MOTORCYCLE ROAD SAFETY AUDIT 

CASE STUDIES 

FHWA-SA-16-026
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. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation.

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 this document.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Technical Documentation Page

1. Report No.

FHWA-SA-16-026

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

4. Title and Subtitle

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies 

5. 

May 2016

 Report Date

6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s)

Dan Nabors, Elissa Goughnour, Jon Soika

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Vanasse Hangen Brustlin, Inc.

8300 Boone Boulevard, Suite 700

Vienna, VA 22182-2626

10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Federal Highway Administration and Office of International Programs

Office of Safety

1200 New Jersey Ave. S.E.

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report 

May 2016

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. 1 Supplementary Notes

The Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety and Office of International Programs sponsored the study of the 

Road Safety Audits reported in this document. The Task Manager for this report was Rebecca Crowe (FHWA Office of 

Safety). Graphic design was provided by Cynthia Chagnon-MacKenzie. Research and content review was provided by 

Drew Gingras and Kevin Keeley. Cover photo: Dan Nabors.

16. Abstract

Road Safety Audits (RSAs) are a formal safety performance examination of an existing or future roadway or off-road 

facility and are conducted by an independent, experienced, multidisciplinary team. This case study document provides a review of the RSA process and three case study examples of RSAs that had a demonstrated high-frequency of 

crashes involving motorcyclists. The case studies include photographs, a project background, and key RSA findings and 

suggestions. These case studies will help Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies better understand conditions that 

affect motorcyclists and how to effectively address safety in the RSA process.

17. Key Words

Road safety audit, motorcycles, roadway design, safety

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161.

19. Security Classif. 

(of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. 

(of this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

60

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of form and completed page is authorized

i
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

Development of this report required input from transportation agencies at the Federal, State, and 

local levels. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the authors greatly appreciate the 

cooperation of the Washington State Department of Transportation, the North Carolina Department 

of Transportation, and the National Park Service. 
iii

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Purpose...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 1

Background............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1

Eight Steps of an RSA..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

RSAs: Benefits and Costs........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

Basic Principles of Motorcycle Safety................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6

Characteristics of Motorcyclists and Motorcycles.....................................................................................................................................................................7

Traditional Roadway Infrastructure Design.......................................................................................................................................................................................9

Motorcyclist Training & Licensing Requirements................................................................................................................................................................... 10

Motorcyclists in the RSA Process............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

RSA Project Selection................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 11

How Motorcycle Safety was Incorporated into the RSA Process ........................................................................................................................ 12

Positive Measures......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Challenges............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15

Opportunities...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17

Conclusions and Recommendations.................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19

Appendix A.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................A-1
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

iv

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. RSAs Conducted at Locations with High Frequency of Motorcycle Crashes ............................................................................ 11

Table A-1. NC 28 and NC 143 RSA Study Area Crash Summary......................................................................................................................................A-4

Table A-2. Blue Ridge Parkway RSA Study Area Crash Summary ..............................................................................................................................A-27

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Typical Eight-step RSA Process...........................................................................................................................................................................................................3

Figure 2. Trends in All Traffic-Related and Motorcycle-Related Fatalities in the U.S., 1997-2014. ...........................................7

Figure 3: Motorcycle Classification......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure A-1. Vicinity Map for North Carolina’s “Tail of the Dragon” Corridors. ............................................................................................A-1

Figure A-2. Locations of the Three RSA Segments in Graham County, NC. ......................................................................................................A-4

Figure A-3. Washington State SR 7 Study Area. .............................................................................................................................................................................A-15

Figure A-4. 2012 Washington State Motorcycle Fatality Endorsement Status. ......................................................................................A-17

Figure A-5. 2012 Washington State Motorcycle Fatalities by Years of Riding Experience. .......................................................A-17

Figure A-6. Washington State SR 7 Motorcycle Crashes by Month (2008-2012). ................................................................................A-18

Figure A-7. Washington State SR 7 Motorcycle Crashes by Driver Age (2008-2012). .....................................................................A-18

Figure A-8. Washington State SR 7 Motorcycle Crash Collision Types (2008-2012). ........................................................................A-19

Figure A-9. Blue Ridge Parkway Location Map...............................................................................................................................................................................A-26

Figure A-10. Excerpt from Blue Ridge Parkway Brochure Illustrating “Motoman” Sign. ............................................................A-29
1

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Purpose 

The purpose of this report is to help Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies understand conditions 

that affect the safety of motorcyclists and how to address road safety issues and identify opportunities for improvement through the Road Safety Audit (RSA) process. 

This report describes three RSAs conducted from 2012 to 2014 on facilities with documented motorcycle crashes. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) sponsored these three RSAs to demonstrate the benefits of using the RSA process to reduce motorcycle fatalities, injuries, and crashes. 

This report attempts to synthesize the findings from the three RSAs and identify lessons learned 

about challenges and opportunities facing agencies as they seek to improve motorcycle safety.

The RSAs selected for this study included areas known for their popularity with motorcyclists. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Background

This section provides an overview of the RSA process in general, including steps for conducting an 

RSA and the benefits and costs involved. 

An RSA is an effective tool for proactively improving roadway safety. FHWA defines an RSA as a 

“formal safety performance evaluation of an existing or future road or intersection by an independent, multidisciplinary team.” The primary focus of an RSA is safety, while working within the context 

of other aspects such as mobility, access, surrounding land use, and aesthetics. An RSA conducted 

by a team that is independent of the design and operations of the facility can address safety through 

a thorough review of roadway, traffic, environmental, and human factors conditions. By using an 
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

2

unbiased and multidisciplinary team to perform a comprehensive review and an evaluation of geometric, operational, and human factors-related safety issues for a given study area, RSAs make sure 

that safety is adequately considered. The RSA team is typically composed of at least three members 

having expertise in road safety, traffic operations, and road design. Other potential team members 

may have a background in enforcement, emergency medical services, maintenance, human factors 

analysis, transportation planning, pedestrian safety, bicyclist safety, or any other discipline deemed 

relevant to the context of the facility being evaluated.

RSAs can be performed at any stage in a project’s life:

• A Pre-Construction RSA (planning and design stages) examines a road before it is built. This may 

occur at the system or project planning, feasibility, or project development stage or could occur 

during the design state, beginning with preliminary design stage and ending with final design 

stage. An RSA at this stage identifies potential safety issues before crashes occur. The earlier a 

Pre-construction RSA is conducted, the greater potential it has to effectively mitigate possible 

safety concerns. For example, a planning stage RSA can examine a system of roads before a specific project has been identified for project development, design, and construction. The RSA team 

assesses the transportation system at the earliest point to identify, assess, prioritize, and program 

projects and activities that would considerably enhance traveler safety, in the context of and in 

collaboration with other multimodal transportation investments.

• Construction RSAs (work zone, changes in design during construction, and preopening) examine 

temporary traffic management plans associated with construction or other roadwork and changes 

in design during construction. RSAs at this stage can also be conducted when construction is completed but before the roadway is opened to traffic.

• A Post-Construction or Operational RSA (existing road) examines a road that is operating and is 

usually conducted to address a demonstrated crash problem.
3

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Figure 1: Typical Eight-step RSA Process.

Eight Steps of an RSA

The eight steps of an RSA, shown in Figure 1, follow the procedures outlined in the FHWA Road 

Safety Audit Guidelines document (Publication Number FHWA-SA-06-06).

The RSA Project is selected (Step 1) prior to assembling the RSA Team (Step 2), which should be 

interdisciplinary and typically includes engineering, planning, and enforcement staff from various 

levels of government, in cluding Federal, State, municipal, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs).

All meetings and site visits for the RSAs in the case studies project are conducted over two or three 

day periods. The RSAs typically begin with a start-up meeting (Step 3) attended by the Project Owner 

and/or Design Team (hereafter referred to as the Owner), and the RSA team:

• The Owner describes concerns regarding the roads and intersections to be assessed, why the 

sites have been chosen for an RSA, and any constraints or limitations. Typically, the reasons for 

the RSA site selection center on high-profile crashes or public safety concerns.

• The multidisciplinary RSA team then describes the RSA process. This includes an overview of 

the RSA process with examples of typical safety issues and potential measures to address them.

• This step may include discussion of additional issues, such as planned roadway improvements.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

4

Following the start-up meeting and a preliminary review of the design or site documentation, the 

RSA team conducts a field review (Step 4). The purpose of the field review is to observe geometric 

and operating conditions. The RSA team observes site characteristics such as road geometry, sight 

distances, clear zones, drainage, signing, lighting, and barriers; traffic characteristics such as typical 

speeds and traffic mix; surrounding land uses including traffic and pedestrian generators; and link 

points to the adjacent transportation network. The RSA team also considers human factors issues, 

including road and intersection “readability,” sign location and sequencing, and older-driver limitations. The RSA team conducts field reviews under a variety of environmental conditions, such as 

daytime and nighttime, and operational conditions, such as peak and off-peak times.

The team conducts the RSA analysis (Step 5) in a setting in which all team members reviewed available background information, such as traffic volumes and collision data, in light of the observations 

made in the field. On the basis of this review, the RSA team identifies and prioritizes safety issues, 

including features that could contribute to a higher frequency and/or severity of crashes. For each 

safety issue, the RSA team generates a list of possible measures to mitigate the crash potential and/

or severity of a potential crash.

At the end of the analysis session, the Owner and the RSA team reconvenes for a preliminary findings meeting (Step 6). In presenting the preliminary findings verbally in a meeting, the RSA team 

gives the Owner an opportunity to ask questions and seek clarification on the RSA findings, and also 

provides a useful forum for the Owner to suggest additional or alternative mitigation measures in 

conjunction with the RSA team. The discussion provides practical information that can be subsequently used to write the RSA report.

In the weeks following the on-site portion of the RSA, the RSA team writes and issues the RSA report

(also part of Step 6) to the Owner documenting the results of the RSA. The main content of the RSA 

report is a prioritized listing and description of the safety issues identified – illustrated using photographs taken during the site visit – with suggestions for improvements.

The Owner is encouraged to write a brief response letter (Step 7) containing a point-by-point response to each of the safety issues identified in the RSA report. The response letter identifies the 

action(s) to be taken, or explains why no action would be taken. The formal response letter is an 

important “closure” document for the RSA. As a final step, the Owner is encouraged to use the RSA 

findings to identify and implement safety improvements when policy, resources, and funding permit 

(Step 8).
5

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

RSAs: Benefits and Costs

RSA Benefits

The primary benefits of RSAs are the reduction of crashes and associated crash costs as road safety 

is improved. The US Department of Transportation estimates the costs of automotive crashes as:1

• $9,197,370 for a traffic fatality (category K).

• $5,454,040 for a critical injury (category A1).

• $2,446,500 for a severe injury (category A2).

• $965,724 for a serious injury (category B1).

• $432,276 for a moderate injury (category B2).

• $27,592 for a minor injury (category C).

• $6,500 for property damage only (PDO).

Other benefits of RSAs include reduced life-cycle project costs due to crash reduction, and the development of good safety engineering and design practices, including consideration of the surrounding 

land use and development in combination with potential multimodal safety issues and integrating 

human factors issues in the design, operations, and maintenance of roads. Additional benefits may 

include enhanced traveler experience and access management, reduced travel delay and travel time, 

and improved travel reliability.

In 2012, FHWA sponsored a study of nine RSA programs and five RSA projects. The project documented key strategies underpinning the success of the nine RSA programs, as well as the quantitative safety benefits of specific improvements implemented through the five specific RSA projects. 

FHWA report Road Safety Audits: An Evaluation of RSA Programs and Projects (FHWA-SA-12-037) 

provides the results of this study. Other local and regional studies have attempted to quantify the 

benefits of RSAs; practitioners are encouraged to consult partnering agencies with regard to the 

success in implementing RSAs.

RSA Costs

Three main factors contribute to the cost of an RSA:

• RSA team costs.

• Design team and Owner costs.

• Costs of design changes or enhancements. 

1 U.S. Department of Transportation, Memorandum to Secretarial Officers and Modal Administrators from Polly Trottenberg, Under 

Secretary for Policy, February 28, 2013.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

6

The RSA team costs reflect the size of the team and the time required for the RSA, which in turn 

depend on the complexity of the RSA project. RSA teams are typically composed of three to four 

persons, although they can be larger when multiple owners are involved.

