July 2001

Third International Riders’ Public Policy Conference in the USA

NHTSA ’s Joey Syner, one of the many speakers at the AMA conference,explains the American Agenda for Road Safety
You probably think my work for the BMF is a continuous round of travelling to meetings and conferences because I make frequent visits to Brussels and Antwerp for FEMA meetings. Not so. It, therefore, made a welcome change for the BMF to send me to the third International Riders Public Policy Conference at Pickerington, Ohio on 28 and 29 April.

I was fortunate enough to travel with Craig Carey-Clinch and Jill Carr from the Motorcycle Industry Association. We landed at Washington DC – where we visited the usual tourist attractions – and travelled by rented car to the conference 420 miles away.

We soon reached the sparsely populated Appalachians in Maryland where the revenue for toll roads is used purely for maintenance. Maybe Ken Livingstone and others might like to consider this. In spite of bitterly resented price increases, the cost of fuel is much lower than in Europe. However, Americans are dependent on their cars, because of fewer alternatives, so any government attempting to increase costs would be committing electoral suicide. We saw a few motorcycles, but there does not seem to be as much recognition of the role they can play in reducing urban congestion. The concept of addressing social exclusion was new to US Riders Rights Groups.

On our return to Washington (after the conference) we travelled through Pennsylvania. This allowed an overnight stop in Gettysburg, famous as the turning point of the Confederacy's fortunes during the American Civil War. I found the experience fascinating because the town retained much of the character of those turbulent days in 1863. Jill and Craig also enjoyed the visit, which was all too brief.

The International Public Policy Conference held at the Lenox Inn, Pickerington – a suburb of Columbus Ohio – was in the shadow of the American Motorcyclist Association's offices and their Motorcycle Hall of Fame. It had been organised by FIM in co-operation with the American Motorcyclist Association and was the third in a series of conferences which began in Luxembourg in 1997. Regarded as the best conference to date, the secret of AMA's success was to arrange for speakers to come, not only from the motorcycling community, but from governments and the establishment. Normally, they would not address a conference of motorcyclists. However, this contributed to a diversity of views which resulted in a wider ranging discussion than would have otherwise been possible.

There were 110 participants from 17 different countries and plenty of representatives from US riders' organisations covering 21 states. These included ABATE; the Motorcycle Riders Foundation and the American Motorcyclist Association. Additionally, there was a large European presence with many member organisations of FEMA having sent at least one delegate. Most of FEMA’s headquarters staff were also present. MAG sent three delegates including Chairman Neil Liversidge while I looked after the BMF's interests and made several contributions. John Chatterton-Ross represented the FIM Public Policy Panel and there were even delegates from Australia and the Philippines.

Robert Rasor, President of the AMA, was the master of ceremonies opening the conference and ensuring that it ran smoothly. Vice-president of Government Relations Edward Moreland also took part and it was useful for me to meet my opposite number in the AMA. Ed is based in Washington DC – with access to the Federal Government – having elected to stay there because he can do his job more effectively. The attitude of American rider rights organisations to the new government administration was interesting. Most representatives were relieved to be dealing with a new man in the White House, but admit that he is less polished in public than his predecessor. George W Bush however, is much more supportive of motorcyclists interests. Many have not forgiven the Clinton administration for the Bill preventing access to so-called wilderness land which will deliberately allow approach roads to fall into disrepair. Americans have their rights of way problems too!

The main subjects were the global harmonisation of standards and telematics, or – as they are more accurately termed in America – intelligent transport systems. They were dealt with in depth with presentations by guest speakers, questions from the conference, summaries and full discussion by conference members. Other subjects included Sweden's Vision Zero road safety policy, Europe's Motorcycle Accident In-Depth Study (MAIDS), the American Agenda for Road Safety and the FIM's interpretation of UN Working Party 1.

