Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Good morning. I welcome Mr Martyn Boyd to our Committee. He is a Northern Ireland representative of the Motorcycle Action Group (MAG). Joining us remotely is Mr Colin Brown, who is director of campaigns and political engagement for the Motorcycle Action Group.

Are members content that the evidence session be recorded by Hansard?

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I invite the representatives to make an opening statement. We have received your written evidence, and I think that there is a video that you want to play at the beginning. I will allow you to do that and to briefly introduce what you are going to discuss with us today.

Mr Martyn Boyd (Motorcycle Action Group): I am happy to play the video a little later. I will just get it ready.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK.

Mr Boyd: Good morning, everyone. Thank you for inviting Motorcycle Action Group to address you. It has been long felt among motorcyclists nationwide that officialdom more or less ignores us, which is the reason for the existence of Motorcycle Action Group. It is to keep us in your consciousness so that we do not get forgotten about in the way that we have been forgotten about in London by Transport for London (TfL), which does not seem to recognise that motorcyclists exist when it does its modelling of traffic flows.

Motorcycle Action Group is 51 years old. It is a volunteer-led organisation advocating riders' rights. We are a civil rights organisation. Someone described the group as being a bit like a trade union for motorcyclists, which is a fair simile. We are not a biker group as such, like, for example, Quay Vipers or Armed Forces Bikers. We are an overarching representative body. Primarily, of course, I represent my members in Northern Ireland, but, by extension, somewhat like a trade union, I represent all motorcyclists, even if they are not members.

I sent to the Committee a document outlining our perspective on the business. If I may, I would like to begin by highlighting something in which, for motorcyclists, Northern Ireland is a class leader. Since about 2005, Northern Ireland has provided universal bus lane access for motorcyclists. It may not seem like it, but it is a vital and extremely useful safety aid for motorcyclists. It is also very useful in improving journey time and traffic flow and in cutting congestion and emissions.

Across in GB, as Colin can testify, it is very patchy as to whether motorcyclists are allowed to use bus lanes, and various spurious reasons for not allowing access have been given. I provided groups in GB with the then DOE's risk assessment and all the documents that it produced giving reasons for allowing motorcycle access. Groups over there are using Northern Ireland as an argument to counter the resistance of local councils, TfL etc to allowing motorcycles in bus lanes. You may not realise it, but that access is very much appreciated, and it enhances motorcyclists' safety, especially in heavy traffic. Indeed, my journey here this morning was partly facilitated by the bus lane on the Newtownards Road that meant that I was not stuck between a bus and a truck.

One other thing that I observed this morning — it is not in the briefing, it is just an observation — is that the Assembly provides a place in the car park for motorcycles to park, which is separate from the cars, thereby not taking up vital car parking spaces. That is absolutely brilliant. So many places do not — they just do not think about motorcycles. That is part of the point that we are trying to make.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK, thank you. Colin, do you want to add anything to that before we play the video?

Mr Colin Brown (Motorcycle Action Group): No. I am here very much in a supporting role. Martyn is the Northern Ireland rep, and I represent MAG at a UK-wide level. I am very much here to interject with any additional information. I certainly echo what Martyn said about the bus lane situation. We are very grateful to have that here, and it is very helpful to us when trying to persuade local authorities on the mainland to take a consistent approach to motorcycle access to bus lanes. The consistency and lack of confusion that exist in Northern Ireland can only be of benefit to the safety of motorcyclists.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. Do you want to play the video for us now, Martyn?

Mr Boyd: Yes, I can. It is an extract from the 'Nolan' show in which I represented MAG. The piece is titled "Talking Potholes". In it, I do my best to get across the motorcyclist's perspective on the quality of road surfaces and how potholes can affect us.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am sorry, Martyn. If you pause it for a moment, we will check the cable to make sure that it is in fully.

Technology is wonderful when it works.

Mr Boyd: It will always let you down.

Mr Boylan: I think that you keep hitting a pothole there.

Mr Boyd: That is it. I can just give a dry talk if this is not going to work.

I have been engaging directly with the Department for Infrastructure for many years on many aspects of road safety from a motorcycling perspective, this being one of them. Succinctly put, our perspective is that, if you make a road safe for a motorcycle or any two-wheeled vehicle, it will be safe for any vehicle or any road user. Unfortunately, I really do not feel that that message has ever been received. There is absolutely no evidence of DFI even thinking about it.

We accept that the budget is constrained. We are not asking for more money to be found. I have asked DFI to think about how it spends the money that it spends on fixing the roads and to be, perhaps, a bit more effective and think a bit more imaginatively. It is great when DFI fills in the worst defects, but, often, a number of the defects that are left behind are still hazardous to motorcyclists. Hopefully, I can show you an illustration of exactly the type of defect that DFI has left behind, one that nearly had hazardous consequences for me. DFI does not seem to get the message. It fills in the worst potholes, but I think that it needs to rethink its criteria. I understand why it has the criteria — it has to make the money go as far as possible — but a bit of imaginative or lateral thinking would help.

There is a strong feeling among motorcyclists, which I agree with, that we are a vulnerable road user group. We are recognised officially as such, so we feel that a bit of extra recognition should be given to our road safety needs and those of every vulnerable road user group. That is not happening with DFI, however. It makes the roads smooth for bigger vehicles and totally ignores the defects that can still be quite hazardous to us. I have reported many dozens of defects that are particularly hazardous to motorcyclists, just in the area where I live, and there are still many dozens more.

