1 s2.0 S1369847823002024 Main

Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 98 (2023) 337–353
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Transportation Research Part F:

Psychology and Behaviour
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/trf
Investigating the relationship between self-reported (near)

crashes, fined traffic offences, and risky riding behaviours among
Flemish motorcyclists using the motorcycle rider
behaviour questionnaire
K. Vandael Schreurs a, b, *, V. Ross a, c, K. Brijs a
a
UHasselt-Hasselt University, School of Transportation Sciences, Transportation Research Institute (IMOB), Martelarenlaan 42, 3500 Hasselt,
Belgium
b
Vias Institute, Haachtsesteenweg 1405, 1130 Brussel, Belgium
c
FARESA Evidence-Based Psychological Centre, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium
A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T
Keywords: Little research on motorcycling safety and rider behaviour has been performed in Belgium. This
Powered two wheelers study used the Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire (MRBQ) as part of a larger question
MRBQ naire on motorcyclist safety. Data was collected in Flanders (i.e., the Dutch speaking part of
Social desirability bias
Belgium) through 560 motorcycle riders by means of a questionnaire that consisted out of the
Factor structure
MRBQ, demographics, personal background, riding experience and exposure, vehicle informa
Predictive validity
tion, and self-reported (near) crashes and fined offences. Results showed a factor structure
consistent with previous studies, comprising the factors ‘traffic errors’, ‘speed violations’, ‘stunts’,
‘protective gear’, and ‘control errors’. Due to the limited number of crashes, only an effect on
near-crashes and violations was observed for some of the MRBQ factors, as well as for the age and
exposure of riders. This research indicated that the MRBQ has its merits in terms of both construct
and predictive validity. Nonetheless, the MRBQ was found to be subject to limitations. The need
for more research was raised to examine the potential presence and impact of a social desirability
bias and common method variance. Additionally, Implications for practitioners and policy makers
have been discussed.
1. Introduction
Motorcycle rider safety has been an important issue in Belgium. In 2017, all motorcyclists together travelled 1.2% of the total
amount of vehicle kilometres on Belgian roads (Andries, 2015; FOD Mobiliteit en Vervoer, 2019), representing a low transportation
share in Belgium. While motorcycle rider casualties reduced between pre-COVID (2,924 casualties in 2019) and post-COVID (2,423
casualties in 2021) on Belgian roads (Statbel, 2021), their crash involvement remains high today.
A cross-check between the number of motorcycle rider casualties in proportion to the fleet size, as a substitute for the absence of
recent exposure figures in terms of kilometres travelled, shows that motorcycle riders in Belgium are still at high risk for crashes (i.e.,
* Corresponding author at: UHasselt-Hasselt University, School of Transportation Sciences, Transportation Research Institute (IMOB), Marte
larenlaan 42, 3500 Hasselt, Belgium.
E-mail address: kishan.vandaelschreurs@icloud.com (K. Vandael Schreurs).
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2023.10.002
Received 19 March 2023; Received in revised form 23 August 2023; Accepted 1 October 2023
Available online 7 October 2023
1369-8478/© 2023 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
K. Vandael Schreurs et al. Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 98 (2023) 337–353
4.6 crashes per 1,000 motorcycles, compared to 2.8 crashes per 1,000 passenger cars: see Statbel, 2022). In terms of severity, the
consequences of a crash are usually serious for motorcyclists. Per 1,000 motorcycle injury crashes in 2021 in Belgium, 26 motorcyclists
were fatally injured, compared to 13 car drivers and 8 cyclists (Statbel, 2021). The risk of a heavy injury crash in Belgium is estimated
to be 57 times higher for a motorcycle/moped rider, relative to a driver of a passenger car (Slootmans et al., 2017). The over
representation of motorcycle riders in fatal crash statistics is not only a problem in Belgium but also in other European countries
(Slootmans et al., 2017; Yannis et al., 2022).
A typical motorcycle rider completes 0.15 billion kilometres in a career of 50 years. With a heavily injured motorcyclist every 1.1
billion kilometres, this means that 1 out of 7 motorcyclists gets severely or deadly injured in a crash during his/her career (Slootmans
et al., 2017). Despite different legislative measures, vulnerability continues to be an important safety challenge, to a large extent
attributable to the absence of a protective shell surrounding motorcyclists when involved in a collision (Wegman et al., 2008).
The remainder of this paper is structured as follows. First, typical causative factors of crashes where motorcyclists are involved are
shortly discussed, after which special attention is given to the relevance of motorcyclist behaviour in the context of risk. To that
purpose, reference is made to studies where the Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire (MRBQ) has been used to predict several
indicators of risk. Next, the more precise study objectives and research questions are formulated, followed by the methods used, and
the results obtained. The discussion section contrasts findings from this study with what has been reported in previous work on the
MRBQ. More in detail, the focus is on the factor structure underlying the MRBQ, descriptive findings, and the predictive validity of the
MRBQ. Before highlighting the most important conclusions, we propose the practical implications of our findings, highlight some study
limitations, and formulate suggestions for future research.
1.1. Crash causative factors
Motorcycle riders are not always responsible for crash causation. Many causes explain the increased crash risk among motorcycle
riders, with a smaller role for vehicle-related and environmental factors as compared to human factors (ITF/OECD, 2015).
From a demographic and driving history perspective both age and experience-related factors (i.e., youth and inexperience) have
been identified as two important risk factors in motorcycling, which is similar to findings in the literature on car driving (McCartt et al.,
2009; Sexton et al., 2004). The age effect has often been explained in terms of biological maturation of the brain. Previous research
indeed has indicated that the neuroanatomical development of young car drivers has an influence on risky behaviour (e.g., Glendon,
2011; Keating, 2007; Ross et al. 2014, 2016). As age increases, casualty rates typically decrease up to a certain age. Not only being a
young adult results in a higher crash risk, so does higher age (i.e., 65+ ) (Rutter & Quine, 1996). Indeed, Slootmans et al. (2017) have
indicated that the age group 65+ is largely represented in Belgian motorcycle crashes, while an increased age among deceased mo
torcyclists over the past 10 years has been found by Delhaye and Vandael Schreurs (2022).
Risky behaviour is another crucial factor resulting in increased crash risk for operators of motorized vehicles (Iversen, 2004). Risky
behaviour covers a broad range of behavioural aspects such as helmet non-use, speeding, tailgating, dangerous overtaking, signal
neglect, etc. According to police recorded motorcycle crashes in Belgium, the role of motorcyclist behaviour is not to be under
estimated: 35% of motorcycle crashes has been found to be unilateral with the rider involved at fault in 90% of the cases, and 10%
caused by external factors. In 65% of the cases, crashes are multilateral with riders at fault in 38% of the cases, and other road users at
fault in 62% of the cases (Slootmans et al., 2017). That being said, it remains an undisputed fact that crash aetiology is a multi-factorial
phenomenon.
Given that vehicle operation relates to rider safety, Elliott et al. (2007) developed the Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire
(MRBQ) in order to better understand the concept of ‘motorcycle riding behaviour’, and how such behaviour relates to typical road
safety indicators.
1.2. Motorcycle rider behaviour Questionnaire (MRBQ)
The original MRBQ (see Elliott et al., 2007) consisted of 43-items, and was conceptually based on the Driver Behaviour Ques
tionnaire (DBQ: see Reason et al., 1990). Items were tailored to motorcyclists, and meant to determine which types of behaviour
predict motorcyclist crash risk. Elliott et al. (2007) found five categories, i.e., traffic errors, speed violations, performance of stunts,
control errors, and safety equipment usage. This factor structure deviated from what was found by Reason et al. (1990), who identified
three factors, i.e., violations (e.g., knowingly exceed the speed limit on a residential street), dangerous errors (more related to high risk
slips and mistakes such as misjudging the speed of an oncoming vehicle when overtaking), and errors causing embarrassment and
inconvenience (i.e., slips or lapses like driving to destination A instead of B).
The original MRBQ has been adopted for a multitude of study purposes, ranging from testing its validity or replicability (Chouhan
et al., 2023; Motevalian et al., 2011; Uttra et al., 2020), or associating it with crashes (Oluwadiya, 2018; Sunday, 2010), to the
prediction of crashes, near-crashes, and offences (Bui et al., 2020; Özkan et al., 2012; Sakashita et al., 2014; Stephens et al., 2017), or
the performance of actual behaviours (Ng et al., 2015; Topolšek & Dragan, 2018).
Bui et al. (2020), made a summary overview of findings from different MRBQ studies and highlighted differences in replication of
the original underlying MRBQ factor structure, together with variations in MRBQ factors found to significantly predict traffic safety
indicators (i.e., self-reported crashes, self-reported traffic violations). Limitations in terms of reliability and predictive validity indeed
were forwarded in various studies (e.g., Sakashita et al., 2014; Stephens et al., 2017). Sakashita et al. (2014) attributed differences in
results across studies to the experience of riders, as well as to variations in culture and licensing policy. In fact, cultural differences were
already investigated by Lajunen et al. (2004) in the context of the DBQ. Stephens et al. (2017) explained different findings between
338
studies in function of variations in sample size and sampling procedures. Finally, Özkan et al., (2012) mentioned interpretation as
another potential explanation for inconsistencies across different MRBQ studies. They found that the interpretation of certain items by
Turkish riders led to different factor loadings. Al together, these observations resulted in the suggestion to further develop and refine
the MRBQ with special attention for geographical and cultural specificities. Still recently, Nguyen et al. (2022) recommended tailoring
of the MRBQ to the geographical and cultural setting under investigation to avoid that the MRBQ would capture behaviours less suited
to a particular context under study, or would be missing behaviours particularly relevant for a specific country or region. Sumit et al.
(2021) indeed added items to the original MRBQ related to mobile phone use while riding because this behaviour was found to occur
frequently in the Indian context (see Sumit et al., 2022).
2. Objectives
Little research regarding motorcycling safety has been done in Belgium and to the best of our knowledge, the MRBQ has been never
applied. This is unfortunate since prior MRBQ studies abroad seem to indicate that the way motorcyclists behave while riding has an
influence on several indicators of risk, albeit results differ across studies. Gaining deeper insight into this relationship is relevant for
Belgian practitioners and policy makers in their effort to improve motorcyclist safety. Moreover, from a conceptual point of view,
further validation of the MRBQ in different geographical settings has been called for in prior studies since cross-national in
consistencies have been reported at several occasions. Finally, as far as we know, prior studies have not yet explored the potential
presence of a social desirability bias in the answers of respondents participating in MRBQ studies, even though such a bias might affect
the true relationship between motorcyclist behaviour and risk (e.g., Ospina-Mateus et al., 2021).
The main objectives of this study are thus threefold: (1) to validate the conceptual structure of the MRBQ in a Belgian setting, (2) to
explore the potential presence of a social desirability bias in respondents’ answers, and (3) to explore whether there is a relationship
between how Belgian motorcyclists self-report to behave while riding on the one hand, and indicators of risk on the other hand. As for
the latter, attention goes to self-reported (near) crashes and fined offences, respectively. Al together, these three objectives result in the
following five research questions:
RQ1: Does the original 5-factor structure hypothesized to underly the MRBQ replicate in a sample of Belgian motorcyclists?
RQ2: Is there a social desirability bias present in the answers to MRBQ-statements in a sample of Belgian motorcyclists?
RQ3: Is the number of self-reported near crashes statistically significantly determined by self-reported riding behaviour as
measured by the MRBQ in a sample of Belgian motorcyclists?
RQ4: Is the number of self-reported crashes statistically significantly determined by self-reported riding behaviour as measured by
the MRBQ in a sample of Belgian motorcyclists?
RQ5: Is the number of self-reported fined offences statistically significantly determined by self-reported riding behaviour as
measured by the MRBQ in a sample of Belgian motorcyclists?
Addressing these research questions and contrasting findings resulting from this study with previous work on the MRBQ will
contribute to the extant literature in two different ways. From an academic point of view, additional empirical data (representing
opinions of motorcyclists themselves) will be added to the already existing body of MRBQ-studies, and a state-of-the-art overview in
terms of construct and predictive validity of the MRBQ will be offered. Furthermore, this study will be a first empirical exploration of
the potential presence of a social desirability answering bias.
From a practical perspective, this study has its merits too in a sense that Belgian practitioners and policy makers could gain deeper
insight into the relationship between risk on the one hand, and the way motorcyclists behave while riding on the other hand. Such
insight could provide strong leverages for optimizing current policy targets, and for improving the effectiveness of interventions aimed
at promoting motorcyclist safety. For instance, if it would appear that impact on risk indicators differs among the various MRBQ-
factors, policy makers could prioritize more effectively in terms of which behaviours should receive primary attention. In similar
vein, practitioners involved in the development of motorcycle interventions could take better informed ‘evidence-based’ decisions in
terms of setting program targets.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants and procedure
3.1.1. Sampling procedure