Opening and closing meetings, site visits, and RSA analysis sessions are typically conducted in a 

two- or three-day period for each RSA. Prior to and following the on-site portion of the RSA, time is 

required for analysis (such as analysis of collision records, and research on applicable design standards or mitigation measures) along with writing the RSA report.

The design team and owner costs reflect the time required for staff to attend the start-up and preliminary findings meetings, and to subsequently read the RSA report and respond to its findings. In 

addition, staff time is required to compile project or site materials for the RSA team.

The final cost component entails those costs resulting from design changes or enhancements, which 

reflect the number and complexity of the issues identified during the RSA.

Basic Principles of Motorcycle Safety

This section provides an overview of the factors affecting the safety of motorcyclists. This includes 

the general characteristics of motorcyclists, licensing and training, and roadway design. 

From 2003 to 2008, fatalities and injuries for motorcyclists increased by 43 percent nationally. 

Between 2008 and 2009, a sharp decrease occurred in fatalities and a lesser decrease occurred 

in injuries. However, from 2009 to 2012, the upward trend reestablished itself with an 11 percent 

increase in fatalities and a 3 percent increase in injuries, including a peak of 15 percent from 2011 to 

2012.2

Motorcyclists are at a greater risk than many other roadway users. In 2012, motorcycles made up 

three percent of all registered vehicles in the U.S., yet motorcyclist fatalities accounted for 15 percent of the total vehicle related fatalities.3

 While total traffic-related deaths in the U.S. have trended 

downward in recent years—from approximately 42,000 in 1997 to 32,675 in 2014—both the number and the proportion of motorcycle-related fatalities have increased significantly during that same 

time. There were approximately 2,100 motorcycle-related deaths in 1997, comprising nearly one in 

every 20 motor vehicle fatalities; in 2014, there were more than 4,500 motorcycle fatalities, which 

equates to one in every seven motor vehicle fatalities.4

 Figure 2 displays the trends in motorcycle-related and total traffic-related crashes in the U.S. from 1997 to 2014.

2 U.S. Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Facts 2012 Data: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System, June 2014.

3 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Available at: http:/www-fars.nhtsa.dot.

gov/Main/index.aspx

4 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). Available at: http:/www-fars.nhtsa.dot.

gov/Main/index.aspx
7

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Figure 2. Trends in All Traffic-Related and Motorcycle-Related Fatalities in the U.S. from 1997 - 2014. 

(Source: NHTSA FARS Encyclopedia.)

Having an understanding of crash patterns for motorcyclists will help identify the factors leading to 

the high rates of fatalities and injuries among motorcyclists. However, to understand motorcycle 

safety it is necessary to know local laws and enforcement of these laws, as these elements may 

indicate behaviors and practices that directly affect safety. Understanding these components of 

safety will assist RSA teams in suggesting countermeasures to address this high-risk group and may 

encourage the testing and development of design standards, policies, and other strategies to improve motorcyclist safety. 

Characteristics of Motorcyclists and Motorcycles

Motorcycling in general can vary from state to state, particularly with regard to factors such as age, 

rider experience, motorcycle type, frequency of use, and purpose of travel. There is also a wide 

variation in laws regarding helmet use, licensing, and training. One common characteristic is certain 

– motorcycles lack an occupant enclosure. This characteristic alone means that even minor loss of 

control can lead to crashes with serious or fatal consequences.5 While all motor vehicle operators 

5 NCHRP Scan Team, Leading Practices for Motorcyclist Safety, NCHRP Project 20 68A, Scan 09 04, September 2011.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

8

have a responsibility to practice the safest driving habits possible, the risk of not doing so is amplified for motorcyclists.6

Motorcyclists are permitted an equal amount of space as automobile operators in the travel way, but 

require much less of it. This could lead to undesirable behaviors by all vehicle operators caused by 

the perception of the space needs of a motorcyclist within the existing roadway infrastructure. 

In fatal crashes in 2012, motorcyclists represented the highest proportion (27 percent) of vehicle 

operators having a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) higher than 0.08g/dL at the time of the 

crash, despite the fact that motorcyclists represent only three percent of all registered vehicles.7 An 

increase in accessible education and awareness of the dangers of impaired riding could serve this 

target audience. 

The same education and awareness practices can be employed for increasing helmet and safety gear 

use. The USDOT’s Traffic Safety Facts reports that helmets are 37 percent effective in preventing fatal injuries for motorcycle riders.8

 The same report also notes that in states without universal helmet 

laws, 62 percent of motorcyclists killed in 2012 were not wearing helmets, as compared to only nine 

percent in states with universal helmet laws. 

There are many different types of motorcycles available to riders. The more common categories of 

street legal motorcycles include, but are not limited to: touring, cruiser, chopper, standard, dual-purpose, and various classifications of sport motorcycles. Motorcycles with these categories differ based 

on characteristics such as riding position, intended use, and driving dynamics.9 Along these same 

lines, size, weight, and performance characteristics differ among motorcycle styles. Driver training 

and education may cover basic riding techniques on standard motorcycles, but may not educate 

or prepare riders on the dynamics, capabilities, and limitations of different types of motorcycles.10

Figure 3 provides an overview of the characteristics of common motorcycle types. 

6 Zegeer, C. et al, Safer Vulnerable Road Users: Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Motorcyclists, and Older Users, July 2010.

7 U.S. Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Facts 2012 Data: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System, June 2014.

8 U.S. Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Facts 2012 Data: Motorcycles, June 2014.

9 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, Memorandum from Adrian K. Lund, President, Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, to 

Victor Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, June 29, 2010.

10 For the purposes of this report, education pertains to raising users’ awareness of laws, regulations, etc. Training pertains to 

providing instruction on how to ride a motorcycle safely.
9

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Cruiser

Riding Position: Feet forward and upper body erect.

Handling/Performance: Limited turning ability, less horsepower.

Weight: Among the heaviest.

Chopper

Riding Position: Feet forward and upper body erect.

Handling/Performance: Longer wheelbase due to the extended fork, which 

reduces maneuverability.

Weight: Among the heaviest.

Touring

Riding Position: Upright position comfortable for longer distances.

Handling/Performance: High-performance/high-torque engines for carrying 

passenger and luggage. 

Weight: Among longest and heaviest.

Dual Purpose

Riding Position: Typically forward.

Handling/Performance: Similar to off-road motorcycles, with on-road safety 

features. 

Weight: Lighter than heavier classes.

Standard

Riding Position: Typically upright position similar to cruiser, but with foot 

pegs placed farther rearward.

Handling/Performance: Better handling due to riding position and greater 

ground clearance. 

Weight: Lighter than heavier classes. 

Sport (Includes sport, sport touring, unclad sport, and super sport)

Riding Position: Generally, feet under seat and hands below shoulder height, 

body leans forward.

Handling/Performance: Powerful, with high power-to-weight ratio. 

Weight: Varies among the types of sport motorcycles.

Figure 3: Motorcycle Classification (Source: IIHS).

Traditional Roadway Infrastructure Design 

In general, motorcycles have not been explicitly considered in roadway design practices in the U.S.11

FHWA or American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines 

accommodating motorcycles do not exist and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 

(MUTCD) did not contain motorcycle warning signs until the last revision in 2009. Increasing our 

understanding of motorcyclist safety needs is an important area of continued research. This research 

can build on the important work already done by the National Cooperative Highway Research 

11 Zegeer, C. et al, Safer Vulnerable Road Users: Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Motorcyclists, and Older Users, July 2010.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

10

Program, whose Guide for Addressing Collisions Involving Motorcycles is intended to assist state 

and local agencies in reducing motorcyclist injuries and fatalities.12 Aspects of roadway design and 

maintenance such as drainage and shoulders, communication of roadway conditions, pavement 

conditions, traffic control devices, and curves are usually designed around automobiles, yet their 

effects are often more critical for motorcyclists. 

In 2004, the European Commission released a major motorcycle crash causation study entitled 

“MAIDS – Motorcycle Accidents In-Depth Study,” which discovered that environmental conditions – 

including roadway design, among other things – were the third largest contributing factors to crashes.13 The study discovered that human error is responsible for the vast majority of crashes, but notes 

that multiple precursors can lead to these errors.

Attention to safety concerns for motorcyclists continues to grow. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, 

Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA–LU) mandated the establishment of the Motorcyclist Advisory Council to FHWA (MAC–FHWA). The mission of the group 

was to “advise the [Federal Highway] Administrator on infrastructure issues of concern to motorcyclists.”14 The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, signed into law in December 2015, 

reinstated the MAC-FHWA, which had lapsed under the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st 

Century Act (MAP-21). FHWA’s Motorcycle Crash Causation Study is a comprehensive investigation 

into crash causes, rider demographics, and countermeasure development. The study, which involves 

federal and state transportation agencies, local police jurisdictions, researchers, and the motorcycle 

industry, will produce a dataset that offers unprecedented perspective on motorcycle-specific crashcausation factors.

In addition, 35 states and the District of Columbia have identified motorcycle safety as an emphasis 

area in their Strategic Highway Safety Plans. Several states also have created motorcyclist safety 

coalitions to address motorcyclist concerns. These coalitions include stakeholder representatives 

that provide perspective on the riding characteristics of motorcycles and how roadway design, 

construction, and maintenance practices affect motorcyclist safety.15

Motorcyclist Training & Licensing Requirements 

A majority of states offer rider education for individuals who wish to obtain a motorcycle license. 

The courses provide basic training instruction, and research has found that the effects of initial 

training are greatly beneficial for the first six months of operating a motorcycle.16 In some states, 

motorcyclists can even obtain a license through a one-day license-testing course. While demand to 

take such courses in the hopes of receiving licensure remains high, many individuals do not further 

progress their riding ability through formal instruction. 

12 Potts, I. et al, Guidance for Implementation of the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan: A Guide for Addressing Collisions 

Involving Motorcycles, NCHRP Report 500, Vol. 22, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 2008.

13 U.S. Department of Transportation, Infrastructure Countermeasures to Mitigate Motorcyclist Crashes in Europe, August 2012.

14 Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), 23 U.S.C. § 1914 (2005).

15 NCHRP Scan Team, Leading Practices for Motorcyclist Safety, NCHRP Project 20 68A, Scan 09 04, September 2011.

16 Zegeer, C. et al, Safer Vulnerable Road Users: Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Motorcyclists, and Older Users, July 2010.
11

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Some states report a much lower attendance rate for advanced motorcycle training than for the 

basic course necessary to acquire a license. Higher participation in such courses could lead to lower 

motorcycle crash rates, but riders frequently have no incentive to participate in such courses. It 

is realistic to believe that the incidence of one type of crash – collisions with fixed objects – could 

drastically decrease if riders were more familiar with advanced riding techniques. As it currently 

stands, motorcycles are more likely to be involved in such crashes than any other vehicle type.17

Furthermore, loopholes in the initial licensing process in some states allow seasonal riders to repeatedly obtain temporary permits without ever becoming fully licensed.18

It is possible for states and local agencies to address these issues. Implementing measures such as 

the development of motorcycle coalitions may help improve awareness of motorcycling as a form of 

transportation. Evaluating licensure and training policies along with design standards could improve 

the ability to address the education, enforcement, and engineering measures related to motorcyclists. Moreover, it is crucial to assess the safety of motorcyclists holistically to determine resources 

that can be utilized at every level to promote a safer riding environment.

Motorcyclists in the RSA Process 

RSA Project Selection

This case study effort included three RSAs in different regions of the country with crashes involving 

motorcyclists, as shown in Table 1. Each RSA followed the standard eight-step RSA process documented by FHWA. These sites were selected based on the following criteria:

• A demonstrated high-frequency of crashes involving motorcyclists

• Availability of detailed data

• Variation in geographic location

A more detailed report of these three RSAs is included in Appendix A.

Table 1: RSAs Conducted at Locations with High Frequency of Motorcycle Crashes.

Host Agency Location Facility Type and Project Stage Length of Segment Studied 

North Carolina 

Department of 

Transportation 

(NCDOT)

North Carolina (NC) Route 28 

and NC Route 143 in Graham 

County near the Tennessee 

border

Existing two-lane rural 

highway

NC 28: ~1.75 miles

NC 143: ~3 miles

Washington State 

Department of 

Transportation 

(WSDOT)

Three locations on Washington 

State Route 7 (SR 7): an 

urban segment and two rural 

intersections.