The ones that I would have liked to show you on the video are typical: defects on bends of a nature that will not really cause a person travelling by car much trouble. They might give them a bit of a bumpy ride, but, for a motorcyclist, they can be almost lethal. I have engaged with DFI on that a lot, but I do not feel that I have got anywhere.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Let me check: shall we send the video to members?

The Assistant Committee Clerk: The issue is not the laptop; it is our devices.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): OK.

Mr Boyd: I could turn my laptop around and play it, if you wanted to try that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Yes.

Mr Boyd: Perhaps it would be better than nothing.

A Member: That would do well.

Mr Boyd: I will just take it back to the beginning.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Apologies for that.

Mr Boyd: Yes, I apologise.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We will circulate it to members as well, so that they have it.

Mr Boyd: Yes. I sent it in.

Mr Boyd: You will notice that the DFI official did not mention motorcyclist safety.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Super. Thank you very much. That piece highlights a really important point: as you quite rightly said, if a road is right for a motorcyclist, it will be right for everybody who is on it.

Colin, do you want to come in? We will then move to members' questions, if you are happy.

Mr Brown: Yes. Some quite important research has been done very recently. It is not fully published yet, so you may not have seen it or be aware of it. A charity in England called DocBike has a PhD researcher who has done some research into motorcycle casualties and the causes. Eye-tracking methodology looked at the difference between the eye tracking of motorcyclists and that of car drivers. The research shows that motorcyclists spend a great deal more time scanning the road surface looking for defects than car drivers do. Obviously, that is because of the impacts. You also have to remember that the time spent scanning the road is time not spent scanning for other hazards, which means that the safety impact may not be a direct impact of the pothole itself but of the fact that we have to be looking out for the pothole. We can look at the direct impact of hitting a pothole, but other factors need to be considered. That is quite an important piece of research. As motorcyclists, we kind of recognise and understand that, but that would probably not be a natural conclusion that somebody who does not ride a motorcycle would arrive at. That is an important piece of information to add to the presentation this morning.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. It would be really interesting to see some of the detail of that research. You make a very important point about people scanning the road for defects. That was going through my head when I was watching that piece. It could, at times, be quite hard to see a defect. It might be marked out on the road, but what if it is not?

Mr Boyd: If you can see it on the video, there is an example that I came across on my motorcycle outside Donaghadee on a rising left-hand bend. That is not marked for being fixed, because it does not really cause much of a bother to a four-wheel vehicle, which would just straddle it, but it is right on the nice line for the bend — the safe line — for a motorcycle. Imagine hitting that at 40 mph or 50 mph.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I think that we will move to members' questions at this stage, if you are happy enough. You may have already mentioned this, but how many people in Northern Ireland does Motorcycle Action Group represent?

Mr Boyd: The last time that I checked, I think that there were about 180 members in Northern Ireland. That does not seem like an awful lot, and, in a way, it is not, but not everyone joins organisations, clubs and societies. Nationwide — UK-wide — there are over 60,000 members of Motorcycle Action Group. We constitute the largest of the motorcyclist representative organisations, the rest of which we cooperate with.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The Committee has been looking at the road safety strategy and the draft road safety strategy. I am not sure whether you heard the evidence session at the time.

Mr Boyd: I did.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We asked whether there had been input from groups such as Motorcycle Action Group into the road safety strategy. What level of engagement and input was there between your group and the Department in that road safety strategy?

Mr Boyd: We made a comprehensive submission to the road safety strategy. I have submitted a copy of that to you. Not a single item of it was incorporated in the draft strategy — not a thing — which was intensely disappointing, because I had spent a lot of time engaging with DFI in remote stakeholder engagement meetings. I have a log of all my engagement with DFI, which is reasonably extensive, but not a single item of what we suggested was incorporated. There was not even any hint of, "We will do those things in time". There was nothing. It was completely ignored. The first copy of the draft strategy that was published did not have a single photograph of a motorcyclist, yet it is supposed to be about:

As a group, we feel that we are pretty much — not ignored, which implies a deliberate action — overlooked. How many of you ride or have ever ridden a motorcycle?

That is my exact point: most people do not, so you do not have a perspective on what it is like for motorcyclists. That is partly what we are here for: to try to help you to understand and to see that we need to be thought about in certain other ways, as do cyclists.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): That submission is what you would like to see contained, letter by letter, in the road safety strategy.

Mr Boyd: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You communicated that to DFI after it was published in draft.

Mr Boyd: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The Think Bike campaign was referenced in Motorcycle Action Group's written submissions to the Committee. You said that its effectiveness has plateaued. What could be done to increase its effectiveness or to revisit the campaign, to coincide with the road safety strategy?

Mr Boyd: That is a very good question. I do not have a comprehensive answer. What is needed is a complete rethink of how the message is portrayed and put across. That will cost money, and, as I know, budgets are limited. I believe that the effectiveness of the Think Bike campaign has plateaued, because 50% of the most serious and fatal road traffic collisions involving motorcyclists are still, today, at least technically, the fault of the other road user, who is, in the main, a car driver. That said, I must balance things: the other 50% of the most serious collisions involving motorcyclists are the fault of the motorcyclist, but that is a separate issue. It has been that way for some years, and that is why I feel that the effectiveness of that awareness campaign has plateaued and that there is nothing more to be gained from it. I do not have an answer, but we are very happy to engage in the thought process of trying to find another way to tackle that awareness issue.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Before I bring Colin in, who should bring that forward? Should it be the police, DFI, road safety partnership —?

