Blind Spot on the Road to Sustainability: Motorcycles in UK Transport Planning

Abstract  

UK transport policy has prioritised car driving, active travel, and public transport, while motorcycles remain systematically excluded from planning and policy debates. This viewpoint argues that such omission is driven less by evidence and more by persistent cultural bias and safety anxieties surrounding motorcycling. Drawing on international and UK-based literature, the authors critically examine the potential role of motorcycles in addressing congestion, car dependency, and accessibility challenges, while acknowledging legitimate concerns relating to safety, emissions, and induced demand. The evidence suggests that, when integrated with appropriate infrastructure, rider and driver training, and proportionate regulation, motorcycles can contribute to a more flexible and efficient transport system, particularly for journeys poorly served by existing modes. The authors conclude that the continued demonisation of motorcycles and motorcyclists is neither evidence-based nor policy-productive, and calls for a more nuanced, health-informed, and multimodal approach to UK transport planning.

Keywords: Urban Transportation; Motorcycling; Future Transport; Congestion; Public perceptions

Introduction

In the UK, motorcycles remain largely invisible in transport and community planning. They are rarely referenced in local transport strategies or national guidance documents, and the Department for Transport has explicitly acknowledged that it “has no policy to encourage greater use of motorcycles, mopeds or other powered light vehicles” (Greenwood, 2024). This absence is consequential: when motorcycles are not recognised in policy, they are not designed for in practice. Road layouts, junctions, parking provision, and traffic management systems frequently fail to account for the needs of motorcyclists, limiting filtering space, safe lane positioning, and secure parking (Livett, 2007; Rose, 2009). The result is a self-reinforcing cycle in which motorcycles are underused because they are under-planned for, and under-planned for because they are underused.

This policy blind spot exists within a wider set of structural transport challenges. Decades of car-oriented planning have shaped dispersed settlement patterns, longer journey distances, and entrenched car dependency across much of the UK (James et al., 2014). These patterns have contributed to worsening congestion, deteriorating air quality, rising transport-related emissions, and environments that are less safe and less accessible for pedestrians, cyclists, and people using mobility aids (Hrelja et al., 2013; Caldwell et al., 2022). The sunk costs of car-oriented infrastructure and urban sprawl have further constrained the capacity of planners and policymakers to pursue alternative transport futures (Khreis et al., 2016; Hensley et al., 2014).

Transport is now widely recognised as a key determinant of health (Mindell & Watkins, 2024). It shapes exposure to air and noise pollution, injury risk, physical activity, access to employment and services, and social participation (Bell, 2006; Zhang & Batterman, 2013; WHO, 2023). In response, UK transport policy has rightly prioritised walking, cycling, and public transport as cornerstones of a sustainable mobility vision, given their health and environmental benefits (Ritchie, 2023). However, these modes alone cannot meet all travel needs, particularly in contexts characterised by longer distances, limited public transport coverage, or time-sensitive journeys. An exclusive focus on a narrow set of ‘acceptable’ modes risks overlooking other options that could help reduce car dependency and congestion.

Motorcycles represent one such overlooked option. A substantial body of literature highlights their affordability, flexibility, and convenience relative to private cars, as well as their capacity to reduce congestion through more space-efficient use of road and parking infrastructure (Musso et al., 2010; Petridou et al., 2012; Rose, 2009; Dorocki & Wantuch-Matla, 2021). Across parts of Europe, including Spain and Italy, motorcycles are embedded in everyday transport systems and supported through inclusive policies such as parking provision and selective access to priority lanes, as seen in cities like Barcelona and Vienna (Dorocki & Wantuch-Matla, 2021; Area Verda, 2021). Yet in the UK, motorcycles are more often framed as dangerous, noisy, or socially undesirable, reinforced by enduring cultural stereotypes and negative media portrayals (Davis, 2014; Musselwhite et al., 2012; Peters et al., 2022).

This viewpoint argues that the marginalisation of motorcycles in UK transport planning is not adequately justified by the evidence. While motorcycles present genuine challenges- particularly in relation to safety and certain environmental impacts – these risks are neither immutable nor unique. With appropriate infrastructure design, training, regulation, and cultural change, motorcycles could contribute to a more flexible, inclusive, and congestion-responsive transport system. Rather than dismissing motorcycles outright or promoting them uncritically, there is a pressing need for a more nuanced, evidence-informed debate about their role in the UK’s transport future.