Globalisation of vehicle standards


Bob Tomlins shares a joke
FEMA's Bob Tomlins opened the debate by putting the riders’ case. He has had personal experience when dealing with United Nations Economic Committee for Europe Working Party 29 and its six expert groups, where global harmonisation of vehicle standards is considered on a regular basis. He asked several questions such as: why are comprehensive specifications necessary and why do they need to be so comprehensive (and whether riders should be concerned about what's taking place)? In answering these questions, he suggested that the State has taken responsibility to protect consumers rather than letting market forces weed out motorcycles with poor standards. The complexity of specifications has resulted from the fact that the national signatories to the UN ECE each had their own type-approval regulations such as EC Type-Approval. These needed to be accommodated with the danger that harmonised standards would be based on the most stringent standards rather than be a true harmonisation of them all. He called for motorcyclists to be concerned because there were those involved in the process who would seek to restrict motorcycling to protect us from ourselves. There were others with a self-interest (profit) in checking the conformity of vehicles and even governments operating protectionist policies. He concluded with the remark that if we don't look after our interests, someone else will.

The US Government's views were represented by Julie Abraham of the Office of International Harmonisation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). In observing the changes from the 1960s to the present, she noted that, with safety research and the harmonisation of standards in Europe, US manufacturers with global markets could appreciate that global standards would reduce their costs. Consumers were concerned that these savings should be passed on to them. NHTSA could use these standards to protect consumers and ensure that products were safe and that national interests could be subordinated as a result. In their involvement with developing international standards, they have been primarily concerned with achieving the highest levels of safety through best practice, harmonising for the best standards, preserving sovereignty, ensuring transparency and openness, and limiting unnecessary technical barriers to trade. The US Government signed up to a 1998 agreement with the UN ECE which works in parallel to the revised 1958 agreement to which European states and the European Union subscribed. The main difference between the two agreements was that before any standards could be enacted everyone had to agree. The United States then implemented standards which Washington could opt out of if they were not considered acceptable. For the revised 1958 agreement, regulations would be agreed by a two-thirds majority and the implementation by signatories to the agreement which is mandatory. Perhaps we should all sign up to the 1998 agreement. It was noted that among the automotive issues being considered, only braking systems were being considered as specific to motorcycles.

Wolfgang Schneider from the European Commission Directorate General for Enterprise explained how things are done in Europe. I thought I understood the workings of the European Union but this presentation left me struggling. The objectives of harmonisation were listed as completing the internal market in Europe, promoting safety and environmental protection, enhancing internal harmonisation of regulations and promoting the competitiveness of European industry in a global market. Regulations agreed by UN ECE under the revised 1958 agreement are recognised as equivalent to EC directives. They are implemented as new directives through a process where all of the EU institutions play a part. Alternatively, if existing EC directives require amendment to implement these regulations, they will be put in place by a technical progress committee. What was not mentioned was that this procedure generally cut out the European Parliament when arriving at a decision. It was expected that through the parallel 1998 agreement, more countries would sign up, leading to global harmonisation being facilitated.

Nick Rogers from the International Motorcycle Manufacturers Association in Geneva pointed out that all powered two-wheelers in Europe are subject to EU Type-Approval which is a European harmonisation. However this still allows a variety of designs to be developed since they are not subject to technical regulations and that harmonised standards lead to the better use of resources by manufacturers, thereby producing a better product. While this was considered to be good in principle, it was pointed out that vigilance was necessary to prevent regulations from restricting designs and that in Geneva, while interest groups could participate in the debate and influence decisions, they were not entitled to a vote.

It was noted that national motorcyclist organisations like AMA could not obtain consultative status with the UN ECE. As a result, representation was only available to international organisations like FEMA and FIM. I suggested that perhaps the EU and its member states withdraw from the revised 1958 agreement and sign up to the 1998 agreement like the US. A significant outcome was the development of an understanding that FEMA would take part in UN ECE WP29 meetings and expert group meetings on behalf of MRF, AMA and FIM with their support. Vigilance was essential.

Intelligent transport systems


Delegates take a break from the conference centre of the Lenox Inn
Professor Peter Hancock from the University of Central Florida discussed the reality of ITS and questioned why it was little used on motorcycles. He went on to refer to exclusion from some roads through not being equipped with such systems, safety and the technicalities of use on single-track vehicles. Peter Hancock suggested that other drivers were the biggest problem and motorcycles already had the best ITS system – a human rider with built-in collision avoidance technology. While accident statistics are frequently bandied about, he referred to the fact that for the vast majority of the time, people are driving and not having accidents. He was dismissive of the alleged advantages of some ITS such as real time communication which provides more information but not usable knowledge, giving directions in unfamiliar areas which are often of limited use and fail to replace paper maps. There is mechanical problem diagnosis and the reporting of incapacitated road users/accidents.

