists may be too trusting and 

become overdependent on systems to perform specific tasks. Studying motorcyclist trust 

will give insight into how to calibrate system capability to better guide design. If this 

relationship is miscalibrated, motorcyclists may not responsibly use the assistive 

technology. 
26

CHAPTER 4: CONCLUSIONS

This report identified the challenges and opportunities for CV and ARAS technologies within the 

motorcycle community. A major objective of implementing additional technology on 

motorcycles is to improve their safety. Motorcyclists can suffer greatly increased consequences 

from issues of stability, pavement conditions, and other challenges to the riding environment. 

Some of the ARAS technologies, like ABS, have already demonstrated safety benefits. Although 

not universally desired by riders, technology has the capability to reduce these consequences and 

provide for a safer riding experience. As recognized in the literature (Flanigan et al., 2018), 

technology can be used to both improve safety and enhance the rider’s experience. By focusing 

on both aspects, the motorcycle community may be more prone to acceptance of the new 

technologies.

THE MOTORCYCLE SAFETY BUBBLE

A concept that illustrates the layers of safety within the motorcyclist environment is shown in 

Figure 3. At the core of the safety environment is the motorcyclist wearing personal protective 

equipment, a foundational requirement taught in all motorcycle classes. Next, the ARAS features 

discussed previously can add an additional layer of safety. ARAS features are essentially selfcontained within the vehicle and do not rely on external inputs from other vehicles or 

infrastructure. OEMs are continuing to offer advances in this area even though not all 

motorcyclists view them as a positive.

The next level of safety can be provided by establishing a connected environment in which the 

motorcycle can communicate with other vehicles. Information could be sent and received as part 

of the next generation of vehicle connectivity that is envisioned for the future. The final layer of 

the safety environment can be thought of as the vehicle-to-infrastructure link, in which roadway 

devices communicate information to the driver and the vehicle systems. Overall, the V2V 

components are in their infancy stage within the motorcycle arena and are only slightly more 

developed in passenger vehicles.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of each defense separately and in combination should be studied 

further. Literature review results indicate that the integration between combinations of these 

defenses and their impact on overall motorcyclist safety have not yet been studied. 
27

Figure 3. Motorcycle safety bubble. 

ITS TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS FROM PRIOR RESEARCH 

Research findings from previous tasks in this project were reviewed to determine where CV 

applications can be utilized to enhance motorcyclists’ safety. The information to make this 

assessment developed from the project team’s literature review, focus groups, and listening 

sessions. Following is a summary of the issues that can potentially be addressed through CV 

applications: 

• Motorcycle VMT Uncertainty and Data—Accurate data are essential to advance 

research to enhance motorcycle safety performance. However, estimating motorcycle 

VMT is currently challenging since there is not a uniform estimation method among 

states (Transportation Research Board, 2007). Furthermore, research is needed to 

determine which methods are more or less accurate compared to others. CV technologies 

could potentially address this need if a reporting of the vehicle type were associated with 

the connectivity information exchanged with the infrastructure. This measure would 

require assumptions related to market penetration since not all motorcycles will be 

equipped with these technologies at the onset. However, by addressing this gap and 

collecting more accurate motorcycle VMT, designers and researchers could better 
28

prioritize the development of CV applications by the level of applicability to increase 

motorcycle safety. 

• Sight Distance—ITS applications and ARASs can be designed to help increase the 

saliency of motorcyclists and improve their visibility of the roadway and roadway 

elements. Motorcyclists’ field of view can be narrower compared to an automobile driver.

For example, CV applications may enhance motorcyclists’ visibility of obstacles in the 

roadway. 

• Pavement Conditions—According to FHWA (2020), nearly 29 percent of roadways 

(1.2 million miles) are unpaved. Given that motorcycles are less stable and do not possess 

as much traction as passenger vehicles, unpaved roadways may be a safety concern. 