1. Efficiency Gains

Congestion is not merely an inconvenience but a structural failure of car-dominated transport systems, with cascading economic, environmental, and health impacts. It remains one of the most persistent challenges in UK cities and towns, with London being the most congested city in Europe (INRIX 2024). This negatively impacts air quality, morbidity of drivers and communities, noise pollution and global warming and the liveability of neighbourhoods (Bell, 2006; Zhang & Batterman 2013). Congestion also has economic impacts. In 2023, UK drivers lost on average £558 in time due to congestion, whilst the cost overall to the country was £7.5 billion (INRIX 2024). Congestion in the UK continues to worsen, driven by high levels of private car use and limited investment in viable public transport and active travel alternatives (Cooper et al., 2019).

Traditional strategies to ease congestion, such as expanding road capacity or encouraging modal shift to public transport, have had limited long-term success in many settings (Ancias, Cheng, & Watkins 2025). It is time to consider other methods such as motorcycles, which present a frequently overlooked, but potentially powerful, means of mitigating congestion.

Motorcycles require less road space than cars, both when moving and when parked. Yperman (2011) explored the impact of modal shift from private car to motorcycle on a case study stretch of highway between Leuven and Brussels in Belgium and found that if 10% of car users switched to motorcycles, congestion on major routes could fall by up to 40%, with congestion completely prevented with a 25% modal shift. Whilst these results may be context specific, other research supports this notion. Even if a car was carrying two passengers, and a motorbike carrying only one, a private car is at least 3 times less space-efficient than an average motorbike (0.24 vs 0.67 persons/m²) (Xarvos, 2025). The smaller footprint of motorbikes allows motorcyclists to filter through traffic and occupy a fraction of the space in stationary queues, thus improving overall flow. Although the UK context differs, the spatial logic remains whereby increasing the share of space-efficient vehicles can reduce systemic bottlenecks, particularly for short- to medium-distance urban trips.

By easing congestion, motorcycles can also contribute indirectly to improved air quality. McGeachie and Thompson (2021) highlight that reduced travel times and smoother traffic flow, that motorbikes could allow, result in lower greenhouse gas emissions for motorcycles compared to private cars, especially in urban environments. Earlier studies by Rose (2009) and Livett (2007) similarly underline the potential for motorcycles to reduce per-trip emissions and alleviate traffic pressure in densely populated areas. These benefits could increase with a switch to Euro 6 compliant modern motorcycles or electric motorcycles, aligning congestion relief with broader environmental and decarbonisation goals (Cadavid & Salazar-Serna 2021).

Yet structural barriers, such as fragmented responsibilities amongst local and national authorities, siloed working between local governments and teams, limited application of health impact assessment tools, and weak mechanisms for translating evidence into policy, undermine more holistic, health-promoting approaches – such as those that can improve air quality – to urban mobility (O’Connell 2025), and hamper efforts to consider alternative opportunities, such as supporting more people to ride motorcycles, rather than drive a private car.

2. Supporting public health, social justice and accessibility

The omission of motorcycles in planning and policy conversations is particularly striking when viewed through a public health lens. Health-focused transport frameworks increasingly call for multimodal approaches that reduce emissions, encourage physical activity through active travel, and improve accessibility (NHS England, 2023; WHO, 2023).

While motorcycles may not contribute directly to physical activity – and nor should they be positioned as a substitute for active travel, they can play a role in reducing car dependency where active or public transport options are constrained. For example, in contexts where walking, cycling, or public transport are not viable- due to distance, terrain, or service gaps. Motorcycles can also encourage others to engage in active travel (and in turn health outcomes) by reducing congestion, journey times and improving air quality.

Beyond this, motorcycling can have mental health benefits for motorcyclists – which must also not be overlooked. Vaughn et al., (2021) measured the EEG response of participants when riding a motorcycle and found that this activity enhanced sensory processing, increased focus, and altered stress hormone responses. Beyond this, motorcycle riding can offer opportunities to become part of a likeminded community and engage in an activity that focusses the mind and enables riders to enter flow state, and feel present – all of which the authors of this viewpoint can attest to, and have been discussed widely (for example, see: Meersschaert, 2025).