Existing urban, multi-lane 

highway and existing two-lane 

rural highway

Urban segment 

approximately 11 miles

National Park 

Service

Blue Ridge Parkway near and 

south of Asheville, NC

Existing two-lane rural 

highway in a National Park

Approximately 60 miles

17 U.S. Department of Transportation, Traffic Safety Facts 2012 Data: A Compilation of Motor Vehicle Crash Data from the Fatality 

Analysis Reporting System and the General Estimates System, June 2014.

18 Zegeer, C. et al, Safer Vulnerable Road Users: Pedestrians, Bicyclists, Motorcyclists, and Older Users, July 2010.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

12

How Motorcycle Safety was Incorporated into the RSA Process

RSAs were conducted on existing facilities based on crash frequency (Step 1 in the RSA process). 

Each location had a high frequency of crashes involving motorcyclists. RSA teams consisted of the 

typical participants such as persons with expertise in road safety, traffic operations, and road design, 

and law enforcement (Step 2). The law enforcement officers selected to participate all had riding 

experience or were part of active motorcycle patrols. Other RSA team members also had expertise 

critical to understanding conditions affecting motorcyclists, such as members from departments of 

licensing and motorcycle safety clubs and other groups and organizations.

Crash data and the experience of motorcyclists from local clubs and other organizations were 

reviewed and discussed by the RSA team during the start-up meeting (Step 3) and during the RSA 

analysis workshop (Step 5). During the start-up meeting, those familiar with riding described and 

interpreted data to help determine contributing factors to crashes and their potential effect. They 

also provided details concerning critical conditions or locations. The RSA team reviewed these 

conditions in the field (Step 4). Furthermore, during each RSA, several team members were able to 

ride the locations under investigation and relate their knowledge and experience to the RSA team. 

Later, during the RSA analysis workshop (Step 5), the team discussed these conditions in more detail. 

The objective of this review was to discuss the analysis results and to compare these results with 

conditions observed in the field. Based on this analysis, the RSA team considered conditions critical 

to the safety of motorcyclists and suggested measures that may reduce the risk to motorcyclists. 

The RSA team applied this process to understand the safety needs of motorcyclists. The RSAs 

helped bring attention to safety issues affecting motorcyclists by highlighting the effects of design 

and maintenance practices and by bringing together a multidisciplinary and multimodal group of 

safety professionals that were able to clarify issues that may not have been adequately understood 

previously. Furthermore, through the RSAs conducted as part of this study, the RSA teams discussed 

positive measures, challenges, and opportunities for advancement of motorcycle safety. The following section describes these in further detail.

Positive Measures

Commitment to safety. The RSAs demonstrated that agencies are seeking specific measures to 

address the safety of motorcyclists. This interest in motorcycle safety has been driven partly by crash 

data showing high crash frequencies in some locations, and overall trends showing an increase in 

motorcycle crashes and a higher severity of motorcycle crashes. 

Collaboration with motorcycle safety clubs/organizations. Motorcycle groups and clubs, who have a 

stake in protecting their members, have been a primary driver of increased awareness of motorcycle 

safety. Including motorcyclists and their advocates in discussions of safety and roadway design is critical to improving safety outcomes. For example, in North Carolina, the Motorcycle Safety Foundation 

helps provide driver training and education. During the RSA, their membership provided critical 
13

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

perspectives on the needs of motorcyclists. National studies have realized the necessity of engaging 

motorcyclist stakeholders in transportation safety, including recommendations on the creation of 

motorcycle safety coalitions in each state.19

Beyond providing a better understanding of the safety needs of motorcyclists, collaboration has led 

to the implementation of motorcycle-specific safety measures. The following measures were implemented by the RSA host agencies or were recommended as part of this project: 

Motorcyclist-specific signage. Signage specific to motorcyclists was developed and installed on 

the Blue Ridge Parkway by NPS and on North Carolina State Route 28 by NCDOT in response to a 

documented crash problem on curves. Motorcyclist-specific signage on the Blue Ridge Parkway, 

a supplemental motorcycle plaque known locally as the “motoman sign,” requires experimental 

permission from FHWA. NCDOT’s motorcyclist-specific signage – which includes a curve warning sign 

with flagging, a supplemental advisory speed plaque, and a supplemental motorcycle plaque – is 

MUTCD-compliant.

Left: NCDOT installed signage on North Carolina State Route 28 that includes curve warning 

signage, flagging, and a supplemental advisory speed plaque in addition to the motorcyclespecific supplemental plaque (Credit: Dan Nabors). Right: The “motorman” supplemental 

motorcycle plaque, which is not MUTCD-compliant, on the Blue Ridge Parkway (Credit: NPS).

Motorcyclist education and enforcement. Each RSA recognized law enforcement personnel’s responsibility in enforcing laws for the protection of the public, responding to incidents with other 

emergency response personnel, and educating the public. In Washington State, the state’s Traffic 

Safety Commission launched a motorcycle safety education campaign known as “It’s a Fine Line,” 

which uses social media, electronic newsletters, and community outreach to promote the state’s 

19 NCHRP Scan Team, Leading Practices for Motorcyclist Safety, NCHRP Project 20 68A, Scan 09 04, September 2011.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

14

Target Zero road safety initiative to motorcyclists. The Washington State Patrol has targeted high-risk 

groups of motorcyclists, and also works with Joint Base Lewis-McChord to educate soldiers about 

motorcycle safety. 

On the Blue Ridge Parkway, the NPS has reduced the posted vehicle speed from 45 miles per hour to 

35 miles per hour in some heavily traveled commuter zones. The NPS has supplemented this change 

with a public outreach campaign about the new speed limits and increased speed enforcement in 

these zones. This strategy is intended to improve driver awareness and attention and reduce crash 

severity, and thereby improve safety outcomes where potential crash exposure is greatest. This 

measure has not been evaluated for effectiveness, but law enforcement rangers cited anecdotal 

improvements in crash incidence and driver violations.

Providing paved aprons at gravel driveways. This measure will help reduce loose material on the 

road, which can cause a motorcycle to lose control. North Carolina has installed paved aprons at a 

number of gravel driveways.

Providing corridor access management (CAM). CAM strategies seek to preserve the flow of people and freight, and 

enable safe access to businesses and neighborhoods using 

a combination of policies and strategies, such as closing, 

consolidating, or improving driveways, median openings, 

and intersections. CAM strategies may also seek to define 

a consistent cross-section to minimize lane shifts and conflicts with entering traffic. CAM strategies provide better 

awareness of motorcycles, which may be more difficult for 

motorists to notice due to their slim profile. In addition, 

CAM strategies reduce conflict zones created from wide 

driveways and improve sight distance at driveways and 

intersecting streets. WSDOT has instituted CAM strategies 

on a portion of SR 7 outside of the RSA study area, and they 

were suggested along the urban segment of SR 7 as part of 

the RSA.

Installing warning signs depicting unusual conditions. The National Park Service developed a warning sign with a “SPIRAL CURVE” placard and deployed it on spiral curves on a downgrade to alert all 

roadway users of a condition that may violate driver expectation. This may be particularly helpful 

messaging for motorcyclists, who must maintain balance while maneuvering through a curve. 

Motorcycle pullouts. NCDOT is designing motorcycle pullouts on the Cherohala Highway, which 

forms part of NC State Route 143. Initial plans are for the placement of kiosks and/or signs in the 

pullouts to provide information to motorcyclists covering topics such as safety and travel planning.

A Spiral Curve Warning Sign. Note: sign not 

MUTCD-compliant. (Credit: Dan Nabors)
15

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Challenges

The RSAs included in this report demonstrated that agencies face several challenges to address the 

safety of motorcyclists. These challenges range from the lack of data needed to assess issues to a 

lack of standardization in laws governing operation of a motorcycle in the public right of way. 

Understanding the problem. On each of the RSAs conducted, data on motorcyclists was limited. 

Limited data describing the details of crashes involving motorcycles were available for the Blue Ridge 

Parkway. Data describing the number motorcyclists (volume), types of motorcycles, and exposure 

were not available for any of the RSA locations. 

Detailed crash data to identify driver trends such as age and rider experience help assess overall 

tends and contributing factors to crashes. Data on motorcycle types involved in crashes are helpful 

as well, as trends may reveal higher crash rates for specific motorcycle types or users. This data may 

help target not only higher-risk groups, but motorcycle dealers and manufacturers of higher-risk 

motorcycle classes as well. Anecdotally, multiple law enforcement representatives involved in the 

RSAs mentioned the tendency for motorcycle crashes to be underreported, which poses an additional challenge to obtaining reliable crash data.

Volume data on motorcycle use, which would help determine exposure of motorcyclists to get a 

better understanding of the severity of safety issues, were not available in any of the case study 

RSAs. Volume data are critical to understanding trends in motorcycle ridership, the proportion of 

motorcycles on the roadway, and popular motorcycle riding routes, and allow for more targeted 

implementation of the 4 Es of safety (engineering, enforcement, education, and emergency medical 

services). It can be challenging to obtain accurate count data, as deployed traffic counters may not 

accurately count motorcycles. Estimating rider exposure based on licensing is not effective; due to 

the variation in licensing requirements, it can be difficult to document the number of motorcyclists.

Understanding conditions affecting motorcyclists. Roadway, roadside, and environmental conditions 

may present particular challenges for motorcyclists that may not be evident. Having an experienced 

motorcyclist on the RSA team will help provide a better understanding of particular conditions that 

may increase risk for a motorcyclist. During the RSAs conducted on this project, team members 

noted several issues that may present increased risks to motorcyclists when compared with other 

motor vehicles:

• Inability to recover from lane departures, including pavement edge dropoff and lack of area for 

recovery (e.g., lack of shoulder).

• The effect of roadway design, to include compound or spiral curves designs and changes in 

roadway superelevation, in particular changes in short sections of road.

• Presence of debris on the roadway.

• Visibility of motorcyclists to other road users, in particular changes in cross-section or lane 

shifts where motorcyclists may occupy a driver’s blind spot.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

16

• Roadside features, such as trees, utility poles, and guardrail, that could be better designed 

for motorcyclists.

• Lack of continuity in features that help riders maintain visual focus, such as centerline markings.

• Awareness of other complex situations that may tax the abilities of an operator of a motorcycle, such as locations that are on vertical and horizontal curves where traffic may be exiting or 

entering the roadway.

• Effect of environmental factors on a motorcyclist, such as sudden changes in lighting traveling 

between shaded and sunny sections. The combination of changes in lighting and roadway alignment may lead to a situation where a rider brakes too late to navigate the alignment and/ or 

loses the visual path of the roadway. 

• The lack of an occupant enclosure on motorcycles means that speed poses a greater risk to motorcyclists than to operators of enclosed vehicles such as passenger cars, as motorcyclists face 

increased chances of severe injury or death from crashes at posted speeds than do operators of 

most other types of vehicles. 

These conditions may merit consideration for safety measures given the 

potential for higher frequency of 

motorcycle crashes in areas exhibiting 

these characteristics. Improved data 

may help target specific roadway 

features, but may also better define 

motorcycle operators or classes of 

motorcycles that are at greater risk.

Education and experience. While basic 

training will help a motorcycle operator understand the fundamentals of 

riding, more advanced training is often 

necessary. Different classes of motorcycles can have very different handling 

characteristics and roadways can vary in terms of design, both of which can challenge the skills 

and experience of a motorcyclist. In 2012, the Washington State Department of Licensing (WSDOL) 

reported that 33 percent of the motorcyclist fatalities involved riders with two years of experience or 

less. Motorcycle fatalities greatly drop off for riders with three to five years’ experience; this group 

comprised 11 percent of the total motorcyclist fatalities. In an effort to improve rider education, 

particularly for less experienced riders, WSDOL developed and encouraged motorcyclists to take 

advanced motorcycle training courses. Most courses entail a $125 fee. 