Mr Boyd: All the agencies involved, even the Department of Justice and the Department for Communities. The PSNI agrees with me. I have had a meeting with the head of roads policing. He agrees with me on that and would also like to see the introduction in Northern Ireland of the enhanced rider scheme, which I mentioned in my submission, that is available in Great Britain.

That is a scheme that is aimed squarely at post-test riders, including riders who have just passed their test and riders who have been riding for years and who, maybe, have no training or who are coming back to riding after a break. It builds upon the basic skills that they have learnt to pass the test and enhances their skills, and it leads to a more confident, a more skilful and a safer rider. A rider such as that is safer not just for themselves but for the road environment generally. Any vehicle operator who is more skilled, aware and safe is safe for everyone. Part of what it teaches is enhanced awareness of hazards and avoidance tactics. You might see a car driver about to emerge, and, rather than saying to yourself that you have right of way and riding into the hazard, you take avoiding action. Give up right of way if necessary, but it means that I am neither hurt nor killed and neither is the car driver. It is safer all round. Some 50% of the most serious collisions are the fault of the rider, and those are mostly down to their riding outside their skills envelope or a lack of awareness. That is why I feel that we need this.

We used to have it in Northern Ireland. Shortly after I passed my motorcycle test in the early 1980s, I was directed to a scheme called Star Rider from which I still proudly wear the badge. It was a progressive scheme, and it was delivered by RoSPA and funded by the then DOE. It was squarely for new riders or older riders returning to motorcycling, and it built upon the basic skills that a rider needed to pass the test. It really was a brilliant scheme. I still use daily the skills that I learnt on that scheme, and then the funding was cut and the scheme died. That is exactly what we need to have.

My son is a motorcyclist and rides for Blood Bikes Scotland. He lives near Edinburgh, and in his postal code area, there are 12 providers of the enhanced riding scheme. He is an advanced rider anyway, but, should he need it, he has a choice of 12 providers for the enhanced rider scheme in GB. There is virtually nothing here.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. Colin, I will bring you in because I see your hand is up.

Mr Brown: You asked about MAG's submission to the consultation on the road safety strategy and the outcome from that and the engagement. What Martyn has said is reflective. Again, do not take this as being a Northern Ireland problem only. I can assure you that it is not any different on the mainland. Most riders get the impression that their safety is considered to be of a lower order than other road users. I am not necessarily saying that that is an accurate perception, but we have to accept that it is the perception amongst many riders. When a riders' group comes forward with suggestions and ideas and it appears to be entirely blanked, that effectively sends a message back to the riding community. It may be that there is no tangible thing that you can put into the road safety strategy, but, unfortunately, that then means that communication lines, when it comes to safety messaging, get closed down because the riders do not believe that the people putting out the messaging have their interests at heart. Therefore, a natural resistance has been built up to it.

This is one area where simply showing that the Department for Infrastructure has the interests of the motorcyclists at heart is important. Even if no tangible solution is provided, actually mentioning it is vital to ensure that riders feel included and do not feel that they are being ostracised and treated as a problem, as opposed to as a road user group that needs support.

Mr Boyd: Part of our submission to the road safety review strategy was this document. It is our organisation's manifesto for how we see that road safety can be improved. I provided this in the emailed documents, so, if you want to read it, please do. It is our idea of how the motorcyclists' perspective on road safety can be incorporated into everything and to the detriment of no one, just like making a road surface safe for a motorcycle is to the detriment of no other road user. That could be worth a read. Unfortunately, I did not have any printed copies to bring with me.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Do not worry because it is in the meeting packs that we received before today's meeting. Members will have had a chance to read that. I will now go to other members who want to ask questions. I will start with the Deputy Chairperson.

Mr Stewart: Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Martyn and Colin, for making the time for us today.

Mr Boyd: Thanks again for listening to us.

Mr Stewart: That is not a problem. I think that we all know that there is a massive motorcycle fraternity in Northern Ireland. You only have to travel to the North Coast on any Saturday or Sunday afternoon to see the bikes congregating.

Mr Boyd: There are 83,500 motorcycle licence-holders in Northern Ireland.

Mr Stewart: It is a significant chunk, and we have a proud motorcycling history here. Regardless of the membership that you have, it is clear to everyone here today that you represent the interests of everyone who owns a bike, and no one can disagree with that.

The Chair has already made the point about the road safety awareness campaign, the Think Bike campaign. It would be interesting to hear, from your point of view, whether it is something that should be promoted further, with more advertising on TV, to highlight the dangers and threats that motorcyclists face.

It would be remiss of us not to mention that many of the issues that motorcyclists face are the same ones that cyclists face. We have a rising number of cyclists on the roads. You referred to potholes, and hitting one might not have an impact on me as a four-wheel driver, but that could potentially kill a cyclist and undoubtedly would kill a motorcyclist

Mr Boyd: And has done.

Mr Stewart: And has done, so that needs to be factored in.