Motorcycles have the potential to improve transport equity by offering a relatively low-cost, flexible alternative to private cars – particularly for individuals in areas underserved by public transport. Unlike cars, motorcycles have lower upfront and running costs and can navigate areas where bus and rail services are infrequent or non-existent. This makes them especially relevant in rural or peri-urban areas where modal options are limited and travel distances too great for walking or cycling (Lucas et al., 2016).

Motorcycles may be particularly helpful for promoting independent travel for certain demographic groups (e.g. older or lower-income users) who might find motorcycles more accessible, and practical than public transport, or cycling or walking (Currie & Delbosc, 2011). As Rose (2009) and Cadavid and Salazar-Serna (2021) argue, motorcycles may expand access to employment, education, and services for lower-income populations who face structural mobility barriers – which could support mental health outcomes and reduce inequalities. Lucas (2012) reinforced the importance of affordable, flexible transport options for underserved communities in the UK. – but to achieve this with motorcycles, it would require accessible licensing, training pathways and affordable insurance.

More inclusive policy could help resolve the current planning blind spot and create a better integrated, equitable transport system – that includes motorcycles. This would not necessarily require full endorsement of motorcycles but rather modest steps: ensuring motorcycles are considered in infrastructure audits, piloting shared-use parking and bus lanes and setting proportional modal targets within decarbonisation strategies. To promote transport equity and inclusivity, safety and emissions regulations are needed to reduce disproportionate exposure to injury risk or enforcement amongst marginalised and vulnerable communities.

3. Modal Fit and the “Right Vehicle for the Journey”

The question, therefore, is not whether motorcycles should replace other modes, but whether they can occupy a clearly defined niche within a diversified transport system. Motorcycles occupy less road space and require less parking than private cars and provide point-to-point flexibility that public transport and shared mobility services cannot always guarantee- particularly in low-density or poorly connected areas. Motorcycles can also facilitate multi-modal trips by bridging gaps in first mile/last-mile connectivity – particularly where public transport stops short of destinations (Shaheen & Cohen 2020). The agility and compactness of motorcycles also reduces time lost in traffic, offering practical advantages in both congested cities and rural transport deserts. This combination of advantages makes motorcycles ideal for single passenger journeys.

It is important to consider the “right vehicle for the right journey” philosophy, which is the idea that transport modes should be matched to trip characteristics, user needs, and context-specific goals. Motorcycles could serve a clear niche in such a framework – not as a universal solution, but as an efficient option for medium-length trips that are too far to walk or cycle and poorly served by public transport (Banister, 2008).

In many European countries, such as Italy and Spain, motorcycles are embedded in the everyday transport system, used widely for commuting, deliveries, and routine travel. In recognition of the urban efficiency of motorcycles, several European cities, such as Vienna and Barcelona, have introduced motorcycle-inclusive infrastructure and incentives, such as parking subsidies and bus lane access (Dorocki & Wantuch-Matla 2021). However, in the UK, even bus lane access has been dismissed (ACU 2024).

4. Safety concerns, Induced Demand and Managing Trade-offs

Despite the potential for motorcycles to reduce congestion and, in some contexts, improve air quality, concerns regarding road safety and induced travel demand continue to dominate UK transport discourse. These concerns are not without foundation and warrant serious consideration. However, when treated as reasons for exclusion rather than as challenges to be managed, they risk foreclosing potentially valuable contributions to a more flexible and sustainable transport system.

One frequently cited concern is that promoting motorcycle use may induce additional travel demand. As with other transport interventions, reducing the perceived cost or inconvenience of travel can encourage longer or more frequent trips, a phenomenon commonly referred to as generated or induced traffic (Goodwin, 1996; Colman, 2001). If motorcycles become easier or cheaper to use, some trips that would otherwise have been made by walking, cycling, or public transport may shift to motorised two-wheelers, potentially undermining health and sustainability objectives. Such shifts could dilute congestion-reduction benefits and introduce additional external costs, including environmental impacts and crash risks, particularly where new demand reflects marginal or discretionary travel (Colman, 2001; Litman, 2010).

Importantly, however, induced demand is not an inevitable outcome of motorcycle inclusion. Evidence from broader transport policy suggests that demand effects are highly sensitive to how interventions are designed and integrated (Cairns et al., 2008). When motorcycles are positioned explicitly as substitutes for private car trips, rather than as competitors to active travel or public transport – the risk of counterproductive modal shift can be mitigated. Policy tools such as pricing, spatial allocation, infrastructure design, and behavioural incentives can play a role in directing motorcycle uptake toward journeys where they are most likely to displace car use and deliver net system benefits.

