PAPER NO : 6

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARDS ALONG EXCLUSIVE MOTORCYCLE LANE IN

MALAYSIA

by
S. H. Tung
S. V. Wong
T. H. Law
R. S. Radin Umar
(University Putra Malaysia, , 43300 UPM Serdang, Selangor )
MALAYSIA.

R. M. Abdul Ali
(University Malaya Medical Centre, University Malaya, Kuala Lumpur)
MALAYSIA

ABSTRACT

Motorcyclists are vulnerable road users; as in the involvement of a crash, especially compared
to other vehicle drivers and passengers. Therefore, the segregation of the motorcycle traffic
from the main traffic stream was being recommended. Even with the segregation, motorcycle
crashes are still unavoidable and these crashes including both multiple and single motorcycle
crashes. The present study has found that 51.4% and 48.6% of the reported motorcycle
crashes are single and multiple motorcycle crashes respectively along exclusive motorcycle
lanes in Malaysia. From the total number of reported motorcycle crashes, 17.2% are roadside
objects related. The related roadside objects consist of guardrails, traffic sign poles, street
lighting columns, tunnel wall, drainage and other obstacle objects. These objects were then
categorized into narrow surface fixed object (22.4%), wide surface fixed object (75.7%), and
non-fixed object (1.9%). From this study, majority of the motorcycle crashes (75.7%) was
found occurring at a distance of 120 cm or less, where the objects were planted or located.
The distribution of injury severities for every range of lateral offsets is presented and
discussed in this paper. The present study concludes that all roadside furniture are
recommended to be planted at a distance not less than 120 cm away from the road edge in
order to reduce the number of motorcycle crashes, which are roadside object related. By
incorporating the recommendation, the injury severity of roadside object related motorcycle
crashes is expected to decrease. Therefore, the present study has justified the need to develop
proper design criteria in producing optimum distance of roadside furniture away from the
road edge along the exclusive motorcycle lanes.

Keywords: Motorcycle Crashes, Exclusive Motorcycle Lanes, Roadside Objects

INTRODUCTION

Total number of registered motorcycle is increasing from year to year in Malaysia. In year
2002, it was reported that 5,842,617 motorcycles were registered in Malaysia, which
represented 48.6% of all registered vehicles in Malaysia (JPJ, 2003). The consistent high
percentage of registered motorcycles in Malaysia has shown that motorcycle is the most
favourable transportation mode. Low cost of ownership and less fuel consumed per kilometre

1 of 8
 PAPER NO : 6

travelled of a motorcycle compared to other modes is believed to be the main reasons behind.
Even though the usage to be economical, unfortunately use of motorcycle sacrifices safety as
a trade off. In year 2001, 22.6% of fatality in Malaysia involved passenger car’s driver and
passenger and 57.6% of fatality involved motorcyclist and the pillion rider (PDRM, 2003).
Motorcyclists tend to be less protected and the helmet and the clothing worn are the only
protection while riding on the road. Due to high number of motorcycles on the road,
motorcycle crashes too have been increasing from year to year (PDRM, 2003). Figure 1
shows the number of motorcycle crashes from 1990 to 2001. Due to the high number of
motorcyclist fatalities in Malaysia, the Malaysian government has taken numerous actions to
reduce the number of fatalities. One of the significant measures taken was implementing the
motorcycle lane policy (HPU, 1998).

100000
No. of reported motorcycle

90000 85761
73268 77298
80000
70000 80100 79816
76032
66508
crashes

60000
58921
50000
39272 48511
40000
30000
29225
20000 27845
10000
0
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Year

Figure 1: Number of motorcycle crashes reported in Malaysia from 1995 – 2001

(PDRM 2001).