Another thing that I want to mention — we had some correspondence about it — is reforming the wire crash barriers on motorways and the danger of them, which, again, does not impact four-wheel drivers. In East Antrim, we had a bit of success getting that done, but I am interested to hear your thoughts on that.

Mr Boyd: That is another issue where Northern Ireland led the way in motorcyclist safety, along with universal bus lane access. If you have ever driven on roads like the A1 or the A8, I hope that you will have noticed that the central reservation barrier is composed of steel posts that are about knee height, with steel cables stretched between them. They are designed so that if a vehicle has a blowout, for example, and veers towards the central reservation, it will hit that barrier, the barrier will expand and the posts will pop out of the ground and expand. The idea is to retain that vehicle on its own side of the carriageway rather than let it go into oncoming traffic. They work very well for cars, vans, trucks and buses but not for motorcycles. They are absolutely lethal for motorcyclists because the motorcycle gets tripped over the steel cable because there is not enough inertia when a motorcycle hits it to trigger the designed action. Or, the motorcycle gets trapped underneath the cable and slides down the central reservation with the rider hitting the steel posts, causing enormous damage. It has caused great damage to riders in some parts of the world and has caused deaths. It has caused two deaths in Scotland — a long number of years, to be fair — but it still has. Our point was that this is a safety feature that is not safe for motorcyclists. It is not safe for a vulnerable road user group.

For many years, DFI kept saying that this safety system complies with international standards, and it quoted the international standard. Basically, I got tired of the same response so I looked into the safety standard, and, sure enough, it does comply with that safety standard but that safety standard did not require testing against motorcyclist impact. Therefore, it was not safe for all road users, which DFI kept saying.

We had an online face-to-face meeting with the Minister at the time, Nichola Mallon, and she was very good. She took on board everything that we said. Work in the background went on, and Northern Ireland then proposed to the entire UK road safety people that the procurement rules should be changed so that, from 1 January 2021, no new road schemes or road extension schemes that required that kind of barrier would be allowed to be used. The preferred alternative is what are called "concrete cushions". You see them on the M1, for example. I was asked directly whether I would rather hit concrete or a steel cable, and I would definitely rather hit concrete, if I had to. From that date, no new road schemes that are being funded will be allowed to use that kind of barrier, and those that exist will be phased out when they come to the end of their economic life. The solution is not just to rip them out and replace them. Most motorcyclists wanted to see that, but that is just not viable. However, it is the beginning of the end for a safety feature that was not safe for everyone, and Northern Ireland led that. It was work that I did and work that, to be fair, was done by DFI officials that led to that being changed UK wide.

Mr Stewart: I will return to the awareness-raising campaign. We have talked here about the need to have more adverts on TV and social media. How much of an impact do you think that could have on improving people's awareness of thinking about motorcyclists on the road? Will that also raise awareness among motorcyclists, in their minds, about the need for safety, particularly on rural roads, Martyn?

Mr Boyd: Motorcyclists need to be reminded of their vulnerabilities. Other less-vulnerable road users need to be reminded of our vulnerabilities, but we also have responsibility for ourselves. I read recently that online sources have overtaken television, for example, in how people get their news. Perhaps a robust and imaginative online campaign could be more effective than a TV campaign and probably a lot cheaper, but we need to rethink how that message is delivered. I am not a media specialist, so I do not have that answer, but we are happy to be involved in trying to arrive at that answer. However, it will mean spending money. It cannot be done on the cheap if lives are valued.

Another part of the reason that we are really committed to all this is that, in recent years, road safety seems to be getting wrapped up with sustainable travel. Our argument is that motorcycles are part of the answer for sustainable travel. Motorcycles are an efficient and effective means of personal transport. We use a lot less fossil fuel. The average motorcycle will create about five or six times less emissions than the average car, for example. A study was done in Holland, which hypothesised that with a 10% shift from single drivers using their car to using two-wheel transport, even little scooters, there could be a 30% drop in congestion and emissions. Our argument is that we can be part of the answer for sustainable transport. Sustainable transport does not have to be just buses, bicycles, trains and your feet. That is a whole other issue, but that is part of why we are committed to raising our road safety profile in general. We do not want things changed just to suit us. We really believe that if some of these changes were made, it would be beneficial for all road users.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Colin is looking to come in.

Mr Brown: I will quickly respond on the Think Bike campaign and messaging in general. Our perspective — this is part of what we were trying to get across in the Welcoming Roads approach to road safety as opposed to the more Vision Zero campaign approach — is that we focus very strongly on personal responsibility. For example, we resisted the recent change to the Highway Code. It may seem strange that we resisted something that said that the user of a larger, heavier vehicle should take more responsibility for the safety of the vulnerable road user. Our argument is that the fundamental messaging that we have been giving to riders throughout history is that they need to take full responsibility for their own safety. If everybody had that attitude on the road, for not only their own safety but for the safety of others, we are going to get to the solution that we need.

When it comes to messaging, we need to be very careful how it is presented. Very often, we will see perfectly legitimate messaging about certain behaviours when you are on the road, but because they get targeted specifically at motorcyclists, motorcyclists will react to that by saying, "Why are you picking on me and not giving this message to the other road users?" Whether or not that is an entirely legitimate position or perception, it is the perception that is held.