Safety concerns represent an even more prominent barrier to the acceptance of motorcycles in UK transport policy. These concerns are not misplaced; they are central to why motorcycles provoke resistance in both public and political debates. In 2019, riders of motorised two- and three-wheelers accounted for approximately 20% of road traffic fatalities in the UK, despite representing a much smaller share of trips (WHO, 2019). Comparable patterns are observed across Europe, including France, Germany, and Spain (Lusetti et al., 2022; WHO, 2019). Department for Transport statistics further indicate that motorcyclists are 51 times more likely to be killed per mile travelled than car occupants (DfT, 2021). These figures are stark and demand attention.

Yet high per-mile risk does not necessarily equate to unacceptable system-level risk. Collision outcomes are shaped not only by vehicle type, but by exposure, infrastructure quality, traffic conditions, and the behaviour of all road users. Media portrayals that frame motorcyclists as thrill-seekers or irresponsible riders oversimplify a far more complex risk landscape (Musselwhite et al., 2012; Cheng & Lee, 2012; Blackman & Haworth, 2013). Recent work suggests that such stereotypes obscure the role of contextual factors, including road design and interactions with other vehicles (Wiley & Hull, 2024).

Infrastructure quality is a critical determinant of motorcycle safety. Urban congestion, poorly designed junctions, inconsistent road surfaces, and a lack of motorcycle-specific consideration in road layouts have all been associated with elevated collision risk (Albalate & Fernández-Villadangos, 2010; Yannis et al., 2010). In parallel, rider-focused interventions can reduce risk. Enhanced conspicuity measures—such as daytime running lights, improved headlights, and high-visibility clothing—have been shown to reduce collision likelihood, particularly in low-light conditions (Yousif et al., 2020). Advanced rider training programmes also demonstrate improvements in hazard perception and safe riding behaviours, even if they cannot eliminate risk entirely (Elliott et al., 2003; Boele-Vos & de Craen, 2015).

Crucially, motorcycle safety is not solely the responsibility of riders. Interactions with car drivers play a significant role in collision risk. Studies consistently show that driver inattention, distraction, and failure to detect motorcycles are common contributory factors in crashes (Crundall et al., 2008; Albalate & Fernández-Villadangos, 2010). Whilst the role of other road users in increasing risk to motorcycle riders has been acknowledged – for example, see the THINK! Campaign (UK Department for Transport, 2025) which was launched by the UK Government to increase empathy between car drivers and motorcyclists and increase driver awareness – more action is needed.

Negative attitudes towards motorcyclists can impair drivers’ mental models, increasing the likelihood of perceptual errors. Evidence suggests that car drivers who also ride motorcycles demonstrate better detection and anticipation of motorcycles, indicating that experience and empathy can improve safety outcomes (Rogé et al., 2012). Empathy-based training for drivers has similarly been shown to enhance hazard perception and reduce collision risk involving motorcyclists (Magazzù et al., 2006).

Given the lack of government policy supporting the use of motorcycles and the negative connotations towards motorcyclists ingrained in the media, negative attitudes towards motorcyclists may be built by a culture of systematic bias that shifts a disproportionate responsibility for the safety of motorcyclists onto the choice to travel by motorcycle rather than the unsafe transport system in which they operate. By making shifts in the systemic cultural bias towards motorcycles, not only may more users of the wider transport system alter their behaviours in ways that reduce the risk of accidents for current motorcyclists, but more people may choose motorcycling as a viable transport solution, increasing representation on the roads and leading to a societal culture more accepting of two wheeled transport as a valid and credible choice.

Motorcycle risk is neither fixed nor unavoidable. With careful planning, inclusive infrastructure design, targeted rider and driver training, and public safety campaigns that normalise motorcycling as a legitimate mode of everyday transport, safety outcomes can be improved. In this context, motorcycles need not undermine sustainable transport goals. Instead, when embedded within a broader multimodal strategy and accompanied by appropriate safeguards, they have the potential to contribute to congestion reduction and transport flexibility without exacerbating health or safety inequalities.

Conclusion

This viewpoint has argued that motorcycles occupy a persistent blind spot in UK transport planning. Despite mounting congestion, entrenched car dependency, and growing recognition of transport’s role in health and equity, motorcycles remain marginalised by policy, planning, and public discourse. This exclusion is driven less by evidence than by cultural perceptions and an understandable – but often unexamined – focus on safety risk.