A cross sectional survey design was set up for which data was collected in Flanders, the Dutch-speaking part of Belgium. Stage
sampling was used, given the specific target population. To ensure a sufficiently large sample, cooperation was set up with motorcycle
supportive organizations and driving schools. A total of 615 respondents was reached, of which 560 met the eligibility criteria (i.e.,
age > 18 and currently riding a motorcycle). During sample selection, it was ensured that difficult to reach respondents (i.e., female
riders, elderly, young riders and specific license holders) were included by means of repeated communication tailored to this target
group.
3.1.2. Data collection

Participants completed a 15-min questionnaire, distributed online with Qualtrics (https://www.qualtrics.com: version made
339
available in December 2017). The questionnaire was accessible for three months during the period December 20th, 2017 until
February 28th, 2018.
3.1.3. Sample characteristics

The extent to which the recruited sample for this study could be considered as representative of the overall population of Flemish
motorcyclists, was not formally verified in detail. Brief comparison with the research of Delhaye and Vandael Schreurs (2022), who
performed a profiling study on Belgian powered-two-wheeler riders, showed a deviant gender distribution, with fewer female riders in
our research. Therefore, the sample in this study cannot be considered as a representative subset of motorcycle riders in Flanders.
Table 1 below provides an overview of the sample characteristics. Age ranged from 19 to 70 years old. The number of offences for
which respondents got fined, ranged from 0 to 9 with 21.4% receiving at least one fine. Fifty-nine riders (10.5%) indicated they were
involved in a crash during their career, of which four riders had multiple crashes. Of the riders indicating they had been involved in a
crash, 74.6% declared not being at fault. Finally, 61.8% of the riders indicated that they had experienced a near-crash.
3.2. Measurement instrument
The Questionnaire consisted of five sections, i.e., demographics and personal background, riding experience and exposure, vehicle
specifications, MRBQ, and self-reported crashes, near-crashes and fined offences.
Table 1
Sample characteristics.
Variable Description N Frequency (%)
Gender 1 = Male 560 513 (91.61%)

2 = Female 47 (8.39%)
Age 1 = 18–24 560 64 (11.40%)

2 = 25–34 117 (20.90%)
3 = 35–50 191 (34.10%)
4 = 51–64 169 (30.20%)
5 = 65+ 19 (3.40%)
License type 1 = Code 372 560 21 (3.80%)

2 = A1 41 (7.30%)
3 = A2 59 (10.50%)
4 =A 439 (78.40%)
Exam performed for license 1 = Yes 560 347 (61.96%)

2 = No 213 (38.04%)
Lessons or refresher course followed 1 = Both 560 95 (16.96%)

2 = Lessons 135 (24.11%)
3 = Refresher course 83 (14.82%)
4 = No 247 (44.11%)
Car license 1 = Yes 560 442 (78.93%)

2 = No 118 (21.07%)
Self-reported crashes 1 = None 560 501 (89.46%)

2 = One 55 (9.82%)
3 = Two 1 (0.18%)
4 = Three or more 3 (0.54%)
Self-reported near crashes 1 = None 560 214 (38.21%)

2 = One 144 (25.71%)
3 = Two 79 (14.11%)
4 = Three or more 123 (21.96%)
Variable Description N Mean (SD)
Age Age at the time of the interview. 560 24.83 (13.422)

Years of experience Number of years of experience at the time of the interview. 560 19.90 (16.338)
Exposure (hrs/wk) Average amount of ridden hours per week. 560 10.23 (10.470)
Self-reported offence Amount of offences for which they got fined. 533 0.34 (0.863)
340
3.2.1. Demographics and personal background

The first section probed for demographics (e.g., gender, age, habitual riding area, level of education), and additional background
information such as license type, other licenses in possession, uptake of an exam and/or refresher course.
3.2.2. Riding experience and exposure

Different measures were used to assess riding experience, i.e. the year of license obtainment, the number of years respondents rode
their motorcycle, and the average annual number of kilometres ridden. Exposure was operationalized by means of two different
measures, i.e., the average annual number of ridden kilometres, and number of hours of riding during an average week during the
motorcycle season. Together, these measures were meant to provide a more accurate estimate of riding experience and exposure.
3.2.3. Vehicle specifications

The section on vehicle specifications probed for information about the main motorcycle used like for instance make and model,
type, engine size in cc, and power in kW.
3.2.4. Motorcycle rider behaviour Questionnaire (MRBQ)

The studies by Elliott et al. (2007) and Sakashita et al. (2014) served as main leads for the development of the Motorcycle Rider
Behaviour Questionnaire. The version used in this study consisted of the 43 items displayed in Table 2. All statements went through a
backtranslation protocol (English -> Dutch -> English) and were tailored to Belgian road legislation in case necessary (i.e., excluding
Table 2
MRBQ item descriptives: scale ranges from 1 – “never” to 6 – “Nearly all the time”.
Mean Std.
Deviation
1. Pull into a main road in front of a vehicle you have not noticed or whose speed you misjudged. 1.79 0.668
2. Fail to notice or anticipated another vehicle pulling out in front of you and had difficulty stopping. 2.00 0.748
3. Distracted or pre-occupied, you suddenly realize that the vehicle in front has slowed, and you have to brake hard to avoid a 1.89 0.659
collision.
4. Not notice someone stepping out from behind a parked vehicle until it is nearly too late. 1.83 0.702
5. Ride so fast into a corner that you feel like you might lose control. 1.90 0.631
6. When riding at the same speed as other traffic, you find it difficult to stop in time when a traffic light has turned against you. 1.68 0.676
7. Run wide when going around a corner. 2.02 0.664
8. Ride so fast into a corner that you scare yourself. 1.80 0.721
9. Not notice a pedestrian waiting at a crossing where the lights have just turned red. 1.85 0.919
10. Fail to notice that pedestrians are crossing when turning into a side street from a main road. 1.82 0.768
11. Queuing to turn right on a main road, you pay such close attention to the main traffic that you nearly hit the vehicle in front. 1.80 0.806
12. Find that you have difficulty controlling the bike when riding at speed (e.g. steering wobble). 1.40 0.595
13. Needed to brake or back-off when going around a bend. 2.49 0.925
14. Skid on a wet road or manhole cover, road marking, etc. 2.32 0.816
15. Needed to change gears when going around a corner. 2.05 0.938
16. Miss ‘Give Way’ or ‘Stop’ signs and almost crash with another vehicle. 1.56 0.577
17. Ride so close to the vehicle in front that it would be difficult to stop in an emergency. 1.72 0.804
18. Exceed the speed limit on a motorway. 3.03 1.260
19. Exceed the speed limit on a country/rural road. 3.31 1.118
20. Exceed the speed limit on a residential road. 2.25 1.025
21. Disregard the speed limit late at night or in the early hours of the morning. 2.74 1.241
22. Open up the throttle and just go for it on a country road. 2.28 1.111
23. Get involved in racing other riders or drivers. 1.41 0.725
24. Race away from the traffic lights with the intention of beating the driver/rider next to you. 1.95 1.124
25. Attempt or done a wheelie. 1.32 0.747
26. Intentionally do a wheel spin. 1.25 0.588
27. Pull away too quickly and your front wheel lifted off the road. 1.58 0.929
28. Unintentionally had your wheels spin. 1.38 0.583
29. You wear motorcycle protective trousers (leather or non-leather). 5.44 1.113
30. You wear motorcycle boots. 5.59 1.072
31. You wear a motorcycle protective jacket (leather or non-leather). 5.88 0.559
32. You wear body armour/impact protectors (e.g. for elbow, shoulder or knees). 5.38 1.372
33. You wear bright/fluorescent stripes/patches on your clothing. 4.6 1.845
34. Ride when you suspect that you might be over the legal limit for alcohol. 1.20 0.520
35. Another driver deliberately annoys you or puts you at risk. 2.66 0.984
36. Having trouble with your visor or goggles fogging up. 2.12 1.062
37. You wear a leather once-piece motorcycle suit. 1.45 1.195
38. You wear bright/fluorescent clothing. 3.49 1.925
39. You use daytime running lights or headlights on in daylight. 5.60 1.221
40. You wear motorcycle gloves. 5.96 0.237
41. You don’t wear motorcycle specific protective clothing. 1.41 0.880
42. Attempt to overtake someone who you have not noticed to be signalling a left turn. 1.53 0.624
43. Ride between two lanes of fast moving traffic. 1.55 0.876
341
differences in certain specific situations between left-hand and right-hand driving). All MRBQ items were to be assessed on a 6-point
Likert scale (Allen and Seaman, 2007; Jamieson, 2004; Likert, 1932), ranging from 1 (never) to 6 (nearly all the time) with higher
scores indicating more frequent demonstration of the behaviour. In order to verify whether there was a tendency towards social
desirability in respondents’ answers (e.g., Harrison, 2010; Paulhus, 1991), 10 questions drawn from the Driver Social Desirability Scale
(DSDS) by Lajunen et al. (1997) were immersed randomly in the section dedicated to the MRBQ. These questions probed for both types
of social desirability bias, i.e., impression management (the deliberate tendency to give favourable self-descriptions to others), and
self-deception (positively biased but subjectively honest self-description).
3.2.5. Self-reported crashes, near-crashes, and fined offences