The function of the exclusive motorcycle lane is to segregate the motorcycles from the main
flow of other traffic in expressways and highways. The separation reduces the exposure of the
motorcyclists to crashes with other motor vehicles. Many studies have been conducted in
Malaysia and other countries on motorcycle crashes due to other vehicles, especially at
intersections (Harnen et. al, 2003; Pang, 2000; Corinne and Kraus, 1996; Hurt Jr. et. al, 1981;
and Whitaker, 1980). The studies have found out that most of the sustained injuries were due
to the collision with other motor vehicles rather than losing control due to stability. Therefore,
the need of segregation was seen to improve motorcyclist safety. After the introduction of the
exclusive motorcycle lane along Federal Highway F0002, a short-term impact study was
carried out and 25% reduction of motorcycle accident has achieved along F0002 (Radin et. al,
1995).

Although, the segregation of motorcycle traffic from the main stream has reduced the
probability of motorcycle crashing other type of motor vehicle, motorcycle crashes are still
occurring along the exclusive motorcycle lanes. According to the knowledge of the authors,
proper design guide and criteria are not available for exclusive motorcycle lanes at present.
This may lead to improper design of exclusive motorcycle lane, especially in terms of safety.
Thus, this has cause severe motorcycle crashes along the lanes in Malaysia. This paper is
devoted to the study on motorcycle crashes along exclusive motorcycle lanes. Since roadside

2 of 8
 PAPER NO : 6

objects have been noted as the most threatening environmental hazards, attention has been put
in motorcycle crashes, which were roadside object related. This study has yielded the
optimum lateral offset of roadside object in designing safer exclusive motorcycle lanes.
BACKGROUND

Roadside furniture and objects are always considered as hazardous to road users. The
clearance, in terms of distance between a roadside object and the edge of the road, has been
known to be very important for roadside object related road crashes. There are limited studies
done on motorcycle crashes available, especially along exclusive motorcycle lanes. Anyhow,
numerous studies have been done on road crashes involving other road vehicles especially on
passenger cars and trucks, with roadside objects.

From the total number of 7,800 cases of fatal and severely injured motorcycle crashes
reported 2001, 1.6% was reported as hitting object as the first collision type (PDRM, 2003).
Pang (2000) found that 10.6% of motorcycle crashes studied was hitting roadside hazards
during crashes, besides showing other motor vehicles as the main object struck in Klang
Valley, Malaysia. Whitaker (1980) had carried out a survey on motorcycle accidents and
found that 78% of all motorcycle crashes involved other vehicles, 5% involved pedestrian and
cyclists, and 11% was hitting objects during the crash. In another American study, in 1981,
approximately one – fourth of 900 motorcycle accidents were found single vehicle accidents
involving the motorcycle colliding with the roadway or fixed object in the environment (Hurt
et. al 1981). These studies have shown that, instead of other motor vehicles; roadside objects
were often been struck by motorcycle while travelling.

The roadside furniture or objects often involved in roadside related crashes are guardrails, tree,
culverts, street lighting posts, traffic sign poles, concrete walls, and other lower type of
objects such as the ditches and kerbs. Most of the studies have found that kerbs or culverts
were most related in roadside motorcycle crashes (Pearson and Whittington, 2001; Gibson
and Benetatos, 2000; Swadling and Mc Inerney, 1998; and Transport Canada, 1980). Even
though the involvement was high, the severity caused was not as severe as other objects such
as trees, streetlighting posts, or traffic signs (Pang, 2000; Quellet, 1982; Transport Canada
1980). These studies have shown that narrow surface objects produced higher injury severity
in motorcycle crashes.

MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY

The targeted data in this study were all reported cases of motorcycle crashes occurred on the
exclusive motorcycle lanes along Federal Highway F0002 and Shah Alam Expressway in
Malaysia. These exclusive lanes were selected as both lanes are the longest exclusive
motorcycle lanes in Malaysia. Data were collected from the local traffic police (Royal
Malaysia Police Headquarter, Bukit Aman) and the expressway authority, KESAS Highway
Sdn. Bhd. The crash details were collected from the Computerised Accident Reporting
System (CARS), a database system used by the local police to store accident details, and
special accident details form by KESAS Highway Sdn. Bhd. The present study collected all
reported motorcycle crashes, with injury, on exclusive motorcycle lanes along the F0002 and
the Shah Alam Expressway, which occurred from 1st January 1998 to 31st June 2003. The
cases were then filtered to those crashes that were roadside object related.