The evidence reviewed here suggests that motorcycles, particularly modern and electric models, can contribute to congestion reduction, spatial efficiency, and improved accessibility when deployed as part of a broader multimodal system. At the same time, their risks, especially in relation to road safety and certain emissions, are real and must be actively managed. Crucially, these risks are not inherent or unchangeable. Infrastructure design, rider and driver training, vehicle standards, and public awareness all play a decisive role in shaping safety outcomes.

A more constructive policy approach would neither promote motorcycles indiscriminately nor exclude them by default. Instead, modest but meaningful steps are needed: integrating motorcycles into transport planning and audits; piloting inclusive infrastructure such as shared bus lanes and dedicated parking; improving access to affordable training and insurance; and reframing public road safety campaigns to recognise motorcycling as a legitimate mode of everyday transport. Such measures would allow policymakers to test where, when, and for whom motorcycles can support sustainability goals, without undermining active travel or public transport goals.

Demonising motorcycles and their riders forecloses this opportunity. A transport system capable of responding to congestion, health inequalities, and diverse mobility needs requires openness to a range of solutions. Motorcycles should not be treated as an anomaly, but as a mode worthy of fair, critical, and evidence-informed consideration in the UK’s transition toward a more sustainable and inclusive transport future.

References

Auto Cycle Union (2024) Government scraps motorcycle bus lane access despite overwhelming support (Online) Available at: https://www.acu.org.uk/News/2024/11/Government-Scraps-Motorcycle-Bus-Lane-Access-Proposal-Despite-Overwhelming-Support/default.aspx [Accessed 29/07/25]

Albalate, D., & Fernández-Villadangos, L. (2010). Motorcycle Injury Severity in Barcelona: The Role of Vehicle Type and Congestion. Traffic Injury Prevention, 11(6), 623–631.

Area Verda (2021) Motorcycles (Online) Available at: https://areaverda.cat/en/motorcycles [Accessed 23/07/25]

Anciaes, P., Cheng, Y., & Watkins, S. J. (2025). Policy measures to reduce road congestion: What worked?. Journal of Transport & Health, 41, 101984.

Banister, D. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80.

Bell M.C. (2006) Environmental factors in intelligent transport systems IEE Proceedings-. Intelligent Transport Systems 153 (2), 113-128.

Blackman, R. A., & Haworth, N. L. (2013). Comparison of moped, scooter and motorcycle crash risk and crash severity. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 57, 1–9.

Boele-Vos, M., & de Craen, S. (2015). A randomized controlled evaluation study of the effects of a one-day advanced rider training course. Accident; analysis and prevention, 79, 152-9 .

Cadavid, L., & Salazar-Serna, K. (2021). Mapping the Research Landscape for the Motorcycle Market Policies: Sustainability as a Trend. Sustainability, 13(19), 10813.

Caldwell, H.A., Yusuf, J., Arthur, M., Friesen, C.L.H. & Kirk, S.F.(2022), Play-friendly communities in Nova Scotia, Canada: a content analysis of physical activity and active transportation strategies. Int J Environ Res Publ Health, 19 (5)  p. 2984

Cairns, S., Sloman, L., Newson, C., Anable, J., Kirkbride, A., & Goodwin, P. (2008). Smarter choices: Assessing the potential to achieve traffic reduction using “soft measures.” Transport Reviews, 28(5), 593–618.

Cheng, A. S. K., & Lee, H. C. (2012). Risk-taking behavior and response inhibition of commuter motorcyclists with different levels of impulsivity. Transportation Research Part F: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 15, 535–543. 10.1016/j.trf.2012.05.005

Colman, S.B. (2001). Generated Traffic : Implications for Transport Planning.

Cooper, E., Grollman, C., Mayer, E., Davis, B., Bankiewicz, U., & Khambhaita, P. (2019) Transport health and wellbeing: an evidence review for the department of Transport. (Online) Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/847884/Transport__health_and_wellbeing.pdf[Accessed 25/06/2025]

Crundall, D., Bibby, P.A., Clarke, D.D., Ward, P.J., & Bartle, C. (2008). Car drivers’ attitudes towards motorcyclists: a survey. Accident; analysis and prevention, 40 3, 983-93 .