What we tend to push for when it comes to talking about the behaviours on the road is to take out the transport class from that discussion. If you are talking about speeding, that message applies to anybody no matter what vehicle they are using. It does not need to be directed at motorcyclists. If you are talking about a skill that is specific to motorcycling then, yes, clearly that needs to be directed at a motorcyclist. However, if you are talking about general road behaviours when it comes to safety, do not single out one user group and give that message to them. Even if you are giving the same message to the other group in a separate message, do not do that. Just use the same message for all road users.

It is about making motorcyclists feel that they are included and that their interests are taken into account. It does not mean that every motorcyclist is a Boy Scout who does not need to be taught anything about road safety. It just means that we do not want to do it in a way that makes them feel that they are being picked on as opposed to being embraced and supported.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you. Are you happy enough?

Mr Stewart: I agree, Martyn, with you and with the points that Colin made that we need to be imaginative in promoting that and in raising awareness. We have a lot of successful and famous motorcyclists in Northern Ireland — we had one here on Monday — who are renowned around the world for their success, and maybe we could use them to promote that message and to raise awareness.

Mr Boyd: That is interesting, but I would stop to consider because Michael Dunlop is a motorcycle racer. He is not a road motorcyclist. In fact, Joey Dunlop did not have his motorcycle licence to ride on the road until shortly before he got married. [Laughter.]

Motorcycle racing is quite different from motorcycling on the road.

Mr Stewart: I am sure that they do use the motorcycles on the roads themselves, though, day to day, do they not?

Mr Boyd: Yes. Actually, you have reminded me of something. The notion that making a road surface safe for motorcycles makes it safe for all road users is actually a policy that DFI uses when maintaining the roads that comprise the North West 200 road-racing circuit. That is exactly the policy that it uses, so why not apply it to all roads?

Mr Stewart: Exactly.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): A number of members want to ask questions. I do not want to curtail the discussion. I want to make sure that we come to everybody who has indicated because it is an important topic. If you do not mind, keep questions and answers succinct.

Mr Dunne: Thanks, Martyn and Colin. Good to see you again. We share many of the same roads and go over the same potholes. Certainly, I recognised a few in your video. On that, the intervention level is an important issue. It is currently 50 mm; it used to be 20 mm. That is something that we are lobbying on the Minister regularly. What impact would restoring it to 20 mm have on motorcycles?

Mr Boyd: At least 50 mm is too much. It is really too much. I can understand why the Department has done that, because its budget is limited, but it is too much.

Mr Dunne: Yes, it is a critical issue. We have had some success locally on resurfacing, but the work certainly continues. It is a valid point that if it is fit for cyclists and motorcyclists, it is fit for car users as well.

I commend you on your work in ensuring that the voices of motorcyclists are heard. I want to touch on the enhanced rider scheme. The PSNI has its BikeSafe programme.

Mr Boyd: BikeSafe is brilliant.

Mr Dunne: We had a meeting with you on that about a year ago. We are keen to explore the differences between the enhanced rider scheme as it operates in GB and the BikeSafe programme.

Mr Boyd: The enhanced rider scheme is, a bit like advanced motorcycling or advanced driving, a progressive training course. BikeSafe is an awareness course. It is very good. Motorcycle Action Group helped to set up policing's BikeSafe UK-wide to begin with, many years ago. We fully support BikeSafe. It is brilliant.

A funny thing: many years ago, when it was free, not many motorcyclists used it. Now that they have to pay £65, sessions are all booked out, so there you go. It was revamped a number of years ago, and it is very good, very worthwhile. I encourage every rider to do it: I have done it twice. It is great.

Mr Dunne: Do you think that the PSNI is doing enough?

Mr Boyd: Yes. The PSNI really would not have the resources to do anything more than BikeSafe. However, BikeSafe could be the gateway to an enhanced rider scheme. If someone does BikeSafe, they get their assessment from the police rider. Those guys are really good, brilliant. They give up their time voluntarily to run those weekends. They are not paid but are doing it during their time off. It is brilliant. That could be the gateway, and then, when you have done that and you get an assessment from BikeSafe, that assessment would be taken to a training provider, and they then take you through.

As I mentioned in one of my documents, in England, in Derbyshire, they implemented this in the mid-2000s and, over a period of four years, they halved their rate of serious and fatal collisions involving motorcyclists. It is subsidised over there by councils and central government. The rider pays something like £60 for six lessons or so. Riders should pay: it should not be free. I have provided the DFI with an idea — a model, if you like — of how it could be funded. It will cost money, and we never expected the DFI to cough up all the money for it, but it is a key player in this idea. The PSNI is fully behind it.

Mr Dunne: That is good. Thanks, Martyn. I commend your work on the central reservation issue that John talked about. I know that you were involved in that as well. It is a sign that people are listening and that you are making a difference.

Mr Boyd: I have to give credit to those officials. Once it was realised that, oops, it does not actually meet all the safety standards, they went to work and got a resolution.

Mr Dunne: Thank you, Chair.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Super. Thank you. Peter?

Mr McReynolds: Thank you, Martyn and Colin. I should say that, although I said that I do not ride a motorcycle, my dad is a user so, if he is watching, I will be on my best behaviour.

You mentioned that there are 83,000 licences in Northern Ireland. Do you know how many active motorcycle users there are each day? Do you have an estimate?