3 of 8
 PAPER NO : 6

All the accident reports consist of information ranging from the accident severity, first
collision type, location of the crashes, road geometry type, and roadside object involvement.
For the sorted roadside object related cases, site details were collected at every located
accident site. The details collected include the object type, lateral offsets of the object,
object’s characteristics and other road characteristics. In this present study, accident severity
is categorised into fatal, hospitalised and minor injury. At the final stage of the study, the
dependencies between accident severity and collision type, roadside object related, and lateral
offsets of the object related are then to be tested at 5% significance using Chi – square test
respectively.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total number of 620 motorcycle accident cases, which occurred along the exclusive
motorcycle lanes was collected from both the police and the highway authority throughout the
study period within the catchment area. Out of this total number of motorcycle crashes, 8%
was reported as fatal cases, 40% as hospitalised cases, and 52% was reported only involved
minor injury. After the data filtration, 107 cases were found to be roadside object related
cases.

Collision Type

From the reported cases, which were roadside object related, 70.5% of the cases were reported
lost control as the first collision type, follow by crashes involved side collisions (15.2%), rear
end collisions (7.6%) and hitting roadside object (6.7%). Table 1 shows the distribution of
first collision type for motorcycle crashes with injury along exclusive motorcycle lanes.

Table 1: The reported first collision type related in motorcycle crashes along exclusive
motorcycle lanes.
Collision Types Number of cases Percentage (%)

Lost Control 74 70.5

Rear End 8 7.6
Hit Roadside Object 7 6.7
Side Collisions 16 15.2
Total 105* 100.0
*2 cases were ignored in the calculation due to insufficient information.

The collision types were divided into single motorcycle crashes and multiple motorcycle
crashes. The data shows that 77.1% are single motorcycle crashes involving roadside object
and 22.9% are non-single motorcycle crashes involving roadside object. Relative index shows
that single motorcycle crashes were found 3.4 times more likely to cause severely injured
motorcyclist in roadside object related motorcycle crashes than multiple motorcycle crashes
involvement (p < 0.05). In multiple motorcycle crash, motorcyclist possessed less severe
injury. It is with the believe that the motorcyclist tends to come into contact with roadside
object as secondary impact and primary impact with the other motorcycle. It is known that
most of the impact energy is absorbed during primary impact. This has been proved proved in
previous study that slower impact speed reduces the injury severity (CoTR, 1985).

4 of 8
 PAPER NO : 6

Table 2: The motorcycle involvement in motorcycle crashes, which were roadside object
related and the injury severity outcome.
Motorcycle Injury Severity Relative
Involvement Fatal or Minor Total Index
Hospitalised Injury
Single
Motorcycle 47 34 81 1.38
Crashes
Non-Single
Motorcycle 7 17 24 0.41
Crashes
Total 54 51 105*
(χ2 = 4.38, df = 1, p = 0.04 < 0.05)
*2 cases were ignored in the calculation due to insufficient information.