Respondents were asked to report the number of crashes, near-crashes, and offences for which they were fined over the period of
the past motorcycle season. Moreover, they were requested to indicate whether or not they were at fault in case of reported crashes. A
motorcycle crash was defined as a unilateral or multilateral collision, whether or not hitting something or someone, or falling while
riding. Dropping the bike or knocking it over while it was parked, or being a witness of another collision, was not considered as a
motorcycle crash. Fined offences were defined as disobedience to a rule or a mistake for which respondents were fined by the police.
3.3. Data analysis
Data was analysed using SPSS Statistics version 25. Self-reported data on crashes, near-crashes, and fined offences were used to test
the predictive validity of the MRBQ in Flanders. Statistical correlations and differences were examined between these self-reported
items and other items from the questionnaire, with special attention for the MRBQ items.
After generating the necessary descriptive statistics (see Table 2) the MRBQ items were subjected to a principal component analysis
with varimax rotation for data reduction. Scale reliabilities were tested by means of Cronbach’s alpha before exploring associations
between MRBQ-factors and motorcycle (near) crashes and fined offences, through a Spearman 2-tailed correlation test. Lastly, the
(near) crash variables and fined offences were recoded into dichotomous variables, and subsequently entered into a logistic regression
analysis. The cut-off p-value was set at 0.05 and the odds ratio for each independent variable was calculated at a 95% confidence
interval.
4. Results
4.1. MRBQ items: Descriptive statistics
As can be seen in Table 2, the highest mean values (i.e., between 3.49 and 5.96) were obtained for items related to the use of
protective safety gear, implying respondents self-declared they frequently to quite often wear specific motorcycle garments and
protective clothing. As for speeding, respondents reported they almost never engage in racing or hardly ever disregard speed limits on
residential roads or at late night or early in the morning. However, they seemed to exceed speed limits at least occasionally on mo
torways and rural/country roads. Traffic errors related to attentional failures or distraction were indicated to never or hardly ever
occur. Control errors related for instance to misjudgement of speed or road conditions were also considered to happen never to hardly
ever. Road stunts and riding while over the legal limit for alcohol as well were said to occur almost never. In sum, with the exception of
speeding on motorways and rural/country roads, self-reported riding behaviour of respondents in this study seemed to be rather safety-
than risk-oriented.
4.2. MRBQ items: Data reduction
A principal component analysis with varimax rotation was applied to the 43 MRBQ items. The scree plot of eigenvalues (see Fig. 1)
showed that five factors fitted the data best with a total variance explained of 39.31%. For the factor loadings per item, a cut-off value
Fig. 1. Eigenvalue scree plot showing five factors that fit the data best.
342
of 0.3 was used.

Table 3 shows the individual factor scores, as well as the mean score and standard deviation per factor, together with the value for
Cronbach’s alpha.
Eleven items loaded on factor one ‘speeding violations’, accounting for 9.9% of the overall variance explained. Interestingly, item
17 “Ride so close to the vehicle in front that it would be difficult to stop in an emergency” (0.429) implies tailgating and was originally
identified by Elliott et al. (2007) as a ‘traffic error’, but appeared to be interpreted by respondents in this study as primarily related to
Table 3
Principal component analysis (Varimax with Kaiser Normalization) of the MRBQ items.
Items Factors
Speed Traffic Stunts Protective Control

Violations errors gear errors
1. Pull into a main road in front of a vehicle you have not noticed or whose speed 0.062 0.538 − 0.078 − 0.038 0.071
you misjudged.
2. Fail to notice or anticipated another vehicle pulling out in front of you and had 0.043 0.460 0.116 − 0.041 0.092
difficulty stopping.
3. Distracted or pre-occupied, you suddenly realize that the vehicle in front has 0.147 0.539 − 0.074 − 0.012 0.164
slowed, and you have to brake hard to avoid a collision.
4. Not notice someone stepping out from behind a parked vehicle until it is nearly 0.028 0.661 0.135 − 0.016 0.061
too late.
5. Ride so fast into a corner that you feel like you might lose control. 0.302 0.180 0.115 − 0.022 0.529
6. When riding at the same speed as other traffic, you find it difficult to stop in 0.004 0.441 − 0.013 − 0.067 0.441
time when a traffic light has turned against you.
7. Run wide when going around a corner. 0.135 0.207 0.019 − 0.056 0.650
8. Ride so fast into a corner that you scare yourself. 0.435 0.134 0.077 0.026 0.433
9. Not notice a pedestrian waiting at a crossing where the lights have just turned − 0.003 0.610 0.039 0.039 − 0.162
red.
10. Fail to notice that pedestrians are crossing when turning into a side street from 0.046 0.675 0.011 0.059 − 0.066
a main road.
11. Queuing to turn right on a main road, you pay such close attention to the main 0.077 0.530 0.090 0.004 0.175
traffic that you nearly hit the vehicle in front.
12. Find that you have difficulty controlling the bike when riding at speed (e.g. 0.006 0.258 0.144 − 0.065 0.456
steering wobble).
13. Needed to brake or back-off when going around a bend. 0.148 0.131 − 0.022 − 0.129 0.588
14. Skid on a wet road or manhole cover, road marking, etc. 0.044 0.210 0.403 0.049 0.280
15. Needed to change gears when going around a corner. − 0.012 0.043 − 0.008 0.032 0.477
16. Miss ‘Give Way’ or ‘Stop’ signs and almost crash with another vehicle. 0.111 0.580 − 0.005 0.062 0.253
17. Ride so close to the vehicle in front that it would be difficult to stop in an 0.429 0.275 0.106 − 0.091 0.121
emergency.
18. Exceed the speed limit on a motorway. 0.753 − 0.010 0.103 0.125 − 0.109
19. Exceed the speed limit on a country/rural road. 0.804 0.017 0.173 − 0.069 0.021
20. Exceed the speed limit on a residential road. 0.709 0.137 − 0.075 − 0.177 0.051
21. Disregard the speed limit late at night or in the early hours of the morning. 0.656 0.170 0.131 − 0.087 − 0.051
22. Open up the throttle and just go for it on a country road. 0.610 0.124 0.372 − 0.137 0.098
23. Get involved in racing other riders or drivers. 0.458 − 0.017 0.531 − 0.065 0.167
24. Race away from the traffic lights with the intention of beating the driver/rider 0.545 − 0.103 0.371 − 0.074 0.164
next to you.
25. Attempt or done a wheelie. 0.237 0.036 0.756 − 0.096 − 0.065
26. Intentionally do a wheel spin. 0.214 0.020 0.737 − 0.144 − 0.013
27. Pull away too quickly and your front wheel lifted off the road. 0.271 0.026 0.771 0.013 − 0.043
28. Unintentionally had your wheels spin. 0.209 0.137 0.616 0.001 0.151
29. You wear motorcycle protective trousers (leather or non-leather). − 0.130 0.038 0.034 0.739 − 0.007
30. You wear motorcycle boots. − 0.059 − 0.013 − 0.006 0.741 0.019
31. You wear a motorcycle protective jacket (leather or non-leather). − 0.065 − 0.027 − 0.024 0.628 0.020
32. You wear body armour/impact protectors (e.g. for elbow, shoulder or knees). 0.055 0.041 − 0.005 0.592 − 0.140
33. You wear bright/fluorescent stripes/patches on your clothing. − 0.052 0.053 − 0.233 0.512 − 0.101
34. Ride when you suspect that you might be over the legal limit for alcohol. 0.197 0.173 − 0.034 − 0.196 0.110
35. Another driver deliberately annoys you or puts you at risk. − 0.012 0.185 0.277 0.005 0.032
36. Having trouble with your visor or goggles fogging up. − 0.061 0.008 − 0.034 0.006 0.400
37. You wear a leather once-piece motorcycle suit. − 0.023 − 0.077 0.432 0.081 − 0.092
38. You wear bright/fluorescent clothing. − 0.152 0.190 − 0.261 0.377 − 0.008
39. You use daytime running lights or headlights on in daylight. 0.002 0.061 − 0.006 0.074 − 0.157
40. You wear motorcycle gloves. − 0.010 − 0.071 0.055 0.395 0.001
41. You don’t wear motorcycle specific protective clothing. 0.017 0.054 − 0.055 − 0.718 0.090
42. Attempt to overtake someone who you have not noticed to be signalling a left 0.282 0.414 0.108 − 0.031 0.221
turn.
43. Ride between two lanes of fast moving traffic. 0.531 0.064 0.161 − 0.013 0.080
Mean 2.176 1.775 1.597 5.193 1.905
Std. Deviation 0.623 0.411 0.603 0.744 0.442
Chronbach’s Alpha 0.847 0.769 0.831 0.661 0.690
343
K. Vandael Schreurs et al.
Table 4
Correlation analysis between MRBQ factors, (near) crashes, and fined violations.
Control Err. Speed Viol. Stunts Safety Equip. Crash. Near crash. Finedviol. Age Exper. Expo. Power motorc.
Traffic Err. 0.489** 0.286** 0.181** 0.018 − 0.038 0.128** 0.028 0.018 0.024 − 0.065 0.016
Control Err. 1 0.416** 0.269** − 0.115** − 0.045 0.028 − 0.021 − 0.163** − 0.138** − 0.08 − 0.112**
Speed Viol. 1 0.759** − 0.220** − 0.044 0.168** 0.141** − 0.222** − 0.143** − 0.062 0.124**
344
Stunts 1 − 0.248** − 0.009 0.175** 0.046 − 0.285** − 0.162** − 0.039 0.054

Safety Equip. 1 0.018 − 0.003 − 0.032 0.248** 0.185** 0.093* 0.138**
Crash. 1 0.094* 0.164** 0.007 − 0.014 − 0.001 − 0.026
Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 98 (2023) 337–353

Near crash. 1 0.081 − 0.164** − 0.117** 0.124** − 0.044
Fined violations 1 0.08 0.085* 0.089* 0.128**
** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).
speeding. Chronbach’s alpha was used to asses scale reliability. A scale is considered to be reliable when a high level of covariance is
found among the items relative to the variance (Collings, 2007). The Cronbach’s alpha value (0.847) for this factor was substantially
above the typical threshold value (Bland & Altman, 1997; Cortina, 1993; Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007), supporting scale reliability.
Several items however, cross loaded on different factors, these mostly being items about (speed-related) control errors and stunts.
Thus, the conceptual distinction between ‘speed violations’, speed-related ‘control errors’, and ‘stunts’ did not always seem to be that
straightforward. Ten MRBQ items loaded on factor two ‘traffic errors’, accounting for 8.28% of the overall variance explained, and a
Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.77. Only item 6 cross loaded with another factor (i.e. control errors). Factor three ‘stunts’ comprised nine
items, accounting for 73% of the overall variance explained. Item 37 “You wear a leather once-piece motorcycle suit” loaded high on
this factor (0.432), even though there is no real conceptual match with this factor, except for the possibility that this kind or motorcycle
suit is more frequently used by motorcyclists performing stunts. Cronbach’s alpha improved (i.e., plus 0.041) with the removal of items
14 (“skid on a wet road, a manhole cover or road marking, etc.”) and 37, resulting in an alpha value of 0.83. Therefore, only seven
items were kept for the factor ‘stunts’. As already mentioned, several cross loadings for this factor were found with the factor ‘speed
violations’, probably because respondents considered certain speed violations as the performance of stunts. Factor four ‘protective
gear’ included eight items, contributing 7.30% to the overall variance explained. Item 41 “You don’t wear motorcycle specific pro
tective clothing” had a high loading on this factor but eventually was left out to increase Cronbach’s alpha to 0.66. Factor five ‘control
errors’ included 8 items, accounting for 5.90% of the overall variance explained. Only item 36 “Having trouble with your visor or
goggles fogging up” was not related to control errors in the original study by Elliott et al. (2007), although a conceptual link between
this item and ‘control errors’ could be seen in a sense that a fogged-up visor or goggles indeed might jeopardize control over the
vehicle. For this factor as well, several cross loadings were found with the factors ‘speed violations’ and ‘traffic errors’. Item 36 was
finally left out to increase Cronbach’s alpha to 0.69. Overall, it appeared that the five factors originally found to underly the MRBQ by
Elliott et al. (2007) were replicated quite well in the data collected for this study, albeit there were differences in terms of which items
Table 5
Logistic regression analyses: results for self-reported crashes, near crashes and fined violations.
Crashes (R2 = 0.032 / Hosmer and Lemeshow p = 0.156)
Variable B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for EXP(B)
Lower Upper
Traffic Errors − 0.012 0.404 0.977 0.989 0.448 2.182