Mr Boyd: We did a survey a couple of years ago. We had an online survey open for a month, and we got about 500 or so responses from active motorcyclists. We worked out that about 40% of those motorcyclists ride every day, and about 30% are commuters. I commuted for 20 years up and down to Belfast, all year round in all weathers. About 30% of motorcyclists do that but about 40% of them are on the road every day. For some of them, of course, it is their job: motorcycle instructors and motorcycle couriers. I do not know an exact number. There are 83,000 licence-holders, but that does not mean that they are all active motorcyclists.

Mr McReynolds: Of course. In the video clip that you shared with us, Colin Woods was speaking as a DFI official. Colin has been in to this Committee to address us. He mentioned that the policy is about prioritisation of potholes but, in that same video, you mentioned that we need to think imaginatively or creatively. Have you any examples of best practice around the world? There is a difficult budget, but are there ways in which we could approach the pothole issue more creatively?

Mr Boyd: I do not specifically have any examples of best practice. Colin may be able to give more on this. As you know, in GB, councils are responsible for local roads. One or two councils have started using a machine that can very quickly and cost effectively repair a lot of potholes in a day. A couple of those machines could make a huge difference for example.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I see that Colin is looking in there. He might want to talk about that, particularly with it being in GB.

Mr Brown: Yes. You have asked for good examples internationally. To be honest, it is difficult to come up with examples of international best practice on this. We are working closely with National Highways. It is not so much about the actual technicalities of filling in potholes. As Martyn mentioned, there are new technological approaches and new machinery, such as the JCB Pothole Pro machine, which greatly reduce the time that is required to do repairs. Those are all great things, but what we are trying to focus on with National Highways is the understanding and training of the people who go out to assess the potholes.

From a motorcyclist's perspective, a pothole's depth is almost irrelevant. It is more to do with where the pothole is positioned than how deep it is. A very shallow pothole in the wrong place will be more dangerous than a deep pothole in an area of the road that is not normally traversed by a motorcycle. It is about the understanding of the inspectors who go out and do the risk assessments and decide which potholes to fill. From our perspective, it is not really sufficient to simply stick a tape measure in a pothole to see how deep it is.

That is what we are working towards with National Highways over here on the mainland. There is potential for us to look at creating a training course for the inspectors and then monitoring whether that has an impact. It is all well and good to say that it will change things; you also need to measure the results. I will be very interested in whether we could use Northern Ireland as a test bed for something like that — a training course for inspectors — to see whether that actually changes the decisions that they make and then the outcomes in terms of motorcycle casualties.

Mr Boyd: Northern Ireland could lead the way on that as well.

Peter, I do not have an exact figure for the number of motorcyclists on the roads in Northern Ireland, but I do remember that, nationally, in the UK, motorcycles account for about 3% — maybe 3·25% — of road traffic, and it is around the same, proportionally, in Northern Ireland. That is virtually the same as the number of HGVs. Think of how many HGVs there are on our roads: there could be, more or less, the same number of motorcyclists on the roads in Northern Ireland.

Mr McReynolds: OK. Thank you very much.

Mr Boylan: You are very welcome. Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate that we have spent a lot of time talking about potholes and road conditions, but, if we look at the stats for road deaths and tragedies, we see that, in a lot of cases, they are due to inattention and driver behaviour.

Mr Boyd: Yes, inattentive drivers.

Mr Boylan: A lot of questions have been asked. I want to come back to your key asks. You talked about enhanced rider schemes. Colin, has that been costed, or is there a model? All our budgets are strapped, and we are asking for more money. If there is a suggestion there, we, as a Committee, could support it. We need to see evidence brought to the table for us to support it. We are going through the road safety strategy. If it is something that would help all road users, that is 100%. That is the kind of thing that we would like to —

Mr Boyd: A scheme has been in existence in GB for a number of years. Its costs could be a model. I have provided to DFI an idea framework on how it could be funded. The enhanced rider scheme in GB could be used as a model. I am sure that you could get the costing breakdown from central government. My understanding is that central government provides some subsidy for it, road safety departments in local authorities provide some subsidy for it, and then the rider also pays.

Mr Boylan: I ask in the context of a number of key asks in the paper that you presented. We, as a Committee, would probably support any ask that would lead to fewer road deaths and serious injuries. Every day, we lobby on potholes. There is not a day that goes by that we are not trying to get more funding for that. I just want to know about that specific piece of work. The other one is compulsory basic training (CBT). Would you like to comment more on that?

Mr Boyd: I have a little note about that. We believe that a swerve exercise should be introduced to CBT, making it more realistic. A training area that is marked out like a road should be used rather than cones, which is not realistic. I went through this when my wife did her CBT. It is not realistic. CBT has been of benefit. The avoid-and-swerve manoeuvre and the emergency stop should be firmly put into context with junctions: i.e. marked out like real roads rather than with cones. That will enhance rider training and awareness, because, when they do it, they will see the same kind of layout that they will when they go on the road, rather than see it marked out with cones.

Mr Boylan: My final question is on the issue of driver education and getting into schools with your work. Would you like to comment on that?