Other pavement conditions—such as slick surfaces, level of deterioration, and irregular 

surfaces—also pose risks to motorcyclists and can exacerbate instability. Unfortunately, 

these changes in roadway conditions may not be recognized by motorcyclists in time to 

take evasive action. CV applications may provide warnings to the motorcyclist in time to 

avoid these unsafe conditions while riding, but further research is needed in this field. 

• Construction Zones and Maintenance—Like pavement conditions, construction zones 

can be very unsafe and increase the risk for motorcyclists, and warnings beforehand 

might prevent injury and damage. Often, pavement irregularities in terms of road texture, 

unevenness, and loose gravel exist on the roadway in construction areas. Focus groups 

with motorcyclists also revealed these situations were a significant concern since, without 

signage, motorcyclists were unable to tell if there was loose gravel in the road. 

• Lane Splitting and Filtering—Lane splitting allows a motorcyclist to move between 

lanes of slow moving traffic while lane filtering allows a motorcyclist to move between 

lanes of stopped traffic to get to the front of the traffic queue. Both lane splitting and 

filtering serve as a preventive safety measure to help the motorcyclist avoid a rear-end 

collision whenever traffic is stopped or slowed down. Currently, laws vary widely 

between states. For some, both splitting and filtering are illegal, while in other states, 

both are legal. A significant concern for either action is that motorcyclists will abuse the 

ability to lane split or filter, and in turn, increase their and other drivers’ crash risk. 

However, studies have shown that motorcyclists are, in fact, seven times more likely to 

be hit while stopped than when lane splitting (Kurlantzick & Krosner, 2016). ITS 

applications may mitigate the likelihood of a crash caused by lane splitting or filtering by 

notifying nearby drivers that a motorcycle is approaching. Warnings can also serve to 

notify motorcyclists of vehicles attempting to change lanes to avoid a collision as well. 

• Level and Type of Pavement Deterioration (i.e., Deterioration Thresholds) That Is 

Detrimental to Motorcycle Safety—Communicating information about pavement 

condition is thought to be useful only if it occurs before being encountered. This 

capability requires a detailed and oft-repeated inventory of pavement conditions at a 

highly sophisticated level of mapping. Additionally, conditions such as construction that 

can impact pavement markings as well as pavement surfaces have to be reported in 

conjunction with the pavement condition, all of which would be reported via V2I 

communications. The level of information and infrastructure required to affect this alert 

to motorcyclists across a national road network would be tremendously expensive. 

• Effect of Surface Condition as a Contributing Factor in Motorcycle Safety—Similar 

to the previous item, notifying motorcyclists of surface conditions other than pavement 

condition might be useful but is currently challenging to achieve on a large scale. Surface 
29

conditions include pavement conditions, weather (snow, rain, ice), and even other surface 

conditions, such as debris, rocks, or slick surfaces from spilled materials such as oil. No 

current sensors that detect the full array of these conditions in real time currently exist. 

Additionally, the density of infrastructure required to detect such conditions on an 

uninterrupted roadway basis would be considerable and costly. 

SUMMARY OF ITS TECHNOLOGIES 

Table 4 summarizes the safety areas identified through the course of this research that may be 

solved or partially mitigated through ITS technologies and applications. This cross-tabulation is 

useful because it illustrates that the two most identified areas of concern are motorcyclist 

acceptance and the methods for alerting motorcyclists. Both concerns were identified in nearly 

all of the sectors of research. These findings thus indicate where the top needs for further 

research and development are within the ARAS and CV research areas for motorcycles. 

Table 4. Summary of identified areas to include in motorcycle CV research and 

development. 