Control Errors 0.138 0.395 0.726 1.148 0.530 2.488
Speed Violations − 0.674 0.407 0.098 0.510 0.229 1.132
Stunts 0.411 0.386 0.287 1.508 0.708 3.212
Safety Equipment 0.156 0.220 0.478 1.169 0.760 1.797
Gender 0.197 0.483 0.684 1.218 0.473 3.137
Age − 0.007 0.012 0.571 0.993 0.971 1.017
Exposure (weekly hours driven) − 0.013 0.017 0.467 0.987 0.954 1.022
Fined violations (Amount of fines) 0.310 0.129 0.016 1.364 1.059 1.756
Near Crashes (R2 = 0.111 / Hosmer and Lemeshow p = 0.487)
Lower Upper
Traffic Errors 0.524 0.265 0.048 1.688 1.004 2.839

Control Errors − 0.341 0.256 0.183 0.711 0.430 1.175
Speed Violations 0.196 0.259 0.450 1.216 0.732 2.021
Stunts 0.558 0.280 0.047 1.746 1.009 3.024
Safety Equipment 0.090 0.133 0.498 1.094 0.843 1.420
Gender − 0.143 0.334 0.668 0.866 0.450 1.669
Age − 0.028 0.008 0.000 0.972 0.958 0.987
Exposure (weekly hours ridden) 0.025 0.010 0.017 1.025 1.004 1.046
Fined violations (Amount of fines) 0.038 0.110 0.729 1.039 0.838 1.287
Fined violations (R2 = 0.113 / Hosmer and Lemeshow p = 0.539)
Lower Upper
Traffic Errors − 0.044 0.306 0.886 0.957 0.525 1.745