Mr Boyd: There are schemes that do road safety awareness in schools. The Fire and Rescue Service does a good scheme where it illustrates the dangers of speeding, road crashes and so on, but none of them specifically incorporates awareness of motorcycles. I would like to see that being done. In secondary schools, you have school students who, in fourth, fifth and sixth form — I still use the old terms; I do not know about year 14 or anything — are of the age where they are starting to learn how to drive. Many of them, like I did at that age, get their first taste of independence on two wheels, be it a little scooter or small motorcycle. Some of them will learn to drive and get their own car. Young road user awareness is very important, and it needs to include motorcycles.

Mr Brown: You touched on CBT and suchlike. Motorcycle licence reform is one of the major issues that we are campaigning on at Westminster. We are a little wary of saying what the outcome should be and what changes we specifically want, because it is a very complex subject. However, we think that one of the key drivers of any change should be an increase in the conversion rate from CBT rider to fully licensed rider. At the minute, UK wide, approximately five CBTs are issued for one rider to achieve a full licence. The average age for achieving a full motorcycle licence in the UK is 24, while the average age for achieving a driving licence for a car is 17, so there is a big problem there. That does not mean that we do not have younger people riding motorcycles; it just means that we have younger people riding motorcycles who have not been fully trained up to a test standard.

We are looking at how to encourage the throughput from CBT to full licence-holder. In Northern Ireland, you could look specifically at how to generate the incentive to get to fully licensed that does not require changes to the licensing legislation. I thought that would be worth throwing in there.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Super. Thank you very much.

Mr K Buchanan: I have just one question, Martyn, hopefully. It may lead on to others; I just do not know. Thanks Colin, as well.

My question relates to causation factors. You talked earlier about other road users and motorcyclists. If you were to look at the causation factors here in Northern Ireland or the rest of the United Kingdom, what would you say is number one, going to whatever number? If you had a pot of money to go to one of the causation factors, which one would it go to? You have talked about training, potholes and other road users. Let us call it one pot of money. In simple language, where would that go to get the biggest impact?

Mr Boyd: That is a good, challenging question. My instinct is that that pot of money should be used to set up an enhanced rider scheme, because I feel that the Think Bike awareness scheme has plateaued with regard to car drivers. Most serious and fatal collisions involving motorcyclists are at junctions where cars pull out and drivers have not seen motorcyclists, or cars pull across motorcyclists to cross the road.

We, as motorcyclists, recognise — Colin will agree — that, in a number of those cases, there are things that the rider can do to avoid or mitigate a resulting collision. It is not that it is the rider's fault, but, if I were to see a car at a junction and think that it might be pulling out, rather than just keep going, I could take action to avoid or mitigate what may happen. We feel that that is not always the case with riders in those situations.

The other 50% of the most serious collisions are the rider's fault. Of that 50%, about half are due to inattention, careless riding or riders riding beyond their skills. That is why I think that, if we could set up an enhanced rider scheme, over time, it would benefit overall road safety, not just safety for motorcyclists.

If I hit a car at a junction, I am the one who will come off worse. Recently, I had to explain to a car driver why we are a vulnerable road user group. It is simply because, on my motorbike, I am more vulnerable in a collision than you are in your car. If I hit your car, I will come off worse, whether it is your fault or mine, but you could also be hurt. My family would be affected, and your family would be affected. If that collision could be avoided, happy days all round, even if that means that I have to take avoiding action and give up my right of way. That is not in the psyche of every motorcyclist, and it should be.

Mr K Buchanan: Finally, what country in the world or the EU is getting it right?

Mr Boyd: I honestly do not know.

Mr Brown: I do not think that there is a country in the world that is getting it right: that is the blunt answer. On the causation factors and which is the number one, that is very difficult because we often find that the causation factors are not necessarily as comprehensive as they could be. When it comes to recorded casualties, there is a list of causation factors that the police will look at. We think that other causation factors need to be considered.

Obviously, I do not ride in Northern Ireland personally, so I bow to Martyn for his experience, but, GB-wise, we have noticed that there is a significant correlation between stolen motorcycles and casualties. For example, last year, in London, of 21 motorcyclist fatalities, five were linked to stolen motorcycles. That never gets mentioned in causation factors and direct causation. It may well be that that is not a factor, but, if you remove the theft of the motorcycle, you have removed that rider from the situation where they end up as a casualty figure. Some strange, unexpected answers may come out if we broaden the remit of how we record causation.

Mr Durkan: Thanks, gents, for coming with maybe not full, pre-cooked, ready-meal solutions but, certainly, ingredients and suggestions as to what could be done better.

You do not know how many of the 83,000 licence-holders are everyday users, but do you know what the fluctuation in the number has been like? Surely the DVA could provide us with figures around renewals, new applications —

Mr Boyd: It could. I do not, unfortunately.

Mr Durkan: I am not proposing this, but, if the cost of a licence were to increase slightly to cover part of the cost of funding an enhanced rider scheme, and motorcyclists could see where their money was going — rather than the price going up just for the craic, which always happens — could they swallow that?

Mr Boyd: Since motorcyclists are a designated vulnerable road user group and, therefore, it is incumbent on authorities to address their safety needs a bit more closely, helping to provide further training is a duty. The motorcyclist should not get it free. In my idea of how it could be funded, which I submitted to DFI, I suggest that insurance companies could be approached to make a contribution, as could the Department of Justice and the Department for Communities. The PSNI could contribute, not with money but its BikeSafe scheme could be the gateway to an enhanced rider scheme. It could say, "If you want to have an enhanced rider scheme, you must do BikeSafe". One fee could get you through BikeSafe and the enhanced rider scheme, but the rider must pay. When I did mine in the early 1980s as a young lad, I paid something like £25 for six Saturday lessons. Back then, £25 was a reasonable chunk out of my pocket.