Currie, G., & Delbosc, A. (2011). Exploring public transport usage trends in an ageing population. Transportation, 38, 763–778.

Davis, P. D. (2014). An assessment of the perception of motorcyclists on risk Management in Maryland County. International Researchers, 3(2), 12–22.

Department for Transport (2021). Reported Road Casualties Great Britain, Annual Report: 2020.

Dorocki, S., & Wantuch-Matla, D. (2021). Power Two-Wheelers as an Element of Sustainable Urban Mobility in Europe. Land.

Elliott, M.A., Baughan, C.J., Broughton, J., Chinn, B., Grayson, G., Knowles, J., Smith, L., & Simpson, H. (2003). Motorcycle safety: a scoping study.

Greenwood, L. (2024) Question for the Department of Transport. (Online) Available at. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2024-12-17/20596 [Accessed 23.07.25]

Goodwin, P. (1996). Empirical evidence on induced traffic: A review and synthesis. Transportation, 23(1), 35–54.

Hensley, M., Mateo‐Babiano, D., & Minnery, J. (2014). Healthy places, active transport and path dependence: a review of the literature. Health promotion journal of Australia, 25(3), 196-201.

Hrelja, R., Isaksson, K., Richardson, T. (2013) Choosing conflict on the road to sustainable mobility: a risky strategy for breaking path dependency in urban policy making. Transport Res Pol Pract, 49, pp. 195-20

INRIX (2024) Global traffic scorecard. (Online) [Available at: https://inrix.com/press-releases/2023-global-traffic-scorecard-uk/] Accessed 23/07/25

James, P., Ito, K., Banay, R.F., Buonocore, J.J., Wood, B., Mc A., (2014) A Health Impact Assessment of a proposed bill to decrease speed limits on local roads in Massachusetts (USA) Int J Environ Res Publ Health, 11 (10) pp. 10269-10291

Litman, T. (2010). Generated Traffic and Induced Travel Implications for Transport Planning.

Livett, G. (2007). The Contribution Motorcycles Can Make to Sustainable Transport in London.

Lucas, K. (2012). Transport and social exclusion: Where are we now? Transport Policy. 20; 105-113.

Lucas, K., Mattioli, G., Verlinghieri, E., & Guzman, A. (2016). Transport poverty and its adverse social consequences. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers – Transport, 169(6), 353–365.

Lusetti, A., Dagoli, S., Banchini, A., Gentile, M., Lezzi, P., & Cecchi, R. (2022). Over 30-year retrospective analyses of moped-motorcycle fatal road accidents in the northern area of the Italian region of Emilia Romagna and review of the literature: Aiming for further preventive measures in the future. Legal medicine (Tokyo, Japan), 59, 102139.

Khreis, H., Warsow, K., Verlinghieri, E., Guzman, A., Pellecuer, L., Ferreira, A., & Schepers, P. (2016). Urban transport and health: understanding real impacts, underlying driving forces and Co-Producing future directions. Journal of Transport and Health, 3(2), S7-S8.

Meersschaert, N. (2025). Embrace Mindfulness: The Art of Riding with Present Awareness. [Podcast] Available online: https://www.throttleandroast.com/embrace-mindfulness/ (Accessed 16/12/25)

McGeachie, R., & Thompson, R. (2021). Lifecycle Analysis of L Category Vehicles.

Mindell, J, S. & Watkins, S, J. (2024). Transport, health and inequality. An overview of current evidence. Journal of Transport & Health. 38.

Musselwhite, C. B. A., Avineri, E., & Susilo, Y. (2012). Public Attitudes towards Motorcyclists’ Behaviour and Safety: A Qualitative Study. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 49, 105–113.

Musso, A., Vuchic, V.R., Bruun, E.C., & Corazza, M.V. (2010). A Research Agenda for Public Policy Toward Motorized Two-Wheelers in Urban Transport.

National Motorcycling Council (2022) Motorcycling and the Future of Transport Policy (Online) Available at: https://www.britishmotorcyclists.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/NMC-Motorcycling-and-the-Future-of-Transport-Policy-2022.pdf[Accessed 29/07/25]

NHS England (2023) Net Zero Travel and Transport Strategy (Online) Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/long-read/net-zero-travel-and-transport-strategy/ [Accessed 29/07/25]

O’Connell, J. (2025). How is health considered in urban transport planning? A review of the literature. Public Health, 240, 21-26.