Sudden changes in lighting on the roadway, particularly when 

motorcyclists are wearing sunglasses, may cause motorcyclists to 

lose visual path of the roadway. (Credit: Dan Nabors)
17

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Training and licensing. Training and licensing varies greatly from state to state. In some instances, 

motorcyclists from other states may not understand the local laws, or they may have training 

focused only on local laws and riding conditions, when in fact most of their riding may be touring 

in other states. For example, data from North Carolina show that only 15 percent of motorcyclists 

involved in crashes were from North Carolina; 28 percent of motorcyclists involved in a crash were 

from neighboring states and 57 percent were from other states. Current training conducted by the 

state only reaches a fraction of the motorcyclists using the roads. Likewise, variations in licensing 

from state to state may permit unlicensed motorcycle operators on the road. Motorcycle operators 

in some states are able to ride using a permit or endorsement only, enabling them to ride within 

their state of residence or enter another state without a license.20 For example, of all motorcycle 

fatalities in Washington State in 2012, 40 percent involved endorsed but not trained drivers and 30 

percent involved drivers neither trained nor endorsed.

Enforcement. Enforcing traffic laws for motorcyclists often presents a challenge. Some motorcyclists 

may frequently speed or may exhibit other high-risk behaviors. Law enforcement may be unable to 

ticket these riders, as safety concerns for the public as a whole may make them unable to safely pursue a speeding motorcyclist and conduct a traffic stop. Furthermore, some enforcement measures, 

such as automated speed enforcement, may have the opposite effect on motorcyclist behavior. For 

example, in several locations with automated speed enforcement, there is anecdotal information 

that motorcyclists actually speed up. 

Opportunities

Motorcycle clubs, safety organizations, and experienced riders should form the core of any effort to 

address motorcycle safety. Improved data detailing conditions affecting motorcyclists is also key. This 

section identifies opportunities in addressing motorcycle safety. 

Stronger stakeholder engagement. During the course of the RSAs, experienced motorcyclists were 

able to highlight issues critical to motorcyclists. The involvement of experienced motorcyclists on 

the RSA team is one of the primary factors contributing to the success of the RSAs. Many states 

have realized the necessity to engage experienced motorcyclists in safety efforts and have brought 

together stakeholders to address motorcycle safety for the creation of Motorcycle Safety Strategic 

Plans (MSSPs) to guide their state’s efforts and have formed their own state motorcycle coalitions. 

Stakeholders can collaborate on other initiatives that support safety as well, such as education activities and even data gathering.

20 A motorcycle permit allows an individual to operate a motorcycle for a limited period of time while that individual is learning to 

ride, and often entails restrictions on when that individual can operate a motorcycle and prohibitions on carrying passengers. In 

many states, a permit is a prerequisite to obtaining a license or endorsement. A motorcycle license grants an individual the full 

scope of rights available to licensed motorcyclists in that state, and usually requires a rider to pass both a road/skills and a written 

test. An endorsement grants similar privileges to the holder, but is not a formal document; instead, it piggybacks on the holder’s 

existing driver’s license.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

18

Improved data. Improved data will help provide a more thorough understanding of features, conditions, and behaviors that increase risk for motorcyclists. Targeting specific at-risk groups for education, whether it be by age, experience, type of motorcycle, or a combination of these and other 

factors, may improve awareness of risks. Improved data will also help define specific roadway and 

other environmental conditions that may increase risk to motorcycle operators. RSA teams identified 

some of these conditions during the three RSAs conducted; these at-risk conditions appeared to be 

reflected in the available crash data, but further investigation and research is needed. Training law 

enforcement on the importance of crash reports can lead to the collection of more complete and 

more reliable crash data, which in turn will facilitate improved data and analysis. 

Improved training. All riders may benefit from more advanced, specific training and information 

about road rules, responsibilities, and local conditions. Additional, more advanced training may 

target operators with fewer years of experience or those that may only be seasonal or occasional 

riders. 

National standards for training and safety would help provide a basic skill requirement for the 

operation of a motorcycle. In advance of national standards, state and local agencies can work with 

motorcycle safety groups to provide access to safety materials for trip planning, particularly for long 

journeys that may include states with different requirements and riding conditions.

Enhanced motorcycle-specific signage. RSA teams noted that agencies have installed measures to 

improve awareness of curves that may be particularly challenging for motorcyclists. Agencies should 

analyze these applications for efficacy and other motorcyclist-specific messaging that clearly warns 

riders of specific risks. 

Safety countermeasures. Ideally, practitioners consider the safety of motorcyclists in the planning 

and design stages of a project before issues arise. However, there is a need to consider countermeasures on existing roads, as made clear by the safety issues identified by crash data and in field 

reviews conducted as part of this RSA effort and other studies. The RSA teams identified measures 

for all 4 Es of safety, including engineering measures to address the issues affecting motorcycle 

safety. Those measures included:

• Posting educational materials at major biker gathering locations.

• Trimming vegetation to improve sight distance.

• Repairing pavement where potholes, debris, longitudinal cracks, vertical displacement, and 

reduced friction are apparent.

• Installing Safety EdgeSM, particularly along curves or areas where motorcyclists are more likely 

to run off the road.

• Exploring opportunities to apply Advanced Pavement Markings specific to motorcyclists within 

the travel lanes to provide warning of conditions that may be particularly challenging to motorcyclists, such as “slow” at the entrance to curves.
19

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

• Continuing dash marks through gaps in the centerline or edgeline markings, to help keep motorcyclists from losing visual focus of the roadway. 

• Providing curve delineation; potentially motorcycle-specific signage.

• Providing intersection/driveway delineation and warning. 

• Enhancing awareness of other complex situations that may overload an operator of a motorcycle, such as locations that are on vertical and horizontal curves where traffic may be exiting 

or entering the roadway; this can be done through signage, education or a combination of the 

two, such as at motorcycle pulloffs with information kiosks.

• Installing delineation devices per the MUTCD on the full length of guardrail to improve nighttime conspicuity.

• Re-grading roadsides and removing hazards to eliminate the need for guardrail.

• Paving shoulders on the inside of curves, especially gravel shoulders as motorcyclists may try to 

steer away from these to avoid debris.

• Evaluating superelevation of curves for consistency with adjacent curves and, if inconsistent, 

providing motorcycle-specific warning or improvements to superelevation. 

• Implementing corridor access management, to include:

»Limiting parking near intersections and driveways to improve visibility of entering vehicles 

and approaching vehicles. 

»Restricting left turns from driveways and entrances where feasible, only permitting them 

in certain designated locations. 

»Minimizing changes in cross-section or lane shifts where motorcyclists may occupy a 

driver’s blind spot.

• Conducting motorcycle RSAs, which can engage all motorcycle safety stakeholders.

More detailed discussion of the issues and measures suggested can be found in the case studies 

presented in Appendix A.

Conclusions and Recommendations

The purpose of this document is to help Federal, State, Tribal, and local agencies:

1. Understand conditions that affect the safety of motorcyclists.

2. Apply the RSA process to address these conditions. 

RSA teams conducted three RSAs on corridors with a high frequency of crashes involving a motorcycle. The RSA locations included rural, scenic roadways and an urban arterial. Each RSA included a 

multidisciplinary team of experts and specialists as well as enforcement, practitioners, and members 

of motorcycle clubs/safety groups, the latter of which provided in-depth information with regard 
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

20

to features, behaviors, and other conditions that increase risk for motorcyclists. This perspective, 

coupled with the experience of other RSA team members, was critical to defining approaches to 

improving motorcycle safety using the 4 E approach to safety. The involvement of experienced 

motorcyclists on the teams was one of the primary factors contributing to the success of the RSAs. 

RSA teams identified existing countermeasures or those under review that may improve the safety 

of motorcyclists. These include the use of motorcyclist-specific warning signage and the creation of 

pull-off areas that provide a respite and key safety and trip planning information for motorcyclists. 

A lack of detailed data is a key issue inhibiting a fuller understanding of the factors that affect the 

safety of motorcyclists. This includes detailed crash data, but is particularly true with regard to 

motorcycle count data. Count data for motorcyclists were unavailable, perhaps due in part to the 

difficulty in obtaining such data. Because of the lack of data the RSA team was unable to determine 

the exposure of motorcyclists, the corresponding crash rate, and if motorcycles of a particular type 

are at higher risk.

During the RSAs, the RSA team concluded that certain conditions appear to present challenges to 

motorcyclists. These were:

• Inability to recover from lane departures, including pavement edge dropoff and lack of area for 

recovery (e.g., lack of shoulder).

• The effect of roadway design, to include compound or spiral curves designs and changes in 

roadway superelevation, in particular changes in short sections of road.

• Presence of debris on the roadway.

• The lack of an occupant enclosure on motorcycles means that speed poses a greater risk to motorcyclists than to operators of enclosed vehicles such as passenger cars, as motorcyclists face 

increased chances of severe injury or death from crashes at posted speeds than do operators of 

most other types of vehicles.

• Visibility of motorcyclists to other road users, in particular changes in cross-section or lane 

shifts where motorcyclists may occupy a driver’s blind spot.

• Roadside features, such as trees, utility poles, and guardrail, that could be better designed 

for motorcyclists.

• Lack of continuity in features that help riders maintain visual focus, such as centerline markings.

• Awareness of other complex situations that may tax the abilities of an operator of a motorcycle, such as locations that are on vertical and horizontal curves where traffic may be exiting or 

entering the roadway.

• Effect of environmental factors on a motorcyclist, such as sudden changes in lighting traveling between shaded and sunny sections. The combination of changes in lighting and roadway 

alignment may lead to a situation where a rider brakes too late to navigate the alignment and/

or loses the visual path of the roadway.
21

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

RSA teams suggested a number of treatments to address these issues, many of which should be 

tried and tested to determine their effectiveness in addressing the safety needs of motorcyclists on 

our nation’s roadways. 

As the case studies in this document demonstrate, RSAs can be a useful tool in addressing motorcycle safety. Collaboration with experienced motorcyclists and motorcycling clubs or other organizations is key to that success. Future RSAs should consider more detailed motorcyclist data and should 

coordinate with other stakeholders that may be part of state motorcycle safety initiatives. 

A-1

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

APPENDIX A: MOTORCYCLE ROAD 

SAFETY AUDIT CASE STUDIES

RSA Case Study No. 1—NC 28 and NC 143, Graham County, 

North Carolina

Project Overview

Project Location: Approximately 1.75 miles of NC 28 (MP 14.25-15.0 and MP 18.25-19.25) and 3 miles of 

NC 143 (MP 20.5-23.5) in Graham County near the Tennessee border.

Project Environment: Rural

Project Design Stage: Existing roadway

Project Owner(s): North Carolina Department of Transportation

RSA Overview

Date of RSA: August 19-21, 2014

RSA Stage(s): RSA of existing roads

RSA Team: Representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, North Carolina State 

Highway Patrol, Motorcycle Safety Foundation, Graham County, North Carolina 

Department of Transportation, and VHB.

Project Background

Routes that cross the mountains of western North Carolina and eastern Tennessee are widely known 

among motorcyclist communities as the “Tail of the Dragon” because of their extensive horizontal 

and vertical curvature (see Figure A-1). North Carolina Route (NC) 28 and North Carolina Route (NC) 

143 are two-lane roadways in rural Graham County, North Carolina marketed by local businesses and 

motorcyclist/automobile club websites as Tail of the Dragon corridors. Each year, the region’s scenic 

beauty and renown as a thrill-seeker’s destination draw thousands of motorcyclists of all experience levels.

Figure A-1: Vicinity Map for North Carolina’s “Tail of the Dragon” Corridors.

From 2012 to 2014, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) conducted RSAs at 

seven locations along NC 28 and NC 143 in Graham and Swain Counties near the Tennessee border. 

NCDOT selected these seven locations because of high crash rates and high severity of crashes, many 
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-2

of which involved motorcyclists. RSA teams suggested the following countermeasures to address run 

off the road crashes: 

• Edgeline rumble strips

• Enhanced curve warning to include:

»Double indicate curve warning signs and use flags on signs in Westbound / Northbound 

direction; involves three additional signs (duplicates) and flagging

»Add Large Arrow warning sign

»Place additional chevrons in some locations for increased curve delineation

»Place decreasing chevrons to give the illusion of driving faster

»Check angle of chevrons

• Check advisory speeds 

• Consider signing for declining radius

• Use of mile markers

• Speed reduction pavement markings

• Investigate use / availability of high friction pavement markings

• Adding signage to notify drivers of upcoming pull-offs

• Investigate gravel on pull-off

• Consider paved shoulders

• Fill in low shoulder at pulloff to smooth the transition

• Repair / replace existing guardrail

• Extend existing guardrail

• Enhanced education and enforcement

After the completion of the RSAs, some treatments were installed to address the issues identified. 