Area of Concern 

Area of Mention 

Prior 

Tasks 

Literature 

Review 

Focus 

Groups 

Listening 

Session 

Motorcyclist Acceptance X X X X 

Warning Intervention Displays, 

Modes, and Timing 

X X X 

Performance Evaluation of ARASs 

and CVs 

X X 

Design X X 

Motorcycle Connectivity 

Advancement vs. Passenger Vehicle 

Advancement 

X X 

Vehicle Stability X 

System Reaction Times X 

Warning Display Distraction X X 

Improvement of Novice Motorcyclist 

Confidence 

X 

Motorcyclist Interaction with 

Autonomous Features 

X X 

Equipped Vehicle and Driver 

Detection of Motorcycles 

X X 

Performance Standards X X 

Motorcycle VMT X X 

Sight Distance X X 

Pavement Conditions X X 

Constructions Zones and Maintenance X X 

Lane Splitting and Filtering X X 

Pavement and Roadway Surface 

Conditions 

X X 
30

REFERENCES 

AAA. (2014). Evaluation of blind spot monitoring and blind spot intervention technologies. 

https://publicaffairsresources.aaa.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Blind-Spot-MonitoringReport.pdf 

ACEM. (2009). MAIDS: In-depth investigations of accidents involving powered two-wheelers. 

Final Report 2.0. http://www.maids-study.eu 

Anaya, J. J., Ponz, A., García, F., & Talavera, E. (2017). Motorcycle detection for ADAS 

through camera and V2V communication, a comparative analysis of two modern technologies. 

Expert Systems with Applications, 77, 148–159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2017.01.032 

Basch, N., Moore, M., & Hellinga, L. (2015). Evaluation of motorcycle anti-lock braking 

systems. In Proceedings, 24th International Technical Conference on the Enhanced Safety of 

Vehicles (ESV). https://www-esv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/24/isv7/main.htm

Bayly, M., Regan, M. A., & Hosking, S. G. (2006). Intelligent transport systems and motorcycle 

safety (Report No. 260). Monash University Accident Research Centre. 

https://www.monash.edu/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/216359/Intelligent-transport-systems-andmotorcycle-safety.pdf 

Beanland, V., Lenné, M., Fuessl, E., Oberlader, M., Joshi, S., Bellet, T., Banet, A., Rößger, L., 

Leden, L., Spyropoulou, I., Yannis, G., Roebroeck, H., Carvalhais, J., & Underwood, G. (2013). 

Acceptability of rider assistive systems for powered two-wheelers. Transportation Research Part 

F, 19, 63–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.03.003

Bekiaris, E. D., Spadoni, A., & Nikolaou, S. I. (2009, May). SAFERIDER Project: New safety 

and comfort in powered two wheelers. In Proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Human System 

Interactions (pp. 600–602). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/HSI.2009.5091045 

BMW Press. (2016). BMW Motorrad presents Concept ConnectedRide. The next advancement in 

motorcycle connectivity for increased safety and comfort. 

https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0265634EN/bmw-motorrad-presentsconcept-connectedride-the-next-advancement-in-motorcycle-connectivity-for-increased-safetyand-comfort?language=en

CMC. (2020). Applications. https://www.cmc-info.net/applications.html

ConVeX Consortium. (2021). Connected vehicle (V2X) of tomorrow. https://convexproject.de/index.html 

Dinges, J. T., & Durisek, N. J. (2019). Automated vehicle disengagement reaction time 

compared to human brake reaction time in both automobile and motorcycle operation (Paper 

No. 2019-01-1010). SAE International. https://doi.org/10.4271/2019-01-1010
31

Dodge, L. D., & Halladay, M. (2008). Motorcycle safety and intelligent transportation systems. 

In 15th World Congress on Intelligent Transport Systems and ITS America’s 2008 Annual 

Meeting. ITS America. 

European Telecommunications Standards Institute. (2022). Automotive intelligent transportation 

systems (ITS). https://www.etsi.org/technologies/automotive-intelligent-transport

FHWA. (2020). Public road length—2019: Miles by type of surface and ownership/functional 

system (Report Table HM-12). USDOT. 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2019/pdf/hm12.pdf

Flanigan, E., Blizzard, K., Tudelo Rivedeneyra, A., & Campbell, R. (2018). Motorcycle safety 

and intelligent transportation systems gap analysis, final report (Report No. FHWA-JPO-18-

700). FHWA. 