Professor Hancock's most telling arguments regarded systems which intervene in the driving task. Cars, he likened to fixed wing aircraft which are inherently stable and lend themselves readily to the use of automatic pilots. He suggested that in future an aircraft would be flown by computer with the flight deck crew comprising a pilot and a dog. The pilot's task would be to feed the dog while the dog would be required to bite the pilot if he tried to interfere with the computer. However, the motorcycle was likened to a helicopter in which input by rider/pilot is constantly required because they are both inherently unstable. When being controlled they do not lend themselves to external intervention.

There were reservations about ITS being used to "assist" the driving task and how it could reduce skill levels and distract. NHTSA claimed that driver distraction is the greatest cause of accidents – advocates of speed reduction in the UK, please note. Mobile phones, a form of ITS in widespread use, are a source of distraction. Some information systems, like global positioning and collision avoidance warnings, can lead to mental overload for the driver. False alarms from such systems can also lead to their being ignored. The concluding remark was to query whether a system was needed rather than whether it is possible.

Richard Bishop expressed the opposite view about what can be made available for the future, claiming that ITS systems would benefit the driving task for motorcyclists as well as other road users. He cited that driver assistance systems could help the driving task with better night vision, adaptive cruise control, collision warning, collision avoidance and a lane departure system which assesses driver fatigue by the degree of drift from a driving lane. Other systems being developed are adaptive cruise control for low speed and congested conditions. Many ITS systems were already used in commercial vehicles and are claimed to be advantageous.

The implications were that assistance systems would enable drivers to see motorcycles more readily and better management of the driver's task would cause less distraction and (again) better observation of motorcyclists.

For the future, ITS could be used to warn motorcyclists of slippery conditions, new road layouts and detect and warn of rider fatigue. He went on to refer to Intelligent Speed Adaptation being developed in the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands which would subject vehicles to external speed control.

Sweden had adopted the most aggressive policy on implementation, the Netherlands want it to be voluntary and the UK for it to be voluntary from 2013 and compulsory in 2019. It is claimed that motorcyclists have been consulted on a UK system which is being developed at Leeds University. Vehicle users were resistant to the idea but could be won over where ISA vehicles were to be used supported it.

In the discussion which followed, it was noted that the German Government has expressed concerns about the implications of ISA on the Vienna Convention because control should not be taken from the driver. I added that UK motorcyclists had not been consulted, as claimed, because the ISA system was not regarded as currently suitable for single-track vehicles and that there was a marked reluctance by UK authorities to undertake a full testing programme to ascertain whether it was suitable. I added that from the Intelligent Transport Society UK many proponents of ITS either chose not to consider motorcycles, or displayed the most appalling ignorance about them. Representatives of riders groups should work to remind them of a motorcyclist's needs. Failure to do so could lead to exclusion from some telematic systems on roads and from those roads themselves.

Concerns were expressed about the use of ITS for road traffic enforcement, thereby removing the discretion normally used by a police officer. It was noted that in some of the more firearms-minded American states, roadside speed cameras had a short life expectancy and are no longer used. It was concluded that we should be vigilant and get involved in arguments about the deployment of ITS.

Neil Liversidge used the opportunity to call for his Mulhouse Declaration to be endorsed. This is the opposition of systems that take control of the driver and a reminder to governments that they should not interfere with people's daily lives by the use of such systems. After heated discussion, it was considered that while individual organisations should consider adopting the resolution, perhaps an amended version with a less hectoring tone to governments, might be accepted as a consensus document for the conference. I will discuss this further in next month's Lobby where FEMA considered some outcomes of the conference.

Vision Zero


Craig Carey-Clinch and our man Magner in tourist mode
Roger Johansson, Deputy Director of the Traffic Safety Department of the Swedish National Road Administration and one of the architects of the concept gave a presentation which was generally well-received although many delegates remained concerned about his perceived role for motorcycles. Vision Zero has been amended from the original in which motorcycles played no part.