Object Type

The data unveiled that guardrail has the highest involvement (32.7%), followed by tunnel wall
(22.9%), drainage & kerbs (12.1%), tree (5.6%), streetlighting posts (5.6%), traffic sign poles
(3.7%), concrete wall (3.7%), other barrier types (1.9%), fences pole (1.1%), concrete column
(1.1%), bridge’s rails (1.1%), and non-fixed object (1.9%). This study has found out that
narrow surface object causes more severe injury than non-narrow surface object types.
Examples of narrow surface objects are traffic sign poles, streetlighting posts, trees, fences’
poles, and concrete columns. While, non-narrow surface objects are divided into wide surface
objects (e.g. guardrails, tunnel wall, and other barrier types) and non-fixed object (e.g. traffic
cones). From the relative index, narrow surface object tend to cause severe injury 3.0 times
more likely than non-narrow surface objects in motorcycle crashes along exclusive
motorcycle lanes. This was significant at p < 0.05 (Table 3). The wider surface of collision
will extend the duration of impact and reduces the risk of injury (CoTR, 1985). The present
study has shown the similar condition for motorcycle crashes along exclusive motorcycle
lanes involving roadside object.

Table 3: The involved object types and injury outcome.

Injury Severity
Fatal / Relative Index
Object Type Hospitalised Minor Injury Total
Narrow Surface Object 17 7 24 2.43
Non-Narrow Surface Object 37 46 83 0.80
Total 54 53 107
(χ2 = 4.35, df = 1, p = 0.04 < 0.05)

Lateral Offsets of the Object

Data regarding the lateral offset of the roadside object involved in motorcycle crashes has
been collected from the crash scene. 72.9% of all roadside related crashes occurred at the
lateral offset less than 120 cm. This shows that majority of the motorcycle crashes involved

5 of 8
 PAPER NO : 6

object planted less than 120 cm away from the edge of the road. This has shown that the
nearer an object been planted from the roadside, the probability of the object being struck and
producing injury is higher. The studies done by Lee and Mannering, 2002; ETSC 1998; and
Fox et. al, 1979 have shown the similar pattern for passenger cars crashes involving roadside
object. From the injury outcome observation, the similar pattern was observed. More fatal,
hospitalised and minor injury involving roadside object motorcycle crashes are observed at
the lateral offset distance less than 120 cm compared to the distance more than 120 cm. The
nearer the object being planted at roadside, the less recovery area provided especially during a
losing control condition. The providence of clear zone is important to make sure the riders are
able to recover from losing control rather than hitting an object to cause more severe injury.
This finding correlates to studies done by Vicroads, 2001; JKR, 1997; and AASHTO, 1996.

Table 4: The lateral offsets of the object involved and the injury outcome.
Severe Injury
Lateral Offset Fatal Serious Fatal + Minor
Total Cases
(cm) Injury Serious Injury
Injury
< 120 10 29 39 42 81

> 120 7 8 15 11 26
Total 17 37 54 53 107
2
(χ = 3.50, df = 2, p = 0.07 < 0.10)

CONCLUSIONS

From this study, it is discovered that injury severity for motorcycle crashes occurred on
exclusive motorcycle lanes are dependent to first collision types, roadside object involved and
the lateral offsets of the involved object. Single motorcycle crashes are found tend to cause
severe injury than minor injury 3.5 times more likely than multiple motorcycle crashes in
motorcycle crashes involving roadside object along both exclusive motorcycle lanes. A
narrow surface object is found tend to cause severe injury than minor injury 3.0 times more
likely than non-narrow surface object. Roadside object related motorcycle crashes tend to
occur and cause severe injury at the lateral offset distance less than 120 cm. In order to reduce
the possibility of roadside object related motorcycle crashes and the injury severity along the
exclusive motorcycle lanes, following steps should be taken:
• Removing the fixed and narrow surface object, or
• Relocating the most involved object, or
• Make sure the object is planted at the distance more than 120 cm from the edge of the
road, or
• Protecting the hazardous narrow surface object with guardrails, or
• Combining the suggestions stated above.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

6 of 8
 PAPER NO : 6

We would like to thank all staff in Royal Malaysia Police Headquarter (PDRM), Bukit Aman,
KESAS Highway Sdn. Bhd., and University Malaya Medical Centre (UMMC) who helped in
data collection sessions, specially to En. Isa (UMMC), Sarjan Ahmad Shah (PDRM), En.
Rahim Ramlan (KESAS Highway) and Pn. Rohana (KESAS Highway). The authors also
would like to show appreciation to Ministry of Science, Technology, and Environment,
Malaysia in funding the study.