Füssl, E., Oberlader, M., Lenne, M. G., Beanland, V., Pereira, M., Simoes, A., Turetschek, C., 

Kaufmann, C., Joshi, S., Rößger, L., & Leden, L. (2012). Riders acceptance of advanced rider 

assistance systems. https://openresearch-repository.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/72472

Geary, G., Dixon, K., Aspelin, K., & Manser, M. (2021). Addressing the Motorcyclist Advisory 

Council recommendations: Synthesis on roadway geometry, pavement design, and pavement 

construction and maintenance practices (Report No. FHWA-SA-21-090). FHWA. 

Green, D. (2006, March). A comparison of stopping distance performance for motorcycles 

equipped with ABS, CBS and conventional hydraulic brake systems. In International Motorcycle 

Safety Conference (pp. 26–30). 

Hart, C. (2021). Driverless motor vehicles: Not yet ready for prime time. NAE Perspectives. 

https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/2021/09/driverless-motor-vehicles-not-yet-ready-forprime-time 

Hurt, H. H., Ouellet, J. V., & Thom, D. R. (1981). Final report—Motorcycle accident cause 

factors and identification of countermeasures (Report No. DOT-HS-5-01160). NHTSA. 

Japan Products. (2013). Honda demonstrates advanced vehicle-to-pedestrian and vehicle-tomotorcycle safety technologies. https://japan-product.com/honda-demonstrates-advancedvehicle-to-pedestrian-and-vehicle-to-motorcycle-safety-technologies/

Kurlantzick, A., & Krosner, B. (2016). Motorcycle lane splitting: A literature review.

https://trid.trb.org/view/1416889 

Kuschefski, A., Haasper, M., & Vallese, A. (2011). Advanced rider assistance systems for 

powered two-wheelers (ARAS-PTW). In Proceedings, 22nd International Technical Conference 

on the Enhanced Safety of Vehicles (ESV). NHTSA (No. 11-0123). https://wwwesv.nhtsa.dot.gov/Proceedings/22/isv7/main.htm 

Lumiaho, A. (2012). ITS for motorcycles—Utopia or factual benefits. In Proceedings, 19th ITS 

World Congress. ITS America. 
32

McMahon, D. (2019). Ducati presents car-to-bike communication technology at CES in Las 

Vegas. https://powersportsbusiness.com/top-stories/2019/01/08/ducati-presents-car-to-bikecommunication-technology-at-ces-in-las-vegas/

Montanari, R., Borin, A., & Spadoni, A. (2011). SAFERIDER: Results from Yamaha test site on 

advanced rider assistance system. In Proceedings of the 9th ACM SIGCHI Italian Chapter 

International Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Facing Complexity (pp. 132–138). 

Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). Sage. 

National Safety Council. (2022). Road to zero: A plan to eliminate roadway deaths. 

https://www.nsc.org/road-safety/get-involved/road-to-zero 

Nazemetz, J. W., Bents, F. D., Perry, J. G., Thor, C. P., & Mohamedshah, Y. M. (2019). 

Motorcycle crash causation study (Report No. FHWA-HRT-18-064). FHWA. 

NHTSA. (2021). Traffic safety facts: 2019 data—Motorcycles (Report No. DOT HS 813 112). 

https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/813112

Nordqvist, M., & Gregersen, N. P. (2011). Study on motorcyclist’s behavior and attitude towards 

road safety. https://www.svmc.se/upload/SMC%20centralt/Dokument/rapporter 

/ntf_SMC%20rapport_eng_low.pdf

NTSB. (2018). Safety report: Select risk factors associated with causes of motorcycle crashes

(Report No. NTSB/SR-18/01). https://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safetystudies/Documents/SR1801.pdf

Penumaka, A. P., Savino, G., Baldanzini, N., & Pierini, M. (2014). In-depth investigations of 

PTW-car accidents caused by human errors. Safety Science, 68, 212–221. 