Control Errors − 0.558 0.306 0.069 0.572 0.314 1.043
Speed Violations 1.392 0.280 0.000 4.021 2.322 6.965
Stunts − 0.465 0.271 0.086 0.628 0.370 1.068
Safety Equipment − 0.110 0.149 0.461 0.896 0.669 1.200
Gender − 0.018 0.445 0.968 0.982 0.411 2.349
Age 0.024 0.009 0.010 1.024 1.006 1.042
Exposure (weekly hours ridden) 0.015 0.009 0.088 1.015 0.998 1.033
B = regression coefficients; Exp(B) = odds ratio
345
loaded upon their expected factor, and several cross loadings were found, mainly for items in the factors ‘speed violations’, ‘control
errors’ and ‘stunts’. This indicated that the conceptual distinction between these three factors is less clear to the respondents surveyed
in this study.
4.3. Correlation analysis
Associations between the MRBQ factors, self-reported (near) crashes and fined violations were explored by means of a Spearman 2-
tailed correlation analysis (for results, see Table 4).
Different significant relations between the MRBQ factors, near crashes and fined violations were found in the expected direction,
although an association with self-reported crashes was not established. As for the MRBQ factors, except for the mutual relationship
between the factors ‘safety equipment’ and ‘traffic errors’, statistically significant but mostly weak to moderate correlations were
found. Traffic errors, speed violations, stunts, and self-reported crash involvement showed statistically significant but very weak
positive correlations with near crashes. Speed violations and self-reported crash involvement also statistically significantly but very
weakly correlated with fined violations in the expected (i.e., positive) direction. As for the background factors age, experience,
exposure (i.e., hours ridden on a weekly basis), and motorcycle power, both age and experience statistically significantly but (very)
weakly correlated negatively with control errors, speed violations, stunts and self-reported near crashes, and positively with use of
safety equipment. For experience an additional almost negligible positive correlation was found with self-reported fined violations.
Exposure showed almost negligible positive correlations with use of safety equipment and self-reported near crashes. Finally,
motorcycle power showed very weak positive correlations with speed violations, use of safety equipment, and self-reported fined
violations. Motorcycle power also very weakly correlated negatively with control errors. In sum, although most of the correlation
coefficients between MRBQ factors, background variables and motorcycle power on the one hand, and self-reported near crashes and
fined violations on the other hand were (very) weak in terms of size, the majority were statistically significant and making sense in
terms of direction.
4.4. Logistic regression
Logistic regression was performed to identify predictors for self-reported (near) crashes and fined violations. For that purpose, self-
reported crashes, near crashes and fined violations were transformed into dichotomous variables (i.e., 0 = no (near) crash or fined
violation, 1 = at least one (near) crash or fined violation). For the analysis with fined violations as dependent variable, the following
independent variables were entered: the 5 MRBQ factors, gender, age, and exposure (weekly hours driven). For the analyses with self-
reported crashes and near crashes as respective dependent variables, the same independent variables were entered, with addition of,
self-reported fined violations (as a continuous variable). The independent variables were tested for multicollinearity through variance
inflation factors (VIFs), which were found to be lower than 5 as recommended in literature (e.g. Hair et al., 2009). For each of the three
analyses, the independent variables were entered into the model simultaneously. Results are presented in Table 5.
As could be expected, the model with self-reported crashes as dependent variable did not perform well with a value for R2 of 0.032.
and a likelihood ratio with a chi-square of 8.284 (sig. 0.506), which indicated that the fitted model was not statistically significantly
different from the null model. The models for near crashes and fined violations both resulted in a low R2 (0.111 for near crashes and
0.113 for fined violations). The likelihood ratio with a chi-square of 45.735 (sig. < 0.001) for near crashes and 42.404 (sig. < 0.001) for
fined violations showed a statistically significant difference with the null-model. Furthermore, the Hosmer and Lemeshow test indi
cated a good fit for both models (0.487 for near crashes and 0.539 for violations). As for the model with self-reported near crashes as
dependent variable, significance and confidence interval of the odds ratios indicated that the MRBQ factor ‘traffic errors’ was a sig
nificant predictor together with the MRBQ factor ‘stunts’, rider age and exposure. While traffic errors (OR = 1.688), stunts (OR =
1.746), and exposure (OR = 1.025) increased the likelihood of being involved in a near crash, age (OR = 0.972) had the opposite effect.
Turning to the model with fined violations as dependent variable, results showed the MRBQ factor ‘speed violations’ and age were
statistically significant predictors of the number of self-reported traffic offences fined for, with a substantially increased likelihood of
being fined in case of more speed violations committed (OR = 4.021), or an increasing age (OR = 1.024). Exposure also increased
Table 6
Exploratory Pearson correlation analysis with the MRBQ factors and social desirability factors ‘self-deception’ and ‘impression management’.
Impression Management Self-Deception
**
MRBQ_Traffic_Errors Pearson Correlation − 0.139 − 0.154**
Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 <0.001
MRBQ_Control_Errors Pearson Correlation − 0.158** − 0.213**
Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 <0.001
MRBQ_Speed_Violations Pearson Correlation − 0.591** − 0.046
Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 0.274
MRBQ_Stunts Pearson Correlation − 0.472** − 0.018
Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 0.664
MRBQ_Safety_Equipment Pearson Correlation 0.167** 0.045
Sig. (2-tailed) <0.001 0.286
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
346
likelihood of being fined (OR = 1.015), but was only marginally significant, as were the MRBQ factors ‘control errors’ and ‘stunts’. Yet,
different from exposure, ‘control errors’ (OR = 0.572). and ‘stunts’ (OR = 0.628) decreased the likelihood of being fined.
4.5. Social desirability
We found a tendency towards socially desirable answering in the data, with this tendency to be higher for ‘self-deception’ (mean =
4.0368 and S.E. = 0.02282) than for ‘impression management’ (mean = 3.5271 and S.E. = 0.02795). An exploratory Pearson cor
relation (see Table 6) showed impression management correlated negatively with all MRBQ factors, except for a positive correlation
with the factor ‘stunts’. Different from that, self-deception correlated negatively with the MRBQ factors ‘traffic errors’ and ‘control
errors’.
5. Discussion
5.1. MRBQ: Factor structure
In line with a series of previous studies (e.g., Elliott et al., 2007; Ng et al., 2015; Ospina-Mateus et al., 2021; Özkan et al., 2012;
Stephens et al., 2017; Sumit et al., 2021), we found the MRBQ scale to be supported by five factors, i.e., ‘speed violations’, ‘traffic
errors’, ‘stunts’, ‘protective gear’, and ‘control errors’ with each of these factors demonstrating (better than) satisfactory internal
consistency based on values for Cronbach’s alpha. In terms of overall variance explained, the value obtained in our study (39.3%) is of
a comparable magnitude as the 36.44% established by Motevalian et al. (2011), the 39% mentioned in Sumit et al. (2021), the 41.2%
found by Elliott et al. (2007), the 42% in Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021), the 43.5% obtained by Bui et al. (2020), the 43.7% in Chouhan
et al. (2021), and the 45.1% reported by Özkan et al. (2012), albeit higher values have been documented as well (see for instance
Dabirinejad & Kashani, 2022: 48.9%; Azman et al., 2020: 50.6%; Stephens et al., 2017: 54%). This indicates there is at least some
consistency in the conceptual basis underlying the MRBQ, implying the different MRBQ factors capture a common underlying theme.
That being said, several other studies found different factor solutions, mostly a four-factor solution (e.g., Bui et al., 2020; Chouhan
et al., 2021; Dabirinejad & Kashani, 2022; Oluwadiya, 2018; Sakashita et al., 2014; Uttra et al., 2020).
Additionally, the contribution of individual factors to the overall variance explained, varies across studies. To illustrate, while
Sumit et al. (2021) found traffic errors (15%) and control errors (10%) to be the two most contributing MRBQ factors, Özkan et al.
(2012) found these to be speed violations (18.74%) and traffic errors (9.27%). Traffic errors mostly contributed to the overall variance
explained in Elliott et al. (2007: 10.3%) and in Stephens et al. (2017: 24%), followed by speed violations with 9.4% in Elliott et al.
(2007), and 11% in Stephens et al. (2017). Different from that, control errors explained most of the overall variance (25%) in the study
by Bui et al. (2020), followed by traffic errors (10%). Furthermore, looking at the level of individual items, most work on the MRBQ
found cross-loadings or items loading on factors differently across studies. The latter especially appeared to be the case for items
related to speed violations, stunts and (speed-related) traffic errors (see for instance Bui et al., 2020: Table 1).
This deviates from the study by Elliott et al. (2007) who found stunts on the one hand, and speed violations on the other hand to be
clearly separated categories of risky riding behaviour. The authors theoretically explained the distinction between these two types of
motorcycle riding violations in terms of cognitively driven behaviour versus affectively driven behaviour. More in detail, they argued
as follows: “The items loading most strongly on the speed violations factor (e.g., “disregard the speed limit late at night or in the early hours of
the morning”) could be thought of as being cognitively driven, or instrumental, violations since they reflect an underlying tendency to delib
erately deviate from safe rules and procedures (i.e., complying with speed limits). Violations loading on the stunts factor, on the other hand,
seem to encapsulate affective behaviour, which can be thought of as being performed to satisfying sensation-seeking motives or to “show off” to
others (e.g., pulling “a wheelie” or doing “a wheel spin”).” (Elliott et al., 2007, p. 497).
Results in our study and others somewhat question the generalizability of this contention in a sense that from a conceptual point of
view, the distinction between stunts, speed violations, and (speed-related) traffic errors might not always be that clear to respondents
in MRBQ studies, at least not for each of the items originally found to load on these respective factors. Lack of conceptual distinction
between MRBQ factors has also been demonstrated in the study by Sakashita et al. (2014), where traffic errors and control errors
respectively, loaded upon one single ‘errors’ factor, with the common underlying theme being ‘misjudgement’. While according to the
authors, the original ‘control errors’ factor refers to misjudgement specifically occurring on corners, they were not able to replicate
these two different factors (i.e., control errors and traffic errors) separately in their study. As a potential explanation, they referred to
the fact that their sample consisted of novice riders who were still learning hazard perception skills and consequently, failed to
recognize the distinction of misjudgement at corners versus at other locations (see Sakashita et al., 2014, p. 132).
In sum, the overall picture emerging from the different MRBQ studies available is that, even though the MRBQ scale captures a
common underlying theme (i.e., motorcycle riding behaviour), the more refined underlying conceptual structure shows in
consistencies with variations in factor solutions reported (mainly five- and four-factor solutions), differences in MRBQ factors’
contribution to overall variance explained across studies, and items cross-loading or loading on factors differently between studies (for
a summary review: see Krishnakishore & Othayoth, 2022).
Apparently, this relates to differences in the exact interpretation of items in the MRBQ, more specifically, as to whether respondents
consider them as error-based, (i.e., related to attentional failures (slips), to memory failures (lapses) or to misjudgement or incorrect
application of rules (mistakes)) on the one hand, or as intentionally committed violations on the other hand, with potential differences
here between cognitively driven (or instrumental) violations versus affectively driven violations (see Elliott et al., 2007). It is indeed
reasonable to assume that for some respondents, MRBQ items like for example, statement 17 “Ride so close to the vehicle in front that it
347
would be difficult to stop in an emergency” are potentially confusing, since conceptually speaking, there is a thin line between
considering this as a result of unintentional misjudgement (i.e., a ‘traffic error’) or as a manifestation of intentional and inappropriate
management of speed (i.e., a ‘speed violation’).
Different respondent-specific background characteristics have been forwarded to explain these variations in interpretation of
MRBQ items. For instance, ITF/OECD (2015), Bui et al. (2020) as well as Motevalian et al. (2011), Oluwadiya (2018), Özkan et al.
(2012), and Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021) all referred to cross-cultural or geographical differences. Bui et al. (2020) mentioned that
Vietnamese respondents interpreted nine items that previously had been identified as stunts, traffic errors or speed violations, more in
the context of losing control or proactively keeping themselves safe instead of intentionally stunting or violating on the road. The
authors also commented that the use of personal protective clothing is extremely uncommon in countries like Thailand, Vietnam,
Indonesia, and Malaysia, probably because aside from the mandatory use of helmets, there are no restrictions on the usage of
motorcycle protective clothing, at least not in Vietnam. Additionally, the cost of high-quality protective clothing cannot be under
estimated as a potential obstacle in low- and middle-income countries.
According to Oluwadiya (2018), for Nigerian motorcyclists, the distinction between control and safety is much more blurred as
compared to the UK respondents included in the study by Elliott et al. (2007), and items which are classified as pure speed behaviours
among British riders conceptually merge with items that rather implied impatience. Özkan et al. (2012, p. 130) reported that Turkish
riders perceived close following, losing control, and running wide when going around the corner more as a by-product of speeding than
as traffic errors. Moreover, they argued that Turkish riders tended to perceive unofficial races as affectively driven and “extra motive”
based behaviour than just speeding violations. Also, Turkish riders considered the item ‘having trouble with your visor or goggles
fogging up’ as more related to control errors, than as a safety equipment item, probably because they tend to use helmets inappro
priately or wrong types of helmets, resulting in difficulties controlling the vehicle. In addition to cross-cultural or regional differences,
Sakashita et al. (2014) alluded to differences in riding experience as a potential explanation for why the conceptual distinction be
tween traffic errors and control errors might not always replicate.
Currently, it remains an open question whether these differences in factor composition across different cultures, geographical
regions, or levels of riding experience reflect authentic differences in conceptual understanding of MRBQ items, or whether they are
more a methodological artefact, resulting from how MRBQ items are typically formulated. It is for instance not unimaginable that
explicit addition of the term ‘unintentionally’, to items belonging to the factors ‘control errors’ and ‘traffic errors’, can solve conceptual
confusion with items belonging to the violations-related factors in the MRBQ. To illustrate, “Unintentionally riding so close to the
vehicle in front that it would be difficult to stop in an emergency” is a formulation that could solve inconsistencies in this specific
behaviour (i.e., closely following a lead vehicle) being interpreted sometimes as a traffic error and sometimes as an intended violation.
It does not however totally exclude the possibility for confusion, since tailgating might still be understood as resulting from a mis
judgement of speed by some (with a higher chance of loading on a speeding-related factor), while as the consequence of a mis
judgement of headway distance by others (with a higher chance of loading on a traffic error-related factor). Other issues related to
wording and interpretation of MRBQ items have been mentioned before, for instance by Sakashita et al. (2014, p. 133). This merits
further research.
5.2. MRBQ: Descriptive findings
The highest mean values in this study were obtained for items related to the use of protective safety gear, indicating that re
spondents self-declared they frequently, to quite often, wear specific motorcycle garments and protective clothing. This can be related
to legislation on the use of rider gear in Belgium (i.e., it is obligatory to wear a jacket with long sleeves, long trousers, boots above the
ankle, gloves, and a helmet when riding). Yet, the contrary was found in another Belgian study, which stated that a large portion of
riders use no motorcycle-specific clothing (e.g., regular jeans, regular gloves, hiking shoes, etc.) with their more precise mobility needs
being an important criterion to decide on what type of (protective) gear to use (Delhaye & Vandael Schreurs, 2022).
On a wider geographical scale, higher scores on MRBQ items related to the use of protective gear found in our study, reflect findings
reported in studies conducted in Europe (e.g., Elliott et al., 2007, p. 494: Table 1) and Australia (e.g., Stephens et al., 2017, p. 206)
while they are in contrast with lower values obtained (or even deletion from the MRBQ scale) in regions like South East Asia (Azman
et al., 2020; binti Ahmad et al., 2022; Bui et al., 2020; Uttra et al., 2020), India (Chouhan et al., 2021; Sumit et al., 2021), the Eastern
Mediterranean (Özkan et al., 2012), and the Middle East (Motevalian et al., 2011). These lower use rates are typically explained in
function of specific climatological conditions challenging the use of protective gear (e.g., high temperatures, humidity) and/or lack of
available legislation. In a study conducted in Colombia by Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021), the use of safety equipment was found to be one
of the most frequent behaviours in a sample of 438 motorcycle taxi riders, albeit the mean value for the ‘safety’ factor (M = 2.74) was
still below values obtained for studies in Europe and Australia. Interestingly, the authors explained the use of safety equipment to be
mainly motivated by fear to be fined.