However, other areas with high frequency of crashes remained. Due to the persistent motorcycle 

crash incidence and the length of the subject corridors, the FHWA supported an RSA on NC 28 and 

NC 143 to identify issues and measures to address issues at additional high crash locations.

Pilot Overview

An RSA team held a start-up meeting at the NCDOT office in Sylva, North Carolina. The team reviewed the methodology for conducting an RSA using the eight-step process detailed in the FHWA 

RSA Guidelines. During that meeting, staff from NCDOT reviewed issues, suggestions, and measures 

implemented from the previous seven RSAs. NCDOT staff also reviewed crashes and issues for the 

additional segments under review as part of the NC 28 and NC 143 RSA. Representatives from the 

Motorcycle Safety Foundation, a national nonprofit that develops education and training curricula 

for motorcyclists, provided information about some of the behavioral issues affecting the safety 
A-3

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

of motorcyclists in the state. This information was helpful in understanding the broader context of 

motorcycle safety in the study area. The RSA team also reviewed motorcycle crash data in the study 

area. Law enforcement officers who ride motorcycles and conduct rider education provided firsthand knowledge of rider behavior and enforcement issues as well.

The RSA team drove and walked the RSA sites to gain a more complete understanding of the issues 

affecting motorcyclists. Having skilled riders on the RSA team was essential to fully understanding 

the key roadway features and conditions that affect the behavior of cyclists. 

The RSA concluded with an RSA workshop and preliminary findings meeting in accordance with the 

eight-step RSA process.

Licensing, Driver Requirements, and Behavioral Data

In order to operate a motorcycle on North Carolina roadways, an individual must have a motorcycle 

endorsement on their driver’s license or a motorcycle learner permit. In order to obtain an endorsement, one must take the following tests:

• vision test; 

• traffic signs test; 

• knowledge test that includes questions on motorcycling; and

• off-street skills test. 

The knowledge test is waived for renewals. North Carolina accepts a motorcycle endorsement from 

other states.

If an individual is not prepared to take the skills test, that person can obtain a motorcycle learner 

permit by taking the knowledge test only. Permits are issued for 12 months, and can be renewed 

one time for a period of six months.

North Carolina state law requires motorcycle riders to wear a safety helmet. Motorcycles must carry 

liability insurance by law. 

Crash History

The RSA team reviewed crash data, provided by NCDOT, from January 2009 through April 2014 and 

identified three specific segments as the focus of this RSA:

1. NC 28 from milepost 18.25 to milepost 19.25.

2. NC 28 from milepost 14.25 to milepost 15.

3. NC 143 from milepost 20.5 to milepost 23.5.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-4

Table A-1 presents a summary of crashes occurring at the three study locations during the analysis period.

Table A-1: RSA Study Area Crash Summary.

Location Length 

(mi)

Total 

Crashes

Crash 

Rate (per 

mi per yr)

MC 

Crashes

MC Crash 

Rate (per 

mi per yr)

MC 

Fatal 

Crashes

MC 

Injury 

Crashes 

(A,B)

Predominant MC Crash Type(s) 

NC 28,

MP 18.25-19.25 1 25 4.7 20 3.8 2 7 Overturn/ Rollover (15)

NC 28, 

MP 14.25-15 0.75 14 3.5 14 3.5 0 11 Overturn/ Rollover (10)

NC 143,

MP 20.5-23.5 3 78 4.9 59 3.7 2 37 Overturn/ Rollover (32); Fixed Object (10); Head On (7)

The crash data indicate there were 117 reported crashes across the three study segments from 

January 2009 through April 2014. Ninety (90) of these crashes—nearly four in every five—involved 

a motorcycle, including four (4) fatal crashes and 55 crashes that resulted in disabling or evident 

injury. The study segments experienced 3.5 to 3.8 motorcycle crashes per mile per year.

Figure A-2: Locations of the Three RSA Segments in Graham County, NC. (Source: Google Maps)

Positive Features

The RSA team reviewed some of the efforts from the previous seven RSA, and considered these 

efforts as positive means to improve motorcycle safety. Specific positive characteristics of the roadways within the RSA study area include the following:
A-5

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

• Curve warning signage with flagging and supplemental motorcycle plaques. 

• The planned construction of a pull-off area for motorcyclists upon entering the corridor. 

• Advance signing for overlooks.

• Paved aprons at driveways.

• Provision of stopping points.

• Advanced Pavement Markings.

RSA Motorcycle Crash Findings and Suggestions

Upon completing the data analysis and field observations, the RSA team identified a number of 

issues and suggestions. The following presents a summary that highlights several main points.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-6

Overarching Safety Issues, NC 28 and NC 143 Corridors

Issue Description Suggested Action

Motorcyclist Characteristics and Cultural Challenges

•NCDOT determined that more than half of motorcycle operators 

involved in crashes along US 129, NC 28, and NC 143 were not 

from North Carolina or neighboring Tennessee and Georgia. The 

following summarizes the proportions of home states among the 

motorcycle operators involved in reported crashes:

» NC—15%

» GA—10%

» TN—18%

» Other—57%

•The previous NCDOT RSAs also provided the ages of motorcycle 

operators involved in crashes:

» 15 and younger—0.5%

» 16-19—2.5%

» 20-24—8%

» 25-34—17%

» 35-44—17%

» 45-54—24%

» 55-64—22%

» 65-74—7%

» 75 and older—2%

Age does not always translate to experience or ability, as 

evidenced by the crash data. Nearly half of the motorcycle crashes 

involved operators between the ages of 45-64. 

•The motorcyclists who visit the study area represent many 

geographic areas. There are no national standards in terms 

of motorcyclist training and licensure, resulting in skill-level 

inconsistencies.

•There are unique factors related to the “Tail of the Dragon” 

motif that may motivate some motorcyclists to travel at excessive 

speeds:

» Multiple businesses offer timestamped photography/

videography along the corridors, which can be interpreted by 

some motorcyclists as a challenge to increase speed.

» Several websites track and post individual travel times within 

the subject corridors.

Near Term/Intermediate (On-going)

•Develop data resources to identify specific 

causes of motorcycle crashes, motorcycle 

volumes, volumes by type of bike, and common 

factors (age, bike types).

•Collaborate with riding clubs, DMV, safety 

groups, and EMS to provide riding safety 

education as well as data.

•Post educational materials at major biker 

gathering locations.

•Provide incentives for bikers to take advanced 

rider training.

•Install milepost markers along the study corridors 

at mile or half-mile increments or on existing road 

signs to aid emergency responders in locating the 

crash and in reporting the exact location of the 

crash.

•Post signage at key locations to communicate 

motorcyclist crash statistics and speeding fines. 

Consider installation of motorcycle pull-off areas 

for trip planning and safety information.

•Create and post safety information that will rank 

highly in internet search engines (it is easy to find 

information that emphasizes the more “thrilling” 

aspects of riding a motorcycle in this area).

•Focus all education efforts on most vulnerable 

riders, including the least experience riders and 

certain higher risk age groups.

•Continue conducting targeted speed and traffic 

law enforcement.

•Collaborate with Tennessee Department of 

Transportation to understand issues and provide 

awareness of conditions that affect motorcyclists. 

For example, the character of the roadway 

changes drastically between Tennessee and North 

Carolina (US 129). Roadway features in Tennessee 

appear to feature shorter curve radii with a higher 

degree of superelevation. 

•Collaborate with State Motorcycle Safety 

Administrators (SMSAs) in neighboring states to 

promote motorcycle safety awareness. 

•Collaborate with the Insurance Institute for 

Highway Safety and insurance companies to 

understand issues and conditions that affect 

motorcyclist safety, and to identify and leverage 

opportunities for motorcyclist safety education.
A-7

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Overarching Safety Issues, NC 28 and NC 143 Corridors

Issue Description Suggested Action

Considering Motorcycle Characteristics in Engineering

•Established engineering practices may not adequately consider 

the unique characteristics of motorcycles. For instance, the 

conventional approach to establishing advisory speeds at 

horizontal curves (e.g., the ball-bank indicator) was developed 

with the traditional motor vehicle in mind.

•Because it is imperative for motorcyclists—especially those 

traveling at high speeds—to keep their focus on the road before 

them, pavement markings on the road may be as useful as 

roadside signs in communicating to motorcyclists. For example, 

the ad hoc application of the painted message “SLO” at several 

locations along the study corridors suggests advanced pavement 

marking messages may be effective in this regard (see photo of 

marking below).

•Some engineering measures may have an unintended effect in 

areas with large proportions of motorcycle traffic.

» Speed feedback signs may adversely affect the speed of 

motorcyclists based on observations of the RSA team (i.e., 

some motorcyclists may actually speed-up).

» Standard guardrail types are not designed for strikes by 

motorcyclists and may increase the severity of a crash.

Example of information applied by road users to 

provide a variety of conditions. (Credit: NCDOT)

Near Term/Intermediate

•Explore opportunities to apply advanced 

pavement marking messages within the travel 

lanes to warn of curves. Consider the material 

properties of the candidate markings so as not 

to reduce the surface friction beyond acceptable 

levels. Conditional approval from FHWA will be 

required for non-standard applications.

•Review locations with “SLO” pavement markings 

applied to identify potential patterns in roadways 

features. 

•Continue application of unique signage at 

locations with high frequency of motorcycle 

crashes, or locations where motorcycling 

constitutes a high proportion of the traffic volume 

(see photo of sign used on NC 28 below).

•Consider removing existing speed feedback signs 

or enforcement measures in conjunction with 

placement of existing signs. 

•Consider installing delineation devices per the 

MUTCD on the full length of guardrail to improve 

nighttime conspicuity.

 • Consider re-grading roadsides and removing 

hazards to eliminate the need for guardrail.

Signs implemented by NCDOT at 

study location. (Credit: Dan Nabors)
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-8

Overarching Safety Issues, NC 28 and NC 143 Corridors

Issue Description Suggested Action

Complexity of Motorcycling Relative to Geometric Design

•Motorcyclists typically traverse a curve by “picking and holding a 

line” (i.e., selecting a position within the lane and leaning their 

bikes toward the center of the curve at a near-constant angle 

throughout the curve). Adjacent horizontal curves in the same 

direction but of varying radii are known as compound curves 

(see below).

Example of compound curves.

Because compound curves are not typical, a primary concern 

with compound curvature is that it can “mislead the motorist’s 

expectation of how sharp the curve radius is.”21 While this can 

cause moderate discomfort for drivers and passengers of motor 

vehicles, the impacts to motorcyclists can be more acute. It is 

difficult for motorcyclists to adjust their leaning angles suddenly 

when encountering a compound curve.

•Transitioning between throttling and braking is more complex 

for a motorcyclist than a driver of a traditional automobile. Such 

action is necessary at every sag and crest vertical curve. Even 

greater skill is required when these transition points coincide with 

changes in horizontal alignment (i.e., horizontal curves). 

Near Term

•Trim vegetation to maximize sight distance.

•Explore opportunities to employ alternate 

signing or pavement markings to warn of 

impending compound curvature and sag or crest 

vertical curves.

Example of sign implemented by NCDOT 

in other locations. (Credit NCDOT)

•Collaborate with state DOTs, SMSAs, riding 

clubs, safety groups, and EMS to provide riding 

safety education and promote opportunities for 

advanced motorcycle rider training.

Long Range

•Consider realigning effected locations to 

eliminate instances of compound curvature and 

relocating conflict points such as intersecting 

roads and pull-off areas.

21 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 

“Turning Roadways,” 6th ed., Sec. 3.3.7, 2011.
A-9

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Focus Area #1: NC 28, MP 18.25-19.25

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

Northbound

This location presents the first set of sharp curves in the 

northbound direction. This factor coupled with the shade created 

by the tree canopy may lead a rider to lose the visual path of 

the roadway. To address motorcycle crashes, NCDOT installed 

motorcycle-specific signage in July 2013. At the first curve in 

the series of curves there is also a steep dropoff/ravine (see 

photo below of signage improvements at the first curve in the 

northbound direction).