Rais, S. (2020). First motorcycle ARAS (advanced rider assistance systems). SpeedHounds. 

http://www.speedhounds.com/2020/10/first-motorcycle-aras-advanced-rider-assistance-systems/

Rizzi, M., Kullgren, A., & Tingvall, C. (2015). The combined benefits of motorcycle antilock 

braking systems (ABS) in preventing crashes and reducing crash severity. Traffic Injury 

Prevention, 17(3), 297–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2015.1061660 

Rizzi, M., Strandroth, J., Kullgren, A., Tingvall, C., & Fildes, B. (2015). Effectiveness of 

motorcycle antilock braking systems (ABS) in reducing crashes, the first cross-national study. 

Traffic Injury Prevention, 16(2), 177–183. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2014.927575 

Rizzi, M., Strandroth, J., & Tingvall, C. (2009). The effectiveness of antilock brake systems on 

motorcycles in reducing real-life crashes and injuries. Traffic Injury Prevention, 10(5), 479–487. 

https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580903149292

SAE International. (2021). Surface vehicle recommended practice J3016—Taxonomy and 

definitions for terms related to driving automation systems for on-road motor vehicles.

https://www.sae.org/standards/content/j3016_201806
33

Sandt, L., & Owens, J. M. (2017). Discussion guide for automated and connected vehicles, 

pedestrians, and bicyclists. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. 

Savino, G., Lot, R., Massaro, M., Rizzi, M., Symeonidis, I., Will, S., & Brown, J. (2020). Active 

safety systems for powered two-wheelers: A systematic review. Traffic Injury Prevention, 21(1), 

78–86. 

Sayre, M., Provenzano, J., Canchola, M., Lee, C., Line, E., Lundquist, J., McLaughlin, S., 

Shankwitz, C., & Taylor, F. (2020). Motorcyclist Advisory Council recommendations to the 

Secretary of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. Motorcyclist Advisory 

Council. 

Silla, A., Leden, L., Rämä, P., Scholliers, J., Van Noort, M., Morris, A., Hancox, G., & Bell, D. 

(2018). A headway to improve PTW rider safety within the EU through three types of ITS. 

European Transport Research Review, 10(2), 1–12. 

https://etrr.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s12544-018-0289-5 

Silvestri-Dobrovolny, C., Geary, G., Dixon, K., Manser, M., & Chauhan, J. (2021). Addressing 

the Motorcycle Advisory Council recommendations: Synthesis on barrier design for 

motorcyclists safety (Report No. FHWA-SA-21-069). FHWA. 

Sporner, A., & Kramlich, T. (2001). Motorcycle braking and its influence on severity of injury

(Paper No. 2001-06-0168). SAE International. 

Teoh, E. (2013). Effectiveness of antilock braking systems in reducing motorcycle fatal crash 

rates. Traffic Injury Prevention, 12(2), 169–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2010.541308

Teoh, E. (2017). Motorcycle crashes potentially preventable by passenger vehicle crash 

avoidance technology. Traffic Injury Prevention, 19(5), 513–517.

https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2018.1440082

Teoh, E. (2021a). Motorcycle antilock braking systems and fatal crash rates: Updated results. 

IIHS. https://www.iihs.org/api/datastoredocument/bibliography/2236

Teoh, E. (2021b). Motorcycles registered in the United States, 2002–2021. IIHS. 

https://www.iihs.org/topics/bibliography/ref/2225 

Transportation Research Board. (2007). Research needs statements: Developing valid estimates 

of motorcycle vehicle miles traveled. https://rns.trb.org/details/dproject.aspx?n=14029

USDOT. (n.d.). Connected vehicle benefits. 

https://www.its.dot.gov/factsheets/connected_vehicle_benefits.htm

USDOT. (2017). USDOT automated vehicles 2.0 activities. 

https://www.transportation.gov/av/2.0

USDOT. (2018). USDOT automated vehicles 3.0 activities. https://www.transportation.gov/av/3
34

USDOT. (2020). USDOT automated vehicles 4.0 activities. https://www.transportation.gov/av/4

USDOT. (2021). ITS ePrimer. https://www.pcb.its.dot.gov/eprimer/module1.aspx

WHO. (2015). Global status report on road safety 2015. 

https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/189242