As for speeding violations, Flemish respondents reported they hardly ever disregard speed limits on residential roads or at late night
or early in the morning. However, they seem to exceed speed limits at least occasionally on motorways and rural/country roads.
Overall, this aligns with what was found in previous studies. In our study, the mean value for the ‘speed violations’ factor was M =
2.18, which is (almost) identical to values reported in Motevalian et al. (2011: M = 2.18), in Elliott et al. (2007: M = 2.17), in Ospina-
Mateus et al. (2021: M = 2.19), in binti Ahmad et al., (2022: M = 2.23), and in Sumit et al. (2021: M = 2.24), with a slightly lower value
in Sakashita et al. (2014: M = 1.9), and somewhat higher values in Stephens et al. (2017: M = 2.31), and in Özkan et al. (2012: M =
2.52). Although across most of these studies, the ‘speed violations’ factor ranked second in terms of self-reported frequency of
occurrence, the factor mean values consistently indicated that speed violations were self-declared to be rather rare events, albeit
348
differences have been found in function of age, gender, and trip motive (see binti Ahmad et al. 2022; Stephens et al., 2017).
Stunts overall appeared to be the least frequently (i.e., almost never) occurring kind of riding behaviour. Although the mean value
for this factor in our study (M = 1.60) was slightly higher than results reported in Sakashita et al. (2014: M = 1.2), Motevalian et al.
(2011: M = 1.41), Özkan et al. (2012: M = 1.43), Elliott et al. (2007: M = 1.45), Sumit et al. (2021: M = 1.49), and Stephens et al.
(2017: M = 1.57), it was in the same range and close to what was found by Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021: M = 1.72). Except for the study
by Stephens et al. (2017), the ‘stunts’ factor ranked lowest in all above mentioned MRBQ studies in terms of self-reported frequency.
Overall, mean values for the error-related factors in the MRBQ in this study were also in line with what was found previously.
Across studies, the range for mean values for ‘traffic errors’ was between 1.50 and 2.45 with M = 1.78 in our study, indicating traffic
errors appeared to occur only (very) seldomly. Control errors systematically have been reported to happen slightly more frequently
than traffic errors (mean values for control errors ranged between 1.85 and 2.63 with M = 1.91 in our study), but still remain rare
events based on self-report measures. Interestingly, the mean value for the ‘control errors’ factor found by Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021:
M = 3.24) was higher than what was found in most other MRBQ-based studies. The authors reasoned that, besides loss of concen
tration, the more frequent incidence of control errors might potentially be explained by the fact that their focus was on taxi riders
which usually “[…] slow down unexpectedly when they spot a potential customer, or suddenly step on the pedal to reach them.” (Ospina-
Mateus et al., 2021, p. 4).
The summary conclusion is that motorcyclists from various parts in the world who participated in MRBQ-studies overall declared
they are rather safety-oriented than risk-oriented when questioned about how they ride. Most wear safety protective gear quite often to
frequently (except for riders living in regions where climatological circumstances create discomfort and/or where legislation is limited
or totally lacking), almost never perform stunts, very rarely commit traffic or control errors, and hardly ever disregard speed limits,
although non-compliance with speed limits not necessarily occurs to the same extent depending on factors like age, gender, trip
motive, road category or time of the day.
The question to know whether these findings were potentially biased by social desirability in the answers, deserves attention in a
sense that results reported for the use of protective safety gear might be artificially inflated while the occurrence of stunts, speed
violations, traffic- and control errors might be underestimated because subject to impression management or self-deception. Not
suggesting that previous MRBQ-studies were indeed affected by socially desirable answering behaviour, none of these formally
assessed for it, and our study indeed found a tendency for a social desirability bias (see Table 6). Also, certainly in regions with
motorcycle-dominant national fleets (like India or South-East Asia and the Pacific), there seemed to be a rather big discrepancy be
tween what motorcyclists self-declare on the one hand, and what can be directly observed or established based on in-depth crash
investigation on the other hand, a point that was previously already raised by Sumit et al. (2021), and by Nguyen et al. (2022). That
being said, it might very well be that studies using self-report measures (like the MRBQ) reflected honest (but objectively seen
‘erroneously underestimated’) opinions of what individuals personally consider as ‘risky’ or not. Future research is required to
elucidate this issue.
5.3. MRBQ: Predictive validity
Remain to be discussed the findings for predictive validity of the MRBQ. We were unable to find significant relationships between
the different MRBQ-factors and self-reported crashes, which contrasts with previous research. Most MRBQ-studies found a selection of
factors to significantly predict crashes. The error-related factors were significant predictors of self-reported crashes in studies by Elliott
et al. (2007), Sakashita et al. (2014), Bui et al. (2020), and Chouhan et al. (2021) with higher frequency of traffic- and/or control errors
implying an increased number of crashes. A bit surprisingly, Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021) found traffic errors to be positively related
with crashes, while control errors related negatively with crashes (i.e., less control errors increasing crash probability). As far as we
know, Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021) and Dabirinejad and Kashani (2022) were the only two studies where at-fault crashes were also
investigated and although both studies found traffic errors to relate positively with at-fault crashes, Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021)
established that less control errors increased at-fault crash likelihood, which deviates from what one would expect.
Speed violations significantly predicted self-reported crashes in Elliott et al. (2007), Sakashita et al. (2014), and Chouhan et al.
(2023) with more speed violations resulting in more crashes. Stunts significantly predicted self-reported crashes in Özkan et al. (2012),
Stephens et al. (2017), and Chouhan et al. (2021), and police-reported crashes in Sakashita et al. (2014) with more stunts implying more
crashes. The ‘safety equipment’ factor significantly predicted self-reported crashes in Sumit et al. (2021), Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021),
and Bui et al. (2020) with more frequent use of safety equipment going together with a lower number of crashes in the former two, and
vice versa in the latter. In line with Sumit et al. (2021), binti Ahmad et al. (2022) found a factor labelled ‘safety precautions’ to be
negatively related with self-reported crashes in a study including 184 Malaysian students. Overall, the effects that have been found for
MRBQ-factors are in the expected direction, except for the effect for safety equipment in the study by Bui et al. (2020): more frequent
risky behaviour implies an increased number of crashes.
As for near crashes, we established a statistically significant relationship between self-reported near crashes on the one hand, and
traffic errors and stunts on the other hand where more traffic errors and stunts implied more near crash experiences. Traffic errors were
also identified as significant predictors of self-reported near crashes in Sakashita et al. (2014), Bui et al. (2020), Chouhan et al. (2021),
and Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021) albeit traffic errors loaded on one single ‘errors’ factor in Sakashita et al. (2014). More traffic errors
were accompanied with more near crashes. Control errors significantly predicted self-reported near crashes in Elliott et al. (2007),
Sakashita et al. (2014), Bui et al. (2020), and Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021) with a higher number of control errors associated with more
near crashes.
Even though not a significant predictor in our study, the ‘speed violations’ factor was the most frequently found predictor of self-
349
reported near crashes in previous research, with more speeding violations accompanied by more near-crashes (e.g., Sakashita et al.,
2014; Stephens et al., 2017; Bui et al., 2020, Sumit et al., 2021). Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021) found speeding violations to be related as
well with at-fault crashes: more violations increased at-fault crash probability. The only two studies besides ours that identified stunts
as a significant predictor of self-reported near crashes, were those by Sumit et al. (2021) and Chouhan et al. (2021). The study by
Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021) was the only one where the factor ‘safety equipment’ was a significant predictor of near crashes: less safety
precaution increased near crash probability.
Turning to fined traffic offences, we found control errors and stunts to be negatively related with the number of self-reported fines
incurred, and speed violations to be positively associated with fined offences. Control errors also significantly predicted self-reported
fines in Bui et al. (2020) and Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021), although in their studies, the relationship was in the expected direction (i.e.,
more control errors implied more fines). Not unexpectedly, the most frequently found predictor of fines, was the ‘speeding violations’
factor, with more speeding violations consistently related with an increased number of fines (e.g., Azman et al., 2020; Bui et al., 2020;
Özkan et al., 2012; Stephens et al., 2017; Sumit et al., 2021). Further in line with our findings, more stunts were also found to associate
with more fines in Özkan et al. (2012), Sumit et al. (2021), and Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021). Traffic errors were only identified as a
significant predictor of fines in Bui et al. (2020) where more frequent traffic errors implied an increased number of fines. Finally,
Sakashita et al. (2014) and Ospina-Mateus et al. (2021) were the only ones who found the factor ‘protective equipment’ to be
significantly predicting fines: more frequent use of safety gear was related with a lower number of self-reported fines.
In sum, in terms of predictive validity, the MRBQ certainly has its value: the way motorcyclists behave while riding predicts
different road safety indicators like (at-fault) crashes, near crashes, and traffic fines, with riskier behaviour resulting in lower safety.
Yet, looking at the more specific manifestations of risky riding behaviour (i.e., error-based or violation-based), inconsistencies are
found in a sense that none of the MRBQ-studies find the full MRBQ-scale to be predictive, none of the MRBQ-factors are systematic in
the prediction of different road safety indicators examined, and the predictive power of MRBQ-factors is inconsistent across studies.
This was further confirmed through a recent meta-analysis including a total sample of >17,000 participants by Chouhan et al.
(2023) where ‘speed violations’ were found to be the only MRBQ factor with a small but significant effect on self-reported crashes. Not
surprisingly, more and larger effects were found in studies with bigger samples (e.g., Bui et al., 2020; Elliott et al., 2007; Sakashita
et al., 2014), and a higher number of crashes included, a point already raised by Özkan et al. (2012). Besides sample size, and the fact
that crashes are non-normally distributed and rare events, variety in predictive validity among MRBQ-factors might relate to other
factors as well. Lower predictive power for instance, could also be explained in function of the fact that, from a conceptual point of
view, the MRBQ is sometimes capturing behaviours that are less suited to the particular context under study (i.e., less relevant to
motorcycling), while vice versa, the MRBQ is sometimes missing behaviours that are particularly relevant to a specific geographic or
cultural region.
The latter appeared from research on risky ridership and motorcyclist safety that has been conducted in the Asia-Pacific region.
Nguyen et al. (2022) for instance, identified several riding behaviours (e.g., mobile phone use while riding, wrong lane use, illegal U-
turns, intentional right-of-way violations, turn signal neglect, and red-light-running) as frequently occurring, but not covered by the
MRBQ. In similar vein, Motevalian et al. (2011) in Iran, Oluwadiya (2018) in Nigeria, and Sumit et al. (2021) and Chouhan et al.
(2021) in India deleted items from the original MRBQ while adding new ones considered as relevant for the respective country setting.
Differences in predictive validity of the MRBQ might relate as well to differences in the type of motorcycles investigated. For
example, distraction due to mobile phone use while riding has been reported to be more typical for operating lighter motorcycles as
compared to higher performance types. To illustrate, Sumit et al. (2021) found a significant proportion of Indian respondents to talk
(25.3%) and text (34.8%) on their mobile phone while riding with 98% operating a lighter vehicle type (i.e., between 100 and 200 cc).
Nguyen et al. (2020) and Nguyen et al. (2022) also found mobile phone use distraction to be a rapidly increasing safety issue in
Vietnam, where lighter types (i.e., between 50 and 175 cc) predominate.
Finally, predictive validity of the MRBQ might be affected as well by common method bias in a sense that the majority of MRBQ-
studies used self-report measures for the to-be-predicted road safety indicators (e.g., Chouhan et al., 2023). Sakashita et al. (2014) were
actually the only ones including police reported measures, and they found these to be predicted to a much lesser extent by the MRBQ-
factors. These are issues that need further investigation.
6. Practical recommendations
Overall, 10.5% of the Flemish motorcyclists included in this study were involved in a crash at least once (albeit 74.6% of those
involved in a crash indicated they were not at fault), 61.8% experienced a near crash, and 21.4% received (at least) one fine for a traffic
offence over the past season only. These findings somehow align with previous epidemiological research on motorcyclist safety where
increased risk for severe injury and fatal crashes has been recurrently established (e.g., Bandi et al., 2015; NCSA, 2019; Puac-Polanco
et al., 2016; Slootmans et al., 2017; Xiong et al., 2016).
Increased levels of crash risk for motorcyclists have been explained in function reduced conspicuity compared to other modes
(Brenac et al., 2006; Nazemetz et al., 2019; Rößger & Lenné, 2017; Wali et al., 2018). Besides limited conspicuity, certain weaknesses
of the human visual perceptual system might be an additional reason for why motorcyclists are exposed to increased crash risk (see for
instance Pai, 2011). Importantly however, research based on the MRBQ adds to that, the role of how motorcyclists behave themselves
while riding. As already mentioned, the MRBQ has been found to predict different road safety indicators like crashes, near crashes, and
traffic fines, with both error-based and violation-based behaviour being relevant. Even though respondents in this study self-declared
they were rather safety-oriented than risk-oriented while riding, traffic errors and stunts significantly predicted self-reported near
crashes, and control errors and speed violations were significant predictors of self-reported fined traffic offences.
350
Therefore, official requirements for the obtainment of a full motorcycle license would best not only address strategies to cope with
reduced conspicuity, but also include training of cognitive mechanisms (e.g., Ledesma et al., 2023) like selective attention (i.e., the
processes that allow an individual to select and focus on particular input for further processing while simultaneously suppressing
irrelevant or distracting information), and hazard avoidance skills in order to avoid misjudgement of distance and speed and improve
appropriate management of available safety margins. Volitional aspects (both cognitive as well as affective) involved in intentional
risky behaviours should receive attention as well since violation-based factors in the MRBQ have been shown to correlate with
increased crash risk too. Özkan et al. (2012) demonstrated that social cognition models such as the Theory of Planned Behaviour, the
Health Belief Model, and the Traffic Locus of Control Model can be helpful in identifying which more specific variables determine
speed violations and stunts, and thus, should be targeted by interventions aiming to reduce violational behaviours among
motorcyclists.
Moreover, program developers targeting motorcyclist safety would do best in tailoring their interventions to the more specific
background characteristics of their target population(s). Our study for instance, found self-reported near crashes to be dependent upon
age and exposure, both also predicting fined traffic offences, which is in line with Elliott et al. (2007), Özkan et al. (2012), Sakashita
et al. (2014), Stephens et al. (2017), and Bui et al. (2020) for age, and with Elliott et al. (2007), Özkan et al. (2012), Sakashita et al.
(2014), and Sumit et al. (2021) for exposure. Age and riding experience also had a significant effect on self-reported crashes in the
meta-analysis by Chouhan et al. (2023), and rider type (i.e., professional riders, general population, young riders) was a significant
moderator of the relationship between MRBQ factors on the one hand, and self-reported crashes on the other hand. Frequencies for the
different MRBQ factors also have been found to vary in function socio-demographic background characteristics and riding history (see
for instance Chouhan et al., 2021; Dabirinejad & Kashani, 2022; Heydari et al., 2019; Ospina-Mateus et al., 2021; Setoodehzadeh et al.,
2021; Stephens et al., 2017).
The call for tailored interventions promoting motorcyclist safety, has been forwarded before, for example, by Hidalgo-Fuentes and
Sospedra-Baeza (2019), who studied 99,304 motorcycle crash reports filed between 2006 and 2011 in Spain, and found significant
differences in crash risk in function of various background- and context variables, i.e., gender, age, trip purpose, crash type, speed
violations, day of the week, harm causes, helmet use, and psychophysical conditions of riders involved. The authors therefore pleaded
in favour of informational-, awareness-, and prevention campaigns with different and diverse objectives and content in terms of such
background- and context variables. To add, as Reason (1990) found that human factors play the most important role in crash causation,
it is important not only to tackle the problem of motorcycle related crashes from a rider perspective (as targeted with the MRBQ), but
also from the perspective of other traffic participants.
7. Limitations and future research