View approaching series of curves on 

northbound NC 28. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Southbound 

Similar issues to northbound direction. The visibility of the 

chevrons is affected by the shading created by the canopy and 

their number, spacing, and placement (see photo below).

View approaching series of curves on 

southbound NC 28. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

In addition to the described horizontal curvature, this area is on a 

sag vertical curve.

Near Term/Intermediate

•Overall: enhance signage for motorcyclists 

approaching this set of curves from both 

directions.

•Install flexible post-mounted delineators on the 

shoulder to enhance visibility of the curve.

•Install motorcyclist-specific signage to warn 

of specific features that may increase risk for a 

motorcyclist.

•Consider reflective panels on signs to enhance 

conspicuity.

•Consider replacing/adjusting placement/ 

additional larger chevrons in the southbound 

direction.

•Consider using fluorescent signage to enhance 

conspicuity.

•Consider applying wider centerlines and 

edgelines.

•Investigate the application of motorcycle-specific 

pavement markings (SLOW).

•Consider attenuation device for motorcyclists. 

•Remove clear zone obstructions where possible; 

focus on locations with a high frequency of run off 

road crashes.

•Collaborate with state DOTs, SMSAs, riding 

clubs, safety groups, and EMS to provide riding 

safety education and promote opportunities for 

advanced motorcycle rider training.

•Provide educational materials at major 

motorcyclist gathering locations.

Long Term

•Consider major reconstruction of principal sharp 

curve to include:

•Move earth to fill in ravine, thereby reducing 

dropoff.

•Potential realignment to reduce curvature.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-10

Focus Area #2: NC 28, MP 14.25 – 15

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

There are several features of this area that change 

abruptly from the sections preceding this location in both 

directions. There is a pull-off overlook in this section with 

two access points (see photos). The overlook is on a crest 

vertical and horizontal curve. Other conditions that are 

dissimilar from the sections approaching it are as follows:

•Change in the roadway canopy – the pull-off is in an open 

section.

•No advance warning of curve or pull-off.

•Potential distractions include the scenic view and slowing 

or stopping vehicles.

Photo of the easternmost 

access point. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Near Term

•Install advance warning signs indicating the presence of 

an overlook (Skyway signage).

•Designate overlook with name and milepost.

•Encourage law enforcement to use mileposts in crash 

reporting. 

•Reduce gap in centerline markings with hash markings 

(see photos; each access already has edgeline skip 

markings) to help riders maintain visual focus of the 

roadway curvature.

•Due to lack of cell phone service, investigate feasibility 

of installing a call box at this location to allow for more 

timely crash reporting and EMS response. Keep in mind 

that a landline hookup would not be available.

Photo of the westernmost access point. 

(Credit: Dan Nabors)
A-11

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Focus Area #3: NC 143, MP 20.5-23.5

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

Changes in Road Character 

From the Tennessee border (MP 0) to Santeetlah Road 

(MP 17.8), NC 143 is also known as the Cherohala 

Skyway—a 42-mile National Scenic Byway connecting 

Robbinsville, NC, with Tellico Plains, TN. In North Carolina, 

the Skyway features 11-foot travel lanes, several long 

straightaways, no driveways or intersections, 45 mph 

posted speed limit, and an open view of the skies 

above. Conversely, 10-foot travel lanes, a more winding 

alignment, numerous driveways, commercial entrances, 

and intersections, a statutory speed limit of 55 mph, and a 

dense tree canopy characterize NC 143 east of Santeetlah 

Road (which coincides with the RSA study area). For 

motorcyclists traveling east, the transition from the 

Skyway to the non-Skyway section is abrupt.

Apparent & Observed Behavior of Motorcyclists

Motorcyclists were observed crossing the centerline. 

Crash data demonstrated a prevalence of head-on and 

sideswipe opposite direction crashes along NC-143 

compared to run-off-road crashes along NC-28. Possible 

factors influencing this behavior and crash pattern include:

•Possible dragging floorboards and overcorrecting.

•Large gap in pavement markings.

•Presence of intersecting roadways.

•Presence of gravel shoulders.

•Worn centerline markings, indicating vehicles/

motorcycles crossing the centerline.

Photo showing motorcyclist crossing centerline on 

a sag vertical curve and horizontal curve. There is an 

intersecting roadway and driveway within the curve. 

(Credit: Dan Nabors)

Near Term

•Consider conducting a speed study and exploring 

opportunities to reduce the speed limit from the current 

statutory limit of 55 mph along NC 143 east of the 

Cherohala Skyway.

•Consider installing a warning sign along eastbound 

NC 143 to denote the end of the Skyway. Consider 

incorporating one or more warning beacons with this sign.

Near Term

•Clear vegetation to improve sightline around curves, 

especially locations with nearby driveways, commercial 

entrances, and intersections.

•Provide warning signs for intersecting roadways.

•Pave shoulders on inside of curves, especially gravel 

shoulders as motorcyclists may try to steer away from 

these to avoid debris.

•Repaint centerline and provide centerline skip marks 

through intersections to help motorcyclists maintain visual 

focus.

•Consider additional warning signage to warn 

motorcyclists/drivers of sharp roadway curvature. 

•Consider motorcyclist-specific signage at critical 

locations, such as at sag or crest curves that also have 

horizontal curvature.

•Conduct education and enforcement focused on crashes 

involving motorcyclists crossing the centerline or dragging 

floorboards.

•Conduct crash analysis to determine safety concerns for 

all motorized vehicles and identify measures to address 

safety for all roadway users. 
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-12

Conclusions

North Carolina Route (NC) 28 and North Carolina Route (NC) 143 are rural, two-lane roadways in an 

area known not only for its scenic beauty, but also as a popular destination for motorcyclists. The 

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) reported a high number of severe crashes 

involving motorcyclists on these roadways. From 2012 to 2014, the NCDOT conducted RSAs at seven 

locations along NC 28 and NC 143. However, other high-crash locations remained, and three segments with the highest frequency of crashes involving motorcyclists were the subject of this RSA. 

The RSA organizers selected a multidisciplinary team to conduct the RSA. In addition to RSA team 

members with traditional skillsets, RSA organizers selected team members with specific experience 

driving a motorcycle. Representatives from the Motorcycle Safety Foundation provided insight on 

some of the behavioral issues affecting the safety of motorcyclists in the study area, and the representatives of law enforcement, emergency medical services, and local NCDOT staff provided firsthand knowledge of rider behavior and enforcement issues, as well. The participants were critical for 

the RSA team to understand motorcyclist’ behavior, needs, and concerns and addressing these areas 

within the context of safety.

There are a number of factors that likely contribute to the high incidence of severe motorcycle 

collisions within the study segments. The region’s unique combination of natural beauty and renown 

among the motorcyclist community attracts riders of all types, including those who have limited 

motorcycling experience. There are notable differences in roadway character within the region that 

may present challenges for riders unfamiliar with the area. However, the RSA team noted common 

conditions at all three RSA locations that, when combined with other factors, may contribute to 

increased risk for motorcyclists. These factors include the following: 

• Changes in tree canopy, which causes sudden changes in roadway lighting.

• There was a reversal of grade at or near the apex of a horizontal curve on each section.

Given that all three RSA locations had these elements in common, other locations may be reviewed 

for these elements and consideration of the safety of motorcyclists.

The RSA team reviewed measures installed as a result of the RSAs and confirmed curve warning 

signage with flagging and supplemental motorcycle plaques as helpful in conveying warnings to 

motorcyclists about critical locations. The team considered other planned treatments as positive, 

such as the construction of a pull-off area to provide a preparation area and information area for 

motorcyclists upon entering the corridor. Measures suggested by the RSA team include:

• Develop data resources to identify specific causes of motorcycle crashes, motorcycle volumes, 

volumes by type of bike, and common factors (age, bike types).

• Collaborate with riding clubs, DMV, safety groups, and EMS to provide riding safety education 

as well as data.
A-13

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

• Conduct targeted speed and traffic law enforcement.

• Explore opportunities to apply advanced pavement marking messages specific to motorcyclists 

within the travel lanes to provide warning of curves. 

• Continue application of unique signage at locations with high frequency of motorcycle crashes, 

or locations where motorcycling constitutes a high portion of the traffic volume.

• Consider installing delineation devices per the MUTCD on the full length of guardrail to improve 

nighttime conspicuity.

• Consider re-grading roadsides and removing hazards to eliminate the need for guardrail.

• Trim vegetation to maximize sight distance especially locations with nearby driveways, commercial entrances, and intersections.

• Pave shoulders on inside of curves, especially gravel shoulders as motorcyclists may try to steer 

away from these to avoid debris.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-14

RSA Case Study No. 2— State Route 7 (SR 7), Tacoma, Washington

Project Overview

Project Location: Three locations: an urban segment (MM 48-59); intersection of SR 7 and Alder Cutoff 

Road (near curve); north of the intersection of SR 7, Tanwax Road, and 66th Avenue 

(near curve)

Project Environment: Rural and Urban

Project Design Stage: Existing roadway

Project Owner(s): Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)

RSA Overview

Date of RSA: March 18-19, 2014

RSA Stage(s): RSA of existing roads

RSA Team: Representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, Washington State 

Department of Transportation (WSDOT), Washington State Patrol, Washington State 

Department of Licensing, Washington Traffic Safety Commission, and VHB.

Project Background

Washington State Route 7 (SR 7) is an approximately 60-mile long roadway that generally runs 

north-south between Tacoma in the north and Morton in the south. SR 7 provides connections to 

popular parks and natural environments such as Mount Rainier, and as such attracts vehicles ranging 

from large recreational vehicles to motorcyclists. The northern end of the roadway is characterized 

by urban development, and terminates at the junction of I-5. The cross-section of the roadway in 

this section changes between and a four- and five-lane cross section with relatively closely spaced 

signalized intersections, occasional on-street parking, and multiple access points. Heading south the 

roadway becomes more rural in nature, with significant horizontal curvature, and has a two-lane 

cross section with shoulders of varying width. At the southern end of the roadway there is a rumble 

strip and reflective raised pavement markers on the centerline of the road. Figure A-3 illustrates the 

sections of SR 7 studied during the RSA. 
A-15

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Figure A-3: State Route 7 Study Area. (Source: Google Maps)

Pilot Overview

The RSA team held a start-up meeting at the WSDOT office in Tacoma, and reviewed the methodology for conducting an RSA using the eight-step process detailed in the FHWA RSA Guidelines. During 

that meeting, staff from Washington State Department of Licensing (WSDOL) provided licensing 

information and data to illustrate some of the behavioral issues affect the safety of motorcyclists in 

the state. This information was helpful in understanding the broader context of motorcycle safety in 

the state. The RSA team also reviewed crash data for motorcyclists in the study area. Key licensing, 

user, and crash data are summarized in the next section. Law enforcement officers who ride motorcycles and conduct rider education provided first-hand knowledge of rider behavior and enforcement issues as well.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-16

The RSA team drove and walked the RSA sites to gain a more complete understanding of the issues 

affecting motorcyclists. Having skilled motorcycle riders on the RSA team was essential to fully 

understanding the key roadway features and conditions that affect the behavior of cyclists. 

The RSA concluded with an RSA workshop and preliminary findings meeting in accordance with the 

eight-step RSA process. 21

Licensing, Driver Requirements, and Behavioral Data

An instruction permit or motorcycle endorsement is required to operate a motorcycle on 

Washington State roadways.22 Drivers must pass a written test to obtain a permit. The permit is valid 

for 90 days; however, riders may apply for a permit up to three times if they have taken a training 

course. Obtaining an endorsement requires a driver to pass both a written and skills test. This is 

possible by successfully completing either an approved training class or testing at an approved site. 

Washington State law requires that drivers: 

• Wear glasses, goggles, or a face shield, unless the motorcycle has a windshield.

• Wear a helmet that meets USDOT standards and that is fastened properly.

• Do not allow passengers under the age of five to ride on their motorcycle. 

Motorcyclists are not required to have insurance. 

Data from WSDOL indicated that number of registered motorcycles and endorsed motorcycle drivers 

has risen steadily from 2003 through 2012. WSDOL also investigated the motorcycle fatalities in 

2012 to identify the level of training and endorsement. It was determined, as shown in Figure A-4 , 

that 39 percent were endorsed but not trained, 33 percent were neither endorsed nor trained, 25 

percent were trained and endorsed through the state Motorcycle Safety Program (MSP), and three 

percent were trained and endorsed by another MSP. 