Mr Durkan: It was 'Acceptable in the 80s'.

Mr Boyd: Yes. It was an investment in myself.

Not every motorcyclist will take it up. Like with car drivers, there is a core who just will not, no matter what; even if you gave it to them free. I met a rider recently. We were talking about BikeSafe, and he said he would not do it. He said, "I don't need to. I've been riding long enough. I don't need any more training". That is a fatal statement. However, if it were available, there is no reason why a rider could not take it up to enhance their skills, improve themselves and help to improve road safety in general. It will take time, but I honestly think that it should be invested in.

Mr Brown: You asked a very interesting question. To be fair, it is a difficult one for me, as a spokesperson for a representative body, to answer; if I were to say, "Yes, increase the cost of training", that would be problematic.

As Martyn touched on, if you made training free, people would think that the value of the training is less. If there were a charge attached to it, people would place more value on it. Motorcyclists place value on their own safety, so I do not think that that you could dismiss that when looking into how those things are funded and where the money comes from. I think that the motorcyclist will, naturally, be prepared to make a payment, although they will never make a payment happily, obviously, if they can get something for free.

One of the biggest complaints about motorcycle licensing is about the cost, but I would not say that that is because people object to paying the cost to make themselves safer; it is just that no value is placed on the amount of extra safety that you get by being a fully licensed rider. We have to sell that to make people understand why the costs are there. You then have to look at the comparative costs between getting a driving licence for a car and a motorcycle licence, because you do not want the cost to be a drag factor that pulls people away from motorcycling and into driving a car, for all the obvious reasons, such as congestion and emissions. It is certainly an area that is worth exploring, but we would need to be careful about how we sell it to the riding public.

Mr Boyd: Four tests are required for someone to achieve a motorcycle licence. Did you know that? Only two are required to achieve a car driving licence. It also generally costs more to achieve a motorcycle licence.

Mr Durkan: OK.

Mr Boyd: That was a very interesting question. Brilliant.

Mr Durkan: Finally, as part of our road safety strategy, which we will come to later in this morning's proceedings, we are updating the Highway Code. That has been done in other jurisdictions: I do not know whether we are just doing a karaoke version or a cut-and-paste version. Do you see any opportunity for improvements or amendments to be made to the Highway Code that would improve safety for motorcyclists?

Mr Boyd: Colin may be able to enlighten you more on that, because, when there was a consultation in GB on proposals to change the Highway Code, MAG made a comprehensive submission on each proposal. I am not fully over all of them, but I know that we did that. It would be good if it were not just a cut-and-paste version in Northern Ireland, but you also have to think about standardisation. Colin may be able to answer that question better.

Mr Brown: We made a number of suggestions in the consultation on the Highway Code in GB. I have to be careful, because the top priority has to be consistency. You would not want to come up with a Highway Code for Northern Ireland that is significantly different from the one in GB; that would not be to anybody's benefit. While there were GB Highway Code amendments that we did not approve of, I would not want to see an opposite approach taken in Northern Ireland. Consistency of approach is the first key, but we could put in additional things by slightly tweaking what went into the GB version to make it more relevant from a motorcycling perspective. It is about increasing the awareness of other road users of what impacts some of the changes to the Highway Code will have on a motorcyclist and taking those into account.

Mr Durkan: Consistency, or being as close to uniformity as possible, is important.

We are in the North of Ireland, and we have a land border with the South. Are the rules, regulations and standards uniform, or close to it, in both jurisdictions? A lot of people traverse the border.

Mr Boyd: I cannot answer that. I do not know. I imagine that they are fairly close. I see your point. There could be validity in some harmonisation between our Highway Code and that in the Republic of Ireland. I would not object to that. I should look into it. You have highlighted something that I am ignorant about.

Mr Durkan: Me too.

Mr Boyd: It is worth looking into.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Super. We really enjoyed the evidence, as evidenced by the fact that we have run over time.

Mr Boyd: I realise that.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you, Colin, for coming remotely: I am so glad that the technology worked to allow us to hear from you virtually. Martyn, thank you for coming along. We appreciate it, because it helps our understanding and scrutiny of the road safety strategy. Your evidence will allow us to question the Minister and officials, when they are back in, more. We appreciate it, and we have heard you loud and clear.

Mr Boyd: Great.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Thank you so much for your evidence.

Mr Boyd: I hope that I gave a good account of MAG and acquitted myself well. Thank you, everyone, for listening to me and for some super questions. I get a positive feeling that we have been listened to and that our perspective has been taken into account, for which I am very grateful.

By the way, here is a copy — I only have one — of our national members' magazine, if anyone wants to read it. It gives a good taste of what the organisation is about. You are welcome to have it.

We are truly open to being contacted with any questions or queries. We want to help as best we can.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): Super. Thank you. In the course of the Committee's work, there will no doubt be open calls for evidence. We like to engage with groups, so, as time progresses, there will certainly be an opportunity again. Thank you for coming today. It is much appreciated.