This study is not without limitations. Firstly, the extent to which the sample recruited for this study was representative of the
overall population of Flemish motorcyclists, was not formally verified. Moreover, since only Flemish motorcyclists were included,
findings of this study cannot be generalized to the broader Belgian context. Additionally, more detailed analyses accounting for
different age categories could provide supplementary insights since prior research has found variety in risk in function of age. Sec
ondly, only self-report measures for crashes, near crashes, and fined traffic offences were included. This might have evoked a common
method bias. Future research should incorporate officially reported statistics to test the predictive validity of the MRBQ. Thirdly, we
found indications for the presence of a social desirability bias in the answers, which might have artificially inflated the safety
favourable orientation found among the Flemish motorcyclists included in this study. Future research is required to formally assess
whether answers are biased due to social desirability, and what the impact is on self-reported prevalence of the different riding be
haviours captured by the MRBQ. Fourthly, data reduction was based on a Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation, as for
instance, in Elliott et al. (2007), and Özkan et al. (2012). Yet, other methods have been applied as well to model the factor structure
behind the MRBQ, mostly Principal Axis Factoring with Direct Oblimin Rotation (e.g., Sakashita et al., 2014; Stephens et al., 2017; Bui
et al., 2020; Sumit et al., 2021). Also, more robust approaches such as Confirmatory Factor Analysis by means of Structural Equation
Modelling (as in Sakashita et al., 2014, and in Bui et al., 2020) are required to further explore which factor solution underlies the
MRBQ. Finally, this study replicated the original scale as proposed by Sakashita et al. (2014). No separate elicitation stage prior to data
collection was included in our study design to see whether items were perceived as irrelevant by Flemish motorcyclists for their specific
context, or whether items relevant for their context were missing. Future research could further explore whether this is indeed the case
or not.
8. Conclusion
Studying a Flemish sample of motorcyclists, we found the MRBQ scale to be supported by five factors, i.e., ‘speed violations’, ‘traffic
errors’, ‘stunts’, ‘protective gear’, and ‘control errors’. Respondents overall self-reported to behave rather safety-oriented than risk-
oriented when they ride. Most wear safety protective gear quite often to frequently, almost never perform stunts, very rarely
commit traffic- or control errors, and hardly ever disregard speed limits, although non-compliance with speed limits occurs occa
sionally on rural/country roads and motorways.
Although none of the MRBQ-factors predicted self-reported crashes, near crashes were significantly predicted by traffic errors and
stunts while fined traffic offences were dependent upon control errors, speed violations, and stunts. Despite the fact that across
different studies, the MRBQ scale captures a common underlying theme (i.e., motorcycle riding behaviour), the more refined un
derlying conceptual structure shows inconsistencies which are potentially related to differences in the exact interpretation of items in
351
the MRBQ. In terms of predictive validity, the MRBQ has its merits: the way motorcyclists behave while riding predicts different road
safety indicators like crashes, near crashes, and traffic fines, with riskier behaviour resulting in lower safety, albeit the exact results are
inconsistent across studies.
Flemish policy makers, practitioners, and program developers are recommended to include training of cognitive skills such as
selective attention and of hazard avoidance skills, and to focus also on the cognitive and affective aspects involved in intentional risky
behaviours in official requirements for the obtainment of a full motorcycle license, and in interventions aimed at motorcyclist safety.
Moreover, such interventions would do best in tailoring content and objectives to the more specific background characteristics of their
target population(s). In general, more research is required to unravel whether findings reported in MRBQ-studies are subject to social
desirability bias, or common method variance.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing in
terests: Kishan Vandael Schreurs reports statistical analysis was provided by Vias institute Belgium.
Data availability
The authors do not have permission to share data.
Acknowledgements
We thank the Hasselt University (Belgium), for making this study possible. We are grateful to all participants and in particular, to
the motorcycling organisations, (i.e., riding schools, riding clubs, etc.) that helped with the distribution of the questionnaire.
References
Allen, E., & Seaman, C. A. (2007). Likert scales and data analyses. Quality Progress, 40, 64–65.
Andries, P. (2015). Kilometers afgelegd op het Belgische wegennet in 2013 (p. 19). Federale Overheidsdienst Mobiliteit en Vervoer. https://mobilit.belgium.be/sites/
default/files/downloads/Kilometers_NL.pdf.
Azman, N.S., Ilyas, R., Isah, N., Ibrahim, M.K.A. (2020). Riding Behaviour of Motorcyclists in the Klang Valley. Research report published by the Malaysian Institute of
Road Safety Research (MIROS).
Bandi, P., Silver, D., Mijanovich, T., & Macinko, J. (2015). Temporal trends in motor vehicle fatalities in the United States, 1968 to 2010-a joinpoint regression
analysis. Inj. Epidemiol., 2, 1–11.
Binti Ahmad, N. S., Karuppiah, K., How, V., Isa, M. H. B. M., & Mani, K. K. C. (2022). Risk riding behaviours of young motorcyclists among students in Univeristi Putra
Malaysia, Serdang, Selangor. Malaysian Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences, 18(Supp 5), 23–30.
Bland, J.M., Altman, D.G., 1997. Statistics notes: Cronbach’s alpha. BMJ 314 7080, 572–572. 10.1136/bmj.314.7080.572.
Brenac, T., Clabaux, N., Perrin, C., & Van Elslande, P. (2006). Motorcyclist conspicuity-related accidents in urban areas: A speed problem? Advances in Transportation
Studies, 8.
Bui, H. T., Saadi, I., & Cools, M. (2020). Investigating on-road crash risk and traffic offences in Vietnam using the motorcycle rider behaviour questionnaire (MRBQ).
Safety Science, 130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2020.104868
Chouhan, S. S., Kathuria, A., & Sekhar, C. R. (2021). Examining risky riding behavior in India using Motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire. Accident Analysis and
Prevention, 160, Article 106312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2021.106312
Chouhan, S. S., Kathuria, A., & Sekhar, C. R. (2023). The motorcycle rider behaviour questionnaire as a predictor of crashes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
IATSS Research. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iatssr.2023.01.004
Collings, L. M. (2007). Research design and methods. Encyclopedia of Gerontology (Second Edition), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-12-370870-2/00162-1
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98–104, 0021–90IO/93.
Dabirinejad, S., Kashani, A.T. (2022). Investigating the relationship between motorcyclists’ lifestyle, riding behavior, and at-fault crashes. AUT Journal of Civil
Engineering 6(1), 133–142. 10.22060/ajce.2022.21077.5790.
Delhaye, A., & Vandael Schreurs, K. (2022). Overzicht van het G2W-gebruik in België—Profilering van Belgische bestuurders van gemotoriseerde tweewielers (No.
2022-R-02-NL; p. 112). Vias Institute - Knowledge Center Road Safety. https://www.vias.be/nl/onderzoek/onze-publicaties/overzicht-van-het-g2w-gebruik-in-
belgie/.
Elliott, M. A., Baughan, C. J., & Sexton, B. F. (2007). Errors and violations in relation to motorcyclists’ crash risk. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 39(3), 491–499.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2006.08.012
FOD Mobiliteit en Vervoer. (2019). Traffic Belgian Road Network. Federal Government Belgium. https://mobilit.belgium.be/nl/mobiliteit/mobiliteit_cijfers/verkeer_
belgisch_wegennet Last accessed: 21/03/2021.
Glendon, A. I. (2011). Neuroscience and young drivers. In B. E. Porter (Ed.), Handbook of Traffic Psychology (pp. 109–125). San Diego: Academic Press.
Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., Anderson, R. E., 2009. Multivariate Data Analysis: International Version, 7. ed., global ed. ed. Pearson, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Munich.
Harrison, W. A., 2010. Is it finally time to kill self-report outcome measures in road safety? An investigation of common method variance in three surveys of a cohort
of young drivers that included the Driver Behaviour Questionnaire. In Presented at the Australasian Road Safety Research Policing Education Conference, 2010.
Heydari, S. T., Sarikhani, Y., Mani, A., Mohammadi, L., Vossoughi, M., Lankarani, K. B. (2019). Factors associated with Motorcyclist risky riding behaviors in southern
Iran. Injury & Violence 11(Supp. 2), Paper No 102. http://www.jivresearch.org.
Hidalgo-Fuentes, S., & Sospedra-Baeza, M. J. (2019). Gender and age distribution of motorcycle crashes in Spain. International Journal of Injury Control and Safety
Promotion, 26, 108–114.
Iversen, H. (2004). Risk-taking attitudes and risky driving behaviour. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 7(3), 135–150. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.trf.2003.11.003
Jamieson, S. (2004). Likert scales: How to (ab)use them. Medical Education, 38, 1212–1218.
Keating, D. P. (2007). Understanding adolescent development: Implications for driving safety. Journal of Safety Research, 38, 147–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jsr.2007.02.002
Krishnakishore, M., Othayoth, D. (2022). Motorised two-wheeler rider behaviour questionnaire: State of the art. European Transport 89(4), Paper No 4. 10.48295/
ET.2022.89.4.
352
Lajunen, T., Corry, A., Summala, H., & Hartley, L. (1997). Impression management and self-deception in traffic behaviour inventories. Personality and Individual
Differences, 22(3), 341–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00221-8
Lajunen, T., Parker, D., & Summala, H. (2004). The Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire: A cross-cultural study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 36(2). https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0001-4575(02)00152-5. Article 2.
Ledesma, R. D., Padilla, J.-L., Tosi, J. D., Sanchez, N., & Castro, C. (2023). Motorcycle rider error and engagement in distracting activities: A study using the Attention-
Related Driving Errors Scale (ARDES-M). Accident Analysis and Prevention, 187, Article 107069. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2023.107069
Likert, R. (1932). A Technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology, 140, 1–55.
McCartt, A. T., Mayhew, D. R., Braitman, K. A., Ferguson, S. A., & Simpson, H. M. (2009). Effects of age and experience on young driver crashes: Review of recent
literature. Traffic Injury Prevention, 10(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580802677807
Motevalian, S. A., Asadi-Lari, M., Rahimi, H., & Eftekhar, M. (2011). Validation of a Persian version of motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire. Annals of Advances in
Automotive Medicine / Annual Scientific Conference, 55, 91–98.
Nazemetz, J. W., Bents, F. D., Perry, J. G., Thor, C. P., & Mohamedshah, Y. M. (2019). Motorcycle crash causation study. United States: Federal Highway Administration.
NCSA, 2019. National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 2019. Motorcycles: 2017 data (Updated, Traffic Safety Facts. Report No. DOT HS 812 785). Washington, DC:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Ng, C. P., Law, T. H., Sukor, N. S. A., Rosli, N. A., & Azemin, S. N. A. (2015). The effect of supervised riding on young motorcyclists’ riding behaviour. In Proceedings of
the Eastern Asia Society for Transportation Studies, 12.
Nguyen, M. V. D., Ross, V., Vu, A. T., Brijs, T., Wets, G., & Brijs, K. (2020). Exploring psychological factors of mobile phone use while riding among motorcyclists in
Vietnam. Transportation Research Part F- Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 73, 292–306.
Nguyen, M. V. D., Vu, A. T., Ross, V., Brijs, T., Wets, G., & Brijs, K. (2022). Small-displacement motorcycle crashes and risky ridership in Vietnam: Findings from a
focus group and in-depth interview study. Safety Science, 152, Article 105514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2021.105514
OECD/ITF (2015). Improving Safety for Motorcycle, Scooter and Moped Riders. OECD Publishing, Paris. 10.1787/9789282107942-en.
Oluwadiya, K. (2018). The Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire (MRBQ) and Commercial Motorcycle Riders in Nigeria.
Ospina-Mateus, H., Jiménez, L. Q., & López-Valdés, F. J. (2021). The rider behavior questionnaire to explore associations of motorcycle taxi crashes in Cartagena
(Colombia). Traffic Injury Prevention. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389588.2021.1970749
Özkan, T., Lajunen, T., Doğruyol, B., Yıldırım, Z., & Çoymak, A. (2012). Motorcycle accidents, rider behaviour, and psychological models. Accident Analysis &
Prevention, 49, 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2011.03.009
Pai, C.-W. (2011). Motorcycle right-of-way accidents—A literature review. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 43, 971–982.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias: Measures of personality and social psycho-logical attitudes (pp. 17–59). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Puac-Polanco, V., Keyes, K. M., & Li, G. (2016). Mortality from motorcycle crashes: The baby-boomer cohort effect. Injury Epidemiology, 3, 19.
Reason, J. (1990). Human error. Cambridge University Press.
Reason, J., Manstead, A., Stradling, S., Baxter, J., & Campbell, K. (1990). Errors and violations on the roads: A real distinction? Ergonomics, 33, 1315–1332. https://
doi.org/10.1080/00140139008925335
Ross, V., Jongen, E. M. M., Brijs, K., Brijs, T., & Wets, G. (2016). Investigating risky, distracting, and protective peer passenger effects in a dual process framework.
Accident Analysis and Prevention, 93, 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2016.05.007
Ross, V., Jongen, E. M. M., Wang, W., Brijs, T., Brijs, K., Ruiter, R. A. C., & Wets, G. (2014). Investigating the influence of working memory capacity when driving
behavior is combined with cognitive load: An LCT study of young novice drivers. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 62, 377–387. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
aap.2013.06.032
Rößger, L., & Lenné, M. G. (2017). Increasing motorcycle conspicuity: Design and assessment of interventions to enhance rider safety. CRC Press.
Rutter, D. R., & Quine, L. (1996). Age and experience in motorcycling safety. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 28(1), 15–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-4575(95)
00037-2
Sakashita, C., Senserrick, T., Lo, S., Boufous, S., de Rome, L., & Ivers, R. (2014). The Motorcycle rider behavior questionnaire: Psychometric properties and application
amongst novice riders in Australia. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 22, 126–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2013.10.005
Setoodehzadeh, F., Ansari-Moghaddam, A., Okati-Aliabad, H., Khammarnia, M., & Mohammadi, M. (2021). Self-reported motorcycle riding behavior in Southeast of
Iran. Health Scope, 10(3), e116025.
Sexton, B., Baughan, C., Elliott, M., & Maycock, G. (2004). The accident risk of motorcyclists (TRL report 607). Transport Research Laboratory. https://trl.co.uk/reports/
TRL607.
Slootmans, F., Martensen, H., & Paneels, A. (2017). Thematic File Road Safety 11: Powered two-wheelers. Vias institute - knowledge center road safety. https://www.vias.
be/publications/Themadossier%20verkeersveiligheid%20n◦ 11%20-%20Gemotoriseerde%20tweewielers/Thematic_File_Road_Safety_11_-_Powered_two-
wheelers.pdf.
Statbel (2022). Grootte van het voertuigenpark (2018-2022). Federal Government Belgium. https://statbel.fgov.be/nl/themas/mobiliteit/verkeer/
voertuigenpark#news.
Statbel (2021). Verkeersongevallen met doden en gewonden, voor België en de gewesten, laatste 8 jaar. Federal Government Belgium. https://statbel.fgov.be/nl/themas/
mobiliteit/verkeer/verkeersongevallen#figures.
Stephens, A. N., Brown, J., de Rome, L., Baldock, M. R. J., Fernandes, R., & Fitzharris, M. (2017). The relationship between Motorcycle Rider Behaviour Questionnaire
scores and crashes for riders in Australia. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 102, 202–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2017.03.007
Sumit, K., Brijs, K., Ross, V., Wets, G., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2022). A focus group study to explore risky ridership among young motorcyclists in Manipal, India. Safety, 8,
40. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety8020040
Sumit, K., Ross, V., Brijs, K., Wets, G., & Ruiter, R. A. C. (2021). Risky motorcycle riding behaviour among young riders in Manipal, India. BMC Public Health, 21, 1954.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11899-y
Sunday, O. K. (2010). The performance of the motorcycle rider behaviour questionnaire among commercial motorcycle riders in Nigeria. Injury Prevention; London, 16,
A194. https://doi.org/10.1136/ip.2010.029215.691
Tabachnick, B.G., Fidell, L.S., 2007. Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Pearson/Allyn & Bacon, Boston.
Topolšek, D., & Dragan, D. (2018). Relationships between the motorcyclists’ behavioural perception and their actual behaviour. Transport, 33(1), Article 1. https://
doi.org/10.3846/16484142.2016.1141371
Uttra, S., Jomnonkwao, S., Watthanaklang, D., & Ratanavaraha, V. (2020). Development of self-assessment indicators for motorcycle riders in Thailand: Application of
the Motorcycle Rider Behavior Questionnaire (MRBQ). Sustainability (Switzerland), 12(7), Article 7. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12072785
Wali, B., Khattak, A. J., & Khattak, A. J. (2018). A heterogeneity based case-control analysis of motorcyclist’s injury crashes: Evidence from motorcycle crash
causation study. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 119, 202–214.
Wegman, F., Aarts, L., & Bax, C. (2008). Advancing sustainable safety: National road safety outlook for The Netherlands for 2005–2020. Safety Science, 46(2),
323–343. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2007.06.013
Xiong, L., Zhu, Y., & Li, L. (2016). Risk factors for motorcycle-related severe injuries in a medium-sized city in China. AIMS Public Health, 3, 907.
Yannis, G., Laiou, A., Nikolaou, D., Usami, D. S., Sgarra, V., & Azarko, A. (2022). Moped drivers and motorcyclists. ESRA2 Thematic report Nr. 12 (updated version). ESRA
(E-Survey of Road users’ Attitudes (No. 2022-T-04-EN). NTUA - National Technical University of Athens. https://www.vias.be/publications/ESRA2%20Thematic
%20report%20Nr.%2012%20(updated)%20Moped%20drivers%20and%20motorcyclists/ESRA2%20-%20Moped%20drivers%20and%20motorcyclists.pdf.
353