The WSDOL data also showed a clear link between riding experience and fatalities. Figure A-5 shows 

fatalities by years of riding experience; one-third of all motorcyclist fatalities involved motorcyclists 

with two or fewer years riding experience. 

21 W

22 Washington Department of Licensing, Motorcycle Operator Manual. Available at http://www.dol.wa.gov/driverslicense/docs/

motomanual.pdf.
A-17

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Figure A-4: 2012 Motorcycle Fatality Endorsement Status (Source: WSDOL).

Figure A-5: 2012 Washington State Motorcycle Fatalities by Years of Riding Experience (Source: WSDOL).

Crash History

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) provided motorcycle-specific crash 

data from Mileposts 16 to 59 for a five-year period, from 2008 through 2012. During that period, 

there were 135 reported motorcycle crashes involving 139 motorcycles for an average of 27 motorcycle crashes per year. The majority of the crashes (59 percent) occurred during the months of May 

through August, as shown in Figure A-6. Motorcycle crashes peaked during the month of August, 

which accounted for 20 percent of all motorcycle crashes.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-18

Figure A-6: Motorcycle Crashes by Month (2008-2012).

The motorcycle drivers varied in age from 18 to 78 years old. Certain age groups were identified as 

being involved in the most crashes (see Figure A-7), with 26 and 41 year olds being the age groups 

most frequently involved in crashes, comprising over 10 percent of motorcycle crashes.

Figure A-7: Motorcycle Crashes by Driver Age (2008-2012).
A-19

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Figure A-8: Motorcycle Crash Collision Types (2008-2012).

The first collisions types throughout the study area were primarily “overturn” (40 percent), followed 

by “fixed object” (23 percent), and rear-end (17 percent) as shown in Figure A-8. 

Positive Features

Some of the positive features noted by the RSA team include:

• Education and training opportunities provided through Department of Licensing motorcycle 

safety program.

• Law enforcement works closely with the nearby military base, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, to 

provide motorcycle education and outreach.

• Access management strategies implemented on the corridor.

RSA Motorcycle Crash Findings and Suggestions

After completing the RSA field review, the RSA team developed a list of overarching and site specific 

issues as part of the RSA process. 
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-20

Focus Area #1: MP 21.6 (Vicinity of intersection of SR 7 and Alder Cutoff Road)

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

Expectancy 

•There were seven (7) crashes at this intersection.

•Approximately two-thirds occurred at or were related 

to a driveway or intersection. Drivers may not expect to 

encounter vehicles entering or exiting driveways in this 

area.

Top photo: Northbound on SR 7, near two private driveways, and heading towards the intersection with Alder 

Cutoff Road. Bottom photo: View of northbound on SR 7 

at the intersection with Alder Cutoff Road and showing 

the parking area to the left. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Short Range 

•Remove vegetation from inside of curve and near 

driveway/intersection to improve sight distance.

•Provide additional intersection/driveway delineation and 

warning. 

•Combine wayfinding and safety education materials, 

such as scenic route maps that include motorcycle safety 

information. 

•Consider warning signs depicting the roadway alignment 

and road/driveway intersections. If additional warning is 

needed, beacons can be added to the warning signs. 

Examples of intersection warning signs that depict the location of intersections along a curve. The sign on the left 

is an example of sign that could be used for northbound 

drivers on SR 7, as it depicts the intersection with Alder 

Cutoff Road on the right, and the parking lot entrance 

on the left. Consider combining the warning sign with a 

flashing beacon, as shown.
A-21

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Focus Area #2: MP 31.4 (Curve near the intersection of SR 7, Tanwax Road, and 66th Avenue)

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

•There were 12 crashes at this location. Most of the 

motorcycles were traveling in the southbound direction.

•Superelevation

» The RSA team noted a difference in the superelevation 

between the curve at the intersection of SR 7, Tanwax 

Road, and 66th Avenue and the curve to the south 

of the intersection. The curve at the intersection was 

noticeably flatter than the curve to the south. 

» The RSA team measured the superelevation, with 

readings varying from 0.9 to 2.6 degrees.

•Delineation 

» Gap of pavement markings and center line rumble 

strips at intersection with two roads

» Lack of delineation of intersecting roads/island

» Lack of curve delineation

Top: Southbound view of the curve at the intersection 

of SR 7, Tanwax Road, and 66th Avenue. This curve is 

fairly flat, particularly in comparison to the curve to the 

south. Bottom: Southbound view of northern curve, at 

the intersection of SR 7, Tanwax Road, and 66th Avenue. 

This curve warning sign is the only one used on the curve 

in either direction. There are also a couple post-mounted 

delineators. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Short Range 

•Remove vegetation on inside of curve to improve sight 

distance.

•Evaluate superelevation of curve though a ballbank test. 

•Provide additional curve delineation and warning 

through the use of warning signs indicating the location of 

the intersection (in both the northbound and southbound 

directions), reflective post mounted delineators that are 

evenly spaced throughout both sides of the curve, and 

dotted edgeline through the intersection. Additional 

positive guidance could be provided through wider 6-inch 

edge and centerlines. 

4-inch edge and center lines (top). Wider 8-inch 

edge and center lines (bottom). (Credit: FHWA)

•Consider applying wider edge and centerlines and 

shoulder rumble strips.

Long Range

•If the curve superelevation is found to be less than what 

is specified by the appropriate design policy and values, 

or inconsistent with other curves in the area, consider 

reconstructing curve with the appropriate superelevation.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-22

Focus Area #3: MP 48-59 (Intersection of SR 7 and 182nd Street to the intersection with Interstate 5)

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

Cross-Section 

•Changes in cross section may lead to improper 

lane positioning and changing of lanes. 

•Wide outside lanes may encourage higher 

speeds.

•Shoulders of varying width, which may result 

in their use for unintended purposes such as 

stopping.

•Varying cross-sections may cause unexpected 

shifts in alignment. 

•Vehicles parked on the curb or next to 

intersections and driveways limit sight distance 

between the road and intersecting streets and 

driveways. On-street or curb parking increases 

friction between vehicles in the travel lane and 

parked vehicles. 

SR 7 near the intersection at 159th street: 

a wide edgeline separates the vehicular travel 

lanes from the bike lanes. The edge lines are 

not present or are much narrower on the northern portion of the corridor. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Short Range 

•Provide consistency in the corridor through pavement markings or 

raised pavement markers that define travel lanes. 

» This can be combined with an access management plan, 

explained on the following page.

Photo top: SR 7 before implementation of access management. 

Photo below: the same location on SR 7 after access management 

implementation (Source: Analysis of Access Management Implementation: A Success Story, WSDOT). The access management 

project helped provide consistency in roadway cross section by 

defining the lanes with additional pavement markings and curb.

Intermediate Range 

Review parking regulations to provide consistency in where to 

locate parking and how to define those areas with parking using 

pavement markings and signage. Changes to the parking policies 

may help to reduce or eliminate friction between vehicles in the 

travel lane and those utilizing the parking. 

A section of SR 7 near 43rd street. The wide outside lane may 

encourage higher speeds. Traffic parked on the curb limits sight 

distance between the road and intersecting streets and driveways. 

Investigate the reason vehicles are parking on the curb. 

(Credit: Dan Nabors)
A-23

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Focus Area #3: MP 48-59 (Intersection of SR 7 and 182nd Street to the intersection with Interstate 5) (Cont.)

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

Access points 

•Drivers can turn left across 

numerous lanes of traffic and may 

have difficulty seeing motorcycles 

when trying to find a gap.

•There are numerous driveways 

throughout this portion of the 

corridor and drivers are able to turn 

in and out of these driveways onto 

both directions of SR 7, creating 

many conflict points. Also, because 

turning drivers have to cross many 

lanes of traffic, their ability to judge 

acceptable gaps in traffic is reduced.

•Wide accesses and numerous 

access points increase the potential 

for conflict. 

•In combination with wide-open 

accesses, limited sight distance 

at intersections or driveways and 

changes in roadway cross-section 

present drivers with additional 

challenges.

Intermediate Range (Cont.) 

•Parking policies can include the review of:

» On-Street parking: removing, reducing, or consistently defining locations 

with on-street parking. Almost 60 percent of intersection-related crashes 

were between the hours of 2 PM and 7 PM. Restricting on-street parking 

during those times may help to reduce the potential for conflicts.

» The ability to park alongside the road (on the grass, sidewalk, or sidewalk 

buffer)

» Daylighting: limiting parking near intersections, driveways, and crosswalks 

to help improve visibility of entering vehicles/pedestrians and traffic control 

devices.

Top: Section of SR 7 near S 64th Street where the road transitions from a 

section with unmarked, on-street parking to a narrower section no on-street 

parking. The parking is not defined with an edgeline, creating a wide 

outside lane that may encourage unintended maneuvers and speeding. 

(Credit: Dan Nabors) Bottom: Example of pavement markings that could 

define on-street parking. The markings can be used to restrict parking near 

driveways and intersections, improve visibility of intersections, and define 

parking so that there is a consistent cross -section throughout the corridor. 

Signage can be used to restrict parking during times of day when crashes are 

more prevalent (e.g., 2 PM to 7 PM). (Source: Google Maps)

•Restrict left turns from driveways and entrances onto SR 7, only permitting 

them in certain designated locations. Use signage, pavement markings, and 

physical barriers to restrict left turns. 

Example of an existing barrier on SR 7. (Credit: Dan Nabors)
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-24

Focus Area #3: MP 48-59 (Intersection of SR 7 and 182nd Street to the intersection with Interstate 5) (Cont.)

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

Long Range 

•Create a corridor access management plan, similar to the plan created for SR 7 between 

MP 47.3 to MP 52.70. An analysis conducted by WSDOT found that access management 

contributed to a significant decrease in accident severity and societal costs, particularly during 

PM peak travel periods.

Examples of Corridor Access Management Issues 

There are portions of the corridor with wide-open accesses. Wide accesses, like the one 

shown above, increase the potential for conflict. Creating discrete access points would reduce the number of conflict points and would increase drivers’ expectancy. 

(Credit: Dan Nabors)

A section of SR 7 near 84th Street. There are multiple points of conflict in this section of the 

corridor, including left-turning vehicles from the two-way left-turn lane, traffic in the unmarked parking lanes, and vehicles entering from side streets and driveways. 

(Credit: Dan Nabors)

Near the intersection of SR 7 and 116th Street, there are several intersections and driveways 

with limited sight distance due to the retaining walls and change in elevation. The limited 

sight distance increases the risk in this location, where there are numerous conflict points 

as drivers turning left from side streets or driveways cross sidewalks, bike lanes, four travel 

lanes, and a two-way left-turn lane. (Credit: Dan Nabors)
A-25

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Conclusions

SR 7 is an approximately 60-mile long roadway that provides connections between the City of 

Tacoma and popular parks and natural environments, and as such attracts vehicles ranging from 

large recreational vehicles to motorcyclists. The Washington State Department of Transportation 

(WSDOT) reported a high number of severe crashes involving motorcyclists on this roadway. An 

analysis of the crash data showed three locations with the highest frequency of crashes involving 

motorcyclists. The locations were two rural intersections and one urban segment; these locations 

were the subject of this RSA.

During the RSA start-up meeting, staff from Washington State Department of Licensing (WSDOL) 

provided information about licensing and data to illustrate some of the behavioral issues affect the 

safety of motorcyclists in the state. Law enforcement officers whom ride motorcycles and conduct 

rider education provided first-hand knowledge of rider behavior and enforcement issues as well. 

These participants were critical for the RSA team to understand motorcyclists’ behavior, needs, and 

concerns and addressing these areas within the context of safety.

The RSA team noted the following strategies as important in addressing the safety of motorcyclists:

• Education and training opportunities provided through Department of Licensing motorcycle 

safety program.

• Law enforcement working closely with the nearby military base, Joint Base Lewis-McChord, to 

provide motorcycle education and outreach.

• Access management strategies implemented on the corridor.

Measures suggested by the RSA team on the rural sections include:

• Remove vegetation to improve sight distance.

• Provide additional curve delineation and intersection warning through use of warning signs 

indicating the location of intersections. Consider motorcycle specific signage.