Vision Zero ultimately intends to reduce fatalities and serious injuries in road crashes to zero although more realistic short term goals have been proposed. It is accepted that road users will make mistakes and so the designers of systems must take responsibility in making the roads safer. Better road layouts and maintenance will supplant accident avoidance measures. Speed restrictions will play a part in reducing the severity of accidents. However, a slide showing a road in which wire rope safety fence had been installed to reduce cross over accidents brought gasps from the motorcycling audience. Clearly motorcycle friendly barrier design had not been considered by the planners

For motorcycle-specific involvement in Vision Zero, the speaker suggested that motorcycles were not widely used in Sweden and with a falling accident rate did not constitute a major problem. However, he suggested:

motorcycling organisations should be responsible for education, training and licensing of riders using private aviation as a model
membership of motorcycling organisations should be made mandatory
Government to supervise organisations through quality audits
motorcycling organisations to make in-depth studies of accidents involving their own member


This may be acceptable in Sweden because SMC works closely with the government, receives grants, already has 50% of riders as members and motorcycling is predominantly a leisure activity. However, I cannot see this being taken up elsewhere as motorcycling organisations would lose their independence making them additional government departments. Such an elitist regime would exclude the non-enthusiast and commuter using small PTWs purely for transport. Perhaps this means that most national governments won't try to inflict Vision Zero on us.

UN ECE Working Party 1


Ed Mooreland,AMA ’s Vice President Government Relations
Hans Hammarlund, Vice President for the FIM Commission for Mobility, Transport, Road Safety and Public Affairs explained the workings of UN ECE WP1 on which he sits for FIM with IMMA also a member. This working party is concerned with traffic safety and works closely with WP 29 which deals with construction standards of vehicles. The main subjects under discussion were motorcycles filtering through traffic and using advanced stop lines, international driving permits which will be smart card-based and day running lights for all vehicles. The motorcycle lobby objects to the last of these because motorcycles could be obfuscated as a result. Also under discussion are ITS particularly in the light of the German's concerns about violating the Vienna convention, accident black spot design, moped and motorcycle definitions.

Motorcycle accident in-depth study

A brief update from Federico Galliano of the European Industry Group, ACEM: the study is currently working to timetable and examining crash sites before wreckage is removed – where possible. MAIDS is a collaborative effort between ACEM, the European Commission's Directorate General on Transport and Energy and some partners who have helped with funding. This includes the BMF. Subcontractors have been employed to collate and assess. These comprise: TNO from the Netherlands, CEESAR from France, REGES from Spain, the University of Pavia from Italy and Germany's University of Hanover. They are looking at vehicle, rider and environment-related causes of accidents. To date 580 cases have been sampled and 210 completed. The study is due to finish this year.

American agenda for motorcycle safety

motorcycle safety Joey Syner, a Highway Safety Specialist from NHTSA, referred to how Americans are working to improve motorcycle safety using a method we could learn from. In conjunction with the Motorcycle Safety Foundation a technical working group, independent of government, was established from motorcycling, training and safety interests in 1998 with NHTSA and MSF maintaining an overview. The outcome has been a non-consensus document concerned with 23 topics and making a series of recommendations to improve safety. They included four urgent recommendations associated with the need for research, impairment from alcohol and drugs, encouraging helmet use and awareness of motorcycles by other road users. There are 56 essential recommendations and 22 necessary recommendations. Prior to publication the draft was sent out for comments in which 1500 remarks were dealt with. The AMA has also been involved and while not agreeing with the whole report agreed that it was a comprehensive and worthy of an approach to the Federal Government.

The conference was wrapped up by AMA's Robert Rasor with the assertion that a fourth conference should take place in 2003. It was accepted as such a valuable conference that it will be a hard act to follow.

Published with the July 2001 issue of Motorcycle Rider
For further information, telephone 01442 396355 or write to:
The British Motorcyclists Federation, 14 -16 Briton Street, Leicester, LE3 0AA.
Telephone: 0116 284 5380 Fax: 0116 284 5381
BMF Riderspace: http://www.bmf.co.uk E-mail: mailto:campaigns@bmf.co.uk