1 s2.0 S1369847823002024 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

1 s2.0 S1369847823002024 Main

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 s2.0 S1369847823002024 Main

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 98 (2023) 337–353

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part F:

Investigating the relationship between self-reported (near)

1.1. Crash causative factors

1.2. Motorcycle rider behaviour Questionnaire (MRBQ)

3.1. Participants and procedure

3.1.1. Sampling procedure

3.1.2. Data collection

3.1.3. Sample characteristics

3.2. Measurement instrument

Gender 1 = Male 560 513 (91.61%)

Age 1 = 18–24 560 64 (11.40%)

License type 1 = Code 372 560 21 (3.80%)

Exam performed for license 1 = Yes 560 347 (61.96%)

Lessons or refresher course followed 1 = Both 560 95 (16.96%)

Car license 1 = Yes 560 442 (78.93%)

Self-reported crashes 1 = None 560 501 (89.46%)

Self-reported near crashes 1 = None 560 214 (38.21%)

Variable Description N Mean (SD)

Age Age at the time of the interview. 560 24.83 (13.422)

3.2.1. Demographics and personal background

3.2.2. Riding experience and exposure

3.2.3. Vehicle specifications

3.2.4. Motorcycle rider behaviour Questionnaire (MRBQ)

3.2.5. Self-reported crashes, near-crashes, and fined offences

3.3. Data analysis

4.1. MRBQ items: Descriptive statistics

4.2. MRBQ items: Data reduction

of 0.3 was used.

Speed Traffic Stunts Protective Control

Stunts 1 − 0.248** − 0.009 0.175** 0.046 − 0.285** − 0.162** − 0.039 0.054

Transportation Research Part F: Psychology and Behaviour 98 (2023) 337–353

Variable B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for EXP(B)

Traffic Errors − 0.012 0.404 0.977 0.989 0.448 2.182

Near Crashes (R2 = 0.111 / Hosmer and Lemeshow p = 0.487)

Variable B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for EXP(B)

Traffic Errors 0.524 0.265 0.048 1.688 1.004 2.839

Fined violations (R2 = 0.113 / Hosmer and Lemeshow p = 0.539)

Variable B S.E. Sig. Exp(B) 95% C.I.for EXP(B)

Traffic Errors − 0.044 0.306 0.886 0.957 0.525 1.745

4.3. Correlation analysis

4.4. Logistic regression

4.5. Social desirability

5.1. MRBQ: Factor structure

5.2. MRBQ: Descriptive findings

5.3. MRBQ: Predictive validity

7. Limitations and future research

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors do not have permission to share data.

You might also like

Stunts 1 − 0.248 − 0.009 0.175 0.046 − 0.285 − 0.162 − 0.039 0.054