Petridou, Ε., Germeni, E., Vassileva, V., & Pierini, M. (2012). European Safer Urban Motorcycling (ESUM) project: benefits from mobility advantages pertaining to reduction of injuries among powered two wheelers in urban areas. Injury Prevention, 18, A195 – A195.

Peters, K., Jenkins, J., Ntramah, S., Vincent, J., Hayombe, P., Owino, F., Opiyo, P., Johnson, T., Santos, R., Mugisha, M., & Chetto, R. (2022). COVID-19 and the motorcycle taxi sector in Sub-Saharan African cities: A key stakeholders’ perspective. Transportation Research Record, 2677(4), 751–764.

Ritchie, R. (2023) “Which form of transport has the smallest carbon footprint?” (Online) Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint [Accessed 19/06/24]

Rose, G. (2009). Motorcycles: A Growing Dot on the Transport Policy Radar? 32nd Australasian Transport Research Forum. (Online) Available from: https://australasiantransportresearchforum.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/2009_Rose.pdf [Accessed 29/07/25]

Rogé, J., Douissembekov, E., & Vienne, F. (2012). Low Conspicuity of Motorcycles for Car Drivers. Human Factors: The Journal of Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 54, 14 – 25.

Sasidharan, M., et al. (2023). Designing User-Centric Transport Strategies for Urban Road Space Redistribution. Communications in Transportation Research.

Shaheen, S., & Cohen, A. (2020). Innovative Mobility: Carsharing, Ridesharing, and Transportation Network Companies. Springer Handbook of Smart Cities.

UK Department for Transport (2025) Motorcycling.(Online) Available online: https://www.think.gov.uk/campaign/motorcycling/[Accessed 16/12/25]

UK Department for Transport (2021). Decarbonising Transport: A Better, Greener Britain.

Vaughn, D. A., Maggiora, M. B., Vaughn, K. J., Maggiora, C. J., Tavakoli, A. V., Liang, W., Zava, D., Cohen, M. S., & Lenartowicz, A. (2021). Modulation of attention and stress with arousal: The mental and physical effects of riding a motorcycle. Brain research, 1752, 147203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2020.147203

World Health Organization. (2019). Global status report on road safety 2018. World Health Organization.

World Health Organization (2023) Transport, health and environment (Online) Available from: https://www.who.int/europe/news-room/fact-sheets/item/transport-health-and-environment [Accessed 29/07/25]

Wiley C, & Hill TG. (2024) Full throttle: are motorcyclists as risk-taking as we think? Curr Issues Personal Psychol. Jun 17;12(4):267-276. doi: 10.5114/cipp/185626. PMID: 39698019; PMCID: PMC11650514.

Xarvos (2025) Cars vs Bikes (online) Available at: https://xrvs.net/en/posts/2021-11-16-cars-vs-bikes/ [Accessed 29/07/25]

Yannis, G., Vlahogianni, E.I., & Golias, J.C. (2010). Road Infrastructure and Safety of Power Two Wheelers. Engineering, Environmental Science.

Yousif, M.T., Sadullah, A.F., & Kassim, K.A. (2020). A review of behavioural issues contribution to motorcycle safety. Iatss Research, 44, 142-154.

Yperman, L. (2011) Commuting by motorcycle: Impact analysis. Report number: 10.69. Transport and Mobility, Leuven. (Online) Available from: https://www.motorcycleminds.org/virtuallibrary/environmental/PTW_Belgium_Study_FEBIAC_ENG.pdf [Accessed 29/07/25]

Zhang K, Batterman S. (2013) Air pollution and health risks due to vehicle traffic. Sci Total Environ. 15;450-451:307-16. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2013.01.074. PMID: 23500830; PMCID: PMC4243514.

Author Biographies:
Gemma Bridge is passionate about working to improve the health and wellbeing of people and places. She interested in public health, sustainability and communication. Gemma enjoys working across several projects. Gemma is currently a Senior Research Fellow at London South Bank University, working as part of the PHIRST team. Gemma is also the Director of Bridge Research Ltd – a company offering research, writing and evaluation services for organisations and individuals.

Robert Stanley is a Performance Consultant with a Ph.D. in Coaching and Performance Analysis. He is passionate about developing understanding of how high-performers develop their ‘craft’. Robert currently works as a performance consultant for Rapid Training.