• Evaluate superelevation of curve though a ballbank test. If inconsistent with adjacent curves, 

provide motorcycle-specific warning.

Measures suggested by the RSA team on the urban section include:

• Provide additional intersection/driveway delineation and warning. 

• Limit parking near intersections, driveways, and crosswalks to help improve visibility of entering 

vehicles and approaching vehicles. 

• Provide consistency in the corridor through pavement markings or raised pavement markers 

that define travel lanes. 

• Restrict left turns from driveways and entrances, only permitting them in certain designated 

locations. Use signage, pavement markings, and physical barriers to restrict left turns. 

• Create a corridor access management plan.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-26

RSA Case Study No. 3— Blue Ridge Parkway, Asheville, North Carolina

Project Overview

Project Location: Approximately 60 miles of the Blue Ridge Parkway from milepost 382 (Asheville area) 

to milepost 439 

Project Environment: Rural and Rural Developed

Project Design Stage: Existing roadway

Project Owner(s): National Park Service

RSA Overview

Date of RSA: August 21-23, 2012

RSA Stage(s): RSA of existing roads

RSA Team: Representatives from the Federal Highway Administration, Blue Ridge Parkway staff 

from different districts (landscape architect, cultural resource protection specialist, 

maintenance, rangers, and Denver Service Center), Natchez Trace Parkway staff (civil 

engineer, maintenance, ranger), Great Smoky Mountains National Park staff, North 

Carolina Department of Transportation district engineer, and VHB.

Project Background

The Blue Ridge Parkway (BLRI) is a 469-mile long rural parkway that travels through both Virginia 

and North Carolina. A map showing the location of the Parkway is shown in Figure A-9. Under the 

provisions of the Organic Act approved by Congress on August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535) creating the 

National Park Service, the intended purpose of the Blue Ridge Parkway is to conserve, interpret 

and exhibit the unique natural and cultural resources of the central and southern Appalachian 

Mountains, as well as provide for leisure motor travel through a variety of environments. The original design of the Parkway developed in the 1930s and 1940s envisioned leisurely touring where visitors would enjoy the scenery, hike the trails, and 

stay and eat in the concession areas. Today, the 

Blue Ridge Parkway is technically the most visited 

park in the National Park system, with over 20 

million visitors annually. Vehicles traveling on the 

Parkway range from large recreational vehicles to 

large groups of motorcyclists. The unique combination of recreational character and winding 

alignment of the Blue Ridge Parkway contribute 

to elevated motorcycle activity on the roadway.

Figure A-9: Blue Ridge Parkway Location Map.

FHWA selected BLRI for RSA assistance because of the high visitation and frequency and type of 

crashes. From 2007-2012, there were 723 motorcycle crashes on the Parkway; motorcycle crashes 

accounted for 38% of all crashes during this time period. Furthermore, motorcycle ridership on BLRI 

has increased significantly in the past 10 years, increasing the potential for motorcycle crashes.
A-27

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Pilot Overview

The RSA team held a training session at the Parkway Headquarters, during which the team reviewed 

the methodology for conducting an RSA using the eight-step process detailed in the FHWA RSA 

Guidelines, established the role and responsibilities for an RSA champion, identified RSA team members and partners, and identified resources for developing recommendations through RSAs. The RSA 

trainers emphasized special RSA program elements that apply to the Parkway, including motorcycle 

safety. In conjunction with the training on how to conduct an RSA and implement an RSA program, 

NPS staff received technical assistance in conducting an RSA. The intent was for this experience to 

provide a foundation for NPS staff to conduct additional RSAs in the future. RSA team members 

included park rangers experienced in riding a motorcycle. 

Crash History

The RSA team reviewed and analyzed available crash data from 2007-2012, and selected specific 

locations for review during the RSA based on crash frequency. Table A-2 provides a summary of the 

crash data for the locations selected.

Table A-2: RSA Study Area Crash Summary.

Location Total 

Crashes

Injury 

Crashes1

Fatal 

Crashes1

MC 

Crashes2

Night 

Crashes

Wet/Snow/Fog

Conditions Predominant Crash Types 

BLRI/Route 70

Interchange (MP 382) 15 2 0 0 3 2 Ran-off-road, Fixed Object

BLRI/Route 74 

Interchange (MP 384) 49 19 0 5 6 1 Rear-end, Angle, Ran-offroad (traffic island)

BLRI/Route25 

Interchange (MP 389) 25 6 0 4 7 4 Rear-end, Ran-off-road (traffic island)

BLRI/Route191 

Interchange (MP 393) 13 5 0 2 1 0 Animal-related, Ran-offroad, Fixed Object

BLRI/Route276 

Interchange (MP 412) 9 4 0 4 0 1 Motorcycle, Fixed Object (snow gate) 

East Fork Overlook 

(MP 418) 5 5 0 5 0 0 Motorcycle (loss of control)

Graveyard Fields 

Overlook (MP 419) 3 2 0 2 0 0 Motorcycle

Curve 1 

(MP 427) 11 5 0 9 0 0 Motorcycle (loss of control)

Curve 2 

(MP 437) 7 4 0 5 0 1 Motorcycle (loss of control)

Curve 3 

(MP 439) 15 11 0 14 0 2 Motorcycle (loss of control)

Notes: 1

Refers to the number of injury or fatal crashes, not number of persons involved.

2

Motorcycle crashes
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-28

The crash data indicated that motorcycle crashes were by far the most common type of crash along 

curve segments in the study area. The motorcycle crashes during the period studied had a high rate 

of injury, although there were no reported fatalities. All of the crashes in the curve segments occurred during daytime conditions. 

Positive Features

In response to the high number of crashes involving motorcycles and crashes on curves in general, 

BLRI staff implemented a signage program to address vehicle speed and loss-of-control crashes on 

curves with a descending radius – that is, “spiral curves.” The signage program entails installation 

of unique messaging intended to provide drivers with advance warning of the curvature in the 

roadway. The signs are comprised of a 48x48-inch aluminum yellow warning sign displaying a black 

rounded arrow indicating the direction of curvature and a supplemental yellow placard with a black 

“SPIRAL CURVE” message. 

Spiral Curve Warning Sign along the Blue Ridge Parkway. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Installation of the spiral curve warning signs started as a one-year pilot in 2001 and targeted locations along descending grades in mountainous sections of the parkway. NPS has continued to 

install additional signs and has 15 signs at different locations on the parkway. BLRI staff have been 

measured in their use of the signs, both to avoid diminishing the effectiveness of the signs through 

overuse and to avoid significant impacts to the cultural and historical character of the parkway. 
A-29

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

BLRI staff installed spiral curve warning signs based on the following criteria:

• Target the 10 worst curve crash locations 

• Only install facing a descending grade approach to a curve

• Only install on segments with obstructed visibility of the end of curvature

BLRI staff have also developed motorcyclist-specific signage. The “motoman” sign was developed 

and used by the park in locations with a high incidence of run-off-the-road motorcycle crashes 

(Figure A-10). 

Figure A-10: Excerpt from Blue Ridge Parkway Brochure Illustrating the “Motoman” Sign. (Source: NPS)

RSA Motorcycle Crash Findings and Suggestions

After completing the RSA field review, the RSA team developed a list of eight critical issues as part of 

the RSA process. The RSA team identified motorcycle crashes as the second most critical issue on the 

Blue Ridge Parkway, after poor roadway conditions/maintenance, which can contribute to motorcycle safety issues as well.

 In general, the RSA team considered data limitations as a critical limitation in understanding factors 

that increase risk for motorcyclists. The NPS keeps records of reported crashes on the Blue Ridge 

Parkway and summarizes this data by milepost location, date, time of day, weather conditions, and 

severity. However, the standard NPS crash data summaries do not provide additional details regarding a variety of crash attributes, including direction of travel, collision type, number of vehicles, 

participant ages, or other contributing factors. Furthermore, the lack of volume data, particularly for 

motorcyclists, restricts the ability to assess risk based on motorcyclists’ exposure. Other behavioral 

data may also help define issues specific to motorcyclists.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-30

Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 382-439 

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

Conditions Affecting Motorcyclists

•Pavement surfaces have a greater effect on motorcycles

than larger vehicles. Uneven surfaces, cracks and 

potholes, loose debris, and fluid spills, can cause a 

motorcycle to lose control and potentially crash.

•Pavement edge drop-offs are a greater hazard to

motorcyclists than larger vehicles.

A fluid spill near mile marker 418. Fluid spills can contribute to loss of control crashes for motorcycles. This is 

particularly critical at this location due to horizontal curvature and limited sight distance. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

The pavement has been damaged by fallen rock and 

the roadway width is impacted by the encroachment of 

vegetation. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Short Range 

•Monitor and repair pavement where potholes, debris,

longitudinal cracks, vertical displacement, and reduced 

friction are apparent.

•Target law enforcement at locations with high crash

incidence, based on NPS crash records.

•Install signage at key locations to communicate

motorcycle crash statistics and speeding fines.

•Implement a program to install Safety EdgeSM along

the parkway roadside, particularly in areas with higher 

volumes, along curves, or at locations where data suggest 

motorcycles run off the road.

Long Range 

•Implement a program to install Safety EdgeSM along

the Parkway roadside, particularly in areas with higher 

volumes, along curves, or at locations where data suggests 

motorcycles run off the road.
A-31

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

Blue Ridge Parkway, MP 382-439 

Selected Safety Issue Suggested Action

Motorcycling Skill/Expertise

•Motorcyclists may have difficulty negotiating 

grades and curves. Cruiser bikers may be particularly 

at risk because of the size and different handling 

characteristics of this type of motorcycle.

•Motorcyclists are largely a visitor population and 

may not be familiar with BLRI attributes.

•Driving too fast for conditions has been cited as an 

issue.

Motorcyclists exhibit a range of riding behaviors. In 

this photo, the last motorcyclist is riding very close 

to the centerline around a curve with limited sight 

distance. (Credit: Dan Nabors)

Short Range 

•Partner with riding clubs, DMV, safety groups, EMS to provide 

motorcycle safety education in the park.

•Focus educational efforts on the most vulnerable rider types 

(i.e., cruiser bikers).

•Post fines for speeding and reckless driving at entrances to 

the Parkway.

•Review geometric conditions to determine if additional 

spiral curve warning signs are warranted based on existing 

placement conditions.

Intermediate Range 

•Post educational materials at major motorcyclist gathering 

locations on BLRI.

•Continually review crash data and install additional SPIRAL 

CURVE warning signs at the highest incidence curve locations.

Long Range 

•Collect data on motorcycle usage (volume and classification) 

and detailed crash information (motorcycle classification 

and make). Use volume data to determine crash rates for 

targeting countermeasures and enforcement. Use detailed 

crash information to target at-risk types or groups of riders 

for education efforts with enthusiast groups, dealers, and 

manufacturers. 

•Establish speed zones in areas where data suggests speed is a 

primary factor contributing to crashes.

•Coordinate with Federal, State, and local partners to develop 

additional safety-related public outreach programs.

Conclusions

FHWA sponsored an RSA on the Blue Ridge Parkway to address safety. The RSA team was comprised 

of local practitioners with a full range of skill sets, along with representatives from the National Park 

Service assigned to various parks in the region. Park rangers with experience riding a motorcycle 

were also part of the team and provided valuable insight into motorcycle issues on the Parkway.

The RSA team reviewed conditions affecting motorcycle safety and found that the Spiral Curve 

Warning Signs were a positive strategy to address a unique condition along the Parkway and that a 

rigorous analysis should confirm their efficacy. Detailed data on motorcycle crashes, volumes, and 

types considered a critical limitation in fully understanding risks to motorcyclists. Other measures 

suggested by the RSA team to improve safety for motorcyclists include:

• Collaborate with riding clubs, DMV, safety groups, EMS to provide riding safety education on 

the Parkway.

• Post educational materials at major motorcyclist gathering locations on the Parkway.
Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies

A-32

• Repair pavement where potholes, debris, longitudinal cracks, vertical displacement, and reduced friction are apparent.

• Target speed and traffic law enforcement at locations with high crash incidence, based on NPS 

crash records.

• Implement a program to install Safety EdgeSM and/or pavement edge striping along the Parkway 

roadside, particularly along curves or areas where data suggests motorcycles run off the road.
A-33

Motorcycle Road Safety Audit Case Studies