REFERENCE

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASTHO), (1996),

Roadside Design Guide, Washington D. C.

Committee on Trauma Research (CoTR), (1985), Injury in America: A Continuing Public

Health Problem, Commission on Life Science (CLS), Washington D. C., National Academy
Press.

European Transport Safety Council (ESTB), (1998), Forgiving Roadsides, Briefing Reports,
European Transport Safety Council, Brussels.

Fox, J. C., M. C. Good, and P. N. Joubert, (1979), Collisions with Utility Poles, CR 2,
Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), Australia.

Gibson T., and Benetatos E., (2000), Motorcycles and Crash Barriers, Motorcycle Council of
New South Wales, Australia.

Harnen, S., Radin Umar R. S., Wong S. V. and Wan Hashim W. I., (2003), Motorcycle Crash
Prediction Model for Non-Signalised Intersections, IATSS Research, Vol. 27, No. 2, pp. 58 –
65.

Highway Planning Unit (HPU), Ministry of Work Malaysia, (1998), Quality of Roads in
Malaysia – Road Safety, HPU’s Report, Economic Planning Unit (EPU), Prime Minister’s
Department.

Hurt, Jr. H. H., J. V. Ouellet, D. R. Thom, (1981), Motorcycle Accident Cause Factors and
Identification of Countermeasures Volume 1: Technical Report, Traffic Safety Center,
University of Southern California, Los Angeles.

Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR), (1997), Road Safety Audit: Guidelines for the Safety Audit of
Roads in Malaysia, Road Branch, Public Work Department, Malaysia

Lee, J. S., and Mannering, F., (2002), Impact of Roadside Features on the Frequency and
Severity of Run – Off – Roadway Accidents: An Empirical Analysis, Accident Analysis and
Prevention, Vol. 34, No. 2, pp. 149 – 161, Elsevier Science Ltd.

Pang, T. Y., (2000), Accident Characteristics of Injured Motorcyclist in Malaysia, Medical

Journal Malaysia, Vol. 55, No. 1, pp. 45 – 50.

7 of 8
 PAPER NO : 6

Pearson, R., and Whittington, B., (2001), Motorcycle and the Road Environment, Insurance
Commission of Western Australia: 2001 Conference on Road Safety
'Road Safety: Gearing Up for the Future', Perth, Australia.

Quellet, J. V., (1982), Environmental Hazards in Motorcycle Accident, 26th Annual

Proceedings, American Association for Automotive Medicine, pp. 117 – 129, Ottawa, Canada.

Radin Umar R. S., Mackay M. G., and Hills B. L. (1995). Preliminary Analysis of Exclusive
Motorcycle Lanes Along the Federal Highway F02, Shah Alam, Malaysia, IATSS Research,
Vol. 19, No. 2: 93 – 98.

Road Transport Department (JPJ), (2003), The Statistic of Vehicle and Road Accident,
http://www.jpj.gov.my/malay/maklum06.htm. Accessed on 21st December 2003.

Royal Malaysia Police (PDRM), (2003), Statistical Report Road Accidents in Malaysia 2001,
Traffic Branch, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur, PMB Publishers.

Swadling, D., and McInerney, R., (1999), Motorcycle Safety and Traffic Engineering
Guidelines: Implication for Western Australia, RC7405, ARRB Transport Research report for
Main Road Western Australia.

Transport Canada, (1980), Motorcycle Accident Study, Report No. TP 2673, Transport
Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

Vicroads, (2001), Clear Zones and Roadside Hazards, Motorcycle Notes No. 9, Vicroads,
Victoria, Australia.

Whitaker, J., (1980), A Survey of Motorcycle Accidents, TRRL Laboratory Report 913,
Department of the Environment and Department of Transport, Crow Thorne, Berkshire.

8 of 8