Motorcyclist Perception Response Time Study

Introduction

Motorcycles represent a major portion of road users in developing countries, often accounting for 30% to 95% of traffic. Despite their popularity, motorcyclists face a risk of death at least 20 times higher than other vehicle drivers per kilometer traveled. While the implementation of exclusive motorcycle lanes in Malaysia reduced accidents by 39%, fatalities continue to occur due to collisions with roadside objects and other motorcycles. These safety issues stem from the fact that current lane designs are often based on bicycle track criteria rather than scientific research into motorcycle-specific behavior.

The purpose of this study was to determine the Perception Response Time (PRT) of motorcyclists—the time elapsed from detecting an object to applying the brakes—to establish empirical values for Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) in geometric road design. The research aimed to provide suitable PRT recommendations for both exclusive and non-exclusive motorcycle lanes.

Methodology

The study utilized two distinct road experiments to capture PRT values under different levels of alertness:

• Experiment 1 (Expected Object): A total of 89 participants (56 males, 33 females) ranging from young (16–30) to elderly (50–60) categories were recruited. In a controlled environment on a flat, straight road, riders were instructed to apply their brakes as quickly as possible upon seeing a signal light beside the path. Tests were conducted at speeds of 60 km/h and 80 km/h under both wet and dry conditions.
• Experiment 2 (Unexpected Object): 16 participants (8 young, 8 elderly) were told they were participating in a general evaluation of a motorcycle lane to ensure they did not anticipate a braking scenario. During their second round on the test route, a yellow fabric barricade was suddenly flipped over to appear in their lane.
• Data Collection and Analysis: Researchers used modified motorcycles that activated brake lights for both pedal and lever use. High-speed camcorders (recording at up to 300 frames per second) captured the riders’ actions. The video files were analyzed frame-by-frame using Power Director 6 to measure the exact duration between the stimulus appearing and the activation of the motorcycle’s brake light. All data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 17.0.

Results

The study revealed significant differences in response times based on the rider’s expectation of a hazard:

• Expected Scenarios: The mean PRT for riders who knew a signal was coming was 0.68 seconds, with an 85th percentile value of 1.01 seconds.
• Unexpected Scenarios: When faced with a sudden obstacle, the mean PRT increased to 1.29 seconds. The 85th percentile PRT was 2.12 seconds.
• Design Recommendations: The researchers concluded that most riders are capable of responding to unexpected hazards within 2.5 seconds. Consequently, the study recommends 2.5 seconds as the appropriate PRT value for the geometric design of motorcycle lanes to ensure adequate stopping sight distance.
• Contextual Findings: The study noted that motorcyclist PRT on the road is comparable to that of passenger car drivers. Furthermore, because PRT is primarily influenced by object visibility and rider line-of-sight, the width of the motorcycle lane does not significantly impact these response times.

References

1. AASHTO. (1999). Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities.
2. AASHTO. (2004). A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets.
3. Chang, H. L., & Yeh, T. H. (2006). Risk factors to driver fatalities in single-vehicle crashes: comparisons between non-motorcycle drivers and motorcyclists.
4. Davoodi, S. R., Hamid, H., Arintono, S., & Muniandy, R. (2010). Motorcycle characteristics for sight distance investigation on exclusive motorcycle lanes.
5. Davoodi, S. R., Hamid, H., Arintono, S., Muniandy, R., & Faezi, S. F. (2011). Motorcyclist rear brake simple perception–response times in rear-end collision situations.
6. Department for Transport. (2008). Road Accidents in Great Britain 2007: The Casualty Report.
7. Di Stasi, L. L., Contreras, D., Cañas, J. J., Cándido, A., Maldonado, A., & Catena, A. (2010). The consequences of unexpected emotional sounds on driving behaviour in risky situations.
8. Ecker, H., Wassermann, J., Hauer, G., Ruspekhofer, R., Grill, M. (2001). Braking deceleration of motorcycle riders.
9. Fambro, D. B., Koppa, R. J., Picha, D. L., & Fitzpatrick, K. (1998). Driver perception-brake response in stopping sight distance situations.
10. Gates, T. J., Noyce, D. A., Laracuente, L., & Nordheim, E. V. (2007). Analysis of driver behavior in dilemma zones at signalized intersections.
11. Green, M. (2000). How long does it take to stop? Methodological analysis of driver perception-brake times.
12. Hankey, J. M. (1996). Unalerted Emergency Avoidance at an Intersection and Possible Implications for ABS Implementation.
13. Haworth, N. (in press). Powered two wheelers in a changing world – challenges and opportunities.
14. Hussain, H., Radin, U. R. S., Ahmad, F. M. S., & Dadang, M. M. (2005). Key components of a motorcycle-traffic system – a study along the motorcycle path in Malaysia.
15. Ibrahim, S. A. K., Radin, U. R. S., Habshah, M., Kassim, H., Stevenson, M., & Hariza, A. (2006). Mode choice model for vulnerable motorcyclists in Malaysia.
16. IIHS. (2002). More and More Older Riders: Deaths are on the Increase.
17. IIHS. (2006). Crash Deaths Go Up.
18. JKR. (1986). Arahan Teknik (Jalan) 10/86: A Guide to the Design of Cycle Track.
19. Johansson, G., & Rumar, K. (1971). Drivers brake reaction times.
20. Landis, B. W., Petritsch, T. A., Huang, H. F., & Do, A. H. (2004). Characteristics of emerging road and trail users and their safety.
21. Lerner, N. D. (1993). Brake perception-reaction times of older and younger drivers.
22. Liebermann, D. G., Ben-David, G., Schweitzer, N., Apter, Y., & Parush, A. (1995). A field study on braking responses during driving.
23. Lin, M. R., & Kraus, J. F. (2009). A review of risk factors and patterns of motorcycle injuries.
24. McKnight, A. J., & Shinar, D. (1992). Brake reaction time to center high-mounted stop lamps on vans and trucks.
25. Mehmood, A., & Easa, S. M. (2009). Modeling reaction time in car-following behaviour based on human factors.
26. MIROS. (2011). Annual Report of Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research.
27. Norman, O. (1952). Braking distance of vehicles from high speed.
28. Olson, P. L., & Sivak, M. (1986). Perception-response time to unexpected roadway hazards.
29. Pai, C.-W. (2009). Motorcyclist injury severity in angle crashes at T-junctions.
30. Pai, C.-W., & Saleh, W. (2007). An analysis of motorcyclist injury severity under various traffic control measures at three-legged junctions in the UK.
31. Radin Umar, R. S., Mackay, G. M., & Hills, B. L. (1995). Preliminary analysis of exclusive motorcycle lanes along the Federal Highway F02, Shah Alam, Malaysia.
32. Radin Umar, R. S., Mackay, G. M., & Hills, B. L. (2000). Multivariate analysis of motorcycle accidents and the effects of exclusive motorcycle lanes in Malaysia.
33. Schweitzer, N., Apter, Y., Ben-David, G., Liebermann, D. G., & Parush, A. (1995). A field study on braking responses during driving.
34. Sivak, M., Post, D. V., Olson, P. L., & Donohue, R. J. (1981). Automobile rear lights: effects of reaction times of following drivers.
35. Sivak, M., Olson, P. L., & Farmer, K. M. (1982). Radar-measured reaction times of unalerted drivers to brake signals.
36. Soobeom, L. E. E., Youngjyun, L. E. E., et al. (2003). A study of drive’s perception response time on the three dimension alignment with virtual reality method.
37. Thom, D. R., Arao, H. G., & Hancock, P. A. (1985). Hand position and motorcycle front brake response time.
38. Triggs, T. J. (1987). Driver brake reaction times: unobtrusive measurement on public roads.
39. Triggs, T. J., & Harris, W. G. (1982). Reaction Time of Drivers to Road Stimuli.
40. Tung, S. H., Wong, S. V., Law, T. H., & Umar, R. S. R. (2008). Crashes with roadside objects along motorcycle lanes in Malaysia.
41. Wortman, R. H., & Matthias, J. S. (1983). Evaluation of driver behavior at signalized intersections.
42. Yeh, T.-H., & Chang, H.-L. (2009). Age and contributing factors to unlicensed teen motorcycling.

Analogy for Understanding: Think of Perception Response Time like the “buffer” in a streaming video. If the buffer (the time it takes for you to see a hazard and hit the brakes) is too small, the video freezes or crashes when the connection is interrupted. Ensuring road designs use a 2.5-second PRT is like giving the rider a larger, safer buffer so that even when a “glitch” occurs—like a sudden obstacle—the system has enough time to react and stop safely before a crash happens.